Patient factors influencing the prescribing of lipid lowering drugs for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in UK general practice: a national retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Guidelines indicate eligibility for lipid lowering drugs, but it is not known to what extent GPs' follow guidelines in routine clinical practice or whether additional clinical factors systematically influence their prescribing decisions. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was undertaken using electronic primary care records from 421 UK general practices. At baseline (May 2008) patients were aged 30 to 74 years, free from cardiovascular disease and not taking lipid lowering drugs. The outcome was prescription of a lipid lowering drug within the next two years. The proportions of eligible and ineligible patients prescribed lipid lowering drugs were reported and multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate associations between age, sex, cardiovascular risk factors and prescribing. RESULTS: Of 365,718 patients with complete data, 13.8% (50,558) were prescribed lipid lowering drugs: 28.5% (21,101/74,137) of those eligible and 10.1% (29,457/291,581) of those ineligible. Only 41.7% (21,101/50,558) of those prescribed lipid lowering drugs were eligible. In multivariable analysis prescribing was most strongly associated with increasing age (OR for age ≥65 years 4.21; 95% CI 4.05–4.39); diabetes (OR 4.49; 95% CI 4.35–4.64); total cholesterol level ≥7 mmol/L (OR 2.20; 95% CI 2.12–2.29); and ≥4 blood pressure measurements in the past year (OR 4.24; 95% CI 4.06–4.42). The predictors were similar in eligible and ineligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most lipid lowering drugs for primary prevention are prescribed to ineligible patients. There is underuse of lipid lowering drugs in eligible patients

Quantifying public preferences for different bowel preparation options prior to screening CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment

Objectives: CT colonography (CTC) may be an acceptable test for colorectal cancer screening but bowel preparation can be a barrier to uptake. This study tested the hypothesis that prospective screening invitees would prefer full-laxative preparation with higher sensitivity and specificity for polyps, despite greater burden, over less burdensome reduced-laxative or non-laxative alternatives with lower sensitivity and specificity. Design: Discrete choice experiment. Setting: Online, web-based survey. Participants: 2819 adults (45–54 years) from the UK responded to an online invitation to take part in a cancer screening study. Quota sampling ensured that the sample reflected key demographics of the target population and had no relevant bowel disease or medical qualifications. The analysis comprised 607 participants. Interventions: After receiving information about screening and CTC, participants completed 3–4 choice scenarios. Scenarios showed two hypothetical forms of CTC with different permutations of three attributes: preparation, sensitivity and specificity for polyps. Primary outcome measures: Participants considered the trade-offs in each scenario and stated their preferred test (or chose neither). Results: Preparation and sensitivity for polyps were both significant predictors of preferences (coefficients: −3.834 to −6.346 for preparation, 0.207–0.257 for sensitivity; p<0.0005). These attributes predicted preferences to a similar extent. Realistic specificity values were non-significant (−0.002 to 0.025; p=0.953). Contrary to our hypothesis, probabilities of selecting tests were similar for realistic forms of full-laxative, reduced-laxative and non-laxative preparations (0.362–0.421). However, they were substantially higher for hypothetical improved forms of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparations with better sensitivity for polyps (0.584–0.837). Conclusions: Uptake of CTC following non-laxative or reduced-laxative preparations is unlikely to be greater than following full-laxative preparation as perceived gains from reduced burden may be diminished by reduced sensitivity. However, both attributes are important so a more sensitive form of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparation might improve uptake substantially.JRC.I.2-Public Health Policy Suppor

The Active Brains Digital Intervention to Reduce Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: Protocol for a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Increasing physical activity, improving diet, and performing brain training exercises are associated with reduced cognitive decline in older adults. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we describe a feasibility trial of the Active Brains intervention, a web-based digital intervention developed to support older adults to make these 3 healthy behavior changes associated with improved cognitive health. The Active Brains trial is a randomized feasibility trial that will test how accessible, acceptable, and feasible the Active Brains intervention is and the effectiveness of the study procedures that we intend to use in the larger, main trial. METHODS: In the randomized controlled trial (RCT), we use a parallel design. We will be conducting the intervention with 2 populations recruited through GP practices (family practices) in England from 2018 to 2019: older adults with signs of cognitive decline and older adults without any cognitive decline. Trial participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 study groups: usual care, the Active Brains intervention, or the Active Brains website plus brief support from a trained coach (over the phone or by email). The main outcomes are performance on cognitive tasks, quality of life (using EuroQol-5D 5 level), Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, and diagnoses of dementia. Secondary outcomes (including depression, enablement, and health care costs) and process measures (including qualitative interviews with participants and supporters) will also be collected. The trial has been approved by the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (reference 17/SC/0463). RESULTS: Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences, and shared at public engagement events. Data collection was completed in May 2020, and the results will be reported in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study will help us to identify and make important changes to the website, the support received, or the study procedures before we progress to our main randomized phase III trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number 23758980; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN23758980. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/18929

Renewed:Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a digital intervention to support quality of life in cancer survivors

International audienceIntroduction Low quality of life is common in cancer survivors. Increasing physical activity, improving diet, supporting psychological well-being and weight loss can improve quality of life in several cancers and may limit relapse. The aim of the randomised controlled trial outlined in this protocol is to examine whether a digital intervention (Renewed), with or without human support, can improve quality of life in cancer survivors. Renewed provides support for increasing physical activity, managing difficult emotions, eating a healthier diet and weight management.Methods and analysis A randomised controlled trial is being conducted comparing usual care, access to Renewed or access to Renewed with brief human support. Cancer survivors who have had colorectal, breast or prostate cancer will be identified and invited through general practice searches and mail-outs. Participants are asked to complete baseline measures immediately after screening and will then be randomised to a study group; this is all completed on the Renewed website. The primary outcome is quality of life measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-c30. Secondary outcomes include anxiety and depression, fear of cancer recurrence, general well-being, enablement and items relating to costs for a health economics analysis. Process measures include perceptions of human support, intervention usage and satisfaction, and adherence to behavioural changes. Qualitative process evaluations will be conducted with patients and healthcare staff providing support.Ethics and dissemination The trial has been approved by the NHS Research Ethics Committee (Reference 18/NW/0013). The results of this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals and through conference presentations.Trial registration number ISRCTN96374224; Pre-results

A comparison of the clinical effectiveness and cost of specialised individually-delivered parent training for preschool attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and a generic, group-based programme: a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of the New Forest Parenting Programme versus Incredible Years

Objective: To compare the efficacy and cost of specialised individually-delivered parent training (PT) for preschool children with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) against generic group-based PT and treatment as usual (TAU). Design: Multi-centre, three-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial. Research Setting: National Health Service Trusts. Participants: Preschool children (33-54 months) fulfilling ADHD research diagnostic criteria. Interventions: New Forest Parenting Programme (NFPP) – 12 week individual, home-delivered ADHD PT programme; Incredible Years (IY) – 12 week group-based, PT programme initially designed for children with behaviour problems. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome - Parent ratings of child’s ADHD symptoms (Swanson, Nolan & Pelham Questionnaire - SNAP-IV). Secondary outcomes - teacher ratings (SNAP-IV) and direct observations of ADHD symptoms and parent/teacher ratings of conduct problems. NFPP, IY and TAU outcomes were measured at baseline (T1) and post-treatment (T2). NFPP and IY outcomes only were measured 6 months post treatment (T3). Researchers, but not therapists or parents, were blind to treatment allocation. Analysis employed mixed effect regression models (multiple imputation). Intervention and other costs were estimated using standardized approaches. Results: NFPP and IY did not differ on parent-rated SNAP-IV, ADHD combined symptoms (mean difference -0.009 95%CI [-0.191, 0.173], p=0.921) or any other measure. Small, non-significant, benefits of NFPP over TAU were seen for parent-rated SNAP-IV, ADHD combined symptoms (-0.189 95%CI [-0.380, 0.003], p=0.053). NFPP significantly reduced parent-rated conduct-problems compared to TAU across scales (p-values.05). The cost per family of providing NFPP in the trial was significantly lower than IY (£1,591 versus £2,103). Conclusions: Although, there were no differences between NFPP and IY with regards clinical effectiveness, individually-delivered NFPP cost less. However, this difference may be reduced when implemented in routine clinical practice. Clinical decisions should take into account parental preferences between delivery approaches. Funding: National Institute of Health Research. Trial Registration: Trial name: COPPI Trial; ISRCTN39288126

The Manchester School" and the landlords

Objective: To establish the cost effectiveness of nurse led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease based on four years' follow up of a randomised controlled trial. Design: Cost effectiveness analysis. Setting: 19 general practices in north east Scotland. Participants: 1343 patients (673 in intervention group and 670 in control group, as originally randomised) aged under 80 years with a diagnosis of coronary heart disease but without terminal illness or dementia and not housebound. Intervention: Nurse led clinics to promote medical and lifestyle components of secondary prevention. Main outcome measures: Costs of clinics; overall costs to health service; and cost per life year and per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, expressed as incremental gain in intervention group compared with control group. Results: The cost of the intervention (clinics and drugs) was £136 ($254; 195) per patient higher (1998-9 prices) in the intervention group, but the difference in other NHS costs, although lower for the intervention group, was not statistically significant. Overall, 28 fewer deaths occurred in the intervention group leading to a gain in mean life years per patient of 0.110 and of 0.124 QALYs. The incremental cost per life year saved was £1236 and that per QALY was £1097. Conclusion: Nurse led clinics for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care seem to be cost effective compared with most interventions in health care, with the main gains in life years saved

Characteristics and impact of Long Covid: findings from an online survey

Background: Long Covid is a public health concern that needs defining, quantifying, and describing. We aimed to explore the initial and ongoing symptoms of Long Covid following SARS-CoV-2 infection and describe its impact on daily life. Methods: We collected self-reported data through an online survey using convenience non-probability sampling. The survey enrolled adults who reported lab-confirmed (PCR or antibody) or suspected COVID-19 who were not hospitalised in the first two weeks of illness. This analysis was restricted to those with self-reported Long Covid. Univariate comparisons between those with and without confirmed COVID-19 infection were carried out and agglomerative hierarchical clustering was used to identify specific symptom clusters, and their demographic and functional correlates. Results: We analysed data from 2550 participants with a median duration of illness of 7.6 months (interquartile range (IQR) 7.1-7.9). 26.5% reported lab-confirmation of infection. The mean age was 46.5 years (standard deviation 11 years) with 82.8% females and 79.9% of participants based in the UK. 89.5% described their health as good, very good or excellent before COVID-19. The most common initial symptoms that persisted were exhaustion, chest pressure/tightness, shortness of breath and headache. Cognitive dysfunction and palpitations became more prevalent later in the illness. Most participants described fluctuating (57.7%) or relapsing symptoms (17.6%). Physical activity, stress, and sleep disturbance commonly triggered symptoms. A third (32%) reported they were unable to live alone without any assistance at six weeks from start of illness. 16.9% reported being unable to work solely due to COVID-19 illness. 37.0% reported loss of income due to illness, and 64.4% said they were unable to perform usual activities/duties.Acute systems clustered broadly into two groups: a majority cluster (n=2235, 88%) with cardiopulmonary predominant symptoms, and a minority cluster (n=305, 12%) with multisystem symptoms. Similarly, ongoing symptoms broadly clustered in two groups; a majority cluster (n=2243, 88.8%) exhibiting mainly cardiopulmonary, cognitive symptoms and exhaustion, and a minority cluster (n=283, 11.2%) exhibiting more multisystem symptoms. Belonging to the more severe multisystem cluster was associated with more severe functional impact, lower income, younger age, being female, worse baseline health, and inadequate rest in the first two weeks of the illness, with no major differences in the cluster patterns when restricting analysis to the lab-confirmed subgroup. Conclusion: This is an exploratory survey of Long Covid characteristics. Whilst this is a non-representative population sample, it highlights the heterogeneity of persistent symptoms, and the significant functional impact of prolonged illness following confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. To study prevalence, predictors and prognosis, research is needed in a representative population sample using standardised case definitions. <br/

Impact of Covid-19 on health-related quality of life of patients: a structured review

IntroductionCoronavirus disease (Covid-19) has led to a global pandemic since its emergence in December 2019. The majority of research into Covid-19 has focused on transmission, and mortality and morbidity associated with the virus. However, less attention has been given to its impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with Covid-19.MethodsWe searched for original studies published between December 2019 and Jan 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Medline databases using a specific search strategy. We also explored literature on websites of distinguished public health organisations and hand-searched reference lists of eligible studies. The studies were screened by two reviewers according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flowchart using pre-determined eligibility criteria. Data were synthesised, analysed descriptively and reported in line with PRISMA guidelines.ResultsIn total, 1276 studies were identified through the search strategy. Of these, 77 studies were selected for full-text reading after screening the studies. After reading full-text, 12 eligible studies were included in this review. The majority of the studies used a generic HRQoL assessment tool; five studies used SF-36, five studies used EQ-5D-5L, and three used pulmonary disease-specific HRQoL tools (two studies used two tools each). The impact of Covid-19 on HRQoL was found to be considerable in both Acute Covid and Long Covid patients. Higher impact on HRQoL was reported in Acute Covid, females, older ages, patients with more severe disease and patients from low-income countries.ConclusionThe impact of Covid-19 on HRQoL of Acute and Long Covid patients is substantial. There was disproportional impact on patients by gender, age, severity of illness and study country. The long-term impact of Covid-19 is still in its initial stage. The findings of the review may be useful to researchers, policymakers, and clinicians caring for people following Covid-19 infection

Characteristics of the study population subgrouped into patients eligible and ineligible for lipid lowering drugs.

<p><i>Note: for total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, the mean and standard deviation (SD) are presented for each category.</i></p