Indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosing, monitoring, and prescribing in people with diabetes and strategies for diabetes service recovery internationally.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruptions in clinical services for people with chronic long-term conditions. In this narrative review, we assess the indirect impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on diabetes services globally and the resulting adverse effects on rates of diagnosing, monitoring, and prescribing in people with type 2 diabetes. We summarise potential practical approaches that could address these issues and improve clinical services and outcomes for people living with diabetes during the recovery phase of the pandemic.

Mild cognitive impairment: the Manchester consensus.

Given considerable variation in diagnostic and therapeutic practice, there is a need for national guidance on the use of neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers, cognitive testing, follow-up and diagnostic terminology in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). MCI is a heterogenous clinical syndrome reflecting a change in cognitive function and deficits on neuropsychological testing but relatively intact activities of daily living. MCI is a risk state for further cognitive and functional decline with 5-15% of people developing dementia per year. However, ~50% remain stable at 5 years and in a minority, symptoms resolve over time. There is considerable debate about whether MCI is a useful clinical diagnosis, or whether the use of the term prevents proper inquiry (by history, examination and investigations) into underlying causes of cognitive symptoms, which can include prodromal neurodegenerative disease, other physical or psychiatric illness, or combinations thereof. Cognitive testing, neuroimaging and fluid biomarkers can improve the sensitivity and specificity of aetiological diagnosis, with growing evidence that these may also help guide prognosis. Diagnostic criteria allow for a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease to be made where MCI is accompanied by appropriate biomarker changes, but in practice, such biomarkers are not available in routine clinical practice in the UK. This would change if disease-modifying therapies became available and required a definitive diagnosis but would present major challenges to the National Health Service and similar health systems. Significantly increased investment would be required in training, infrastructure and provision of fluid biomarkers and neuroimaging. Statistical techniques combining markers may provide greater sensitivity and specificity than any single disease marker but their practical usefulness will depend on large-scale studies to ensure ecological validity and that multiple measures, e.g. both cognitive tests and biomarkers, are widely available for clinical use. To perform such large studies, we must increase research participation amongst those with MCI.

Analysis of lung cancer risk model (PLCOM2012 and LLPv2) performance in a community-based lung cancer screening programme.

INTRODUCTION: Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening of high-risk smokers reduces lung cancer (LC) specific mortality. Determining screening eligibility using individualised risk may improve screening effectiveness and reduce harm. Here, we compare the performance of two risk prediction models (PLCOM2012 and Liverpool Lung Project model (LLPv2)) and National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) eligibility criteria in a community-based screening programme. METHODS: Ever-smokers aged 55-74, from deprived areas of Manchester, were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC). Individuals at higher risk (PLCOM2012 score ≥1.51%) were offered annual LDCT screening over two rounds. LLPv2 score was calculated but not used for screening selection; ≥2.5% and ≥5% thresholds were used for analysis. RESULTS: PLCOM2012 ≥1.51% selected 56% (n=1429) of LHC attendees for screening. LLPv2 ≥2.5% also selected 56% (n=1430) whereas NLST (47%, n=1188) and LLPv2 ≥5% (33%, n=826) selected fewer. Over two screening rounds 62 individuals were diagnosed with LC; representing 87% (n=62/71) of 6-year incidence predicted by mean PLCOM2012 score (5.0%). 26% (n=16/62) of individuals with LC were not eligible for screening using LLPv2 ≥5%, 18% (n=11/62) with NLST criteria and 7% (n=5/62) with LLPv2 ≥2.5%. NLST eligible Manchester attendees had 2.5 times the LC detection rate than NLST participants after two annual screens (≈4.3% (n=51/1188) vs 1.7% (n=438/26 309); p<0.0001). Adverse measures of health, including airflow obstruction, respiratory symptoms and cardiovascular disease, were positively correlated with LC risk. Coronary artery calcification was predictive of LC (adjOR 2.50, 95% CI 1.11 to 5.64; p=0.028). CONCLUSION: Prospective comparisons of risk prediction tools are required to optimise screening selection in different settings. The PLCOM2012 model may underestimate risk in deprived UK populations; further research focused on model calibration is required.

Spirometry performed as part of the Manchester community-based lung cancer screening programme detects a high prevalence of airflow obstruction in individuals without a prior diagnosis of COPD.

BACKGROUND: COPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in populations eligible for lung cancer screening. We investigated the role of spirometry in a community-based lung cancer screening programme. METHODS: Ever smokers, age 55-74, resident in three deprived areas of Manchester were invited to a 'Lung Health Check' (LHC) based in convenient community locations. Spirometry was incorporated into the LHCs alongside lung cancer risk estimation (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Study Risk Prediction Model, 2012 version (PLCOM2012)), symptom assessment and smoking cessation advice. Those at high risk of lung cancer (PLCOM2012 ≥1.51%) were eligible for annual low-dose CT screening over two screening rounds. Airflow obstruction was defined as FEV1/FVC<0.7. Primary care databases were searched for any prior diagnosis of COPD. RESULTS: 99.4% (n=2525) of LHC attendees successfully performed spirometry; mean age was 64.1±5.5, 51% were women, 35% were current smokers. 37.4% (n=944) had airflow obstruction of which 49.7% (n=469) had no previous diagnosis of COPD. 53.3% of those without a prior diagnosis were symptomatic (n=250/469). After multivariate analysis, the detection of airflow obstruction without a prior COPD diagnosis was associated with male sex (adjOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.47; p<0.0001), younger age (p=0.015), lower smoking duration (p<0.0001), fewer cigarettes per day (p=0.035), higher FEV1/FVC ratio (<0.0001) and being asymptomatic (adjOR 4.19, 95% CI 2.95 to 5.95; p<0.0001). The likelihood of screen detected lung cancer was significantly greater in those with evidence of airflow obstruction who had a previous diagnosis of COPD (adjOR 2.80, 95% CI 1.60 to 8.42; p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating spirometry into a community-based targeted lung cancer screening programme is feasible and identifies a significant number of individuals with airflow obstruction who do not have a prior diagnosis of COPD.

Attending community-based lung cancer screening influences smoking behaviour in deprived populations.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of lung cancer screening on smoking is unclear, especially in deprived populations who are underrepresented in screening trials. The aim of this observational cohort study was to investigate whether a community-based lung cancer screening programme influenced smoking behaviour and smoking attitude in socio-economically deprived populations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ever-smokers, age 55-74, registered at participating General Practices were invited to a community-based Lung Health Check (LHC). This included an assessment of respiratory symptoms, lung cancer risk (PLCOm2012), spirometry and signposting to stop smoking services. Those at high risk (PLCOM2012≥1.51%) were offered annual low-dose CT screening over two rounds. Self-reported smoking status and behaviour were recorded at the LHC and again 12 months later, when attitudes to smoking were also assessed. RESULTS: 919 participants (51% women) were included in the analysis (77% of attendees); median deprivation rank in the lowest decile for England. At baseline 50.3% were current smokers. One-year quit rate was 10.2%, quitting was associated with increased baseline symptoms (adjOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.07-6.41; p = 0.035) but not demographics or screening results. 55% attributed quitting to the LHC. In current smokers, 44% reported the LHC had made them consider stopping, 29% it made them try to stop and 25% made them smoke less whilst only 1.7% and 0.7% said it made them worry less about smoking or think it acceptable to smoke. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest a community-based lung cancer screening programme in deprived areas positively impacts smoking behaviour, with no evidence of a 'licence to smoke' in those screened.

Attendees of Manchester's Lung Health Check pilot express a preference for community-based lung cancer screening.

Manchester's 'Lung Health Check' pilot utilised mobile CT scanners in convenient retail locations to deliver lung cancer screening to socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. We assessed whether screening location was an important factor for those attending the service. Location was important for 74.7% (n=701/938) and 23% (n=216/938) reported being less likely to attend an equivalent hospital-based programme. This preference was most common in current smokers (27% current smokers vs 19% former smokers; AdjOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08, p=0.036) and those in the lowest deprivation quartile (25% lowest quartile vs 17.6% highest quartile; AdjOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.24, p=0.005). Practical issues related to travel were most important in those less willing to attend a hospital-based service, with 83.3% citing at least one travel related barrier to non-attendance. A convenient community-based screening programme may reduce inequalities in screening adherence especially in those at high risk of lung cancer in deprived areas.

Implementing lung cancer screening: baseline results from a community-based 'Lung Health Check' pilot in deprived areas of Manchester.

We report baseline results of a community-based, targeted, low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening pilot in deprived areas of Manchester. Ever smokers, aged 55-74 years, were invited to 'lung health checks' (LHCs) next to local shopping centres, with immediate access to LDCT for those at high risk (6-year risk ≥1.51%, PLCOM2012 calculator). 75% of attendees (n=1893/2541) were ranked in the lowest deprivation quintile; 56% were high risk and of 1384 individuals screened, 3% (95% CI 2.3% to 4.1%) had lung cancer (80% early stage) of whom 65% had surgical resection. Taking lung cancer screening into communities, with an LHC approach, is effective and engages populations in deprived areas.

Second round results from the Manchester 'Lung Health Check' community-based targeted lung cancer screening pilot.

We report results from the second annual screening round (T1) of Manchester's 'Lung Health Check' pilot of community-based lung cancer screening in deprived areas (undertaken June to August 2017). Screening adherence was 90% (n=1194/1323): 92% of CT scans were classified negative, 6% indeterminate and 2.5% positive; there were no interval cancers. Lung cancer incidence was 1.6% (n=19), 79% stage I, treatments included surgery (42%, n=9), stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (26%, n=5) and radical radiotherapy (5%, n=1). False-positive rate was 34.5% (n=10/29), representing 0.8% of T1 participants (n=10/1194). Targeted community-based lung cancer screening promotes high screening adherence and detects high rates of early stage lung cancer.

High drug related mortality rates following prison release: Assessing the acceptance likelihood of a naltrexone injection and related concerns.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High drug related mortality amongst former prisoners in the 4 weeks following release is an internationally recognised problem. Naltrexone injections at release could diminish this by blockading opioid receptors, but naltrexone is not licensed for injection for treating opiate misuse in the United Kingdom and some other countries. This study examined the likelihood of accepting a naltrexone injection at release, and the relationship of this likelihood to other relevant variables. METHOD: Sixty-one male prisoners with a history of heroin use, who were approaching release from two prisons in the north-west of England, provided likelihood ratings for accepting a naltrexone injection if it were to have been available. Additional data was gathered regarding demographic and drug use histories, and also from psychometric instruments relevant to drug misuse and treatment preparedness. RESULTS: Maximum likelihood ratings for accepting a naltrexone injection were recorded by 55.7% of the sample with only 9.8% indicating no likelihood of accepting an injection. Likelihood ratings were positively related to serving a current sentence for an acquisitive offence compared to drug related or violence offences, and negatively related to peak methadone dosages during the current sentence. CONCLUSIONS: Although naltrexone injections were not available to participants in this study, the findings suggest that the potential uptake for this intervention is sufficient to warrant a clinical trial with this population of British prisoners, with a view to potential changes to its current licencing status. However, the importance of individual patient readiness for such an abstinence orientated intervention is emphasised by the negative correlation between the likelihood ratings and recent methadone doses.

A qualitative study to assess the potential of the human papillomavirus vaccination programme to encourage under-screened mothers to attend for cervical screening.

BACKGROUND: Coverage of the UK National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme is declining. Under-screened women whose daughters participate in the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme could be stimulated to attend. We investigated whether factors associated with the vaccination programme changed mothers' intentions for future screening. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to mothers of girls aged 12-13 years across two North West primary care trusts (n=2387) to assess the effect of the HPV vaccination programme on screening intentions. This identified mothers whose intentions had changed. Consent was sought to contact them for a semi-structured interview to discuss their screening intentions. Key themes were identified using framework analysis. RESULTS: 97/606 women responding to the questionnaire had changed their views about cervical screening. 23 women were interviewed, 10 of whom expressed a positive change and 13 no change. Most had discussed the vaccine information, including cervical screening, with their daughters. Mothers who made a positive change decision recognised their daughters' risk of cervical cancer, the need for future screening, and the importance of their own example. In this way daughters became 'significant others' in reinforcing their mothers' cervical screening motivation. CONCLUSIONS: A daughter's invitation for HPV vaccination instigates a reassessment of cervical screening intention in some under-screened mothers.

Effect of Human Papillomavirus vaccination of daughters on the cervical screening uptake of their non-vaccinated mothers.

AIM: This study investigated return to cervical screening rates for 112,451 under-screened mothers of daughters offered Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination over two school academic years and a comparator group of women with no vaccine-eligible daughter. RESULTS: Mothers returned to screening more often than the comparator group: odds ratio (OR) 1.04 (95% confidence intervals 1.02-1.07) for lapsed and 1.57 (1.48-1.67) for never screened. Screening return was significantly higher in the year prior to HPV vaccination for lapsed mothers (OR = 1.06) and in the current vaccination year for lapsed and never screened mothers (OR = 1.05 and 1.16 respectively). CONCLUSION: The modest increase in screening attendance indicates a potential for the HPV vaccine programme to increase screening uptake of mothers.

An intervention to reassure patients about test results in rapid access chest pain clinic: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most people referred to rapid access chest pain clinics have non-cardiac chest pain, and in those diagnosed with stable coronary heart disease, guidance recommends that first-line treatment is usually medication rather than revascularisation. Consequently, many patients are not reassured they have the correct diagnosis or treatment. A previous trial reported that, in people with non-cardiac chest pain, a brief discussion with a health psychologist before the tests about the meaning of potential results led to people being significantly more reassured. The aim of this pilot was to test study procedures and inform sample size for a future multi-centre trial and to gain initial estimates of effectiveness of the discussion intervention. METHODS: This was a two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial in outpatient rapid access chest pain clinic in 120 people undergoing investigation for new onset, non-urgent chest pain. Eligible participants were randomised to receive either: a discussion about the meaning and implication of test results, delivered by a nurse before tests in clinic, plus a pre-test pamphlet covering the same information (Discussion arm) or the pre-test pamphlet alone (Pamphlet arm). Main outcome measures were recruitment rate and feasibility for a future multi-centre trial, with an estimate of reassurance in the groups at month 1 and 6 using a 5-item patient-reported scale. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy people attended rapid access chest pain clinic during recruitment and 120/270 participants (44%) were randomised, 60 to each arm. There was no evidence of a difference between the Discussion and Pamphlet arms in the mean reassurance score at month 1 (34.2 vs 33.7) or at month 6 (35.3 vs 35.9). Patient-reported chest pain and use of heart medications were also similar between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: A larger trial of the discussion intervention in the UK would not be warranted. Patients reported high levels of reassurance which were similar in patients receiving the discussion with a nurse and in those receiving a pamphlet alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60618114 (assigned 27.05.2011).

Participants' experiences of care during a randomized controlled trial comparing a lay-facilitated angina management programme with usual care: a qualitative study using focus groups.

AIM: This paper is a report of a qualitative study conducted as part of a randomized controlled trial comparing a lay-facilitated angina management programme with usual care. Its aim was to explore participants' beliefs, experiences, and attitudes to the care they had received during the trial, particularly those who had received the angina management intervention. BACKGROUND: Angina affects over 50 million people worldwide. Over half of these people have symptoms that restrict their daily life and would benefit from knowing how to manage their condition. DESIGN: A nested qualitative study within a randomized controlled trial of lay-facilitated angina management. METHOD: We conducted four participant focus groups during 2008; three were with people randomized to the intervention and one with those randomized to control. We recruited a total of 14 participants to the focus groups, 10 intervention, and 4 control. FINDINGS: Although recruitment to the focus groups was relatively low by comparison to conventional standards, each generated lively discussions and a rich data set. Data analysis demonstrated both similarities and differences between control and intervention groups. Similarities included low levels of prior knowledge about angina, whereas differences included a perception among intervention participants that lifestyle changes were more easily facilitated with the help and support of a lay-worker. CONCLUSION: Lay facilitation with the Angina Plan is perceived by the participants to be beneficial in supporting self-management. However, clinical expertise is still required to meet the more complex information and care needs of people with stable angina.

Randomized controlled trial of a lay-facilitated angina management programme.

AIMS: This article reports a randomized controlled trial of lay-facilitated angina management (registered trial acronym: LAMP). BACKGROUND: Previously, a nurse-facilitated angina programme was shown to reduce angina while increasing physical activity, however most people with angina do not receive a cardiac rehabilitation or self-management programme. Lay people are increasingly being trained to facilitate self-management programmes. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial comparing a lay-facilitated angina management programme with routine care from an angina nurse specialist. METHODS: Participants with new stable angina were randomized to the angina management programme (intervention: 70 participants) or advice from an angina nurse specialist (control: 72 participants). Primary outcome was angina frequency at 6 months; secondary outcomes at 3 and 6 months included: risk factors, physical functioning, anxiety, depression, angina misconceptions and cost utility. Follow-up was complete in March 2009. Analysis was by intention-to-treat; blind to group allocation. RESULTS: There was no important difference in angina frequency at 6 months. Secondary outcomes, assessed by either linear or logistic regression models, demonstrated important differences favouring the intervention group, at 3 months for: Anxiety, angina misconceptions and for exercise report; and at 6 months for: anxiety; depression; and angina misconceptions. The intervention was considered cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The angina management programme produced some superior benefits when compared to advice from a specialist nurse.

The school nurse, the school and HPV vaccination: a qualitative study of factors affecting HPV vaccine uptake.

School nurses in the United Kingdom are largely responsible for delivering the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to 12-13 year old girls. In order to assess the impact of HPV vaccination on school nurses' roles, we gave a questionnaire to all 33 school nurses who offered Cervarix ™ in two Primary Care Trusts one year ahead of the national vaccine programme. Key organisational issues raised by the school nurses were the size of the team and its skill mix. A few found their schools uncooperative and were dissatisfied with mechanisms for problem resolution. On average, nurses spent an additional 69 h (0.80 h per child) on vaccine-related activities. In semi-qualitative interviews (n=17), school nurses complained of work overload and described the difficulties of establishing good relationships with some of their schools. Nurses expected schools to take some responsibility for ensuring good uptake and were frustrated when help was not forthcoming. We conclude that variation in uptake between schools in part reflects a difficult relationship with the school nurse which may be attributed to characteristics of the school, schools' attitudes towards health interventions, organisational problems, multiple school nurse roles and/or personal ability. Some of these issues will need to be addressed to ensure continued high vaccine coverage as HPV vaccination becomes a less prioritised, routine activity.

Survey of girls' recall of a film providing information on human papillomavirus and cervical cancer 6 months after an offer of vaccination.

Pre-adolescent girls who have been successfully immunised against human papillomavirus (HPV) may have relatively little knowledge about cervical cancer. A questionnaire was sent to 1084 girls approximately 6 months after they had been offered vaccination to assess whether an educational film had influenced their vaccine decision and what information they recalled. Girls who viewed the film were more likely to have wanted the vaccine than non-viewers (p=0.015), but only 42% of them could recall details of the film 6 months later. Fear of cervical cancer may motivate young adolescents for vaccination but false assumptions might undermine later preventive actions by both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

A qualitative study to assess school nurses' views on vaccinating 12-13 year old school girls against human papillomavirus without parental consent.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, parental consent for the routine vaccination of 12-13 year olds schoolgirls against human papillomavirus (HPV) is recommended, although legally girls may be able to consent themselves. As part of a vaccine study conducted ahead of the National HPV Vaccine Programme we sought the views of school nurses on vaccinating girls who did not have parental consent. METHODS: HPV vaccination was offered to all 12 year old girls attending schools in two Primary Care Trusts in Greater Manchester. At the end of the study semi-structured, tape-recorded interviews were conducted with school nurses who had delivered the vaccine (Cervarix). The interview template was based on concepts derived from the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Transcripts were analysed thematically in order to understand school nurses' intentions to implement vaccination based on an assessment of Gillick competency. RESULTS: School nurses knew how to assess the competency of under-16s but were still unwilling to vaccinate if parents had refused permission. If parents had not returned the consent form, school nurses were willing to contact parents, and also to negotiate with parents who had refused consent. They seemed unaware that parental involvement required the child's consent to avoid breaking confidentiality. Nurses' attitudes were influenced by the young appearance and age of the school year group rather than an individual's level of maturity. They were also confused about the legal guidelines governing consent. School nurses acknowledged the child's right to vaccination and strongly supported prevention of HPV infection but ultimately believed that it was the parents' right to give consent. Most were themselves parents and shared other parents' concerns about the vaccine's novelty and unknown long-term side effects. Rather than vaccinate without parental consent, school nurses would defer vaccination. CONCLUSION: Health providers have a duty of care to girls for whom no parental consent for HPV vaccination has been given, and in the UK, this includes conducting, and acting upon, an assessment of the maturity and competence of an adolescent minor. To facilitate this, policies, training and support structures for health providers should be implemented.

Women with learning disabilities and access to cervical screening: retrospective cohort study using case control methods.

BACKGROUND: Several studies in the UK have suggested that women with learning disabilities may be less likely to receive cervical screening tests and a previous local study in had found that GPs considered screening unnecessary for women with learning disabilities. This study set out to ascertain whether women with learning disabilities are more likely to be ceased from a cervical screening programme than women without; and to examine the reasons given for ceasing women with learning disabilities. It was carried out in Bury, Heywood-and-Middleton and Rochdale. METHODS: Carried out using retrospective cohort study methods, women with learning disabilities were identified by Read code; and their cervical screening records were compared with the Call-and-Recall records of women without learning disabilities in order to examine their screening histories. Analysis was carried out using case-control methods - 1:2 (women with learning disabilities: women without learning disabilities), calculating odds ratios. RESULTS: 267 women's records were compared with the records of 534 women without learning disabilities. Women with learning disabilities had an odds ratio (OR) of 0.48 (Confidence Interval (CI) 0.38 - 0.58; X2: 72.227; p.value <.001) of receiving a cervical screening test; an OR of 2.05 (CI 1.88 - 2.22; X2: 24.236; p.value <.001) of being ceased from screening; and an OR of 0.14 (CI 0.001 - 0.28; X2: 286.341; p.value <0.001 of being a non-responder compared to age and practice-matched women without learning disabilities. CONCLUSION: The reasons given for ceasing and/or not screening suggest that merely being coded as having a learning disability is not the sole reason for these actions. There are training needs among smear takers regarding appropriate reasons not to screen and providing screening for women with learning disabilities.

'Smoke gets in your eyes': a research-informed professional education and advocacy programme.

Smoking is associated with common sight-threatening eye conditions. We suspected that this link was little known and it might be a potent novel health promotional tool. We therefore developed a programme ultimately aiming to reduce the burden of eye disease attributable to smoking. The programme aims were to (1) raise awareness of the link between smoking and eye disease and advocate changes in relevant policies and (2) investigate and promote change in professional practice so that smokers are identified and routinely offered smoking cessation advice/support in eyecare settings. An inter-professional team developed a programme of research and education targeting policy-makers, healthcare professionals, the public and patients. We reviewed evidence about the causal link between smoking and eye disease, researched current awareness of the link, researched current practice of eyecare health professionals, produced health education materials and campaigned for policy changes. The series of projects was completed successfully, achieving media coverage, confirming the causal link between smoking and eye disease and demonstrating low awareness of this association. Healthcare leaders and policy-makers were engaged in our programme resulting in commitment, in principle, from the UK's Chief Medical Officer and the European Commission to consider including warning labels related to blindness on cigarette packets.