Interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening among people with a family history of colorectal cancer: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The global incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is rising, with people having a family history of CRC (PFH-CRC) facing double the risk compared to the average-risk population. Despite this, CRC screening uptake among PFH-CRC remains low. There is a lack of systematic mapping of interventions promoting CRC screening in this high-risk population. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a scoping review to identify the types of interventions targeting PFH-CRC, their effectiveness in increasing CRC screening uptake, and the elements associated with the outcomes. METHODS: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping review was followed. The search for eligible articles was conducted from the inception of each database until 17 July 2024 in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO and Web of Science with no restrictions on language. RESULTS: Thirty studies from 1995 to 2023 across 13 countries were included; mostly from high-income countries. There was considerable variability in study design, intervention characteristics, and screening outcomes. Eleven studies used theoretical frameworks in intervention development. Fourteen studies reported statistically significant increases in screening uptake among PFH-CRC, most using complex, multiple-component interventions. Tailored print materials and patient navigation more consistently demonstrated increased screening uptake, while counselling yielded mixed results. CONCLUSION: Interventions for promoting CRC screening uptake in PFH-CRC commonly incorporate print material, patient navigation and counselling, often combined into complex interventions. Future research should include more implementation studies to translate these interventions into real-world settings. Additionally, there are gaps in research from low- and middle-income countries, highlighting the need for further research in these resource-limited settings.

Acceptability of a proposed practice pharmacist-led review for opioid-treated patients with persistent pain: A qualitative study to inform intervention development.

Introduction: Regular review of patients prescribed opioids for persistent non-cancer pain (PCNP) is recommended but not routinely undertaken. The PROMPPT (Proactive clinical Review of patients taking Opioid Medicines long-term for persistent Pain led by clinical Pharmacists in primary care Teams) research programme aims to develop and test a pharmacist-led pain review (PROMPPT) to reduce inappropriate opioid use for persistent pain in primary care. This study explored the acceptability of the proposed PROMPPT review to inform early intervention development. Methods: Interviews (n = 15) and an online discussion forum (n = 31) with patients prescribed opioids for PCNP and interviews with pharmacists (n = 13), explored acceptability of a proposed PROMPPT review. A prototype PROMPPT review was then tested and refined through 3 iterative cycles of in-practice testing (IPT) (n = 3 practices, n = 3 practice pharmacists, n = 13 patients). Drawing on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA), a framework was generated (including a priori TFA constructs) allowing for deductive and inductive thematic analysis to identify aspects of prospective and experienced acceptability. Results: Patients felt uncertain about practice pharmacists delivering the proposed PROMPPT review leading to development of content for the invitation letter for IPT (introducing the pharmacist and outlining the aim of the review). After IPT, patients felt that pharmacists were suited to the role as they were knowledgeable and qualified. Pharmacists felt that the proposed reviews would be challenging. Although challenges were experienced during delivery of PROMPPT reviews, pharmacists found that they became easier to deliver with time, practise and experience. Recommendations for optimisations after IPT included development of the training to include examples of challenging consultations. Conclusions: Uptake of new healthcare interventions is influenced by perceptions of acceptability. Exploring prospective and experienced acceptability at multiple time points during early intervention development, led to mini-optimisations of the prototype PROMPPT review ahead of a non-randomised feasibility study.

Designing a primary care pharmacist-led review for people treated with opioids for persistent pain: a multi-method qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently prescribed for persistent non-cancer pain despite limited evidence of long-term effectiveness and risk of harm. Evidence-based interventions to address inappropriate opioid prescribing are lacking. AIM: To explore perspectives of people living with persistent pain to understand barriers and facilitators in reducing opioids in the context of a pharmacist-led primary care review, and identify review components and features for optimal delivery. DESIGN & SETTING: A multi-method qualitative study undertaken in the primary care setting in the UK. METHOD: Adults with experience of persistent pain and taking opioids participated in semi-structured interviews (n = 15, 73% female) and an online discussion forum (n = 31). The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) provided a framework for data collection and thematic analysis, involving deductive analysis to TDF domains, inductive analysis within domains to generate sub-themes, and sub-theme comparison to form across-domain overarching themes. The behaviour change technique taxonomy (v1) and motivational behaviour change technique classification system were used to systematically map themes to behaviour change techniques to identify potential review components and delivery features. RESULTS: Thirty-two facilitator and barrier sub-themes for patients reducing opioids were identified across 13 TDF domains. These combined into the following six overarching themes: learning to live with pain; opioid reduction expectations; assuming a medical model; pharmacist-delivered reviews; pharmacist-patient relationship; and patient engagement. Sub-themes mapped to 21 unique behaviour change techniques, yielding 17 components and five delivery features for the proposed PROMPPT review. CONCLUSION: This study generated theoretically informed evidence for design of a practice pharmacist-led PROMPPT review. Future research will test the feasibility and acceptability of the PROMPPT review and pharmacist training.

Risk of adverse outcomes during gabapentinoid therapy and factors associated with increased risk in UK primary care using the clinical practice research datalink: a cohort study.

ABSTRACT: Growing evidence from pharmacovigilance data and postmortem toxicology reports highlights the misuse potential of gabapentinoids. This study aimed to investigate the risk of serious adverse outcomes (drug misuse, overdose, major trauma), and their risk factors, in primary care patients who are prescribed gabapentinoids. Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a matched cohort study calculated adverse event rates separately for gabapentinoid-exposed and unexposed cohorts. In the exposed cohort, event rates for exposure to a range of potential risk factors were calculated. Event rates were compared using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, previous mental health diagnosis, and coprescribing with potentially interacting medicines. Substance misuse (gabapentin adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI]: 2.40 [2.25-2.55]), overdose (2.99 [2.56-3.49]), and major trauma (0-2.5 years: 1.35 [1.28-1.42]; 2.5 to 10 years: 1.73 [1.56-1.95]) were more common among patients prescribed gabapentinoids than matched individuals who were not. The association with overdose was stronger for pregabalin than gabapentin. All adverse outcomes were significantly associated with smoking, history of substance misuse, overdose, or a mental health condition and prescription of opioids, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and Z-drug hypnotics (eg, gabapentin hazard ratios for association of concurrent opioid use: misuse 1.49 [1.47-1.51]; overdose 1.87 [1.78-1.96]; major trauma 1.28 [1.26-1.30]). Our findings highlight the importance of careful patient selection when prescribing gabapentinoids and the need to educate prescribers about the risks of these drugs, particularly in combination with other central nervous system depressants.

Co-development and testing of an extended community pharmacy model of service delivery for managing osteoarthritis: protocol for a sequential, multi-methods study (PharmOA).

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a common, painful and disabling long-term condition. Delivery of high-quality guideline-informed osteoarthritis care that successfully promotes and maintains supported self-management is imperative. However, osteoarthritis care remains inconsistent, including under use of core non-pharmacological approaches of education, exercise and weight loss. Community pharmacies are an accessible healthcare provider. United Kingdom government initiatives are promoting their involvement in a range of long-term conditions, including musculoskeletal conditions. It is not known what an enhanced community pharmacy role for osteoarthritis care should include, what support is needed to deliver such a role, and whether it would be feasible and acceptable to community pharmacy teams. In this (PharmOA) study, we aim to address these gaps, and co-design and test an evidence-based extended community pharmacy model of service delivery for managing osteoarthritis. METHODS: Informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, Normalisation Process Theory, and the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex interventions, we will undertake a multi-methods study involving five phases: 1. Systematic review to summarise currently available evidence on community pharmacy roles in supporting adults with osteoarthritis and other chronic (non-cancer) pain. 2. Cross-sectional surveys and one-to-one qualitative interviews with patients, healthcare professionals and pharmacy staff to explore experiences of current, and potential extended community pharmacy roles, in delivering osteoarthritis care. 3. Stakeholder co-design to: a) agree on the extended role of community pharmacies in osteoarthritis care; b) develop a model of osteoarthritis care within which the extended roles could be delivered (PharmOA model of service delivery); and c) refine existing tools to support community pharmacies to deliver extended osteoarthritis care roles (PharmOA tools). 4. Feasibility study to explore the acceptability and feasibility of the PharmOA model of service delivery and PharmOA tools to community pharmacy teams. 5. Final stakeholder workshop to: a) finalise the PharmOA model of service delivery and PharmOA tools, and b) if applicable, prioritise recommendations for its wider future implementation. DISCUSSION: This novel study paves the way to improving access to and availability of high-quality guideline-informed, consistent care for people with osteoarthritis from within community pharmacies.

Discontinuation of anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha treatment owing to blood test abnormalities, and cost-effectiveness of alternate blood monitoring strategies.

BACKGROUND: There is no evidence base to support the use of 6-monthly monitoring blood tests for the early detection of liver, blood and renal toxicity during established anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence and risk factors of anti-TNFα treatment cessation owing to liver, blood and renal side-effects, and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternate intervals between monitoring blood tests. METHODS: A secondary care-based retrospective cohort study was performed. Data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) were used. Patients with at least moderate psoriasis prescribed their first anti-TNFα treatment were included. Treatment discontinuation due to a monitoring blood test abnormality was the primary outcome. Patients were followed-up from start of treatment to the outcome of interest, drug discontinuation, death, 31 July 2021 or up to 5 years, whichever came first. The incidence rate (IR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of anti-TNFα discontinuation with monitoring blood test abnormality was calculated. Multivariate Cox regression was used to examine the association between risk factors and outcome. A mathematical model evaluated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with increasing the length of time between monitoring blood tests during anti-TNFα treatment. RESULTS: The cohort included 8819 participants [3710 (42.1%) female, mean (SD) age 44.76 (13.20) years] that contributed 25 058 person-years (PY) of follow-up and experienced 125 treatment discontinuations owing to a monitoring blood test abnormality at an IR of 5.85 (95% CI 4.91-6.97)/1000 PY. Of these, 64 and 61 discontinuations occurred within the first year and after the first year of treatment start, at IRs of 8.62 (95% CI 6.74-11.01) and 3.44 (95% CI 2.67-4.42)/1000 PY, respectively. Increasing age (in years), diabetes and liver disease were associated with anti-TNFα discontinuation after a monitoring blood test abnormality [adjusted hazard ratios of 1.02 (95% CI 1.01-1.04), 1.68 (95% CI 1.00-2.81) and 2.27 (95% CI 1.26-4.07), respectively]. Assuming a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained, no monitoring was most cost-effective, but all extended periods were cost-effective vs. 3- or 6-monthly monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-TNFα drugs were uncommonly discontinued owing to abnormal monitoring blood tests after the first year of treatment. Extending the duration between monitoring blood tests was cost-effective. Our results produce evidence for specialist society guidance to reduce patient monitoring burden and healthcare costs.

Pre-existing musculoskeletal pain and its association with mortality in newly diagnosed co-morbid conditions: an electronic health record cohort study.

Objective: Musculoskeletal pain is a common risk factor for co-morbid conditions and might increase the risk of poor outcomes. The objective was to determine whether patients with pre-existing musculoskeletal pain have an increased risk for mortality following a new diagnosis of a co-morbid condition. Methods: Patients aged ≥45 years with a new diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), stroke, cancer, dementia or pneumonia recorded in a UK electronic primary care database linked to hospital and mortality records were examined. The association of mortality with musculoskeletal pain (inflammatory conditions, OA and regional pain) was determined. Results: The sample size varied from 128 649 (stroke) to 406 289 (cancer) by cohort, with 22-31% having pre-existing musculoskeletal conditions. In the ACS cohort, there was a higher rate of mortality for all musculoskeletal types. There were also higher unadjusted mortality rates in patients with inflammatory arthritis compared with those without musculoskeletal pain in the stroke, cancer and dementia cohorts and for patients with OA in the stroke and cancer cohorts. After adjustment for the number of prescribed medications and age, the increased risk of mortality remained only for patients with inflammatory arthritis in the ACS cohort (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.07; 95% CI 1.03, 1.10). Conclusion: Older adults with inflammatory arthritis and OA have increased risk of mortality when they develop a new condition, which seems to be related to the prescription of multiple medicines. Pre-existing musculoskeletal pain is an indicator of a complex patient who is at risk of poorer outcomes at the onset of new illnesses.

The cost-effectiveness of adding an ultrasound corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence for the comparative cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection in people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of best current treatment (BCT) comprising advice and education plus a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection (USGI) of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 ml 1% lidocaine hydrochloride (BCT+US-T) versus BCT alone. METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis of BCT+US-T compared with BCT was undertaken over 6 months. Patient-level cost data were obtained, and effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing the calculation of cost per QALY gained from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: BCT+US-T was associated with lower mean NHS costs (BCT+US-T minus BCT: £-161.6, 95% CI: £-583.95 to £54.18) and small but significantly higher mean QALYs than BCT alone over 6 months (BCT+US-T minus BCT: 0.0487, 95% CI: 0.0091, 0.0886). In the base case, BCT+US-T was the most cost-effective and dominated BCT alone. Differences in total costs were driven by number of visits to NHS consultants, private physiotherapists, and chiropractors, and hip surgery, which were more common with BCT alone than BCT+US-T. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular corticosteroid injection plus BCT (BCT+US-T) for patients with hip OA results in lower costs and better outcomes, and is highly cost-effective, compared with BCT alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2014-003412-37 (August 8, 2015) and registered with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN 50550256 (July 28, 2015). TRIAL PROTOCOL: Full details of the trial protocol can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0#citeas. DOI: doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0.

Safety of colchicine and NSAID prophylaxis when initiating urate-lowering therapy for gout: propensity score-matched cohort studies in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the risk of adverse events associated with colchicine or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prophylaxis when initiating allopurinol for gout. METHODS: We conducted two matched retrospective cohort studies in linked UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. Adults initiating allopurinol for gout with (1) colchicine or (2) NSAID prophylaxis were compared with those initiating without prophylaxis, individually matched by age, sex and propensity to receive the relevant prophylaxis. Weighted Cox proportional hazards models investigated associations between colchicine/NSAID and specified adverse events. RESULTS: 13 945 individuals prescribed colchicine were matched to 13 945 with no prophylaxis and 25 980 prescribed NSAID to 25 980 with no prophylaxis. Adverse event incidence rates were <200/10 000 patient-years except diarrhoea (784.4; 95% CI 694.0 to 886.5) and nausea (208.1; 95% CI 165.4 to 261.7) for colchicine and angina for NSAID (466.6; 95% CI 417.2 to 521.8). Diarrhoea (HR 2.22; 95% CI 1.83 to 2.69), myocardial infarction (MI) (1.55; 95% CI 1.10, 2.17), neuropathy (4.75; 95% CI 1.20 to 18.76), myalgia (2.64; 95% CI 1.45 to 4.81), bone marrow suppression (3.29; 95% CI 1.43 to 7.58) and any adverse event (1.91, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.20) were more common with colchicine than no prophylaxis, but not nausea/vomiting (1.34; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.85). Angina (1.60; 95% CI 1.37 to 1.86), acute kidney injury (1.56; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.03), MI (1.89; 95% CI 1.44 to 2.48), peptic ulcer disease (1.67; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.44) and any adverse event (1.63; 95% CI 1.44 to 1.85) were more common with NSAID than without. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events were more common when allopurinol was initiated with prophylaxis, particularly diarrhoea with colchicine. Other events were uncommon, providing reassurance for patients and clinicians to enable shared decision-making.

Analgesic prescribing in patients with inflammatory arthritis in England: observational studies in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

OBJECTIVES: Despite little evidence that analgesics are effective in inflammatory arthritis (IA), studies report substantial opioid prescribing. The extent this applies to other analgesics is uncertain. We undertook a comprehensive evaluation of analgesic prescribing in patients with IA in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum to evaluate this. METHODS: From 2004 to 2020, cross-sectional analyses evaluated analgesic prescription annual prevalence in RA, PsA and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), stratified by age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation and geography. Joinpoint regression evaluated temporal prescribing trends. Cohort studies determined prognostic factors at diagnosis for chronic analgesic prescriptions using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Analgesic prescribing declined over time but remained common: 2004 and 2020 IA prescription prevalence was 84.2/100 person-years (PY) (95% CI 83.9, 84.5) and 64.5/100 PY (64.2, 64.8), respectively. In 2004, NSAIDs were most prescribed (56.1/100 PY; 55.8, 56.5), falling over time. Opioids were most prescribed in 2020 (39.0/100 PY; 38.7, 39.2). Gabapentinoid prescribing increased: 2004 prevalence 1.1/100 PY (1.0, 1.2); 2020 prevalence 9.9/100 PY (9.7, 10.0). Most opioid prescriptions were chronic (2020 prevalence 23.4/100 PY [23.2, 23.6]). Non-NSAID analgesic prescribing was commoner in RA, older people, females and deprived areas/northern England. Conversely, NSAID prescribing was commoner in axSpA/males, varying little by deprivation/geography. Peri-diagnosis was high-risk for starting chronic opioid/NSAID prescriptions. Prognostic factors for chronic opioid/gabapentinoid and NSAID prescriptions differed, with NSAIDs having no consistently significant association with deprivation (unlike opioids/gabapentinoids). CONCLUSION: IA analgesic prescribing of all classes is widespread. This is neither evidence-based nor in line with guidelines. Peri-diagnosis is an opportune moment to reduce chronic analgesic prescribing.

Estimating the direct healthcare utilization and cost of musculoskeletal pain among people with comorbidity: a retrospective electronic health record study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of pre-existing painful musculoskeletal conditions on healthcare utilization and costs among patients with five common conditions: acute coronary syndrome (ACS), stroke, cancer, dementia and pneumonia. METHODS: Using primary and secondary care services data from electronic health records, a negative binomial regression model was used to compare resource use while a two-part model was used to compare costs across the five conditions, between those with and without a pre-existing musculoskeletal pain. RESULTS: The study included 760,792 patients (144,870 with ACS, 121,208 with stroke, 231,702 with cancer, 134,638 with dementia, and 128,374 with pneumonia) in the complete case analysis. Pre-existing musculoskeletal pain had an incident rate ratio of above one for most healthcare resources over the follow-up period and an adjusted additional mean cumulative total healthcare costs per patient of £674.59 (95%CI 570.30 to 778.87) for ACS; £613.34 (95%CI 496.87 to 729.82) for stroke; £459.26 (95%CI 376.60 to 541.91) for cancer; and £766.23 (95%CI 655.06 to 877.39) for dementia over five years after diagnosis; and £200.85 (95%CI 104.16 to 297.55) for pneumonia over one year after diagnosis compared to those without musculoskeletal pain. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that individuals with painful musculoskeletal conditions have higher healthcare utiliszation and costs than those without painful musculoskeletal conditions. Given the high occurrence of musculoskeletal pain in patients with other conditions, effective management strategies are needed to reduce the burden on healthcare resources.

Is Vaccination Against COVID-19 Associated With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Flare? Self-Controlled Case Series Analysis Using the UK CPRD.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the association between vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flare. METHODS: Patients with IBD vaccinated against COVID-19 who consulted for disease flare between December 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were ascertained from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. IBD flares were identified using consultation and corticosteroid prescription records. Vaccinations were identified using product codes and vaccination dates. The study period was partitioned into vaccine-exposed (vaccination date and 21 days immediately after), prevaccination (7 days immediately before vaccination), and the remaining vaccine-unexposed periods. Participants contributed data with multiple vaccinations and IBD flares. Season-adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using self-controlled case series analysis. RESULTS: Data for 1911 cases with IBD were included; 52% of them were female, and their mean age was 49 years. Approximately 63% of participants had ulcerative colitis (UC). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased IBD flares in the vaccine-exposed period when all vaccinations were considered (aIRR [95% CI] 0.89 [0.77-1.02], 0.79 [0.66-0.95], and 1.00 [0.79-1.27] in IBD overall, UC, and Crohn's disease, respectively). Analyses stratified to include only first, second, or third COVID-19 vaccinations found no significant association between vaccination and IBD flares in the vaccine-exposed period (aIRR [95% CI] 0.87 [0.71-1.06], 0.93 [0.75-1.15], and 0.86 [0.63-1.17], respectively). Similarly, stratification by COVID-19 before vaccination and by vaccination with vectored DNA or messenger RNA vaccine did not reveal an increased risk of flare in any of these subgroups. DISCUSSION: Vaccination against COVID-19 was not associated with IBD flares regardless of prior COVID-19 infection and whether messenger RNA or DNA vaccines were used.

Musculoskeletal pain and its impact on prognosis following acute coronary syndrome or stroke: A linked electronic health record cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Musculoskeletal painful conditions are a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), but less is known about whether musculoskeletal pain also worsens prognosis from CVD. The objective was to determine whether patients with musculoskeletal pain have poorer prognosis following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stroke. METHODS: The study utilised UK electronic primary care records (CPRD Aurum) with linkage to hospital and mortality records. Patients aged ≥45 years admitted to hospital with incident ACS/stroke were categorised by healthcare use for musculoskeletal pain (inflammatory conditions, osteoarthritis [OA], and regional pain) based on primary care consultations in the prior 24 months. Outcomes included mortality, length of stay, readmission and management of index condition (ACS/stroke). RESULTS: There were 171,670 patients with incident ACS and 138,512 with stroke; 30% consulted for musculoskeletal pain prior to ACS/stroke and these patients had more comorbidity than those without musculoskeletal pain. Rates of mortality and readmission, and length of stay were higher in those with musculoskeletal pain, particularly OA and inflammatory conditions, in ACS. Readmission was also higher for patients with musculoskeletal pain in stroke. However, increased risks associated with musculoskeletal pain did not remain after adjustment for age and polypharmacy. Inflammatory conditions were associated with increased likelihood of prescriptions for dual anti-platelets (ACS only) and anti-coagulants. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with musculoskeletal pain have higher rates of poor outcome from ACS which relates to being older but also increased polypharmacy. The high rates of comorbidity including polypharmacy highlight the complexity of patients with musculoskeletal pain who have new onset ACS/stroke.

Management and outcomes of patients admitted with type 2 myocardial infarction with and without standard modifiable risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Whilst it is known patients without standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (SMuRF; hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolaemia, smoking) have worse outcomes in Type 1 acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the relationship between type 2 AMI (T2AMI) and outcomes in patients with and without SMuRF is unknown. This study aimed to determine the prevalence, characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients hospitalised with T2AMI based on the presence of SMuRF. METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample, all hospitalizations with a primary discharge diagnosis of T2AMI were stratified according to SMuRF status (SMuRF and SMURF-less). Primary outcome was all-cause mortality while secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), major bleeding and ischemic stroke. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Among 17,595 included hospitalizations, 1345 (7.6%) were SMuRF-less and 16,250 (92.4%) were SMuRF. On adjusted analysis, SMuRF-less patients had increased odds of all-cause mortality (aOR 2.43, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.23), MACCE (aOR 2.32, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.90) and ischaemic stroke (aOR 2.57, 95% CI 1.56 to 4.24) compared to their SMuRF counterparts. Secondary diagnoses among both cohorts were similar, with respiratory disorders most prevalent followed by cardiovascular and renal disorders. CONCLUSIONS: T2AMI in the absence of SMuRF was associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared to SMuRF-less patients. There was no SMuRF-based difference in the secondary diagnoses with the most common being respiratory, cardiovascular, and renal disorders. Further studies are warranted to improve overall care and outcomes of SMuRF-less patients.

Rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis epidemiology in England from 2004 to 2020: An observational study using primary care electronic health record data.

Background: Contemporary data on rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritits (SpA) epidemiology in England are lacking. This knowledge is crucial to planning healthcare services. We updated algorithms defining patients with diagnoses of RA, PsA, and axial SpA in primary care and applied them to describe their incidence and prevalence in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, an electronic health record (EHR) database covering ∼20% of England. Methods: Algorithms for ascertaining patients with RA, axial SpA, and PsA diagnoses validated in primary care EHR databases using Read codes were updated (to account for the English NHS change to SNOMED CT diagnosis coding) and applied. Updated diagnosis and synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug code lists were devised by rheumatologists and general practitioners. Annual incidence/point-prevalence of RA, PsA, and axial SpA diagnoses were calculated from 2004 to 2020 and stratified by age/sex. Findings: Point-prevalence of RA/PsA diagnoses increased annually, peaking in 2019 (RA 0·779% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·773, 0·784]; PsA 0·287% [95% CI 0·284, 0·291]) then falling slightly. Point-prevalence of axial SpA diagnoses increased annually (except in 2018/2019), peaking in 2020 (0·113% [95% CI 0·111, 0·115]). RA diagnosis annual incidence was higher between 2013-2019 (after inclusion in the Quality and Outcomes Framework, range 49·1 [95% CI 47·7, 50·5] to 52·1 [95% CI 50·6, 53·6]/100,000 person-years) than 2004-2012 (range 34·5 [95% CI 33·2, 35·7] to 40·0 [95% CI 38·6, 41·4]/100,000 person-years). Increases in the annual incidence of PsA/axial SpA diagnosis occurred following new classification criteria publication. Annual incidence of RA, PsA and axial SpA diagnoses fell by 40·1%, 67·4%, and 38·1%, respectively between 2019 and 2020, likely reflecting the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on their diagnosis. Interpretation: Recorded RA, PsA, and axial SpA diagnoses are increasingly prevalent in England, underlining the importance of organising healthcare services to provide timely, treat-to-target care to optimise the health of >1% of adults in England. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR300826).

Acceptability of predictive testing for ischemic heart disease in those with a family history and the impact of results on behavioural intention and behaviour change: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tests to predict the development of chronic diseases in those with a family history of the disease are becoming increasingly available and can identify those who may benefit most from preventive interventions. It is important to understand the acceptability of these predictive approaches to inform the development of tools to support decision making. Whilst data are lacking for many diseases, data are available for ischemic heart disease (IHD). Therefore, this study investigates the willingness of those with a family history of IHD to take a predictive test, and the effect of the test results on risk-related behaviours. METHOD: Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and grey literature were searched. Primary research, including adult participants with a family history of IHD, and assessing a predictive test were included. Qualitative and quantitative outcomes measuring willingness to take a predictive test and the effect of test results on risk-related behaviours were also included. Data concerning study aims, participants, design, predictive test, intervention and findings were extracted. Study quality was assessed using the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Research Papers from a Variety of Fields and a narrative synthesis undertaken. RESULTS: Five quantitative and two qualitative studies were included. These were conducted in the Netherlands (n = 1), Australia (n = 1), USA (n = 1) and the UK (n = 4). Methodological quality ranged from moderate to good. Three studies found that most relatives were willing to take a predictive test, reporting family history (n = 2) and general practitioner (GP) recommendation (n = 1) as determinants of interest. Studies assessing the effect of test results on behavioural intentions (n = 2) found increased intentions to engage in physical activity and smoking cessation, but not healthy eating in those at increased risk of developing IHD. In studies examining actual behaviour change (n = 2) most participants reported engaging in at least one preventive behaviour, particularly medication adherence. CONCLUSION: The results suggests that predictive approaches are acceptable to those with a family history of IHD and have a positive impact on health behaviours. Further studies are needed to provide a comprehensive understanding of predictive approaches in IHD and other chronic conditions.

Identification of undiagnosed atrial fibrillation using a machine learning risk prediction algorithm and diagnostic testing (PULsE-AI) in primary care: cost-effectiveness of a screening strategy evaluated in a randomized controlled trial in England.

OBJECTIVE: The PULsE-AI trial sought to determine the effectiveness of a screening strategy that included a machine learning risk prediction algorithm in conjunction with diagnostic testing for identification of undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing the screening strategy in a real-world setting. METHODS: Data from the PULsE-AI trial - a prospective, randomized, controlled trial conducted across six general practices in England from June 2019 to February 2021 - were used to inform a cost-effectiveness analysis that included a hybrid screening decision tree and Markov AF disease progression model. Model outcomes were reported at both individual- and population-level (estimated UK population ≥30 years of age at high-risk of undiagnosed AF) and included number of patients screened, number of AF cases identified, mean total and incremental costs (screening, events, treatment), quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The screening strategy was estimated to result in 45,493 new diagnoses of AF across the high-risk population in the UK (3.3 million), and an estimated additional 14,004 lifetime diagnoses compared with routine care only. Per-patient costs for high-risk individuals who underwent the screening strategy were estimated at £1,985 (vs £1,888 for individuals receiving routine care only). At a population-level, the screening strategy was associated with a cost increase of approximately £322 million and an increase of 81,000 QALYs. The screening strategy demonstrated cost-effectiveness versus routine care only at an accepted ICER threshold of £20,000 per QALY-gained, with an ICER of £3,994/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with routine care only, it is cost-effective to target individuals at high risk of undiagnosed AF, through an AF risk prediction algorithm, who should then undergo diagnostic testing. This AF risk prediction algorithm can reduce the number of patients needed to be screened to identify undiagnosed AF, thus alleviating primary care burden.

Missed opportunities in coronary artery disease: reflection on practice to improve patient outcomes.

Missed opportunities refer to incidents where different actions by those involved could result in more desirable outcomes. While missed opportunities are not an established concept in coronary artery disease (CAD), they are important because CAD is common and potentially life-threatening. Treatment of CAD has the potential to prevent poor patient outcomes which can have a downstream consequence on resource utilization and costs for healthcare providers. The missed opportunities in CAD could be divided into those related to prevention, early detection, diagnosis and treatment. The primary prevention opportunities include the management of patients with risk factors and comorbidities. In terms of diagnosis, a proportion of patients who have underlying CAD are admitted beforehand with symptoms which may be attributed to CAD. However, some may have been misdiagnosed with other conditions and are subsequently readmitted with a delayed diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome. In acute coronary syndrome, there is a need for acute treatment and missed opportunities may arise from delay in diagnosis and missed reperfusion therapy. Finally, after coronary revascularization or medication management, there may be missed opportunities for patients related to secondary prevention such as smoking cessation, exercise, weight loss, attendance at cardiac rehabilitation and receipt evidenced-based therapies including antihypertensives, antiplatelet and statin therapy. Our review finds that missed opportunities can become apparent if looked for in the care of patients with CAD. While the term is nonspecific, it should be contextualized and described as those which are related to prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Only through reflection on clinical activities in relation to patient outcomes and the use of healthcare services can missed opportunities be identified so that better care can be delivered.

Analgesic prescribing in patients with inflammatory arthritis in England: an observational study using electronic healthcare record data.

OBJECTIVES: International data suggest inflammatory arthritis (IA) pain management frequently involves opioid prescribing, despite little evidence of efficacy, and potential harms. We evaluated analgesic prescribing in English National Health Service-managed patients with IA. METHODS: Repeated cross-sectional analyses in the Consultations in Primary Care Archive (primary care consultation and prescription data in nine general practices from 2000 to 2015) evaluated the annual prevalence of analgesic prescriptions in: (i) IA cases (RA, PsA or axial spondyloarthritis [SpA]), and (ii) up to five age-, sex- and practice-matched controls. Analgesic prescriptions were classified into basic, opioids, gabapentinoids and oral NSAIDs, and sub-classified into chronic and intermittent (≥3 and 1-2 prescriptions per calendar year, respectively). RESULTS: In 2000, there were 594 cases and 2652 controls, rising to 1080 cases and 4703 controls in 2015. In all years, most (65.3-78.5%) cases received analgesics, compared with fewer (37.5-41.1%) controls. Opioid prescribing in cases fell between 2000 and 2015 but remained common with 45.4% (95% CI: 42.4%, 48.4%) and 32.9% (95% CI: 29.8%, 36.0%) receiving at least 1 and ≥3 opioid prescriptions, respectively, in 2015. Gabapentinoid prescription prevalence in cases increased from 0% in 2000 to 9.5% (95% CI: 7.9%, 11.4%) in 2015, and oral NSAID prescription prevalence fell from 53.7% (95% CI: 49.6%, 57.8%) in 2000 to 25.0% (95% CI: 22.4%, 27.7%) in 2015. Across years, analgesic prescribing was commoner in RA than PsA/axial SpA, and 1.7-2.0 times higher in cases than controls. CONCLUSIONS: Analgesic prescribing in IA is common. This is at variance with existing evidence of analgesic efficacy and risks, and guidelines. Interventions are needed to improve analgesic prescribing in this population.

Misdiagnosis of aortic dissection: A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Aortic dissection is a rare but potentially catastrophic condition. Misdiagnosis of aortic dissection is not uncommon as symptoms can overlap with other diagnoses. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to better understand the factors contributing to incorrect diagnosis of this condition. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that evaluated the misdiagnosis of aortic dissection. The rate of misdiagnosis was pooled and results were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies with were included with 1663 patients. The overall rate of misdiagnosis of aortic dissection was 33.8%. The proportion of patients presenting with chest pain, back pain and syncope were 67.5%, 24.8% and 6.8% respectively. The proportion of patients with pre-existing hypertension was 55.4%, 30.5% were smokers while the proportion of patients with coronary artery disease, previous cardiovascular surgery or surgical trauma and Marfan syndrome was 14.7%, 5.8%, and 3.7%, respectively. Factors related to misdiagnosis included the presence of symptoms and features associated with other diseases (such as acute coronary syndrome, stroke and pulmonary embolism), the absence of typical features (such as widened mediastinum on chest X-ray) or concurrent conditions such congestive heart failure. Factors associated with more accurate diagnosis included more comprehensive history taking and increased use of imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Misdiagnosis in patients with an eventual diagnosis of aortic dissection affects 1 in 3 patients. Clinicians should consider aortic dissection as differential diagnosis in patients with chest pain, back pain and syncope. Imaging should be used early to make the diagnosis when aortic dissection is suspected.