GPs' perspectives on diagnostic tests for children: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Most healthcare contacts for children in the UK occur in general practice. Diagnostic tests can be beneficial in narrowing differential diagnoses; however, there is substantial variation in the use of tests for children in general practice. Unwarranted variation in testing can lead to variation in quality of care and may exacerbate health inequities. To our knowledge, no previous study has tried to understand why variation in testing exists for children in general practice. AIM: To explore GPs' perspectives on using diagnostic tests for children in primary care and the underlying drivers of variation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study in which semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs and trainee GPs in England. METHOD: Interviews were conducted with 18 GPs and two trainee GPs between April and June 2023. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: GPs reflected that their approach to testing in children differed from their approach to testing in adults: their threshold to test was higher, and their threshold to refer to specialists was lower. GPs' perceptions of test utility varied, including objective testing for asthma. Perceived drivers of variation in testing were intrinsic (clinician-specific) factors relating to their risk tolerance and experience; and extrinsic factors, including disease prevalence, parental concern and expectations of health care, workforce changes leading to fragmentation in care, time constraints, and differences in guidelines. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study identify actionable issues for clinicians, researchers, and policymakers to address gaps in education, evidence, and guidance, reduce unwarranted differences in test use, and improve the quality of health care delivered to children in general practice.

Commissioning [Integrated] Care in England: An Analysis of the Current Decision Context.

Background: The emergence of Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) across England poses an additional challenge and responsibility for local commissioners to accelerate the implementation of integrated care programmes and improve the overall efficiency across the system. To do this, ICS healthcare commissioners could learn from the experience of the former local commissioning structures and identify areas of improvement in the commissioning process. This study describes the investment decision process in integrated care amid the transition toward ICSs, highlights challenges, and provides recommendations to inform ICSs in their healthcare commissioning role. Methods: Twenty-six semi-structured interviews were conducted with local commissioners and other relevant stakeholders in South East England in 2021. Interviews were supplemented with literature. Results: England's local healthcare commissioning has made the transition towards a new organisational architecture, with some integrated care programmes running, and a dual top-down and bottom-up prioritisation process in place. The commissioning and consequent development of integrated care programmes have been hindered by various barriers, including difficulties in accessing and using information, operational challenges, and resource constraints. Investment decisions have mainly been driven by national directives and budget considerations, with a mixture of subjective and objective approaches. A systematic and data-driven framework could replace this ad-hoc prioritisation of integrated care and contribute to a more rational and transparent commissioning process. Conclusion: The emerging ICSs seem to open an opportunity for local commissioners to strengthen the commissioning process of integrated care with evidence-based priority-setting approaches similar to the well-established health technology assessment framework at the national level.

Effectiveness of the application of an electronic medication management support system in patients with polypharmacy in general practice: a study protocol of cluster-randomised controlled trial (AdAM).

INTRODUCTION: Clinically complex patients often require multiple medications. Polypharmacy is associated with inappropriate prescriptions, which may lead to negative outcomes. Few effective tools are available to help physicians optimise patient medication. This study assesses whether an electronic medication management support system (eMMa) reduces hospitalisation and mortality and improves prescription quality/safety in patients with polypharmacy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Planned design: pragmatic, parallel cluster-randomised controlled trial; general practices as randomisation unit; patients as analysis unit. As practice recruitment was poor, we included additional data to our primary endpoint analysis for practices and quarters from October 2017 to March 2021. Since randomisation was performed in waves, final study design corresponds to a stepped-wedge design with open cohort and step-length of one quarter. SCOPE: general practices, Westphalia-Lippe (Germany), caring for BARMER health fund-covered patients. POPULATION: patients (≥18 years) with polypharmacy (≥5 prescriptions). SAMPLE SIZE: initially, 32 patients from each of 539 practices were required for each study arm (17 200 patients/arm), but only 688 practices were randomised after 2 years of recruitment. Design change ensures that 80% power is nonetheless achieved. INTERVENTION: complex intervention eMMa. FOLLOW-UP: at least five quarters/cluster (practice). recruitment: practices recruited/randomised at different times; after follow-up, control group practices may access eMMa. OUTCOMES: primary endpoint is all-cause mortality and hospitalisation; secondary endpoints are number of potentially inappropriate medications, cause-specific hospitalisation preceded by high-risk prescribing and medication underuse. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: primary and secondary outcomes are measured quarterly at patient level. A generalised linear mixed-effect model and repeated patient measurements are used to consider patient clusters within practices. Time and intervention group are considered fixed factors; variation between practices and patients is fitted as random effects. Intention-to-treat principle is used to analyse primary and key secondary endpoints. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Trial approved by Ethics Commission of North-Rhine Medical Association. Results will be disseminated through workshops, peer-reviewed publications, local and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03430336. ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03430336).

Combining simple blood tests to identify primary care patients with unexpected weight loss for cancer investigation: Clinical risk score development, internal validation, and net benefit analysis.

BACKGROUND: Unexpected weight loss (UWL) is a presenting feature of cancer in primary care. Existing research proposes simple combinations of clinical features (risk factors, symptoms, signs, and blood test data) that, when present, warrant cancer investigation. More complex combinations may modify cancer risk to sufficiently rule-out the need for investigation. We aimed to identify which clinical features can be used together to stratify patients with UWL based on their risk of cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used data from 63,973 adults (age: mean 59 years, standard deviation 21 years; 42% male) to predict cancer in patients with UWL recorded in a large representative United Kingdom primary care electronic health record between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2012. We derived 3 clinical prediction models using logistic regression and backwards stepwise covariate selection: Sm, symptoms-only model; STm, symptoms and tests model; Tm, tests-only model. Fifty imputations replaced missing data. Estimates of discrimination and calibration were derived using 10-fold internal cross-validation. Simple clinical risk scores are presented for models with the greatest clinical utility in decision curve analysis. The STm and Tm showed improved discrimination (area under the curve ≥ 0.91), calibration, and greater clinical utility than the Sm. The Tm was simplest including age-group, sex, albumin, alkaline phosphatase, liver enzymes, C-reactive protein, haemoglobin, platelets, and total white cell count. A Tm score of 5 balanced ruling-in (sensitivity 84.0%, positive likelihood ratio 5.36) and ruling-out (specificity 84.3%, negative likelihood ratio 0.19) further cancer investigation. A Tm score of 1 prioritised ruling-out (sensitivity 97.5%). At this threshold, 35 people presenting with UWL in primary care would be referred for investigation for each person with cancer referred, and 1,730 people would be spared referral for each person with cancer not referred. Study limitations include using a retrospective routinely collected dataset, a reliance on coding to identify UWL, and missing data for some predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that combinations of simple blood test abnormalities could be used to identify patients with UWL who warrant referral for investigation, while people with combinations of normal results could be exempted from referral.

Evaluating the impact of a very low-cost intervention to increase practices' engagement with data and change prescribing behaviour: a randomized trial in English primary care.

BACKGROUND: Unsolicited feedback can solicit changes in prescribing. OBJECTIVES: Determine whether a low-cost intervention increases clinicians' engagement with data, and changes prescribing; with or without behavioural science techniques. METHODS: Randomized trial (ISRCTN86418238). The highest prescribing practices in England for broad-spectrum antibiotics were allocated to: feedback with behavioural impact optimization; plain feedback; or no intervention. Feedback was sent monthly for 3 months by letter, fax and email. Each included a link to a prescribing dashboard. The primary outcomes were dashboard usage and change in prescribing. RESULTS: A total of 1401 practices were randomized: 356 behavioural optimization, 347 plain feedback, and 698 control. For the primary engagement outcome, more intervention practices had their dashboards viewed compared with controls [65.7% versus 55.9%; RD 9.8%, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 4.76% to 14.9%, P < 0.001]. More plain feedback practices had their dashboard viewed than behavioural feedback practices (69.1% versus 62.4%); but not meeting the P < 0.05 threshold (6.8%, 95% CI: -0.19% to 13.8%, P = 0.069). For the primary prescribing outcome, intervention practices possibly reduced broad-spectrum prescribing to a greater extent than controls (1.42% versus 1.12%); but again not meeting the P < 0.05 threshold (coefficient -0.31%, CI: -0.7% to 0.1%, P = 0.104). The behavioural impact group reduced broad-spectrum prescribing to a greater extent than plain feedback practices (1.63% versus 1.20%; coefficient 0.41%, CI: 0.007% to 0.8%, P = 0.046). No harms were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Unsolicited feedback increased practices' engagement with data, with possible slightly reduced antibiotic prescribing (P = 0.104). Behavioural science techniques gave greater prescribing effects. The modest effects on prescribing may reflect saturation from similar initiatives on antibiotic prescribing. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86418238.

Long-term health outcomes of people with reduced kidney function in the UK: A modelling study using population health data.

BACKGROUND: People with reduced kidney function have increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We present a policy model that simulates individuals' long-term health outcomes and costs to inform strategies to reduce risks of kidney and CVDs in this population. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a United Kingdom primary healthcare database, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), linked with secondary healthcare and mortality data, to derive an open 2005-2013 cohort of adults (≥18 years of age) with reduced kidney function (≥2 measures of estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <90 mL/min/1.73 m2 ≥90 days apart). Data on individuals' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics at entry and outcomes (first occurrences of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and hospitalisation for heart failure; annual kidney disease stages; and cardiovascular and nonvascular deaths) during follow-up were extracted. The cohort was used to estimate risk equations for outcomes and develop a chronic kidney disease-cardiovascular disease (CKD-CVD) health outcomes model, a Markov state transition model simulating individuals' long-term outcomes, healthcare costs, and quality of life based on their characteristics at entry. Model-simulated cumulative risks of outcomes were compared with respective observed risks using a split-sample approach. To illustrate model value, we assess the benefits of partial (i.e., at 2013 levels) and optimal (i.e., fully compliant with clinical guidelines in 2019) use of cardioprotective medications. The cohort included 1.1 million individuals with reduced kidney function (median follow-up 4.9 years, 45% men, 19% with CVD, and 74% with only mildly decreased eGFR of 60-89 mL/min/1.73 m2 at entry). Age, kidney function status, and CVD events were the key determinants of subsequent morbidity and mortality. The model-simulated cumulative disease risks corresponded well to observed risks in participant categories by eGFR level. Without the use of cardioprotective medications, for 60- to 69-year-old individuals with mildly decreased eGFR (60-89 mL/min/1.73 m2), the model projected a further 22.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 21.8-22.3) years of life if without previous CVD and 18.6 (18.2-18.9) years if with CVD. Cardioprotective medication use at 2013 levels (29%-44% of indicated individuals without CVD; 64%-76% of those with CVD) was projected to increase their life expectancy by 0.19 (0.14-0.23) and 0.90 (0.50-1.21) years, respectively. At optimal cardioprotective medication use, the projected health gains in these individuals increased by further 0.33 (0.25-0.40) and 0.37 (0.20-0.50) years, respectively. Limitations include risk factor measurements from the UK routine primary care database and limited albuminuria measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The CKD-CVD policy model is a novel resource for projecting long-term health outcomes and assessing treatment strategies in people with reduced kidney function. The model indicates clear survival benefits with cardioprotective treatments in this population and scope for further benefits if use of these treatments is optimised.

Corticosteroids as standalone or add-on treatment for sore throat.

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a common condition associated with a high rate of antibiotic prescriptions, despite limited evidence for the effectiveness of antibiotics. Corticosteroids may improve symptoms of sore throat by reducing inflammation of the upper respiratory tract. This review is an update to our review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical benefit and safety of corticosteroids in reducing the symptoms of sore throat in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (Issue 4, 2019), MEDLINE (1966 to 14 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 14 May 2019), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE, 2002 to 2015), and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (inception to 2015). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared steroids to either placebo or standard care in adults and children (aged over three years) with sore throat. We excluded studies of hospitalised participants, those with infectious mononucleosis (glandular fever), sore throat following tonsillectomy or intubation, or peritonsillar abscess. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included one new RCT in this update, for a total of nine trials involving 1319 participants (369 children and 950 adults). In eight trials, participants in both corticosteroid and placebo groups received antibiotics; one trial offered delayed prescription of antibiotics based on clinical assessment. Only two trials reported funding sources (government and a university foundation). In addition to any effect of antibiotics and analgesia, corticosteroids increased the likelihood of complete resolution of pain at 24 hours by 2.40 times (risk ratio (RR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 4.47; P = 0.006; I² = 67%; high-certainty evidence) and at 48 hours by 1.5 times (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.76; P < 0.001; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence). Five people need to be treated to prevent one person continuing to experience pain at 24 hours. Corticosteroids also reduced the mean time to onset of pain relief and the mean time to complete resolution of pain by 6 and 11.6 hours, respectively, although significant heterogeneity was present (moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 hours, pain (assessed by visual analogue scales) was reduced by an additional 10.6% by corticosteroids (moderate-certainty evidence). No differences were reported in recurrence/relapse rates, days missed from work or school, or adverse events for participants taking corticosteroids compared to placebo. However, the reporting of adverse events was poor, and only two trials included children or reported days missed from work or school. The included studies were assessed as moderate quality evidence, but the small number of included studies has the potential to increase the uncertainty, particularly in terms of applying these results to children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral or intramuscular corticosteroids, in addition to antibiotics, moderately increased the likelihood of both resolution and improvement of pain in participants with sore throat. Given the limited benefit, further research into the harms and benefits of short courses of steroids is needed to permit informed decision-making.

Effects of antihypertensives, lipid-modifying drugs, glycaemic control drugs and sodium bicarbonate on the progression of stages 3 and 4 chronic kidney disease in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of drug interventions that may modify the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in adults with CKD stages 3 and 4. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Health Technology Assessment, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index and Clinical Trials Register, from March 1999 to July 2018, we identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of drugs for hypertension, lipid modification, glycaemic control and sodium bicarbonate, compared with placebo, no drug or a drug from another class, in ≥40 adults with CKD stages 3 and/or 4, with at least 2 years of follow-up and reporting renal function (primary outcome), proteinuria, adverse events, maintenance dialysis, transplantation, cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently screened citations and extracted data. For continuous outcomes, we used the ratio of means (ROM) at the end of the trial in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed methodological quality with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and confidence in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: We included 35 RCTs and over 51 000 patients. Data were limited, and heterogeneity varied. Final renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate) was 6% higher in those taking glycaemic control drugs (ROM 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10, I2=0%, low GRADE confidence) and 4% higher in those taking lipid-modifying drugs (ROM 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08, I2=88%, very low GRADE confidence). For RCTs of antihypertensive drugs, there were no significant differences in renal function. Treatment with lipid-modifying drugs led to a 36% reduction in cardiovascular disease and 26% reduction in all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Glycaemic control and lipid-modifying drugs may slow the progression of CKD, but we found no pooled evidence of benefit nor harm from antihypertensive drugs. However, given the data limitations, further research is needed to confirm these findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015017501.

Observational analysis of disparities in obesity in children in the UK: Has Leeds bucked the trend?

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity in childhood is of high concern, especially in deprived populations. We explored trends in obesity following the introduction of a citywide strategy focused on preschool children. METHODS: Analysis of obesity prevalence using the National Child Measurement Programme 2009 to 2017 for primary-school children in Leeds using 5-year aggregated data for Leeds, comparable cities, and England as a whole. RESULTS: Prevalence of obesity in Leeds for school entry children fell significantly (9.4% to 8.8%), whilst comparable cities (CC) and England as a whole showed no change (comparison of trends: P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). The reduction in Leeds was primarily in the most deprived (11.5% to 10.5%; trend comparison CC: P < 0.001, Eng: P < 0.001), but also amongst the affluent (6.8% to 6.0%; trend comparison CC: P = 0.087, Eng: P = 0.012). Prevalence in older children in Leeds was unchanged whilst it increased for comparable cities and England (trend comparison CC: P < 0.001, Eng: P < 0.001). In the deprived, obesity increased: Leeds by 1.4%; CC 1.3%, England 1% (trend comparison Eng: P = 0.004). In the affluent, obesity prevalence reduced more in Leeds than elsewhere: 2% in Leeds, 0.8% in CC, and 0.7% in England (trend comparison CC: P < 0.001, Eng: P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a notable decrease in the prevalence of obesity especially amongst the most disadvantaged children at entry to primary school in Leeds. How this was achieved merits in-depth consideration.

Practice variation in the use of tests in UK primary care: a retrospective analysis of 16 million tests performed over 3.3 million patient years in 2015/16.

BACKGROUND: The UK's National Health Service (NHS) is currently subject to unprecedented financial strain. The identification of unnecessary healthcare resource use has been suggested to reduce spending. However, there is little very research quantifying wasteful test use, despite the £3 billion annual expenditure. Geographical variation has been suggested as one metric in which to quantify inappropriate use. We set out to identify tests ordered from UK primary care that are subject to the greatest between-practice variation in their use. METHODS: We used data from 444 general practices within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink to calculate a coefficient of variation (CoV) for the ordering of 44 specific tests from UK general practices. The coefficient of variation was calculated after adjusting for differences between practice populations. We also determined the tests that had both a higher-than-average CoV and a higher-than-average rate of use. RESULTS: In total, 16,496,218 tests were ordered for 4,078,091 patients over 3,311,050 person-years from April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2016. The tests subject to the greatest variation were drug monitoring 158% (95%CI 153 to 163%), urine microalbumin (52% (95%CI 49.9 to 53.2%)), pelvic CT (51% (95%CI 50 to 53%)) and Pap smear (49% (95%CI 48 to 51%). Seven tests were classified as high variability and high rate (clotting, vitamin D, urine albumin, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), bone profile, urine MCS and C-reactive protein (CRP)). CONCLUSIONS: There are wide variations in the use of common tests, which is unlikely to be explained by clinical indications. Since £3 billion annually are spent on tests, this represents considerable variation in the use of resources and inefficient management in the NHS. Our results can be of value to policy makers, researchers, patients and clinicians as the NHS strives towards identifying overuse and underuse of tests.

Early use of Antibiotics for at Risk CHildren with InfluEnza (ARCHIE): protocol for a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Influenza and influenza-like illness (ILI) create considerable burden on healthcare resources each winter. Children with pre-existing conditions such as asthma, diabetes mellitus and cerebral palsy are among those at greatest risk of clinical deterioration from influenza/ILI. The Antibiotics for at Risk CHildren with InfluEnza (ARCHIE) trial aims to determine whether early oral treatment with the antibiotic co-amoxiclav reduces the likelihood of reconsultation due to clinical deterioration in these 'at risk' children. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ARCHIE trial is a double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. 'At risk' children aged 6 months to 12 years inclusive who present within the first 5 days of an ILI episode will be randomised to receive a 5-day course of oral co-amoxiclav 400/57 twice daily or placebo. Randomisation will use a non-deterministic minimisation algorithm to balance age and seasonal influenza vaccination status.To detect respiratory virus infections, a nasal swab will be obtained from each participant before commencing study medication. To identify carriage of potential bacterial respiratory pathogens, we will also obtain a throat swab where possible.The primary outcome is reconsultation in any healthcare setting due to clinical deterioration within 28 days of randomisation. We will analyse this outcome using log-binomial regression model adjusted for region, age and seasonal influenza vaccination status.Secondary outcomes include duration of fever, duration of symptoms and adverse events. Continuous outcomes will be compared using regression analysis (or equivalent non-parametric method for non-normal data) adjusting for minimisation variables. Binary outcomes will be compared using χ2/Fisher's exact test and log-binomial regression. ETHICS: The ARCHIE trial has been reviewed and approved by the North West-Liverpool East Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority and Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated via our study website (www.archiestudy.com) and links with relevant charities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN 70714783; Pre-results. EudraCT 2013-002822-21; Pre-results.

Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care natriuretic peptide testing for chronic heart failure in ambulatory care: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care natriuretic peptide tests in patients with chronic heart failure, with a focus on the ambulatory care setting. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Embase, Health Technology Assessment Database, Science Citation Index, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index until 31 March 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies evaluated point-of-care natriuretic peptide testing (B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N terminal fragment pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP)) against any relevant reference standard, including echocardiography, clinical examination, or combinations of these, in humans. Studies were excluded if reported data were insufficient to construct 2×2 tables. No language restrictions were applied. RESULTS: 42 publications of 39 individual studies met the inclusion criteria and 40 publications of 37 studies were included in the analysis. Of the 37 studies, 30 evaluated BNP point-of-care testing and seven evaluated NTproBNP testing. 15 studies were done in ambulatory care settings in populations with a low prevalence of chronic heart failure. Five studies were done in primary care. At thresholds >100 pg/mL, the sensitivity of BNP, measured with the point-of-care index device Triage, was generally high and was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.98) at 100 pg/mL. At thresholds <100 pg/mL, sensitivity ranged from 0.46 to 0.97 and specificity from 0.31 to 0.98. Primary care studies that used NTproBNP testing reported a sensitivity of 0.99 (0.57 to 1.00) and specificity of 0.60 (0.44 to 0.74) at 135 pg/mL. No statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy was found between point-of-care BNP and NTproBNP tests. CONCLUSIONS: Given the lack of studies in primary care, the paucity of NTproBNP data, and potential methodological limitations in these studies, large scale trials in primary care are needed to assess the role of point-of-care natriuretic peptide testing and clarify appropriate thresholds to improve care of patients with suspected or chronic heart failure.

Economic analysis of oral dexamethasone for symptom relief of sore throat: the UK TOAST study.

OBJECTIVES: To undertake an economic analysis assessing the cost-effectiveness of a single dose of oral dexamethasone compared with placebo for the relief of sore throat. DESIGN: A UK-based, multicentre, two arm, individually randomised, double blind trial. SETTING AND POPULATION: Adults (≥18 years) with acute sore throat and painful swallowing judged to be infective in origin, recruited and randomised in primary care. INTERVENTION: a single dose of 10 mg oral dexamethasone compared with placebo given at primary care visit. MAIN OUTCOME: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), cost per quality-adjusted symptom resolution using the EuroQol-five dimensions-five levels instrument, were estimated as part of a cost-utility analysis performed on an intention-to-treat cohort adopting a health payers perspective. RESULTS: Differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over 7 days from baseline and at 24 hours in the dexamethasone compared with the placebo group (2.9% and 2.5% higher, respectively) were observed. After controlling for the baseline HRQoL imbalances, the economic impact of the intervention was not statistically significant: the quality-adjusted life year difference was -0.00005 (95% CI -0.0002 to 0.00011) equivalent to a loss in HRQoL of a half hour in the dexamethasone group. The average cost per patient associated in the dexamethasone and placebo groups in the basecase analysis was £73 and £69, respectively. In the basecase probabilistic analysis, the mean ICER was -£6440 (95% CI -£132 151 to £126 335) and the median ICER was -£304 (IQR-£5816 to £3877); suggesting considerable uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The economic burden associated with sore throat is substantial and was estimated at £2.35 billion to the healthcare services payer based on reported resource use and 2015 UK unit costs. There is considerable uncertainty regarding the cost-effectiveness of a single dose of oral dexamethasone as a treatment strategy and therefore insufficient evidence to support its use in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17435450; Post-results.

Effectiveness of a complex intervention on Prioritising Multimedication in Multimorbidity (PRIMUM) in primary care: results of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Investigate the effectiveness of a complex intervention aimed at improving the appropriateness of medication in older patients with multimorbidity in general practice. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with general practice as unit of randomisation. SETTING: 72 general practices in Hesse, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 505 randomly sampled, cognitively intact patients (≥60 years, ≥3 chronic conditions under pharmacological treatment, ≥5 long-term drug prescriptions with systemic effects); 465 patients and 71 practices completed the study. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention group (IG): The healthcare assistant conducted a checklist-based interview with patients on medication-related problems and reconciled their medications. Assisted by a computerised decision support system, the general practitioner optimised medication, discussed it with patients and adjusted it accordingly. The control group (CG) continued with usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a modified Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI, excluding item 10 on cost-effectiveness), assessed in blinded medication reviews and calculated as the difference between baseline and after 6 months; secondary outcomes after 6 and 9 months' follow-up: quality of life, functioning, medication adherence, and so on. RESULTS: At baseline, a high proportion of patients had appropriate to mildly inappropriate prescriptions (MAI 0-5 points: n=350 patients). Randomisation revealed balanced groups (IG: 36 practices/252 patients; CG: 36/253). Intervention had no significant effect on primary outcome: mean MAI sum scores decreased by 0.3 points in IG and 0.8 points in CG, resulting in a non-significant adjusted mean difference of 0.7 (95% CI -0.2 to 1.6) points in favour of CG. Secondary outcomes showed non-significant changes (quality of life slightly improved in IG but continued to decline in CG) or remained stable (functioning, medication adherence). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention had no significant effects. Many patients already received appropriate prescriptions and enjoyed good quality of life and functional status. We can therefore conclude that in our study, there was not enough scope for improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN99526053. NCT01171339; Results.

What carcinoembryonic antigen level should trigger further investigation during colorectal cancer follow-up? A systematic review and secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Following primary surgical and adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer, many patients are routinely followed up with blood carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing. OBJECTIVE: To determine how the CEA test result should be interpreted to inform the decision to undertake further investigation to detect treatable recurrences. DESIGN: Two studies were conducted: (1) a Cochrane review of existing studies describing the diagnostic accuracy of blood CEA testing for detecting colorectal recurrence; and (2) a secondary analysis of data from the two arms of the FACS (Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery) trial in which CEA testing was carried out. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The secondary analysis was based on data from 582 patients recruited into the FACS trial between 2003 and 2009 from 39 NHS hospitals in England with access to high-volume services offering surgical treatment of metastatic recurrence and followed up for 5 years. CEA testing was undertaken in general practice. RESULTS: In the systematic review we identified 52 studies for meta-analysis, including in aggregate 9717 participants (median study sample size 139, interquartile range 72-247). Pooled sensitivity at the most commonly recommended threshold in national guidelines of 5 µg/l was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) 64% to 76%] and specificity was 88% (95% CI 84% to 92%). In the secondary analysis of FACS data, the diagnostic accuracy of a single CEA test was less than was suggested by the review [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.74, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.80]. At the commonly recommended threshold of 5 µg/l, sensitivity was estimated as 50.0% (95% CI 40.1% to 59.9%) and lead time as about 3 months. About four in 10 patients without a recurrence will have at least one false alarm and six out of 10 tests will be false alarms (some patients will have multiple false alarms, particularly smokers). Making decisions to further investigate based on the trend in serial CEA measurements is better (AUC for positive trend 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91), but to maintain approximately 70% sensitivity with 90% specificity it is necessary to increase the frequency of testing in year 1 and to apply a reducing threshold for investigation as measurements accrue. LIMITATIONS: The reference standards were imperfect and the main analysis was subject to work-up bias and had limited statistical precision and no external validation. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that (1) CEA testing should not be used alone as a triage test; (2) in year 1, testing frequency should be increased (to monthly for 3 months and then every 2 months); (3) the threshold for investigating a single test result should be raised to 10 µg/l; (4) after the second CEA test, decisions to investigate further should be made on the basis of the trend in CEA levels; (5) the optimal threshold for investigating the CEA trend falls over time; and (6) continuing smokers should not be monitored with CEA testing. Further research is needed to explore the operational feasibility of monitoring the trend in CEA levels and to externally validate the proposed thresholds for further investigation. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015019327 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93652154. FUNDING: The main FACS trial and this substudy were funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Why do authors derive new cardiovascular clinical prediction rules in the presence of existing rules? A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Researchers should examine existing evidence to determine the need for a new study. It is unknown whether developers evaluate existing evidence to justify new cardiovascular clinical prediction rules (CPRs). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess whether authors of cardiovascular CPRs cited existing CPRs, why some authors did not cite existing CPRs, and why they thought existing CPRs were insufficient. METHOD: Derivation studies of cardiovascular CPRs from the International Register of Clinical Prediction Rules for Primary Care were evaluated. We reviewed the introduction sections to determine whether existing CPRs were cited. Using thematic content analysis, the stated reasons for determining existing cardiovascular CPRs insufficient were explored. Study authors were surveyed via e-mail and post. We asked whether they were aware of any existing cardiovascular CPRs at the time of derivation, how they searched for existing CPRs, and whether they thought it was important to cite existing CPRs. RESULTS: Of 85 derivation studies included, 48 (56.5%) cited existing CPRs, 33 (38.8%) did not cite any CPR, and four (4.7%) declared there was none to cite. Content analysis identified five categories of existing CPRs insufficiency related to: (1) derivation (5 studies; 11.4% of 44), (2) construct (31 studies; 70.5%), (3) performance (10 studies; 22.7%), (4) transferability (13 studies; 29.5%), and (5) evidence (8 studies; 18.2%). Authors of 54 derivation studies (71.1% of 76 authors contacted) responded to the survey. Twenty-five authors (46.3%) reported they were aware of existing CPR at the time of derivation. Twenty-nine authors (53.7%) declared they conducted a systematic search to identify existing CPRs. Most authors (90.7%) indicated citing existing CPRs was important. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular CPRs are often developed without citing existing CPRs although most authors agree it is important. Common justifications for new CPRs concerned construct, including choice of predictor variables or relevance of outcomes. Developers should clearly justify why new CPRs are needed with reference to existing CPRs to avoid unnecessary duplication.

B-type natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a condition in which the heart does not pump enough blood to meet all the needs of the body. Symptoms of heart failure include breathlessness, fatigue and fluid retention. Outcomes for patients with heart failure are highly variable; however on average, these patients have a poor prognosis. Prognosis can be improved with early diagnosis and appropriate use of medical treatment, use of devices and transplantation. Patients with heart failure are high users of healthcare resources, not only due to drug and device treatments, but due to high costs of hospitalisation care. B-type natriuretic peptide levels are already used as biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of heart failure, but could offer to clinicians a possible tool to guide drug treatment. This could optimise drug management in heart failure patients whilst allaying concerns over potential side effects due to drug intolerance. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether treatment guided by serial BNP or NT-proBNP (collectively referred to as NP) monitoring improves outcomes compared with treatment guided by clinical assessment alone. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted up to 15 March 2016 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database in the Cochrane Library. Searches were also conducted in the Science Citation Index Expanded, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. We applied no date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of NP-guided treatment of heart failure versus treatment guided by clinical assessment alone with no restriction on follow-up. Adults treated for heart failure, in both in-hospital and out-of-hospital settings, and trials reporting a clinical outcome were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 randomised controlled trials with 3660 participants (range of mean age: 57 to 80 years) comparing NP-guided treatment with clinical assessment alone. The evidence for all-cause mortality using NP-guided treatment showed uncertainty (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01; patients = 3169; studies = 15; low quality of the evidence), and for heart failure mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; patients = 853; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).The evidence suggested heart failure admission was reduced by NP-guided treatment (38% versus 26%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; patients = 1928; studies = 10; low quality of evidence), but the evidence showed uncertainty for all-cause admission (57% versus 53%, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; patients = 1142; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).Six studies reported on adverse events, however the results could not be pooled (patients = 1144; low quality of evidence). Only four studies provided cost of treatment results, three of these studies reported a lower cost for NP-guided treatment, whilst one reported a higher cost (results were not pooled; patients = 931, low quality of evidence). The evidence showed uncertainty for quality of life data (MD -0.03, 95% CI -1.18 to 1.13; patients = 1812; studies = 8; very low quality of evidence).We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. The impact of risk of bias from lack of blinding of outcome assessment and high attrition levels was examined by restricting analyses to only low 'Risk of bias' studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure low-quality evidence showed a reduction in heart failure admission with NP-guided treatment while low-quality evidence showed uncertainty in the effect of NP-guided treatment for all-cause mortality, heart failure mortality, and all-cause admission. Uncertainty in the effect was further shown by very low-quality evidence for patient's quality of life. The evidence for adverse events and cost of treatment was low quality and we were unable to pool results.

Symptoms, unmet needs, psychological well-being and health status in survivors of prostate cancer: implications for redesigning follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To explore ongoing symptoms, unmet needs, psychological wellbeing, self-efficacy and overall health status in survivors of prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An invitation to participate in a postal questionnaire survey was sent to 546 men, diagnosed with prostate cancer 9-24 months previously at two UK cancer centres. The study group comprised men who had been subject to a range of treatments: surgery, radiotherapy, hormone therapy and active surveillance. The questionnaire included measures of prostate-related quality of life (Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite 26-item version, EPIC-26); unmet needs (Supportive Care Needs Survey 34-item version, SCNS-SF34); anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), self-efficacy (modified Self-efficacy Scale), health status (EuroQol 5D, EQ-5D) and satisfaction with care (questions developed for this study). A single reminder was sent to non-responders after 3 weeks. Data were analysed by age, co-morbidities, and treatment group. RESULTS: In all, 316 men completed questionnaires (64.1% response rate). Overall satisfaction with follow-up care was high, but was lower for psychosocial than physical aspects of care. Urinary, bowel, and sexual functioning was reported as a moderate/big problem in the last month for 15.2% (n = 48), 5.1% (n = 16), and 36.5% (n = 105) men, respectively. The most commonly reported moderate/high unmet needs related to changes in sexual feelings/relationships, managing fear of recurrence/uncertainty, and concerns about the worries of significant others. It was found that 17% of men (51/307) reported potentially moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety and 10.2% (32/308) reported moderate-to-severe levels of depression. The presence of problematic side-effects was associated with higher psychological morbidity, poorer self-efficacy, greater unmet needs, and poorer overall health status. CONCLUSION: While some men report relatively few problems after prostate cancer treatment, this study highlights important physical and psycho-social issues for a significant minority of survivors of prostate cancer. Strategies for identifying those men with on-going problems, alongside new interventions and models of care, tailored to individual needs, are needed to improve quality of life.

Optimal strategies for monitoring lipid levels in patients at risk or with cardiovascular disease: a systematic review with statistical and cost-effectiveness modelling.

BACKGROUND: Various lipid measurements in monitoring/screening programmes can be used, alone or in cardiovascular risk scores, to guide treatment for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Because some changes in lipids are due to variability rather than true change, the value of lipid-monitoring strategies needs evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To determine clinical value and cost-effectiveness of different monitoring intervals and different lipid measures for primary and secondary prevention of CVD. DATA SOURCES: We searched databases and clinical trials registers from 2007 (including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Clinical Trials Register, the Current Controlled Trials register, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) to update and extend previous systematic reviews. Patient-level data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and St Luke's Hospital, Japan, were used in statistical modelling. Utilities and health-care costs were drawn from the literature. METHODS: In two meta-analyses, we used prospective studies to examine associations of lipids with CVD and mortality, and randomised controlled trials to estimate lipid-lowering effects of atorvastatin doses. Patient-level data were used to estimate progression and variability of lipid measurements over time, and hence to model lipid-monitoring strategies. Results are expressed as rates of true-/false-positive and true-/false-negative tests for high lipid or high CVD risk. We estimated incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: A total of 115 publications reported strength of association between different lipid measures and CVD events in 138 data sets. The summary adjusted hazard ratio per standard deviation of total cholesterol (TC) to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio was 1.25 (95% confidence interval 1.15 to 1.35) for CVD in a primary prevention population but heterogeneity was high (I(2) = 98%); similar results were observed for non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and other ratio measures. Associations were smaller for other single lipid measures. Across 10 trials, low-dose atorvastatin (10 and 20 mg) effects ranged from a TC reduction of 0.92 mmol/l to 2.07 mmol/l, and low-density lipoprotein reduction of between 0.88 mmol/l and 1.86 mmol/l. Effects of 40 mg and 80 mg were reported by one trial each. For primary prevention, over a 3-year period, we estimate annual monitoring would unnecessarily treat 9 per 1000 more men (28 vs. 19 per 1000) and 5 per 1000 more women (17 vs. 12 per 1000) than monitoring every 3 years. However, annual monitoring would also undertreat 9 per 1000 fewer men (7 vs. 16 per 1000) and 4 per 1000 fewer women (7 vs. 11 per 1000) than monitoring at 3-year intervals. For secondary prevention, over a 3-year period, annual monitoring would increase unnecessary treatment changes by 66 per 1000 men and 31 per 1000 women, and decrease undertreatment by 29 per 1000 men and 28 per 1000 men, compared with monitoring every 3 years. In cost-effectiveness, strategies with increased screening/monitoring dominate. Exploratory analyses found that any unknown harms of statins would need utility decrements as large as 0.08 (men) to 0.11 (women) per statin user to reverse this finding in primary prevention. LIMITATION: Heterogeneity in meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: While acknowledging known and potential unknown harms of statins, we find that more frequent monitoring strategies are cost-effective compared with others. Regular lipid monitoring in those with and without CVD is likely to be beneficial to patients and to the health service. Future research should include trials of the benefits and harms of atorvastatin 40 and 80 mg, large-scale surveillance of statin safety, and investigation of the effect of monitoring on medication adherence. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003727. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.