Representativeness, Vaccination Uptake, and COVID-19 Clinical Outcomes 2020-2021 in the UK Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Network: Cohort Profile Summary.

BACKGROUND: The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) is one of Europe's oldest sentinel systems, working with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and its predecessor bodies for 55 years. Its surveillance report now runs twice weekly, supplemented by online observatories. In addition to conducting sentinel surveillance from a nationally representative group of practices, the RSC is now also providing data for syndromic surveillance. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the cohort profile at the start of the 2021-2022 surveillance season and recent changes to our surveillance practice. METHODS: The RSC's pseudonymized primary care data, linked to hospital and other data, are held in the Oxford-RCGP Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, a Trusted Research Environment. We describe the RSC's cohort profile as of September 2021, divided into a Primary Care Sentinel Cohort (PCSC)-collecting virological and serological specimens-and a larger group of syndromic surveillance general practices (SSGPs). We report changes to our sampling strategy that brings the RSC into alignment with European Centre for Disease Control guidance and then compare our cohort's sociodemographic characteristics with Office for National Statistics data. We further describe influenza and COVID-19 vaccine coverage for the 2020-2021 season (week 40 of 2020 to week 39 of 2021), with the latter differentiated by vaccine brand. Finally, we report COVID-19-related outcomes in terms of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death. RESULTS: As a response to COVID-19, the RSC grew from just over 500 PCSC practices in 2019 to 1879 practices in 2021 (PCSC, n=938; SSGP, n=1203). This represents 28.6% of English general practices and 30.59% (17,299,780/56,550,136) of the population. In the reporting period, the PCSC collected >8000 virology and >23,000 serology samples. The RSC population was broadly representative of the national population in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, National Health Service Region, socioeconomic status, obesity, and smoking habit. The RSC captured vaccine coverage data for influenza (n=5.4 million) and COVID-19, reporting dose one (n=11.9 million), two (n=11 million), and three (n=0.4 million) for the latter as well as brand-specific uptake data (AstraZeneca vaccine, n=11.6 million; Pfizer, n=10.8 million; and Moderna, n=0.7 million). The median (IQR) number of COVID-19 hospitalizations and ICU admissions was 1181 (559-1559) and 115 (50-174) per week, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The RSC is broadly representative of the national population; its PCSC is geographically representative and its SSGPs are newly supporting UKHSA syndromic surveillance efforts. The network captures vaccine coverage and has expanded from reporting primary care attendances to providing data on onward hospital outcomes and deaths. The challenge remains to increase virological and serological sampling to monitor the effectiveness and waning of all vaccines available in a timely manner.

Primary care practice and cancer suspicion during the first three COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected UK primary care, and as a result the route to cancer diagnosis for many patients. AIM: To explore how the pandemic affected primary care practice, in particular cancer suspicion, referral, and diagnosis, and how this experience evolved as the pandemic progressed. DESIGN AND SETTING: Seventeen qualitative interviews were carried out remotely with primary care staff. METHOD: Staff from practices in England that expressed an interest in trialling an electronic safety-netting tool were invited to participate. Remote, semi-structured interviews were conducted from September 2020 to March 2021. Data analysis followed a thematic analysis and mind-mapping approach. RESULTS: The first lockdown was described as providing time to make adjustments to allow remote and minimal-contact consultations but caused concerns over undetected cancers. These concerns were realised in summer and autumn 2020 as the participants began to see higher rates of late-stage cancer presentation. During the second and third lockdowns patients seemed more willing to consult. This combined with usual winter pressures, demands of the vaccine programme, and surging levels of COVID-19 meant that the third lockdown was the most difficult. New ways of working were seen as positive when they streamlined services but also unsafe if they prevented GPs from accessing all relevant information and resulted in delayed cancer diagnoses. CONCLUSION: The post-pandemic recovery of cancer care is dependent on the recovery of primary care. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated vulnerabilities in primary care but has also provided new ways of working that may help the recovery.

Point-of-care NT-proBNP monitoring for heart failure: observational feasibility study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Around one million individuals in the UK have heart failure (HF), a chronic disease that causes significant morbidity and mortality. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) monitoring could help improve the care of patients with HF in the community. AIM: The aim of this study is to provide evidence to support the routine use of point-of-care (POC) NT-proBNP monitoring in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: In this observational cohort study, the Roche Cobas h 232 POC device was used to measure NT-proBNP in 27 patients with HF at 0, 6, and 12 months, with a subset reanalysed in the laboratory for comparison. METHOD: Data were analysed for within-person and between-person variability and concordance with laboratory readings using Passing-Bablok regression. GPs reported whether POC results impacted clinical decisionmaking, and patients indicated their willingness to participate in long-term cohort studies using the Likert acceptability scale. RESULTS: Within-person variability in POC NT-proBNP over 12 months was 881 pg/mL (95% confidence interval [CI] = 380 to 1382 pg/mL). Between-person variability was 1972 pg/mL (95% CI = 1,525 to 2791 pg/mL). Passing-Bablok regression showed no significant systematic difference between POC and laboratory measurements. Patients indicated a high level of acceptability, and GP decisionmaking was affected for at least one visit in a third of patients. CONCLUSION: Within-person variability in POC NT-proBNP is around half of between-person variability, so detecting changes could be of use in HF management. High patient acceptability and impact on clinical decisionmaking warrant further investigation in a larger long-term cohort study.

Consultations for clinical features of possible cancer and associated urgent referrals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational cohort study from English primary care.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear to what extent reductions in urgent referrals for suspected cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic were the result of fewer patients attending primary care compared to GPs referring fewer patients. METHODS: Cohort study including electronic health records data from 8,192,069 patients from 663 English practices. Weekly consultation rates, cumulative consultations and referrals were calculated for 28 clinical features from the NICE suspected cancer guidelines. Clinical feature consultation rate ratios (CRR) and urgent referral rate ratios (RRR) compared time periods in 2020 with 2019. FINDINGS: Consultations for cancer clinical features decreased by 24.19% (95% CI: 24.04-24.34%) between 2019 and 2020, particularly in the 6-12 weeks following the first national lockdown. Urgent referrals for clinical features decreased by 10.47% (95% CI: 9.82-11.12%) between 2019 and 2020. Overall, once patients consulted with primary care, GPs urgently referred a similar or greater proportion of patients compared to previous years. CONCLUSION: Due to the significant fall in patients consulting with clinical features of cancer there was a lower than expected number of urgent referrals in 2020. Sustained efforts should be made throughout the pandemic to encourage the public to consult their GP with cancer clinical features.

The impact of primary care supported shielding on the risk of mortality in people vulnerable to COVID-19: English sentinel network matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To mitigate risk of mortality from coronavirus 2019 infection (COVID-19), the UK government recommended 'shielding' of vulnerable people through self-isolation for 12 weeks. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using a nationally representative English primary care database comparing people aged >= 40 years who were recorded as being advised to shield using a fixed ratio of 1:1, matching to people with the same diagnoses not advised to shield (n = 77,360 per group). Time-to-death was compared using Cox regression, reporting the hazard ratio (HR) of mortality between groups. A sensitivity analysis compared exact matched cohorts (n = 24,752 shielded, n = 61,566 exact matches). RESULTS: We found a time-varying HR of mortality between groups. In the first 21 days, the mortality risk in people shielding was half those not (HR = 0.50, 95%CI:0.41-0.59. p < 0.0001). Over the remaining nine weeks, mortality risk was 54% higher in the shielded group (HR=1.54, 95%CI:1.41-1.70, p < 0.0001). Beyond the shielding period, mortality risk was over two-and-a-half times higher in the shielded group (HR=2.61, 95%CI:2.38-2.87, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Shielding halved the risk of mortality for 21 days. Mortality risk became higher across the remainder of the shielding period, rising to two-and-a-half times greater post-shielding. Shielding may be beneficial in the next wave of COVID-19.

Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations: a Delphi and cross-sectional study in English primary care.

BACKGROUND: The complexity of general practice consultations may be increasing and varies in different settings. A measure of complexity is required to test these hypotheses. AIM: To develop a valid measure of general practice consultation complexity applicable to routine medical records. DESIGN AND SETTING: Delphi study to select potential indicators of complexity followed by a cross-sectional study in English general practices to develop and validate a complexity measure. METHOD: The online Delphi study over two rounds identified potential indicators of consultation complexity. The cross-sectional study used an age-sex stratified random sample of patients and general practice face-to-face consultations from 2013/2014 in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The authors explored independent relationships between each indicator and consultation duration using mixed-effects regression models, and revalidated findings using data from 2017/2018. The proportion of complex consultations in different age-sex groups was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 32 GPs participated in the Delphi study. The Delphi panel endorsed 34 of 45 possible complexity indicators after two rounds. After excluding factors because of low prevalence or confounding, 17 indicators were retained in the cross-sectional study. The study used data from 173 130 patients and 725 616 face-to-face GP consultations. On defining complexity as the presence of any of these 17 factors, 308 370 consultations (42.5%) were found to be complex. Mean duration of complex consultations was 10.49 minutes, compared to 9.64 minutes for non-complex consultations. The proportion of complex consultations was similar in males and females but increased with age. CONCLUSION: The present consultation complexity measure has face and construct validity. It may be useful for research, management and policy, and for informing decisions about the range of resources needed in different practices.

Association Between Blood Pressure Control and Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outcomes in 45 418 Symptomatic Patients With Hypertension: An Observational Cohort Study.

Hypertension has been identified as a risk factor for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated adverse outcomes. This study examined the association between preinfection blood pressure (BP) control and COVID-19 outcomes using data from 460 general practices in England. Eligible patients were adults with hypertension who were tested or diagnosed with COVID-19. BP control was defined by the most recent BP reading within 24 months of the index date (January 1, 2020). BP was defined as controlled (<130/80 mm Hg), raised (130/80-139/89 mm Hg), stage 1 uncontrolled (140/90-159/99 mm Hg), or stage 2 uncontrolled (≥160/100 mm Hg). The primary outcome was death within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were COVID-19 diagnosis and COVID-19-related hospital admission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between BP control and outcomes. Of the 45 418 patients (mean age, 67 years; 44.7% male) included, 11 950 (26.3%) had controlled BP. These patients were older, had more comorbidities, and had been diagnosed with hypertension for longer. A total of 4277 patients (9.4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 and 877 died within 28 days. Individuals with stage 1 uncontrolled BP had lower odds of COVID-19 death (odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62-0.92]) compared with patients with well-controlled BP. There was no association between BP control and COVID-19 diagnosis or hospitalization. These findings suggest BP control may be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, possibly due to these patients having more advanced atherosclerosis and target organ damage. Such patients may need to consider adhering to stricter social distancing, to limit the impact of COVID-19 as future waves of the pandemic occur.

Natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: GUIDE-IT, the largest trial to date, published in August 2017, evaluating the effectiveness of natriuretic peptide (NP)-guided treatment of heart failure (HF), was stopped early for futility on a composite outcome. However, the reported effect sizes on individual outcomes of all-cause mortality and HF admissions are potentially clinically relevant. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to combine all available trial level evidence to determine if NP-guided treatment of HF reduces all-cause mortality and HF admissions in patients with HF. STUDY SELECTION: Eight databases, no language restrictions, up to November 2017 were searched for all randomised controlled trials comparing NP-guided treatment versus clinical assessment alone in adult patients with HF. No language restrictions were applied. Publications were independently double screened and extracted. Fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted. FINDINGS: 89 papers were included, reporting 19 trials (4554 participants), average ages 62-80 years. Pooled risk ratio estimates for all-cause mortality (16 trials, 4063 participants) were 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99 and 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89 for HF admissions (11 trials, 2822 participants). Sensitivity analyses, restricted to low risk of bias, produced similar estimates, but were no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Considering all the evidence to date, the pooled effects suggest that NP-guided treatment is beneficial in reducing HF admissions and all-cause mortality. However, there is still insufficient high-quality evidence to make definitive recommendations on the use of NP-guided treatment in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Systematic Review Cochrane Database Number: CD008966.

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.

The internal validation of weight and weight change coding using weight measurement data within the UK primary care Electronic Health Record.

PURPOSE: To use recorded weight values to internally validate weight status and weight change coding in the primary care Electronic Health Record (EHR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included adult patients with weight-related Read codes recorded in the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink EHR between 2000 and 2017. Weight status codes were compared to weight values recorded on the same day and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated for commonly used codes. Weight change codes were validated using three methods: the percentage (%) difference in kilograms at the time of the code and 1) the previous weight measurement, 2) the weight predicted using linear regression, and 3) the historic mean weight. Weight change codes were validated if estimates were consistent across two out of three methods. RESULTS: A total of 8,108,481 weight codes were recorded in 1,000,002 patients' EHR. Twice as many were recorded in females (n=5,208,593, 64%). The mean body mass index for "overweight" codes ranged from 31.9 kg/m2 to 46.9 kg/m2 and from 17.4 kg/m2 to 19.2 kg/m2 for "underweight" codes. PPVs for the most commonly used weight status codes ranged from 81.3% (80%-82.5%) to 99.3% (99.2%-99.4%). Across the estimation methods, and using only validated weight change codes, mean weight loss ranged from - 5.2% (SD 5.8%) to -7.9% (SD 7.3%) and mean weight gain from 4.2 % (SD 5.5%) to 7.9 % (SD 8.2%). The previous and predicted weight methods were most consistent. CONCLUSION: We have developed an internationally applicable methodology to internally validate weight-related EHR coding by using available weight measurement data. We demonstrate the UK Read codes that can be confidently used to classify weight status and weight change in the absence of weight values. We provide the first evidence from primary care that a Read code for unexpected weight loss represents a mean loss of ≥ 5 % in a 6-month period, which was broadly consistent across age groups and gender.

Quality of diabetes care in cancer: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Overlooking other conditions during cancer could undermine gains associated with early detection and improved cancer treatment. We conducted a systematic review on the quality of diabetes care in cancer. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches of Medline and Embase, from 1996 to present, were conducted to identify studies on the quality of diabetes care in patients diagnosed with cancer. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: longitudinal or cross-sectional observational study; population consisted of diabetes patients; exposure consisted of cancer of any type and outcomes consisted of diabetes quality of care indicators, including healthcare visits, monitoring and testing, control of biologic parameters, or use of diabetes and other related medications. DATA EXTRACTION: Structured data collection forms were developed to extract information on the study design and four types of quality indicators: physician visits, exams or diabetes education (collectively 'healthcare visits'); monitoring and testing; control of biologic parameters; and medication use and adherence. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 15 studies from five countries. There was no consistent evidence that cancer was associated with fewer healthcare visits, lower monitoring and testing of biologic parameters or poorer control of biologic parameters, including glucose. However, the weight of the evidence suggests cancer was associated with lower adherence to diabetes medications and other medications, such as anti-hypertensives and cholesterol-lowering agents. CONCLUSION: Evidence indicates cancer is associated with poorer adherence to diabetes and other medications. Further primary research could clarify cancer's impact on other diabetes quality indicators.

Quality of diabetes care in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Overlooking other medical conditions during cancer treatment and follow-up could result in excess morbidity and mortality, thereby undermining gains associated with early detection and improved treatment of cancer. We compared the quality of care for diabetes patients subsequently diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer to matched, diabetic non-cancer controls. METHODS: Longitudinal cohort study using primary care records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, United Kingdom. Patients with pre-existing diabetes were followed for up to 5 years after cancer diagnosis, or after an assigned index date (non-cancer controls). Quality of diabetes care was estimated based on Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators. Mixed effects logistic regression analyses were used to compare the unadjusted and adjusted odds of meeting quality measures between cancer patients and controls, overall and stratified by type of cancer. RESULTS: 3382 cancer patients and 11,135 controls contributed 44,507 person-years of follow-up. In adjusted analyses, cancer patients were less likely to meet five of 14 quality measures, including: total cholesterol ≤ 5 mmol/L (odds ratio [OR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.90); glycosylated hemoglobin ≤ 59 mmol/mol (adjusted OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.85); and albumin creatinine ratio testing (adjusted OR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.91). However, cancer patients were as likely as their matched controls to meet quality measures for other diabetes services, including retinal screening, foot examination, and dietary review. CONCLUSIONS: Although in the short-term, cancer patients were less likely to achieve target thresholds for cholesterol and HbA1c, they continued to receive high-quality diabetes primary care throughout 5 years post diagnosis. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: These findings are important for cancer survivors with pre-existing diabetes because they indicate that high-quality diabetes care is maintained throughout the continuum of cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.

Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Direct access (DA) testing allows GPs to refer patients for investigation without consulting a specialist. The aim is to reduce waiting time for investigations and unnecessary appointments, enabling treatment to begin without delay. AIM: To establish the proportion of patients diagnosed with cancer and other diseases through DA testing, time to diagnosis, and suitability of DA investigations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review assessing the effectiveness of GP DA testing in adults. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Where possible, study data were pooled and analysed quantitatively. Where this was not possible, the data are presented narratively. RESULTS: The authors identified 60 papers that met pre-specified inclusion criteria. Most studies were carried out in the UK and were judged to be of poor quality. The authors found no significant difference in the pooled cancer conversion rate between GP DA referrals and patients who first consulted a specialist for any test, except gastroscopy. There were also no significant differences in the proportions of patients receiving any non-cancer diagnosis. Referrals for testing were deemed appropriate in 66.4% of those coming from GPs, and in 80.9% of those from consultants; this difference was not significant. The time from referral to testing was significantly shorter for patients referred for DA tests. Patient and GP satisfaction with DA testing was consistently high. CONCLUSION: GP DA testing performs as well as, and on some measures better than, consultant triaged testing on measures of disease detection, appropriateness of referrals, interval from referral to testing, and patient and GP satisfaction.

GPs' understanding and practice of safety netting for potential cancer presentations: a qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Safety netting is a diagnostic strategy used in UK primary care to ensure patients are monitored until their symptoms or signs are explained. Despite being recommended in cancer diagnosis guidelines, little evidence exists about which components are effective and feasible in modern-day primary care. AIM: To understand the reality of safety netting for cancer in contemporary primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study of GPs in Oxfordshire primary care. METHOD: In-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 25 qualified GPs were undertaken. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using constant comparison. RESULTS: GPs revealed uncertainty about which aspects of clinical practice are considered safety netting. They use bespoke personal strategies, often developed from past mistakes, without knowledge of their colleagues' practice. Safety netting varied according to the perceived risk of cancer, the perceived reliability of each patient to follow advice, GP working patterns, and time pressures. Increasing workload, short appointments, and a reluctance to overburden hospital systems or create unnecessary patient anxiety have together led to a strategy of selective active follow-up of patients perceived to be at higher risk of cancer or less able to act autonomously. This left patients with low-risk-but-not-no-risk symptoms of cancer with less robust or absent safety netting. CONCLUSION: GPs would benefit from clearer guidance on which aspects of clinical practice contribute to effective safety netting for cancer. Practice systems that enable active follow-up of patients with low-risk-but-not-no-risk symptoms, which could represent malignancy, could reduce delays in cancer diagnosis without increasing GP workload.

Responsibility for follow-up during the diagnostic process in primary care: a secondary analysis of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear to what extent primary care practitioners (PCPs) should retain responsibility for follow-up to ensure that patients are monitored until their symptoms or signs are explained. AIM: To explore the extent to which PCPs retain responsibility for diagnostic follow-up actions across 11 international jurisdictions. DESIGN AND SETTING: A secondary analysis of survey data from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership. METHOD: The authors counted the proportion of 2879 PCPs who retained responsibility for each area of follow-up (appointments, test results, and non-attenders). Proportions were weighted by the sample size of each jurisdiction. Pooled estimates were obtained using a random-effects model, and UK estimates were compared with non-UK ones. Free-text responses were analysed to contextualise quantitative findings using a modified grounded theory approach. RESULTS: PCPs varied in their retention of responsibility for follow-up from 19% to 97% across jurisdictions and area of follow-up. Test reconciliation was inadequate in most jurisdictions. Significantly fewer UK PCPs retained responsibility for test result communication (73% versus 85%, P = 0.04) and non-attender follow-up (78% versus 93%, P<0.01) compared with non-UK PCPs. PCPs have developed bespoke, inconsistent solutions to follow-up. In cases of greatest concern, 'double safety netting' is described, where both patient and PCP retain responsibility. CONCLUSION: The degree to which PCPs retain responsibility for follow-up is dependent on their level of concern about the patient and their primary care system's properties. Integrated systems to support follow-up are at present underutilised, and research into their development, uptake, and effectiveness seems warranted.

Outcomes of preexisting diabetes mellitus in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Preexisting diabetes is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in cancer. We examined the impact of incident cancer on the long-term outcomes of diabetes. METHODS: Using the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we identified three cohorts of diabetes patients subsequently diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer, each matched to diabetic noncancer controls. Patients were required to have survived at least 1 year after cancer diagnosis (cases) or a matched index date (controls), and were followed up to 10 years for incident microvascular and macrovascular complications and mortality. Multivariate competing risks regression analyses were used to compare outcomes between cancer patients and controls. RESULTS: Overall, there were 3382 cancer patients and 11,135 controls with 59,431 person-years of follow-up. In adjusted analyses, there were no statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences in diabetes complication rates between cancer patients and their controls in any of the three cancer cohorts. Combined, cancer patients were less likely (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.88; 95% CI = 0.79-0.98) to develop retinopathy. Cancer patients were more likely to die of any cause (including cancer), but prostate cancer patients were less likely to die of causes associated with diabetes (HR 0.61; 95% CI = 0.43-0.88). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There is no evidence that incident cancer had an adverse impact on the long-term outcomes of preexisting diabetes. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: These findings are important for cancer survivors with preexisting diabetes because they suggest that substantial improvements in the relative survival of several of the most common types of cancer are not undermined by excess diabetes morbidity and mortality.

Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care tests for detecting albuminuria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Experts recommend screening for albuminuria in patients at risk for kidney disease. PURPOSE: To systematically review evidence about the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care (POC) tests for detecting albuminuria in individuals for whom guidelines recommend such detection. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medion database, MEDLINE, and Science Citation Index from 1963 through 5 December 2013; hand searches of other relevant journals; and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Cross-sectional studies, published in any language, that compared the accuracy of machine-read POC tests of urinary albumin-creatinine ratio with that of laboratory measurement. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted study data and assessed study quality using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixteen studies (n = 3356 patients) that evaluated semiquantitative or quantitative POC tests and used random urine samples collected in primary or secondary ambulatory care settings met inclusion criteria. Pooling results from a bivariate random-effects model gave sensitivity and specificity estimates of 76% (95% CI, 63% to 86%) and 93% (CI, 84% to 97%), respectively, for the semiquantitative test. Sensitivity and specificity estimates for the quantitative test were 96% (CI, 78% to 99%) and 98% (CI, 93% to 99%), respectively. The negative likelihood ratios for the semiquantitative and quantitative tests were 0.26 (CI, 0.16 to 0.40) and 0.04 (CI, 0.01 to 0.25), respectively. LIMITATION: Accuracy estimates were based on data from single-sample urine measurement, but guidelines require that diagnosis of albuminuria be based on at least 2 of 3 samples collected in a 6-month period. CONCLUSION: A negative semiquantitative POC test result does not rule out albuminuria, whereas quantitative POC testing meets required performance standards and can be used to rule out albuminuria. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

CONTEXT: Theory and simulation suggest that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) stopped early for benefit (truncated RCTs) systematically overestimate treatment effects for the outcome that precipitated early stopping. OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment effect from truncated RCTs with that from meta-analyses of RCTs addressing the same question but not stopped early (nontruncated RCTs) and to explore factors associated with overestimates of effect. DATA SOURCES: Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, and full-text journal content databases to identify truncated RCTs up to January 2007; search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects to identify systematic reviews from which individual RCTs were extracted up to January 2008. STUDY SELECTION: Selected studies were RCTs reported as having stopped early for benefit and matching nontruncated RCTs from systematic reviews. Independent reviewers with medical content expertise, working blinded to trial results, judged the eligibility of the nontruncated RCTs based on their similarity to the truncated RCTs. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers with methodological expertise conducted data extraction independently. RESULTS: The analysis included 91 truncated RCTs asking 63 different questions and 424 matching nontruncated RCTs. The pooled ratio of relative risks in truncated RCTs vs matching nontruncated RCTs was 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.77). This difference was independent of the presence of a statistical stopping rule and the methodological quality of the studies as assessed by allocation concealment and blinding. Large differences in treatment effect size between truncated and nontruncated RCTs (ratio of relative risks <0.75) occurred with truncated RCTs having fewer than 500 events. In 39 of the 63 questions (62%), the pooled effects of the nontruncated RCTs failed to demonstrate significant benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Truncated RCTs were associated with greater effect sizes than RCTs not stopped early. This difference was independent of the presence of statistical stopping rules and was greatest in smaller studies.

Stopping randomized trials early for benefit: a protocol of the Study Of Trial Policy Of Interim Truncation-2 (STOPIT-2).

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) stopped early for benefit often receive great attention and affect clinical practice, but pose interpretational challenges for clinicians, researchers, and policy makers. Because the decision to stop the trial may arise from catching the treatment effect at a random high, truncated RCTs (tRCTs) may overestimate the true treatment effect. The Study Of Trial Policy Of Interim Truncation (STOPIT-1), which systematically reviewed the epidemiology and reporting quality of tRCTs, found that such trials are becoming more common, but that reporting of stopping rules and decisions were often deficient. Most importantly, treatment effects were often implausibly large and inversely related to the number of the events accrued. The aim of STOPIT-2 is to determine the magnitude and determinants of possible bias introduced by stopping RCTs early for benefit. METHODS/DESIGN: We will use sensitive strategies to search for systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question as each of the tRCTs identified in STOPIT-1 and in a subsequent literature search. We will check all RCTs included in each systematic review to determine their similarity to the index tRCT in terms of participants, interventions, and outcome definition, and conduct new meta-analyses addressing the outcome that led to early termination of the tRCT. For each pair of tRCT and systematic review of corresponding non-tRCTs we will estimate the ratio of relative risks, and hence estimate the degree of bias. We will use hierarchical multivariable regression to determine the factors associated with the magnitude of this ratio. Factors explored will include the presence and quality of a stopping rule, the methodological quality of the trials, and the number of total events that had occurred at the time of truncation.Finally, we will evaluate whether Bayesian methods using conservative informative priors to "regress to the mean" overoptimistic tRCTs can correct observed biases. DISCUSSION: A better understanding of the extent to which tRCTs exaggerate treatment effects and of the factors associated with the magnitude of this bias can optimize trial design and data monitoring charters, and may aid in the interpretation of the results from trials stopped early for benefit.

Pregnancy rates after conservative treatment for borderline ovarian tumours: a systematic review.

Borderline ovarian tumours account for 10-15% of all ovarian cancers, and there have been numerous studies indicating their excellent long-term prognosis. As this disease commonly affects younger women, the issue of fertility-preserving surgery is increasingly important. A systematic review of the literature, searching the relevant electronic databases was performed analysing conservative surgery, borderline ovarian tumours and pregnancy rates/fertility outcome. Overall, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. From these studies, 2479 patients had borderline ovarian tumours of which 923 (37%) patients were treated by conservative surgery. Nine studies recorded data regarding pregnancy outcome. A pregnancy rate of 48% was calculated on these data, where recorded, analysing the number of women wanting to conceive and the actual number of pregnancies achieved. The recurrence rate after conservative treatment was 16% with only five recorded disease-related deaths. Knowledge of the pregnancy rates is important to permit appropriate counselling of women diagnosed with this malignancy.