Body mass index and survival in people with heart failure.

AIMS: In people with heart failure (HF), a high body mass index (BMI) has been linked with better outcomes ('obesity paradox'), but there is limited evidence in community populations across long-term follow-up. We aimed to examine the association between BMI and long-term survival in patients with HF in a large primary care cohort. METHODS: We included patients with incident HF aged ≥45 years from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2000-2017). We used Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox regression and penalised spline methods to assess the association of pre-diagnostic BMI, based on WHO classification, with all-cause mortality. RESULTS: There were 47 531 participants with HF (median age 78.0 years (IQR 70-84), 45.8% female, 79.0% white ethnicity, median BMI 27.1 (IQR 23.9-31.0)) and 25 013 (52.6%) died during follow-up. Compared with healthy weight, people with overweight (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.81, risk difference (RD) -4.1%), obesity class I (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.80, RD -4.5%) and class II (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.81, RD -4.5%) were at decreased risk of death, whereas people with underweight were at increased risk (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.75, RD 11.2%). In those underweight, this risk was greater among men than women (p value for interaction=0.02). Class III obesity was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with overweight (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.29). CONCLUSION: The U-shaped relationship between BMI and long-term all-cause mortality suggests a personalised approach to identifying optimal weight may be needed for patients with HF in primary care. Underweight people have the poorest prognosis and should be recognised as high-risk.

Diagnostic accuracy of natriuretic peptide screening for left ventricular systolic dysfunction in the community: systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is a global health burden and new strategies to achieve timely diagnosis and early intervention are urgently needed. Natriuretic peptide (NP) testing can be used to screen for left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), but evidence on test performance is mixed, and international HF guidelines differ in their recommendations. Our aim was to summarize the evidence on diagnostic accuracy of NP screening for LVSD in general and high-risk community populations and estimate optimal screening thresholds. METHODS: We searched relevant databases up to August 2020 for studies with a screened community population of over 100 adults reporting NP performance to diagnose LVSD. Study inclusion, quality assessment, and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Diagnostic test meta-analysis used hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves to obtain estimates of pooled accuracy to detect LVSD, with optimal thresholds obtained to maximize the sum of sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were identified, involving 26 565 participants: eight studies in high-risk populations (at least one cardiovascular risk factor), 12 studies in general populations, and four in both high-risk and general populations combined. For detecting LVSD in screened high-risk populations with N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), the pooled sensitivity was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.94] and specificity 0.84 (95% CI 0.55-0.96); for BNP, sensitivity was 0.75 (95% CI 0.65-0.83) and specificity 0.78 (95% CI 0.72-0.84). Heterogeneity between studies was high with variations in positivity threshold. Due to a paucity of high-risk studies that assessed NP performance at multiple thresholds, it was not possible to calculate optimal thresholds for LVSD screening in high-risk populations alone. To provide an indication of where the positivity threshold might lie, the pooled accuracy for LVSD screening in high-risk and general community populations were combined and gave an optimal cut-off of 311 pg/mL [sensitivity 0.74 (95% CI 0.53-0.88), specificity 0.85 (95% CI 0.68-0.93)] for NT-proBNP and 49 pg/mL [sensitivity 0.68 (95% CI 0.45-0.85), specificity 0.81 (0.67-0.90)] for BNP. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that in high-risk community populations NP screening may accurately detect LVSD, potentially providing an important opportunity for diagnosis and early intervention. Our study highlights an urgent need for further prospective studies, as well as an individual participant data meta-analysis, to more precisely evaluate diagnostic accuracy and identify optimal screening thresholds in specifically defined community-based populations to inform future guideline recommendations.

Natriuretic peptide testing and heart failure diagnosis in primary care: diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Natriuretic peptide (NP) testing is recommended for patients presenting to primary care with symptoms of chronic heart failure (HF) to prioritise referral for diagnosis. AIM: To report NP test performance at European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline referral thresholds. DESIGN AND SETTING: Diagnostic accuracy study using linked primary and secondary care data (2004 to 2018). METHOD: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of NP testing for HF diagnosis was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 229 580 patients had an NP test and 21 102 (9.2%) were diagnosed with HF within 6 months. The ESC NT-proBNP threshold ≥125 pg/mL had a sensitivity of 94.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 94.2 to 95.0) and specificity of 50.0% (95% CI = 49.7 to 50.3), compared with sensitivity of 81.7% (95% CI = 81.0 to 82.3) and specificity of 80.3% (95% CI = 80.0 to 80.5) for the NICE NT-proBNP ≥400 pg/mL threshold. PPVs for an NT-proBNP test were 16.4% (95% CI = 16.1 to 16.6) and 30.0% (95% CI = 29.6 to 30.5) for ESC and NICE thresholds, respectively. For both guidelines, nearly all patients with an NT-proBNP level below the threshold did not have HF (NPV: ESC 98.9%, 95% CI = 98.8 to 99.0 and NICE 97.7%, 95% CI = 97.6 to 97.8). CONCLUSION: At the higher NICE chronic HF guideline NP thresholds, one in five cases are initially missed in primary care but the lower ESC thresholds require more diagnostic assessments. NP is a reliable 'rule-out' test at both cut-points. The optimal NP threshold will depend on the priorities and capacity of the healthcare system.

Natriuretic peptide level at heart failure diagnosis and risk of hospitalisation and death in England 2004-2018.

OBJECTIVE: Heart failure (HF) is a malignant condition requiring urgent treatment. Guidelines recommend natriuretic peptide (NP) testing in primary care to prioritise referral for specialist diagnostic assessment. We aimed to assess association of baseline NP with hospitalisation and mortality in people with newly diagnosed HF. METHODS: Population-based cohort study of 40 007 patients in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England with a new HF diagnosis (48% men, mean age 78.5 years). We used linked primary and secondary care data between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2018 to report one-year hospitalisation and 1-year, 5-year and 10-year mortality by NP level. RESULTS: 22 085 (55%) participants were hospitalised in the year following diagnosis. Adjusted odds of HF-related hospitalisation in those with a high NP (NT-proBNP >2000 pg/mL) were twofold greater (OR 2.26 95% CI 1.98 to 2.59) than a moderate NP (NT-proBNP 400-2000 pg/mL). All-cause mortality rates in the high NP group were 27%, 62% and 82% at 1, 5 and 10 years, compared with 19%, 50% and 77%, respectively, in the moderate NP group and, in a competing risks model, risk of HF-related death was 50% higher at each timepoint. Median time between NP test and HF diagnosis was 101 days (IQR 19-581). CONCLUSIONS: High baseline NP is associated with increased HF-related hospitalisation and poor survival. While healthcare systems remain under pressure from the impact of COVID-19, research to test novel strategies to prevent hospitalisation and improve outcomes-such as a mandatory two-week HF diagnosis pathway-is urgently needed.

Long term trends in natriuretic peptide testing for heart failure in UK primary care: a cohort study.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is a malignant condition with poor outcomes and is often diagnosed on emergency hospital admission. Natriuretic peptide (NP) testing in primary care is recommended in international guidelines to facilitate timely diagnosis. We aimed to report contemporary trends in NP testing and subsequent HF diagnosis rates over time. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cohort study using linked primary and secondary care data of adult (≥45 years) patients in England 2004-18 (n = 7 212 013, 48% male) to report trends in NP testing (over time, by age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status) and HF diagnosis rates. NP test rates increased from 0.25 per 1000 person-years [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-0.26] in 2004 to 16.88 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 16.73-17.03) in 2018, with a significant upward trend in 2010 following publication of national HF guidance. Women and different ethnic groups had similar test rates, and there was more NP testing in older and more socially deprived groups as expected. The HF detection rate was constant over the study period (around 10%) and the proportion of patients without NP testing prior to diagnosis remained high [99.6% (n = 13 484) in 2004 vs. 76.7% (n = 12 978) in 2017]. CONCLUSION: NP testing in primary care has increased over time, with no evidence of significant inequalities, but most patients with HF still do not have an NP test recorded prior to diagnosis. More NP testing in primary care may be needed to prevent hospitalization and facilitate HF diagnosis at an earlier, more treatable stage.

Email Consultations Between Patients and Doctors in Primary Care: Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, consultations in health care settings are conducted remotely using a range of communication technologies. Email allows for 2-way text-based communication, occurring asynchronously. Studies have explored the content and nature of email consultations to understand the use, structure, and function of email consultations. Most previous content analyses of email consultations in primary care settings have been conducted in North America, and these have shown that concerns and assumptions about how email consultations work have not been realized. There has not been a UK-based content analysis of email consultations. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore and delineate the content of consultations conducted via email in English general practice by conducting a content analysis of email consultations between general practitioners (GPs) and patients. METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of anonymized email consultations between GPs and patients in 2 general practices in the United Kingdom. We examined the descriptive elements of the correspondence to ascertain when the emails were sent, the number of emails in an email consultation, and the nature of the content. We used a normative approach to analyze the content of the email consultations to explore the use and function of email consultation. RESULTS: We obtained 100 email consultations from 85 patients, which totaled 262 individual emails. Most email users were older than 40 years, and over half of the users were male. The email consultations were mostly short and completed in a few days. Emails were mostly sent and received during the day. The emails were mostly clinical in content rather than administrative and covered a wide range of clinical presentations. There were 3 key themes to the use and function of the email consultations: the role of the GP and email consultation, the transactional nature of an email consultation, and the operationalization of an email consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Most cases where emails are used to have a consultation with a patient in general practice have a shorter consultation, are clinical in nature, and are resolved quickly. GPs approach email consultations using key elements similar to that of the face-to-face consultation; however, using email consultations has the potential to alter the role of the GP, leading them to engage in more administrative tasks than usual. Email consultations were not a replacement for face-to-face consultations.

In-vitro diagnostic point-of-care tests in paediatric ambulatory care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Paediatric consultations form a significant proportion of all consultations in ambulatory care. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) may offer a potential solution to improve clinical outcomes for children by reducing diagnostic uncertainty in acute illness, and streamlining management of chronic diseases. However, their clinical impact in paediatric ambulatory care is unknown. We aimed to describe the clinical impact of all in-vitro diagnostic POCTs on patient outcomes and healthcare processes in paediatric ambulatory care. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science from inception to 29 January 2020 without language restrictions. We included studies of children presenting to ambulatory care settings (general practice, hospital outpatient clinics, or emergency departments, walk-in centres, registered drug shops delivering healthcare) where in-vitro diagnostic POCTs were compared to usual care. We included all quantitative clinical outcome data across all conditions or infection syndromes reporting on the impact of POCTs on clinical care and healthcare processes. Where feasible, we calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) by performing meta-analysis using random effects models. RESULTS: We included 35 studies. Data relating to at least one outcome were available for 89,439 children of whom 45,283 had a POCT across six conditions or infection syndromes: malaria (n = 14); non-specific acute fever 'illness' (n = 7); sore throat (n = 5); acute respiratory tract infections (n = 5); HIV (n = 3); and diabetes (n = 1). Outcomes centred around decision-making such as prescription of medications or hospital referral. Pooled estimates showed that malarial-POCTs (Plasmodium falciparum) better targeted antimalarial treatment by reducing over-treatment by a third compared to usual care (RR 0.67; 95% CI [0.58 to 0.77], n = 36,949). HIV-POCTs improved initiating earlier antiretroviral therapy compared to usual care (RR, 3.11; 95% CI [1.55 to 6.25], n = 912). Across the other four conditions, there was limited evidence for the benefit of POCTs in paediatric ambulatory care except for acute respiratory tract infections (RTI) in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where POCT C-Reactive Protein (CRP) may reduce immediate antibiotic prescribing by a third (risk difference, -0.29 [-0.47, -0.11], n = 2,747). This difference was shown in randomised controlled trials in LMICs which included guidance on interpretation of POCT-CRP, specific training or employed a diagnostic algorithm prior to POC testing. CONCLUSION: Overall, there is a paucity of evidence for the use of POCTs in paediatric ambulatory care. POCTs help to target prescribing for children with malaria and HIV. There is emerging evidence that POCT-CRP may better target antibiotic prescribing for children with acute RTIs in LMIC, but not in high-income countries. Research is urgently needed to understand where POCTs are likely to improve clinical outcomes in paediatric settings worldwide.

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.

Missed opportunities for diagnosis: lessons learned from diagnostic errors in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Because of the difficulties inherent in diagnosis in primary care, it is inevitable that diagnostic errors will occur. However, despite the important consequences associated with diagnostic errors and their estimated high prevalence, teaching and research on diagnostic error is a neglected area. AIM: To ascertain the key learning points from GPs' experiences of diagnostic errors and approaches to clinical decision making associated with these. DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of 36 qualitative interviews with GPs in Oxfordshire, UK. METHOD: Two datasets of semi-structured interviews were combined. Questions focused on GPs' experiences of diagnosis and diagnostic errors (or near misses) in routine primary care and out of hours. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Learning points include GPs' reliance on 'pattern recognition' and the failure of this strategy to identify atypical presentations; the importance of considering all potentially serious conditions using a 'restricted rule out' approach; and identifying and acting on a sense of unease. Strategies to help manage uncertainty in primary care were also discussed. CONCLUSION: Learning from previous examples of diagnostic errors is essential if these events are to be reduced in the future and this should be incorporated into GP training. At a practice level, learning points from experiences of diagnostic errors should be discussed more frequently; and more should be done to integrate these lessons nationally to understand and characterise diagnostic errors.