Symptoms before and after COVID-19: a population and case-control study using prospective data.

BACKGROUND: Some individuals experience prolonged illness after acute COVID-19. We assessed whether pre-infection symptoms affected post-COVID illness duration. METHODS: Survival analysis was performed in adults (n=23 452) with community-managed SARC-CoV-2 infection prospectively self-logging data through the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app, at least weekly, from 8 weeks before to 12 weeks after COVID-19 onset, conditioned on presence versus absence of baseline symptoms (4-8 weeks before COVID-19). A case-control study was performed in 1350 individuals with long illness (≥8 weeks, 906 [67.1%] with illness ≥12 weeks), matched 1:1 (for age, sex, body mass index, testing week, prior infection, vaccination, smoking, index of multiple deprivation) with 1350 individuals with short illness (<4 weeks). Baseline symptoms were compared between the two groups; and against post-COVID symptoms. RESULTS: Individuals reporting baseline symptoms had longer post-COVID symptom duration (from 10 to 15 days) with baseline fatigue nearly doubling duration. Two-thirds (910 of 1350 [67.4%]) of individuals with long illness were asymptomatic beforehand. However, 440 (32.6%) had baseline symptoms, versus 255 (18.9%) of 1350 individuals with short illness (p<0.0001). Baseline symptoms increased the odds ratio for long illness (2.14 [CI: 1.78; 2.57]). Prior comorbidities were more common in individuals with long versus short illness. In individuals with long illness, baseline symptomatic (versus asymptomatic) individuals were more likely to be female, younger, and have prior comorbidities; and baseline and post-acute symptoms and symptom burden correlated strongly. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals experiencing symptoms before COVID-19 have longer illness duration and increased odds of long illness. However, many individuals with long illness are well before SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Courage in Decision Making: A Mixed-Methods Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in Women of Reproductive Age in the U.K.

COVID-19 vaccination rates are lower in women of reproductive age (WRA), including pregnant/postpartum women, despite their poorer COVID-19-related outcomes. We evaluated the vaccination experiences of 3568 U.K. WRA, including 1983 women (55.6%) experiencing a pandemic pregnancy, recruited through the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app. Two staggered online questionnaires (Oct-Dec 2021: 3453 responders; Aug-Sept 2022: 2129 responders) assessed reproductive status, COVID-19 status, vaccination, and attitudes for/against vaccination. Descriptive analyses included vaccination type(s), timing relative to age-based eligibility and reproductive status, vaccination delay (first vaccination >28 days from eligibility), and rationale, with content analysis of free-text comments. Most responders (3392/3453, 98.2%) were vaccinated by Dec 2021, motivated by altruism, vaccination supportiveness in general, low risk, and COVID-19 concerns. Few declined vaccination (by Sept/2022: 20/2129, 1.0%), citing risks (pregnancy-specific and longer-term), pre-existing immunity, and personal/philosophical reasons. Few women delayed vaccination, although pregnant/postpartum women (vs. other WRA) received vaccination later (median 3 vs. 0 days after eligibility, p < 0.0001). Despite high uptake, concerns included adverse effects, misinformation (including from healthcare providers), ever-changing government advice, and complex decision making. In summary, most women in this large WRA cohort were promptly vaccinated, including pregnant/post-partum women. Altruism and community benefit superseded personal benefit as reasons for vaccination. Nevertheless, responders experienced angst and received vaccine-related misinformation and discouragement. These findings should inform vaccination strategies in WRA.

Smoking Cessation Support in the Context of Other Social and Behavioral Needs in Community Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking rates remain disproportionately high among low income populations with unmet social and behavioral health needs. To address this problem, we sought to develop and evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel smoking cessation program for community health centers that serve these populations. METHODS: We implemented a randomized pilot trial of two smoking cessation programs in three county operated community health center (CHC) sites: (1) a systematic assessment of smoking habits and standard tools to assist with smoking cessation counseling ("Enhanced Standard Program" or ESP), and (2) another that added a structured assessment of social and behavioral barriers to smoking cessation, ("Connection to Health for Smokers" or CTHS). Clinical outcomes were evaluated between 10 to 16 weeks, supplemented with interviews of patient participants and health care team members. RESULTS: 141 adults were randomized and 123 completed the intervention (61 in ESP, 62 in CTHS). At follow-up, over half of participants reported ≥1 quit attempts (59.7% ESP and 56.5% CTHS; adjusted p = .66) while more in ESP (24.6% vs. 12.9%) were documented as not smoking in the last 7 days (adjusted p = 0.03). In addition to being in ESP, predictors of smoking cessation included higher baseline confidence in ability to quit (p = 0.02) and more quit attempts during the study (p = 0.04). Health care teams, however, generally preferred the more comprehensive approach of CTHS. CONCLUSION: Lessons learned from this pilot study may inform the development of effective smoking cessation programs for CHCs that combine elements of both interventions.

The effects of COVID-19 on cognitive performance in a community-based cohort: a COVID symptom study biobank prospective cohort study.

Background: Cognitive impairment has been reported after many types of infection, including SARS-CoV-2. Whether deficits following SARS-CoV-2 improve over time is unclear. Studies to date have focused on hospitalised individuals with up to a year follow-up. The presence, magnitude, persistence and correlations of effects in community-based cases remain relatively unexplored. Methods: Cognitive performance (working memory, attention, reasoning, motor control) was assessed in a prospective cohort study of participants from the United Kingdom COVID Symptom Study Biobank between July 12, 2021 and August 27, 2021 (Round 1), and between April 28, 2022 and June 21, 2022 (Round 2). Participants, recruited from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone app, comprised individuals with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection and varying symptom duration. Effects of COVID-19 exposures on cognitive accuracy and reaction time scores were estimated using multivariable ordinary least squares linear regression models weighted for inverse probability of participation, adjusting for potential confounders and mediators. The role of ongoing symptoms after COVID-19 infection was examined stratifying for self-perceived recovery. Longitudinal analysis assessed change in cognitive performance between rounds. Findings: 3335 individuals completed Round 1, of whom 1768 also completed Round 2. At Round 1, individuals with previous positive SARS-CoV-2 tests had lower cognitive accuracy (N = 1737, ß = -0.14 standard deviations, SDs, 95% confidence intervals, CI: -0.21, -0.07) than negative controls. Deficits were largest for positive individuals with ≥12 weeks of symptoms (N = 495, ß = -0.22 SDs, 95% CI: -0.35, -0.09). Effects were comparable to hospital presentation during illness (N = 281, ß = -0.31 SDs, 95% CI: -0.44, -0.18), and 10 years age difference (60-70 years vs. 50-60 years, ß = -0.21 SDs, 95% CI: -0.30, -0.13) in the whole study population. Stratification by self-reported recovery revealed that deficits were only detectable in SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals who did not feel recovered from COVID-19, whereas individuals who reported full recovery showed no deficits. Longitudinal analysis showed no evidence of cognitive change over time, suggesting that cognitive deficits for affected individuals persisted at almost 2 years since initial infection. Interpretation: Cognitive deficits following SARS-CoV-2 infection were detectable nearly two years post infection, and largest for individuals with longer symptom durations, ongoing symptoms, and/or more severe infection. However, no such deficits were detected in individuals who reported full recovery from COVID-19. Further work is needed to monitor and develop understanding of recovery mechanisms for those with ongoing symptoms. Funding: Chronic Disease Research Foundation, Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Alzheimer's Society, European Union, COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund, French National Research Agency.

Prevalence and clinical characteristics of non-malignant CT detected incidental findings in the SUMMIT lung cancer screening cohort.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary and extrapulmonary incidental findings are frequently identified on CT scans performed for lung cancer screening. Uncertainty regarding their clinical significance and how and when such findings should be reported back to clinicians and participants persists. We examined the prevalence of non-malignant incidental findings within a lung cancer screening cohort and investigated the morbidity and relevant risk factors associated with incidental findings. We quantified the primary and secondary care referrals generated by our protocol. METHODS: The SUMMIT study (NCT03934866) is a prospective observational cohort study to examine the performance of delivering a low-dose CT (LDCT) screening service to a high-risk population. Spirometry, blood pressure, height/weight and respiratory history were assessed as part of a Lung Health Check. Individuals at high risk of lung cancer were offered an LDCT and returned for two further annual visits. This analysis is a prospective evaluation of the standardised reporting and management protocol for incidental findings developed for the study on the baseline LDCT. RESULTS: In 11 115 participants included in this analysis, the most common incidental findings were coronary artery calcification (64.2%) and emphysema (33.4%). From our protocolised management approach, the number of participants requiring review for clinically relevant findings in primary care was 1 in 20, and the number potentially requiring review in secondary care was 1 in 25. CONCLUSIONS: Incidental findings are common in lung cancer screening and can be associated with reported symptoms and comorbidities. A standardised reporting protocol allows systematic assessment and standardises onward management.

Metabolomic and gut microbiome profiles across the spectrum of community-based COVID and non-COVID disease.

Whilst most individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection have relatively mild disease, managed in the community, it was noted early in the pandemic that individuals with cardiovascular risk factors were more likely to experience severe acute disease, requiring hospitalisation. As the pandemic has progressed, increasing concern has also developed over long symptom duration in many individuals after SARS-CoV-2 infection, including among the majority who are managed acutely in the community. Risk factors for long symptom duration, including biological variables, are still poorly defined. Here, we examine post-illness metabolomic profiles, using nuclear magnetic resonance (Nightingale Health Oyj), and gut-microbiome profiles, using shotgun metagenomic sequencing (Illumina Inc), in 2561 community-dwelling participants with SARS-CoV-2. Illness duration ranged from asymptomatic (n = 307) to Post-COVID Syndrome (n = 180), and included participants with prolonged non-COVID-19 illnesses (n = 287). We also assess a pre-established metabolomic biomarker score, previously associated with hospitalisation for both acute pneumonia and severe acute COVID-19 illness, for its association with illness duration. We found an atherogenic-dyslipidaemic metabolic profile, including biomarkers such as fatty acids and cholesterol, was associated with longer duration of illness, both in individuals with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection. Greater values of a pre-existing metabolomic biomarker score also associated with longer duration of illness, regardless of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We found no association between illness duration and gut microbiome profiles in convalescence. This highlights the potential role of cardiometabolic dysfunction in relation to the experience of long duration symptoms after symptoms of acute infection, both COVID-19 as well as other illnesses.

Profiling post-COVID-19 condition across different variants of SARS-CoV-2: a prospective longitudinal study in unvaccinated wild-type, unvaccinated alpha-variant, and vaccinated delta-variant populations.

BACKGROUND: Self-reported symptom studies rapidly increased understanding of SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic and enabled monitoring of long-term effects of COVID-19 outside hospital settings. Post-COVID-19 condition presents as heterogeneous profiles, which need characterisation to enable personalised patient care. We aimed to describe post-COVID-19 condition profiles by viral variant and vaccination status. METHODS: In this prospective longitudinal cohort study, we analysed data from UK-based adults (aged 18-100 years) who regularly provided health reports via the Covid Symptom Study smartphone app between March 24, 2020, and Dec 8, 2021. We included participants who reported feeling physically normal for at least 30 days before testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 who subsequently developed long COVID (ie, symptoms lasting longer than 28 days from the date of the initial positive test). We separately defined post-COVID-19 condition as symptoms that persisted for at least 84 days after the initial positive test. We did unsupervised clustering analysis of time-series data to identify distinct symptom profiles for vaccinated and unvaccinated people with post-COVID-19 condition after infection with the wild-type, alpha (B.1.1.7), or delta (B.1.617.2 and AY.x) variants of SARS-CoV-2. Clusters were then characterised on the basis of symptom prevalence, duration, demography, and previous comorbidities. We also used an additional testing sample with additional data from the Covid Symptom Study Biobank (collected between October, 2020, and April, 2021) to investigate the effects of the identified symptom clusters of post-COVID-19 condition on the lives of affected people. FINDINGS: We included 9804 people from the COVID Symptom Study with long COVID, 1513 (15%) of whom developed post-COVID-19 condition. Sample sizes were sufficient only for analyses of the unvaccinated wild-type, unvaccinated alpha variant, and vaccinated delta variant groups. We identified distinct profiles of symptoms for post-COVID-19 condition within and across variants: four endotypes were identified for infections due to the wild-type variant (in unvaccinated people), seven for the alpha variant (in unvaccinated people), and five for the delta variant (in vaccinated people). Across all variants, we identified a cardiorespiratory cluster of symptoms, a central neurological cluster, and a multi-organ systemic inflammatory cluster. These three main clusers were confirmed in a testing sample. Gastrointestinal symptoms clustered in no more than two specific phenotypes per viral variant. INTERPRETATION: Our unsupervised analysis identified different profiles of post-COVID-19 condition, characterised by differing symptom combinations, durations, and functional outcomes. Our classification could be useful for understanding the distinct mechanisms of post-COVID-19 condition, as well as for identification of subgroups of individuals who might be at risk of prolonged debilitation. FUNDING: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, The Wellcome Trust, UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging & Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value-Based Healthcare, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, UK Alzheimer's Society, and ZOE.

National surveillance data analysis of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in England by women of reproductive age.

Women of reproductive age are a group of particular concern with regards to vaccine uptake, related to their unique considerations of menstruation, fertility, and pregnancy. To obtain vaccine uptake data specific to this group, we obtained vaccine surveillance data from the Office for National Statistics, linked with COVID-19 vaccination status from the National Immunisation Management Service, England, from 8 Dec 2020 to 15 Feb 2021; data from 13,128,525 such women at population-level, were clustered by age (18-29, 30-39, and 40-49 years), self-defined ethnicity (19 UK government categories), and index of multiple deprivation (IMD, geographically-defined IMD quintiles). Here we show that among women of reproductive age, older age, White ethnicity and being in the least-deprived index of multiple deprivation are each independently associated with higher vaccine uptake, for first and second doses; however, ethnicity exerts the strongest influence (and IMD the weakest). These findings should inform future vaccination public messaging and policy.

The SUMMIT Study: Utilising a written 'Next Steps' information booklet to prepare participants for potential lung cancer screening results and follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer can result in several potential outcomes of varying significance. Communication methods used in Lung Cancer Screening (LCS) programmes must, therefore, ensure that participants are prepared for the range of possible results and follow-up. Here, we assess perceptions of a written preparatory information booklet provided to participants in a large LCS cohort designed to convey this information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All participants in the SUMMIT Study (NCT03934866) were provided with a results preparation information booklet, entitled 'The SUMMIT Study: Next Steps' at their baseline appointment which outlined potential results, their significance, and timelines for follow up. Results from the LDCT scan and Lung Health Check were subsequently sent by letter. Perceptions of this booklet were assessed among participants with indeterminate pulmonary findings when they attended a face-to-face appointment immediately before their three-month interval scan. Specifically, questions assessed the perceived usefulness of the booklet and the amount of information contained in it. RESULTS: 70.1% (n = 1,412/2,014) participants remembered receiving the booklet at their appointment. Of these participants, 72.0% (n = 1,017/1,412) found it quite or very useful and 68.0% (n = 960/1,412) reported that it contained the right amount of information. Older participants, those from the least deprived socioeconomic quintile and those of Black ethnicity were less likely to report finding the booklet either quite or very useful, or that it contained the right amount of information. Participants who remembered receiving the booklet were more likely to be satisfied with the process of results communication by letter. CONCLUSION: Providing written information that prepares participants for possible LDCT results and their significance appears to be a useful resource and a helpful adjunct to a written method of results communication for large scale LCS programmes.

Voluntary risk mitigation behaviour can reduce impact of SARS-CoV-2: a real-time modelling study of the January 2022 Omicron wave in England.

BACKGROUND: Predicting the likely size of future SARS-CoV-2 waves is necessary for public health planning. In England, voluntary "plan B" mitigation measures were introduced in December 2021 including increased home working and face coverings in shops but stopped short of restrictions on social contacts. The impact of voluntary risk mitigation behaviours on future SARS-CoV-2 burden is unknown. METHODS: We developed a rapid online survey of risk mitigation behaviours ahead of the winter 2021 festive period and deployed in two longitudinal cohort studies in the UK (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) and TwinsUK/COVID Symptom Study (CSS) Biobank) in December 2021. Using an individual-based, probabilistic model of COVID-19 transmission between social contacts with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant parameters and realistic vaccine coverage in England, we predicted the potential impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron wave in England in terms of the effective reproduction number and cumulative infections, hospital admissions and deaths. Using survey results, we estimated in real-time the impact of voluntary risk mitigation behaviours on the Omicron wave in England, if implemented for the entire epidemic wave. RESULTS: Over 95% of survey respondents (NALSPAC = 2686 and NTwins = 6155) reported some risk mitigation behaviours, with vaccination and using home testing kits reported most frequently. Less than half of those respondents reported that their behaviour was due to "plan B". We estimate that without risk mitigation behaviours, the Omicron variant is consistent with an effective reproduction number between 2.5 and 3.5. Due to the reduced vaccine effectiveness against infection with the Omicron variant, our modelled estimates suggest that between 55% and 60% of the English population could be infected during the current wave, translating into between 12,000 and 46,000 cumulative deaths, depending on assumptions about severity and vaccine effectiveness. The actual number of deaths was 15,208 (26 November 2021-1 March 2022). We estimate that voluntary risk reduction measures could reduce the effective reproduction number to between 1.8 and 2.2 and reduce the cumulative number of deaths by up to 24%. CONCLUSIONS: Predicting future infection burden is affected by uncertainty in disease severity and vaccine effectiveness estimates. In addition to biological uncertainty, we show that voluntary measures substantially reduce the projected impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant but that voluntary measures alone would be unlikely to completely control transmission.

Uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population at risk of lung cancer in the UK (SUMMIT): a prospective, longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality, but screening requires equitable uptake from candidates at high risk of lung cancer across ethnic and socioeconomic groups that are under-represented in clinical studies. We aimed to assess the uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort at high risk of lung cancer. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study (SUMMIT), individuals aged 55-77 years with a history of smoking in the past 20 years were identified via National Health Service England primary care records at practices in northeast and north-central London, UK, using electronic searches. Eligible individuals were invited by letter to a lung health check offering lung cancer screening at one of four hospital sites, with non-responders re-invited after 4 months. Individuals were excluded if they had dementia or metastatic cancer, were receiving palliative care or were housebound, or declined research participation. The proportion of individuals invited who responded to the lung health check invitation by telephone was used to measure uptake. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate associations between uptake of a lung health check invitation and re-invitation of non-responders, adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, smoking, and deprivation score. This study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03934866. FINDINGS: Between March 20 and Dec 12, 2019, the records of 2 333 488 individuals from 251 primary care practices across northeast and north-central London were screened for eligibility; 1 974 919 (84·6%) individuals were outside the eligible age range, 7578 (2·1%) had pre-existing medical conditions, and 11 962 (3·3%) had opted out of particpation in research and thus were not invited. 95 297 individuals were eligible for invitation, of whom 29 545 (31·0%) responded. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, re-invitation letters were sent to only a subsample of 4594 non-responders, of whom 642 (14·0%) responded. Overall, uptake was lower among men than among women (odds ratio [OR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·88-0·94]; p<0·0001), and higher among older age groups (1·48 [1·42-1·54] among those aged 65-69 years vs those aged 55-59 years; p<0·0001), groups with less deprivation (1·89 [1·76-2·04] for the most vs the least deprived areas; p<0·0001), individuals of Asian ethnicity (1·14 [1·09-1·20] vs White ethnicity; p<0·0001), and individuals who were former smokers (1·89 [1·83-1·95] vs current smokers; p<0·0001). When ethnicity was subdivided into 16 groups, uptake was lower among individuals of other White ethnicity than among those with White British ethnicity (0·86 [0·83-0·90]), whereas uptake was higher among Chinese, Indian, and other Asian ethnicities than among those with White British ethnicity (1·33 [1·13-1·56] for Chinese ethnicity; 1·29 [1·19-1·40] for Indian ethnicity; and 1·19 [1·08-1·31] for other Asian ethnicity). INTERPRETATION: Inviting eligible adults for lung health checks in areas of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity should achieve favourable participation in lung cancer screening overall, but inequalities by smoking, deprivation, and ethnicity persist. Reminder and re-invitation strategies should be used to increase uptake and the equity of response. FUNDING: GRAIL.

Utilisation of primary care electronic patient records for identification and targeted invitation of individuals to a lung cancer screening programme.

Lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility is largely determined by tobacco consumption. Primary care smoking data could guide LCS invitation and eligibility assessment. We present observational data from the SUMMIT Study, where individual self-reported smoking status was concordant with primary care records in 75.3%. However, 10.3% demonstrated inconsistencies between historic and most recent smoking status documentation. Quantified tobacco consumption was frequently missing, precluding direct LCS eligibility assessment. Primary care recorded "ever-smoker" status, encompassing both recent and historic documentation, can be used to target LCS invitation. Identifying those with missing or erroneous "never-smoker" smoking status is crucial for equitable invitation to LCS.

Telephone risk-based eligibility assessment for low-dose CT lung cancer screening.

Eligibility for lung cancer screening (LCS) requires assessment of lung cancer risk, based on smoking history alongside demographic and medical factors. Reliance on individual face-to-face eligibility assessment risks inefficiency and costliness. The SUMMIT Study introduced a telephone-based lung cancer risk assessment to guide invitation to face-to-face LCS eligibility assessment, which significantly increased the proportion of face-to-face attendees eligible for LCS. However, levels of agreement between phone screener and in-person responses were lower in younger individuals and minority ethnic groups. Telephone-based risk assessment is an efficient way to optimise selection for LCS appointments but requires further iteration to ensure an equitable approach.

Detection of COPD in the SUMMIT Study lung cancer screening cohort using symptoms and spirometry.

BACKGROUND: COPD is a major comorbidity in lung cancer screening (LCS) cohorts, with a high prevalence of undiagnosed COPD. Combining symptom assessment with spirometry in this setting may enable earlier diagnosis of clinically significant COPD and facilitate increased understanding of lung cancer risk in COPD. In this study, we wished to understand the prevalence, severity, clinical phenotype and lung cancer risk of individuals with symptomatic undiagnosed COPD in a LCS cohort. METHODS: 16 010 current or former smokers aged 55-77 years attended a lung health check as part of the SUMMIT Study. A respiratory consultation and spirometry were performed alongside LCS eligibility assessment. Those with symptoms, no previous COPD diagnosis and airflow obstruction were labelled as undiagnosed COPD. Baseline low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was performed in those at high risk of lung cancer (PLCOm2012 score ≥1.3% and/or meeting USPSTF 2013 criteria). RESULTS: Nearly one in five (19.7%) met criteria for undiagnosed COPD. Compared with those previously diagnosed, those undiagnosed were more likely to be male (59.1% versus 53.2%; p<0.001), currently smoking (54.9% versus 47.6%; p<0.001) and from an ethnic minority group (p<0.001). Undiagnosed COPD was associated with less forced expiratory volume in 1 s impairment (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades 1 and 2: 85.3% versus 68.4%; p<0.001) and lower symptom/exacerbation burden (GOLD A and B groups: 95.6% versus 77.9%; p<0.001) than those with known COPD. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that airflow obstruction was an independent risk factor for lung cancer risk on baseline LDCT (adjusted OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.73-4.34; p<0.001), with a high risk seen in those with undiagnosed COPD (adjusted OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.67-4.64; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted case-finding within LCS detects high rates of undiagnosed symptomatic COPD in those most at risk. Individuals with undiagnosed COPD are at high risk for lung cancer.

The reporting of pulmonary nodule results by letter in a lung cancer screening setting.

OBJECTIVES: Pulmonary nodules are commonly found in Lung Cancer Screening (LCS), with results typically communicated by face-to-face or telephone consultation. Providing LCS on a population basis requires resource efficient and scalabe communication methods. Written communication provides one such method. Here, we assess participant satisfaction with this approach in a LCS setting and investigate characteristics associated with dissatisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SUMMIT Study is a prospective observational cohort study which aims to assess the implementation of Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) scanning for LCS in a high-risk population and validate a multi-cancer early detection blood test (NCT03934866). Participants with indeterminate pulmonary nodules requiring a three-month interval LDCT were informed of their result by postal letter and given a face-to-face appointment with a study practitioner at their interval LDCT appointment. At this appointment, having previously received their results letter, participants were verbally asked questions to assess their satisfaction with, and preferences for, methods of results communication. RESULTS: 1,900 participants were included in the analysis. 82.8% (n = 1573) were satisfied with receiving their results by letter, with 2.9% (n = 55) reporting dissatisfaction. 86.3% (n = 1640) stated it was their preferred communication method and 77.3% (n = 1469) reported that their letter contained the right amount of information. Participants from less deprived socioeconomic quintiles were more likely to report that the letter contained insufficient information and individuals aged ≥ 70 years were less likely to do so. Although 13.7% (n = 261) participants had discussed their results with their General Practitioner (GP) prior to the study visit, 83.9% (n = 219) of these participants were satisfied with receiving results by letter, with the same proportion preferring this communication method. CONCLUSION: We report high participant satisfaction with the reporting of pulmonary nodule results by letter in a LCS setting. We believe this provides a feasible route forward for large-scale screening programmes.

Addressing tobacco use in the context of complex social needs: A new conceptual framework and approach to address smoking cessation in community health centers.

Objective: This article presents a new conceptual framework "Connection to Health for Smokers" (CTHS), its application to address smoking cessation, and its acceptability in community health centers (CHCs). Methods: CTHS, an online interactive patient educational tool comprehensively implements the "5 A's" (ask, advise, assess, assist, and arrange) within the context of patients' social and behavioral health needs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with five health educators (nurses) who administered CTHS with 62 patients to evaluate the acceptability of the program. Thematic analyses were conducted with interview transcripts. Results: CHC health educators viewed CTHS has enhanced patient-centered communication, was able to identify patients' needs beyond tobacco use, and individualize action planning to integrate social and behavioral health needs. Conclusion: CTHS received enthusiasm from CHC health educators as a helpful tool to address tobacco use among their patients. Comprehensive on-site smoking cessation programs at CHCs that provide a structured evidence-based approach informed by an understanding of each patient's coexisting social and behavioral health needs may play an important role in reducing tobacco use disparities in the United States. Innovation: CTHS offers a new promising framework to comprehensively integrate the 5A's within the context of social and behavioral determinants of health for smoking cessation.

When patient-reported experience does not match change in clinical outcomes: A perplexing view from the inside of a diabetes distress intervention.

AIMS: To assess between-group differences in participant experiences in a two-arm diabetes distress (DD) reduction RCT and to determine their relationship to clinical outcomes (reductions in DD and HbA1C). METHODS: For high DD adults with Type 1 diabetes and HbA1c ≥7.5% participating in T1-REDEEM, we evaluated post intervention 5-point ratings of overall program "helpfulness" and program component "helpfulness," along with open-ended feedback statements using 10 qualitative codes. We compared responses of those in OnTrack, a distressed-focused intervention, with KnowIt, an education/management intervention. RESULTS: Those in OnTrack reported significantly higher levels of overall program helpfulness and greater helpfulness of each component of the program, greater group support, far fewer negative experiences, and more active and meaningful group engagement than those who participated in KnowIt. Ratings of helpfulness were unrelated to reductions in DD and HbA1C in both study arms. As previously reported, these findings occurred despite significant reductions in both DD and HbA1C in both arms with no between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the importance of addressing the personal experience of diabetes interventions in clinical care as separate, distinct outcomes. Personal experience may not always be related to changes in traditional clinical indicators.

Economic costs of implementing group interventions to reduce diabetes distress in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus in the T1-REDEEM trial.

AIMS: This study evaluated the implementation costs of two group interventions, one focused on diabetes education (KnowIt) and one focused directly on diabetes distress (OnTrack), that reduced diabetes distress and HbA1C in adults with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes (T1DM) in the T1-REDEEM trial. METHODS: Resources used to provide interventions were enumerated using activity-based micro-costing methods. Costs were assigned to resources in 2017 US dollars. US median wage and benefit rates were used to calculate costs of staff time. Cost per unit change was calculated for diabetes distress and HbA1C. RESULTS: For both interventions, per participant implementation costs were approximately $250 and cost per 1.0 percentage point (11 mmol/mol) change in HbA1C was $1400. Cost per unit change in diabetes distress was $364 for KnowIt and $335 for OnTrack. No statistically significant differences in costs were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine the costs of implementing interventions targeting diabetes distress in the context of T1DM. Both interventions had per participant implementation costs in the lower end of the range of previously examined diabetes self-management interventions ($219 to $5390). These inventions and their costs merit further attention because reducing diabetes distress may impact long term T1DM outcomes. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02175732.

Self-management support for chronic disease in primary care: frequency of patient self-management problems and patient reported priorities, and alignment with ultimate behavior goal selection.

BACKGROUND: To enable delivery of high quality patient-centered care, as well as to allow primary care health systems to allocate appropriate resources that align with patients' identified self-management problems (SM-Problems) and priorities (SM-Priorities), a practical, systematic method for assessing self-management needs and priorities is needed. In the current report, we present patient reported data generated from Connection to Health (CTH), to identify the frequency of patients' reported SM-Problems and SM-Priorities; and examine the degree of alignment between patient SM-Priorities and the ultimate Patient-Healthcare team member selected Behavioral Goal. METHODS: CTH, an electronic self-management support system, was embedded into the flow of existing primary care visits in 25 primary care clinics and was used to assess patient-reported SM-Problems across 12 areas, patient identified SM-Priorities, and guide the selection of a Patient-Healthcare team member selected Behavioral Goal. SM-Problems included: BMI, diet (fruits and vegetables, salt, fat, sugar sweetened beverages), physical activity, missed medications, tobacco and alcohol use, health-related distress, general life stress, and depression symptoms. Descriptive analyses documented SM-Problems and SM-Priorities, and alignment between SM-Priorities and Goal Selection, followed by mixed models adjusting for clinic. RESULTS: 446 participants with ≥ one chronic diseases (mean age 55.4 ± 12.6; 58.5% female) participated. On average, participants reported experiencing challenges in 7 out of the 12 SM-Problems areas; with the most frequent problems including: BMI, aspects of diet, and physical activity. Patient SM-Priorities were variable across the self-management areas. Patient- Healthcare team member Goal selection aligned well with patient SM-Priorities when patients prioritized weight loss or physical activity, but not in other self-management areas. CONCLUSION: Participants reported experiencing multiple SM-Problems. While patients show great variability in their SM-Priorities, the resulting action plan goals that patients create with their healthcare team member show a lack of diversity, with a disproportionate focus on weight loss and physical activity with missed opportunities for using goal setting to create targeted patient-centered plans focused in other SM-Priority areas. Aggregated results can assist with the identification of high frequency patient SM-Problems and SM-Priority areas, and in turn inform resource allocation to meet patient needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01945918 .