Determinants of lipid clinic referral and attendance in a multi-ethnic adult population in south London: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Primary dyslipidaemias, including familial hypercholesterolaemia, are underdiagnosed genetic disorders that substantially increase risk for premature coronary artery disease in adults. Early identification of primary dyslipidaemias via lipid clinic referral optimises patient management and enables cascade screening of relatives. Improving the identification of primary dyslipidaemias, and understanding disparities in ascertainment and management, is an NHS priority. We aimed to assess determinants of lipid clinic referral or attendance (LCR) in ethnically diverse adults. METHODS: We did a retrospective cross-sectional study using the Lambeth DataNet containing anonymised data from 41 general practitioner (GP) practices in south London. We looked at referral data for adult patients aged 18 years and older from Jan 1, 1995, until May 14, 2018. LCR was the main outcome. We used sequential multilevel logistic regression models adjusted for practice effects to estimate the odds of LCR assessed across six ethnic groups (reference group White) and patient-level factors (demographic, socioeconomic, lifestyle, comorbidities, total cholesterol [TC] >7·5mmol/L, statin prescription, and practice factors). The study was approved by NHS South East London Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and NHS Lambeth CCG. FINDINGS: 780 (0·23%) of 332 357 adult patients were coded as referred (n=538) or seen (n=252) in a lipid clinic. 164 487 (46·49%) were women (appendix). The fully adjusted model for odds of LCR showed the following significant associations for age (odds ratio [OR] 0·96, 95% CI 0·96-0·97, p<0·001); Black, African, Caribbean, or Black-British ethnicity (0·67, 0·53-0·84, p=0·001); ex-smoker status (1·29, 1·05-1·57, p=0·014); TC higher than 7·5 mmol/L (12·18, 9·60-15·45, p<0·001); statin prescription (14·01, 10·85-18·10, p<0·001); diabetes (0·72, 0·58-0·91, p=0·005); high-frequency GP attendance at seven or more GP consultations in the past year (1·49, 1·21-1·84, p<0·001); high GP-density (0·5-0·99 full-time equivalent GPs per 1000 patients; 2·70, 1·23-5·92, p=0·013). Sensitivity analyses for LCR restricted to familial hypercholesterolaemia-coded patients (n=581) found associations with TC higher than 7·5 mmol/L (4·26, 1·89-9·62, p<0·001), statin prescription (16·96, 2·19-131·36, p=0·007), and high GP-density (5·73, 1·27-25·93, p=0·023), with no significant associations with ethnicity. The relative contribution of GP practices to LCR was 6·32% of the total variance. There were no significant interactions between ethnicity and deprivation, age, or obesity. INTERPRETATION: While interpretation is limited by the accuracy and completeness of coded records, the study showed factors associated with a higher likelihood of LCR included individuals recorded as having TC higher than 7·5 mmol/L, statin prescription, ex-smoker status, high-frequency GP attendance, and registration at a GP practice with 0·5-0·99 GP density. Patients with increasing age; Black, African, Caribbean, or Black-British ethnicity patients; and patients with diabetes had lower odds of LCR. Finally, the difference in odds of LCR between Black and White patients highlights potential health inequalities. FUNDING: NHS Race & Health Observatory.

Advancing familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) screening in primary care: an updated systematic review of systematic screening methods for identificaton of FH.

BACKGROUND: Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a greatly underdiagnosed and treatable genetic lipid disorder which significantly increases risk of premature cardiovascular disease. The prevalence of monogenic FH is thought to be 1 in 250-350. The NHS Long Term Plan aims to increase FH detection to at least 25% over 5 years in collaboration with primary care, supported by the NHS genomics programme. AIM: This systematic review evaluates systematic screening methods for FH in adults aged ≥18 years in primary care. METHOD: Seven databases [Cochrane, PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL, ProQuest, Web of Science, Scopus], four clinical trial registries [ISRCTN, ANZCTR, Clinicaltrials.gov, WHO-ICTRP] and relevant grey literature [OpenGrey] from March 2020 to May 2023 were searched. Only studies including adults were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I. RESULTS: 831 records were screened. No randomised, controlled studies were identified. From full-text review, five eligible non-randomised studies out of 57 (6.90%) were identified. The included studies all used automated FH case-identification from electronic medical records (EMR) and were high quality studies with a moderate risk of bias. Narrative synthesis reported outcomes which included three algorithmic studies, with a pooled detection rate, DR 14.4% (95%CI 11.67-16.62), one supervised Machine Learning [Ensemble] study, DR 15.5% (95%CI 15.47-15.53) and one study utilising a hybrid diagnostic EMR model and/or FH genotype confirmation DR 25.0% (95%CI 16.30-35.8). No adverse effects were reported in these studies. CONCLUSION: Incorporating automated case-finding from EMR with clinical follow-up in primary care can enhance FH identification. Pathways incorporating genotyping showed the best detection rate.

Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score: A Survey of UK General Practitioners' Knowledge and Attitudes.

A polygenic risk score (PRS) quantifies the aggregated effects of common genetic variants in an individual. A 'personalised breast cancer risk assessment' combines PRS with other genetic and nongenetic risk factors to offer risk-stratified screening and interventions. Large-scale studies are evaluating the clinical utility and feasibility of implementing risk-stratified screening; however, General Practitioners' (GPs) views remain largely unknown. This study aimed to explore GPs': (i) knowledge of risk-stratified screening; (ii) attitudes towards risk-stratified screening; and (iii) preferences for continuing professional development. A cross-sectional online survey of UK GPs was conducted between July-August 2022. The survey was distributed by the Royal College of General Practitioners and via other mailing lists and social media. In total, 109 GPs completed the survey; 49% were not familiar with the concept of PRS. Regarding risk-stratified screening pathways, 75% agreed with earlier and more frequent screening for women at high risk, 43% neither agreed nor disagreed with later and less screening for women at lower-than-average risk, and 55% disagreed with completely removing screening for women at much lower risk. In total, 81% felt positive about the potential impact of risk-stratified screening towards patients and 62% felt positive about the potential impact on their practice. GPs selected training of healthcare professionals as the priority for future risk-stratified screening implementation, preferring online formats for learning. The results suggest limited knowledge of PRS and risk-stratified screening amongst GPs. Training-preferably using online learning formats-was identified as the top priority for future implementation. GPs felt positive about the potential impact of risk-stratified screening; however, there was hesitance and disagreement towards a low-risk screening pathway.