Search

BackgroundCOPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in populations eligible for lung cancer screening. We investigated the role of spirometry in a community-based lung cancer screening programme.MethodsEver smokers, age 55–74, resident in three deprived areas of Manchester were invited to a ‘Lung Health Check’ (LHC) based in convenient community locations. Spirometry was incorporated into the LHCs alongside lung cancer risk estimation (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Study Risk Prediction Model, 2012 version (PLCOM2012)), symptom assessment and smoking cessation advice. Those at high risk of lung cancer (PLCOM2012 ≥1.51%) were eligible for annual low-dose CT screening over two screening rounds. Airflow obstruction was defined as FEV1/FVCResults99.4% (n=2525) of LHC attendees successfully performed spirometry; mean age was 64.1±5.5, 51% were women, 35% were current smokers. 37.4% (n=944) had airflow obstruction of which 49.7% (n=469) had no previous diagnosis of COPD. 53.3% of those without a prior diagnosis were symptomatic (n=250/469). After multivariate analysis, the detection of airflow obstruction without a prior COPD diagnosis was associated with male sex (adjOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.47; p1/FVC ratio (adjOR 4.19, 95% CI 2.95 to 5.95; padjOR 2.80, 95% CI 1.60 to 8.42; p=0.002).ConclusionsIncorporating spirometry into a community-based targeted lung cancer screening programme is feasible and identifies a significant number of individuals with airflow obstruction who do not have a prior diagnosis of COPD.

Objectives: The impact of lung cancer screening on smoking is unclear, especially in deprived populations who are underrepresented in screening trials. The aim of this observational cohort study was to investigate whether a community-based lung cancer screening programme influenced smoking behaviour and smoking attitude in socio-economically deprived populations. Material and Methods: Ever-smokers, age 55–74, registered at participating General Practices were invited to a community-based Lung Health Check (LHC). This included an assessment of respiratory symptoms, lung cancer risk (PLCOm2012), spirometry and signposting to stop smoking services. Those at high risk (PLCOM2012≥1.51%) were offered annual low-dose CT screening over two rounds. Self-reported smoking status and behaviour were recorded at the LHC and again 12 months later, when attitudes to smoking were also assessed. Results: 919 participants (51% women) were included in the analysis (77% of attendees); median deprivation rank in the lowest decile for England. At baseline 50.3% were current smokers. One-year quit rate was 10.2%, quitting was associated with increased baseline symptoms (adjOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.07–6.41; p = 0.035) but not demographics or screening results. 55% attributed quitting to the LHC. In current smokers, 44% reported the LHC had made them consider stopping, 29% it made them try to stop and 25% made them smoke less whilst only 1.7% and 0.7% said it made them worry less about smoking or think it acceptable to smoke. Conclusions: Our data suggest a community-based lung cancer screening programme in deprived areas positively impacts smoking behaviour, with no evidence of a ‘licence to smoke’ in those screened.

Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening of high-risk smokers reduces lung cancer (LC) specific mortality. Determining screening eligibility using individualised risk may improve screening effectiveness and reduce harm. Here, we compare the performance of two risk prediction models (PLCOEver-smokers aged 55-74, from deprived areas of Manchester, were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC). Individuals at higher risk (PLCOPLCOProspective comparisons of risk prediction tools are required to optimise screening selection in different settings. The PLCO

Manchester’s ‘Lung Health Check’ pilot utilised mobile CT scanners in convenient retail locations to deliver lung cancer screening to socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. We assessed whether screening location was an important factor for those attending the service. Location was important for 74.7% (n=701/938) and 23% (n=216/938) reported being less likely to attend an equivalent hospital-based programme. This preference was most common in current smokers (27% current smokers vs 19% former smokers; AdjOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08, p=0.036) and those in the lowest deprivation quartile (25% lowest quartile vs 17.6% highest quartile; AdjOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.24, p=0.005). Practical issues related to travel were most important in those less willing to attend a hospital-based service, with 83.3% citing at least one travel related barrier to non-attendance. A convenient community-based screening programme may reduce inequalities in screening adherence especially in those at high risk of lung cancer in deprived areas.

We report results from the second annual screening round (T1) of Manchester’s ‘Lung Health Check’ pilot of community-based lung cancer screening in deprived areas (undertaken June to August 2017). Screening adherence was 90% (n=1194/1323): 92% of CT scans were classified negative, 6% indeterminate and 2.5% positive; there were no interval cancers. Lung cancer incidence was 1.6% (n=19), 79% stage I, treatments included surgery (42%, n=9), stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (26%, n=5) and radical radiotherapy (5%, n=1). False-positive rate was 34.5% (n=10/29), representing 0.8% of T1 participants (n=10/1194). Targeted community-based lung cancer screening promotes high screening adherence and detects high rates of early stage lung cancer.

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in populations eligible for lung cancer screening. The aim of this study was to determine whether a brief CV risk assessment, delivered as part of a targeted community-based lung cancer screening programme, was effective in identifying individuals at high risk who might benefit from primary prevention. Methods: The Manchester Lung Screening Pilot consisted of annual low dose CT (LDCT) over 2 screening rounds, targeted at individuals in deprived areas at high risk of lung cancer (age 55–74 and 6-year risk ≥1.51%, using PLCOM2012 risk model). All participants of the second screening round were eligible to take part in the study. Ten-year CV risk was estimated using QRISK2 in participants without CVD and compared to age (±5 years) and sex matched Health Survey for England (HSE) controls; high risk was defined as QRISK2 score ≥10%. Coronary artery calcification (CAC) was assessed on LDCT scans and compared to QRISK2 score. Results: Seventy-seven percent (n=920/1,194) of screening attendees were included in the analysis; mean age 65.6 ± 5.4 and 50.4% female. QRISK2 and lung cancer risk (PLCOM2012) scores were correlated (r = 0.26, p < 0.001). Median QRISK2 score was 21.1% (IQR 14.9–29.6) in those without established CVD (77.6%, n = 714/920), double that of HSE controls (10.3%, IQR 6.6–16.2; n = 714) (p < 0.001). QRISK2 score was significantly higher in those with CAC (p < 0.001). Screening attendees were 10-fold more likely to be classified high risk (OR 10.2 [95% CI 7.3–14.0]). One third (33.7%, n = 310/920) of all study participants were high risk but not receiving statin therapy for primary CVD prevention. Discussion: Opportunistic CVD risk assessment within a targeted lung cancer screening programme is feasible and is likely to identify a very large number of individuals suitable for primary prevention.

Background and aims High drug related mortality amongst former prisoners in the 4 weeks following release is an internationally recognised problem. Naltrexone injections at release could diminish this by blockading opioid receptors, but naltrexone is not licensed for injection for treating opiate misuse in the United Kingdom and some other countries. This study examined the likelihood of accepting a naltrexone injection at release, and the relationship of this likelihood to other relevant variables. Method Sixty-one male prisoners with a history of heroin use, who were approaching release from two prisons in the north-west of England, provided likelihood ratings for accepting a naltrexone injection if it were to have been available. Additional data was gathered regarding demographic and drug use histories, and also from psychometric instruments relevant to drug misuse and treatment preparedness. Results Maximum likelihood ratings for accepting a naltrexone injection were recorded by 55.7% of the sample with only 9.8% indicating no likelihood of accepting an injection. Likelihood ratings were positively related to serving a current sentence for an acquisitive offence compared to drug related or violence offences, and negatively related to peak methadone dosages during the current sentence. Conclusions Although naltrexone injections were not available to participants in this study, the findings suggest that the potential uptake for this intervention is sufficient to warrant a clinical trial with this population of British prisoners, with a view to potential changes to its current licencing status. However, the importance of individual patient readiness for such an abstinence orientated intervention is emphasised by the negative correlation between the likelihood ratings and recent methadone doses.

We report baseline results of a community-based, targeted, low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening pilot in deprived areas of Manchester. Ever smokers, aged 55–74 years, were invited to ‘lung health checks’ (LHCs) next to local shopping centres, with immediate access to LDCT for those at high risk (6-year risk ≥1.51%, PLCOM2012 calculator). 75% of attendees (n=1893/2541) were ranked in the lowest deprivation quintile; 56% were high risk and of 1384 individuals screened, 3% (95% CI 2.3% to 4.1%) had lung cancer (80% early stage) of whom 65% had surgical resection. Taking lung cancer screening into communities, with an LHC approach, is effective and engages populations in deprived areas.

furze g., cox h., morton v., chuang l.-h., lewin r.j.p., nelson p., carty r., norris h., patel n. & elton p. (2012) Randomized controlled trial of a lay-facilitated angina management programme. Journal of Advanced Nursing68(10), 2267–2279. Abstract Aims. This article reports a randomized controlled trial of lay-facilitated angina management (registered trial acronym: LAMP). Background. Previously, a nurse-facilitated angina programme was shown to reduce angina while increasing physical activity, however most people with angina do not receive a cardiac rehabilitation or self-management programme. Lay people are increasingly being trained to facilitate self-management programmes. Design. A randomized controlled trial comparing a lay-facilitated angina management programme with routine care from an angina nurse specialist. Methods. Participants with new stable angina were randomized to the angina management programme (intervention: 70 participants) or advice from an angina nurse specialist (control: 72 participants). Primary outcome was angina frequency at 6 months; secondary outcomes at 3 and 6 months included: risk factors, physical functioning, anxiety, depression, angina misconceptions and cost utility. Follow-up was complete in March 2009. Analysis was by intention-to-treat; blind to group allocation. Results. There was no important difference in angina frequency at 6 months. Secondary outcomes, assessed by either linear or logistic regression models, demonstrated important differences favouring the intervention group, at 3 months for: Anxiety, angina misconceptions and for exercise report; and at 6 months for: Anxiety; Depression; and angina misconceptions. The intervention was considered cost-effective. Conclusion. The angina management programme produced some superior benefits when compared to advice from a specialist nurse.

Many people take dietary supplements, but information on characteristics associated with their use is lacking. The relationship between lifestyle behaviours, morbidity and use of dietary supplements has not been examined and earlier studies have limited applicability to a general population. These issues were addressed in the current study. Information was obtained by postal questionnaire sent to a sample of the general population. The questionnaire was completed by 70·5% of the sample (15465 from a total sample of 21923), with at least one-third (35·5%) taking dietary supplements. In adjusted analyses, supplement users were more likely to be women, white, home-owners, non-smokers and physically active. Use of vitamin, mineral and/or antioxidant supplements was associated with eating more fruits and vegetables, and taking fish-oil supplements was associated with eating oil-rich fish. A history of CVD or risk factors for CVD reduced the risk of taking vitamins, minerals and/or antioxidants or fish-oil supplements. Those reporting musculoskeletal disorders such as arthritis were more likely to take fish-oil supplements For the first time, we have shown that dietary supplement use is related to different types of morbidity. In particular, people at risk of primary or secondary CVD seem less likely to use dietary supplements, despite possible benefits shown in clinical trials. Public health organisations need to develop guidelines for the public and health professionals regarding the uncontrolled use of dietary supplements in the community.

Background Most people referred to rapid access chest pain clinics have non-cardiac chest pain, and in those diagnosed with stable coronary heart disease, guidance recommends that first-line treatment is usually medication rather than revascularisation. Consequently, many patients are not reassured they have the correct diagnosis or treatment. A previous trial reported that, in people with non-cardiac chest pain, a brief discussion with a health psychologist before the tests about the meaning of potential results led to people being significantly more reassured. The aim of this pilot was to test study procedures and inform sample size for a future multi-centre trial and to gain initial estimates of effectiveness of the discussion intervention. Methods This was a two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial in outpatient rapid access chest pain clinic in 120 people undergoing investigation for new onset, non-urgent chest pain. Eligible participants were randomised to receive either: a discussion about the meaning and implication of test results, delivered by a nurse before tests in clinic, plus a pre-test pamphlet covering the same information (Discussion arm) or the pre-test pamphlet alone (Pamphlet arm). Main outcome measures were recruitment rate and feasibility for a future multi-centre trial, with an estimate of reassurance in the groups at month 1 and 6 using a 5-item patient-reported scale. Results Two hundred and seventy people attended rapid access chest pain clinic during recruitment and 120/270 participants (44%) were randomised, 60 to each arm. There was no evidence of a difference between the Discussion and Pamphlet arms in the mean reassurance score at month 1 (34.2 vs 33.7) or at month 6 (35.3 vs 35.9). Patient-reported chest pain and use of heart medications were also similar between the two arms. Conclusions A larger trial of the discussion intervention in the UK would not be warranted. Patients reported high levels of reassurance which were similar in patients receiving the discussion with a nurse and in those receiving a pamphlet alone. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60618114 (assigned 27.05.2011). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2261-14-138) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary Objective To construct a profile of smokers using multiple indices of physical, mental and social health. Study design Cross-sectional study. Methods The setting was Wigan and Bolton Health Authority, an urban district in the North West of England. A random sample of over 15 000 adults from the Health Authority adult population completed a written questionnaire. Prevalence ratios were calculated for physical, mental and social health indicators for smokers compared with non-smokers, adjusted for borough, age and deprivation score of place of residence. Results Smokers were less likely to report their current health as good, and reported a significantly higher prevalence of arthritis, bronchitis, backache and respiratory symptoms. Smokers had more mobility problems and recent severe pain. Smokers had less healthy lifestyles across many behaviours (e.g. poorer diet, taking less regular exercise and more problem drinking). Depression and the proportion of people with a high psychiatric morbidity score were increased. More women smokers reported a lack of social support, and smokers more often reported financial difficulties. Differences were exaggerated by comparing heavy smokers with non-smokers. Conclusions Independent of the level of deprivation of their area of residence, smokers have poorer physical, social and mental health, with a dose–response effect. Smoking creates considerable pain, but little evidence of pleasure.

To assess the effectiveness of a primary care referral scheme on increasing physical activity at 1 year from referral. Design Two-group randomized controlled trial recruiting primary care referrals to a borough-based exercise scheme. Setting A local authority borough in the north-west of England. Participants 545 patients defined as sedentary by a primary care practitioner. Intervention Referral to a local-authority exercise referral scheme and written information compared with written information only. Main outcome measures Meeting physical activity target at 12 months following referral, with a secondary outcome measured at 6 months from referral.At 12 months, a non-significant increase of 5 per cent was observed in the intervention compared with control group, for participation in at least 90 minutes of moderate/vigorous activity per week (25.8 versus 20.4 per cent, OR 1.45, 0.84 to 2.50, p = 0.18). At 6 months, a 10 per cent treatment effect was observed which was significant (22.6 versus 13.6 per cent, OR 1.67, 1.08 to 2.60, p = 0.05). The intervention increased satisfaction with information but this did not influence adherence with physical activity.Community-based physical activity referral schemes have some impact on reducing sedentary behaviour in the short-term, but which is unlikely to be sustained and lead to benefits in terms of health.

Background: There is little information on the number and characteristics of adults taking herbal supplements and the relationship of this with other health and lifestyle factors. These were examined in the current study. Methods: Information on herbal supplement use and health and lifestyle characteristics was obtained by postal questionnaire, sent to a sample of the adult population in Northwest England. Results: In summer 2001, 70.5% (15,465/21,923) of questionnaires were returned. The mean age of responders was 49.8 years (SD 17.57) and 45.2% (6,986/15,465) were men. The percentage taking at least one herbal supplement was 12.8% (1,987/15,465). Users of herbal supplements were more likely to be younger, female, white, and to own their home. Herbal supplement use was not strongly associated with any health and lifestyle variables examined. Weak associations were found with physical activity, psychiatric caseness, and use of prescribed medications. The most common herbal supplement was evening primrose oil, taken by 7.7% (1,186/ 15,465) of respondents (12.7% of women and 1.1% of men). Conclusions: More than one in ten adults were taking herbal supplements, with evening primrose oil, the most common supplement, used mainly by women. Individual characteristics such as age, sex, ethnicity, and social class influenced the use of herbal supplements, but there was no evidence that this substituted for conventional medical care. The evidence base to support some popular herbal supplements is weak. Large well-designed trials are needed to quantify the value of herbal supplements to health and well-being.

OBJECTIVE--The aim was to determine what effect the offer of a cervical smear test when attending for breast screening has on the uptake of cervical and breast screening. DESIGN--The study involved randomisation to compare uptake in those women invited for cervical screening in advance with their breast screening invitation (group 1) with those invited for breast screening only and then offered a smear test upon arrival for breast screening (group 2). The main outcome measure was improvement in the uptake of cervical screening among older women without detriment to the breast screening service. SETTING--The study took place at the Northern Hospital in North Manchester. PARTICIPANTS--Participants were 2131 women aged 50-64 years invited for breast screening at the Northern Hospital in the summer of 1990. MAIN RESULTS--Overall, 54% of the women who were eligible attended for breast screening, 52% attended from group 1 and 55% from group 2. Of those attending for breast screening, 957 were eligible for cervical screening and 193 (20%) had a smear test. There was a difference in the proportion tested from each group (p < 0.001), 28% had a smear test from group 1 and 13% from group 2. Forty five percent of the 193 had not had a cervical smear for at least five years. CONCLUSIONS--The cervical screening facility did attract some women who were overdue for a smear test and who might not normally have attended for cervical screening, and there was no evidence to suggest that it had a detrimental effect on the breast screening uptake. An advanced cervical screening invitation seemed preferable to an invitation upon arrival at the breast screening unit.