Search

Abstract Background Blood pressure (BP) lowering in people who have had a stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) leads to reduced risk of further stroke. However, it is not clear what the target BP should be, since intensification of therapy may lead to additional adverse effects. PAST BP will determine whether more intensive BP targets can be achieved in a primary care setting, and whether more intensive therapy is associated with adverse effects on quality of life. Methods/Design This is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in patients with a past history of stroke or TIA. Patients will be randomised to two groups and will either have their blood pressure (BP) lowered intensively to a target of 130 mmHg systolic, (or by 10 mmHg if the baseline systolic pressure is between 125 and 140 mmHg) compared to a standard group where the BP will be reduced to a target of 140 mmHg systolic. Patients will be managed by their practice at 1-3 month intervals depending on level of BP and followed-up by the research team at six monthly intervals for 12 months. 610 patients will be recruited from approximately 50 general practices. The following exclusion criteria will be applied: systolic BP The primary outcome will be change in systolic BP over twelve months. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, adverse events and cardiovascular events. In-depth interviews with 30 patients and 20 health care practitioners will be undertaken to investigate patient and healthcare professionals understanding and views of BP management. Discussion The results of this trial will inform whether intensive blood pressure targets can be achieved in people who have had a stroke or TIA in primary care, and help determine whether or not further research is required before recommending such targets for this population. Trial Registration ISRCTN29062286

Abstract Background Controlling blood pressure with drugs is a key aspect of cardiovascular disease prevention, but until recently has been the sole preserve of health professionals. Self-management of hypertension is an under researched area in which potential benefits for both patients and professionals are great. Methods and design The telemonitoring and self-management in hypertension trial (TASMINH2) will be a primary care based randomised controlled trial with embedded economic and qualitative analyses in order to evaluate the costs and effects of increasing patient involvement in blood pressure management, specifically with respect to home monitoring and self titration of antihypertensive medication compared to usual care. Provision of remote monitoring results to participating practices will ensure that practice staff are able to engage with self management and provide assistance where required. 478 patients will be recruited from general practices in the West Midlands, which is sufficient to detect clinically significant differences in systolic blood pressure between self-management and usual care of 5 mmHg with 90% power. Patients will be excluded if they demonstrate an inability to self monitor, their blood pressure is below 140/90 or above 200/100, they are on three or more antihypertensive medications, have a terminal disease or their blood pressure is not managed by their general practitioner. The primary end point is change in mean systolic blood pressure (mmHg) between baseline and each follow up point (6 months and 12 months). Secondary outcomes will include change in mean diastolic blood pressure, costs, adverse events, health behaviours, illness perceptions, beliefs about medication, medication compliance and anxiety. Modelling will evaluate the impact of costs and effects on a system wide basis. The qualitative analysis will draw upon the views of users, informal carers and professionals regarding the acceptability of self-management and prerequisites for future widespread implementation should the trial show this approach to be efficacious. Discussion The TASMINH2 trial will provide important new evidence regarding the costs and effects of self monitoring with telemonitoring in a representative primary care hypertensive population. Trial Registration ISRCTN17585681

Abstract Background Major international differences in heart failure treatment have been repeatedly described, but the reasons for these differences remain unclear. National guideline recommendations might be a relevant factor. This study, therefore, explored variation of heart failure guideline recommendations in Europe. Methods Treatment recommendations of 14 national guidelines published after 1994 were analyzed in relation to the heart failure treatment guideline of the European Society of Cardiology. To test potential relations between recommendations and prescribing, national prescribing patterns as obtained by a European study in primary care (IMPROVEMENT-HF) were related to selected recommendations in those countries. Results Besides the 14 national guidelines used by primary care physicians in the countries contacted, the European guideline was used in four countries, and separate guidelines for specialists and primary care were available in another four countries. Two countries indicated that no guideline was used up to 2000. Comprehensiveness of the guidelines varied with respect to length, literature included and evidence ratings. Relevant differences in treatment recommendations were seen only in drug classes where evidence had changed recently (β-blockers and spironolactone). The relation between recommendation and prescribing for selected recommendations was inconsistent among countries. Conclusion Differences in guideline recommendations are not sufficient to explain variation of prescribing among countries, thus other factors must be considered.

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important independent risk factor for stroke. Randomised controlled trials have shown that this risk can be reduced substantially by treatment with warfarin or more modestly by treatment with aspirin. Existing trial data for the effectiveness of warfarin are drawn largely from studies in selected secondary care populations that under-represent the elderly. The Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged (BAFTA) study will provide evidence of the risks and benefits of warfarin versus aspirin for the prevention of stroke for older people with AF in a primary care setting. Study design A randomised controlled trial where older patients with AF are randomised to receive adjusted dose warfarin or aspirin. Patients will be followed up at three months post-randomisation, then at six monthly intervals there after for an average of three years by their general practitioner. Patients will also receive an annual health questionnaire. 1240 patients will be recruited from over 200 practices in England. Patients must be aged 75 years or over and have AF. Patients will be excluded if they have a history of any of the following conditions: rheumatic heart disease; major non-traumatic haemorrhage; intra-cranial haemorrhage; oesophageal varices; active endoscopically proven peptic ulcer disease; allergic hypersensitivity to warfarin or aspirin; or terminal illness. Patients will also be excluded if the GP considers that there are clinical reasons to treat a patient with warfarin in preference to aspirin (or vice versa). The primary end-point is fatal or non-fatal disabling stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic) or significant arterial embolism. Secondary outcomes include major extra-cranial haemorrhage, death (all cause, vascular), hospital admissions (all cause, vascular), cognition, quality of life, disability and compliance with study medication.

Simple Summary: Blood tests are commonly requested by doctors.Blood tests are done for many reasons and invesitgating symptoms or monitoring existing conditions are just examples. For instance, blood tests can also be done as part of a routine health checkup to investigate symptoms or monitor existing conditions. For instance, blood tests can also be done as part of a routine health checkup. Some clinical guidelines for doctors include recommendations to investigate for cancer if a blood test indicates results that are lower or higher than normal levels. These recommendations are only helpful for a small number of cancers, such as bowel or pancreatic cancers. A patient can have repeated blood tests, allowing doctors to monitor how blood test results change over time. These changes over time are referred to as 'trends' and may provide doctors with more information than the results of a single blood test. For example, noting a small drop in a steady trend could be more useful than waiting for the blood test to drop below a normal level. Until now, there has been no research regarding whether blood test trends can identify patients who should be investigated for cancer. We aimed to assess this possibility in this research project. Clinical guidelines include monitoring blood test abnormalities to identify patients at increased risk of undiagnosed cancer. Noting blood test changes over time may improve cancer risk stratification by considering a patient's individual baseline and important changes within the normal range. We aimed to review the published literature to understand the association between blood test trends and undiagnosed cancer. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until 15 May 2023 for studies assessing the association between blood test trends and undiagnosed cancer. We used descriptive summaries and narratively synthesised studies. We included 29 articles. Common blood tests were haemoglobin (24%, n = 7), C-reactive protein (17%, n = 5), and fasting blood glucose (17%, n = 5), and common cancers were pancreatic (29%, n = 8) and colorectal (17%, n = 5). Of the 30 blood tests studied, an increasing trend in eight (27%) was associated with eight cancer types, and a decreasing trend in 17 (57%) with 10 cancer types. No association was reported between trends in 11 (37%) tests and breast, bile duct, glioma, haematological combined, liver, prostate, or thyroid cancers. Our review highlights trends in blood tests that could facilitate the identification of individuals at increased risk of undiagnosed cancer. For most possible combinations of tests and cancers, there was limited or no evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThe Oxford–Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) and Public Health England (PHE) are commencing their 54th season of collaboration at a time when SARS-CoV-2 infections are likely to be cocirculating with the usual winter infections. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to conduct surveillance of influenza and other monitored respiratory conditions and to report on vaccine uptake and effectiveness using nationally representative surveillance data extracted from primary care computerized medical records systems. We also aim to have general practices collect virology and serology specimens and to participate in trials and other interventional research. MethodsThe RCGP RSC network comprises over 1700 general practices in England and Wales. We will extract pseudonymized data twice weekly and are migrating to a system of daily extracts. First, we will collect pseudonymized, routine, coded clinical data for the surveillance of monitored and unexpected conditions; data on vaccine exposure and adverse events of interest; and data on approved research study outcomes. Second, we will provide dashboards to give general practices feedback about levels of care and data quality, as compared to other network practices. We will focus on collecting data on influenza-like illness, upper and lower respiratory tract infections, and suspected COVID-19. Third, approximately 300 practices will participate in the 2020-2021 virology and serology surveillance; this will include responsive surveillance and long-term follow-up of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections. Fourth, member practices will be able to recruit volunteer patients to trials, including early interventions to improve COVID-19 outcomes and point-of-care testing. Lastly, the legal basis for our surveillance with PHE is Regulation 3 of the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002; other studies require appropriate ethical approval. ResultsThe RCGP RSC network has tripled in size; there were previously 100 virology practices and 500 practices overall in the network and we now have 322 and 1724, respectively. The Oxford–RCGP Clinical Informatics Digital Hub (ORCHID) secure networks enable the daily analysis of the extended network; currently, 1076 practices are uploaded. We are implementing a central swab distribution system for patients self-swabbing at home in addition to in-practice sampling. We have converted all our primary care coding to Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) coding. Throughout spring and summer 2020, the network has continued to collect specimens in preparation for the winter or for any second wave of COVID-19 cases. We have collected 5404 swabs and detected 623 cases of COVID-19 through extended virological sampling, and 19,341 samples have been collected for serology. This shows our preparedness for the winter season. ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with a groundswell of general practices joining our network. It has also created a permissive environment in which we have developed the capacity and capability of the national primary care surveillance systems and our unique public health institute, the RCGP and University of Oxford collaboration.

BackgroundRoutinely recorded primary care data have been used for many years by sentinel networks for surveillance. More recently, real world data have been used for a wider range of research projects to support rapid, inexpensive clinical trials. Because the partial national lockdown in the United Kingdom due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in decreasing community disease incidence, much larger numbers of general practices are needed to deliver effective COVID-19 surveillance and contribute to in-pandemic clinical trials. ObjectiveThe aim of this protocol is to describe the rapid design and development of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub (ORCHID) and its first two platforms. The Surveillance Platform will provide extended primary care surveillance, while the Trials Platform is a streamlined clinical trials platform that will be integrated into routine primary care practice. MethodsWe will apply the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) metadata principles to a new, integrated digital health hub that will extract routinely collected general practice electronic health data for use in clinical trials and provide enhanced communicable disease surveillance. The hub will be findable through membership in Health Data Research UK and European metadata repositories. Accessibility through an online application system will provide access to study-ready data sets or developed custom data sets. Interoperability will be facilitated by fixed linkage to other key sources such as Hospital Episodes Statistics and the Office of National Statistics using pseudonymized data. All semantic descriptors (ie, ontologies) and code used for analysis will be made available to accelerate analyses. We will also make data available using common data models, starting with the US Food and Drug Administration Sentinel and Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership approaches, to facilitate international studies. The Surveillance Platform will provide access to data for health protection and promotion work as authorized through agreements between Oxford, the Royal College of General Practitioners, and Public Health England. All studies using the Trials Platform will go through appropriate ethical and other regulatory approval processes. ResultsThe hub will be a bottom-up, professionally led network that will provide benefits for member practices, our health service, and the population served. Data will only be used for SQUIRE (surveillance, quality improvement, research, and education) purposes. We have already received positive responses from practices, and the number of practices in the network has doubled to over 1150 since February 2020. COVID-19 surveillance has resulted in tripling of the number of virology sites to 293 (target 300), which has aided the collection of the largest ever weekly total of surveillance swabs in the United Kingdom as well as over 3000 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology samples. Practices are recruiting to the PRINCIPLE (Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older PeopLE) trial, and these participants will be followed up through ORCHID. These initial outputs demonstrate the feasibility of ORCHID to provide an extended national digital health hub. ConclusionsORCHID will provide equitable and innovative use of big data through a professionally led national primary care network and the application of FAIR principles. The secure data hub will host routinely collected general practice data linked to other key health care repositories for clinical trials and support enhanced in situ surveillance without always requiring large volume data extracts. ORCHID will support rapid data extraction, analysis, and dissemination with the aim of improving future research and development in general practice to positively impact patient care. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/19773

Background: In England, most prescribing of direct-acting oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation (AF) is in primary care. However, there remain gaps in our understanding of dosage and disparities in use. We aimed to describe trends in direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prescribing, including dose reduction in people with renal impairment and other criteria, and adherence.Methods: Using English primary care sentinel network data from 2014 to 2019, we assessed appropriate DOAC dose adjustment with creatinine clearance (CrCl). Our primary care sentinel cohort was a subset of 722 general practices, with 6.46 million currently registered patients at the time of this study.Results: Of 6 464 129 people in the cohort, 2.3% were aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of AF, and 30.8% of these were prescribed vitamin K antagonist and 69.1% DOACs. Appropriate DOAC prescribing following CrCl measures improved between 2014 and 2019; dabigatran from 21.3% (95% CI 15.1% to 28.8%) to 48.7% (95% CI 45.0% to 52.4%); rivaroxaban from 22.1% (95% CI 16.7% to 28.4%) to 49.9% (95% CI 48.5% to 53.3%); edoxaban from 10.0% (95% CI 0.3% to 44.5%) in 2016 to 57.6% (95% CI 54.5% to 60.7%) in 2019; apixaban from 30.8% (95% CI 9.1% to 61.4%) in 2015 to 60.5% (95% CI 57.8% to 63.2%) in 2019.Adherence was highest for factor Xa inhibitors, increasing from 50.1% (95% CI 47.7% to 52.4%) in 2014 to 57.8% (95% CI 57.4% to 58.2%) in 2019. Asian and black/mixed ethnicity was associated with non-adherence (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.09) as was male gender (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.22), higher socioeconomic status (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.68), being an ex-smoker (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.19) and hypertension (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17).Conclusions: The volume and quality of DOAC prescribing has increased yearly. Future interventions to augment quality of anticoagulant management should target disparities in adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]