Cardiac rehabilitation uptake following myocardial infarction: cross-sectional study in primary care

Background Policies suggest that primary care should be more involved in delivering cardiac rehabilitation. However, there is a lack of information about what is known in primary care regarding patients' invitation or attendance. Aim To determine, within primary care, how many patients are invited to and attend rehabilitation after myocardial infarction (MI), examine sociodemographic factors related to invitation, and compare quality of life between those who do and do not attend. Design of study Review of primary care paper and computer records; cross-sectional questionnaire. Setting Northern Ireland general practices (38); stratified sample, based on practice size and health board area. Method Patients, identified from primary care records, 12-16?weeks after a confirmed diagnosis of MI, were posted questionnaires, including a validated MacNew post-MI quality-of-life questionnaire. Practices returned anonymised data for non-responders. Results Information about rehabilitation was available for 332 of the 432 patients identified (76.9%): 162 (37.5%) returned questionnaires. Of the total sample, 54.4% (235/432) were invited and 37.0% (160/432) attended; of those invited, 68.1% (160/235) attended. Invited patients were younger than those not invited (mean age 63?years [standard deviation SD 16] versus 68.5?years [SD 16]); mean difference 5.5?years (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7 to 9.3). Among questionnaire responders, those who attended were younger and reported better emotional, physical, and social functioning than non-attenders (P = 0.01; mean differences 0.44 (95% CI = 0.11 to 0.77), 0.48 (95% CI = 0.10 to 0.85) and 0.54 (95% CI = 0.15 to 0.94) respectively). Conclusion Innovative strategies are needed to improve cardiac rehabilitation uptake, integration of hospital and primary care services, and healthcare professionals' awareness of patients' potential for health gain after MI.

The cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease

Objectives: The Secondary Prevention of Heart disEase in geneRal practicE (SPHERE) trial has recently reported. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention in both healthcare systems on the island of Ireland. Methods: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. A probabilistic model was developed to combine within-trial and beyond-trial impacts of treatment to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of two secondary prevention strategies: Intervention - tailored practice and patient care plans; and Control - standardized usual care. Results: The intervention strategy resulted in mean cost savings per patient of 512.77 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1086.46-91.98) and an increase in mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient of 0.0051 (95 percent CI, 0.0101-0.0200), when compared with the control strategy. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 94 percent if decision makers are willing to pay €45,000 per additional QALY. Conclusions: Decision makers in both settings must determine whether the level of evidence presented is sufficient to justify the adoption of the SPHERE intervention in clinical practice. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010.

Exposure to oral bisphosphonates and risk of esophageal cancer

Context: Use of oral bisphosphonates has increased dramatically in the United States and elsewhere. Esophagitis is a known adverse effect of bisphosphonate use, and recent reports suggest a link between bisphosphonate use and esophageal cancer, but this has not been robustly investigated.
Objective: To investigate the association between bisphosphonate use and esophageal cancer.
Design, Setting, and Participants: Data were extracted from the UK General Practice Research Database to compare the incidence of esophageal and gastric cancer in a cohort of patients treated with oral bisphosphonates between January 1996 and December 2006 with incidence in a control cohort. Cancers were identified from relevant Read/Oxford Medical Information System codes in the patient's clinical files. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to calculate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for risk of esophageal and gastric cancer in bisphosphonate users compared with nonusers, with adjustment for potential confounders.
Main Outcome Measure: Hazard ratio for the risk of esophageal and gastric cancer in the bisphosphonate users compared with the bisphosphonate nonusers. Results: Mean follow-up time was 4.5 and 4.4 years in the bisphosphonate and control cohorts, respectively. Excluding patients with less than 6 months' follow-up, there were 41 826 members in each cohort (81% women; mean age, 70.0 (SD, 11.4) years). One hundred sixteen esophageal or gastric cancers (79 esophageal) occurred in the bisphosphonate cohort and 115 (72 esophageal) in the control cohort. The incidence of esophageal and gastric cancer combined was 0.7 per 1000 person-years of risk in both the bisphosphonate and control cohorts; the incidence of esophageal cancer alone in the bisphosphonate and control cohorts was 0.48 and 0.44 per 1000 person-years of risk, respectively. There was no difference in risk of esophageal and gastric cancer combined between the cohorts for any bisphosphonate use (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.96 [95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.25]) or risk of esophageal cancer only (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.49]). There also was no difference in risk of esophageal or gastric cancer by duration of bisphosphonate intake.
Conclusion: Among patients in the UK General Practice Research Database, the use of oral bisphosphonates was not significantly associated with incident esophageal or gastric cancer.

Identifying additional patients with diabetic nephropathy using the UK primary care initiative

AIMS:
The aim of this study was to use general practice data to estimate the prevalence of diabetic nephropathy within the registered diabetes patients and examine variation in practice prevalence and management performance since introduction of this initiative.
METHODS:
Reported quality indicators from the Northern Ireland General Practice Quality and Outcomes Framework were analysed for diabetes and diabetic nephropathy prevalence and management in the period 2004-2008. Variation in prevalence at practice level was assessed using multiple linear regression adjusting for age, practice size, deprivation and glycaemic control.
RESULTS:
In 2006-2007, 57,454 (4.1%) adult diabetic patients were registered in the denominator population of 1.4 million compared with 51,923 (3.8%) in 2004-2005 (mean practice range 0.5-7.7%). Diabetic nephropathy prevalence was 15.1 and 11.5%, respectively (8688 and 5955 patients). Documented diabetic nephropathy prevalence showed marked variation across practices (range 0-100%) and was significantly negatively correlated with diabetes list size, albumin creatinine ratio testing rates and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade use and positively correlated with exception reporting rates. Specifically, for every increase in 100 diabetic patients to a register, documented diabetic nephropathy prevalence reduced by 40% (P=0.003). On the positive side, median albumin-creatinine ratio testing rates doubled to 82% compared with figures in the pre-Framework era.
CONCLUSIONS:
Implementation of the Northern Ireland General Practice Quality and Outcomes Framework has positively benefitted testing for diabetic nephropathy and increased numbers of detected patients in a short space of time. Large variation in diabetic nephropathy prevalence remains and is associated with diabetes registry size, screening and treatment practices, suggesting that understanding this variation may help detect and better manage diabetic nephropathy.

Proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2-receptor antagonists and pancreatic cancer risk: a nested case-control study

Background: The relationship between use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H₂RAs) and pancreatic cancer risk has yet to be examined. Data from a range of studies suggest biologically plausible mechanisms, whereby these drugs (or the conditions for which they are prescribed) may affect pancreatic cancer risk. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between use of PPIs/H₂RAs and pancreatic cancer risk.

Methods: A nested case – control study was conducted within the UK general practice research database (GPRD). Cases had a diagnosis of exocrine pancreatic cancer and controls were matched to cases on general practice site, sex and year of birth. Exposure to PPIs and to H₂RAs since entry into GPRD until 2 years before the diagnosis date (corresponding date in controls) and in the 5 years before the diagnosis date were separately assessed. Conditional logistic regression analyses were used to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) associated with PPI or H₂RA use compared with nonuse.

Results: Ever use of PPIs since entry into the GPRD (excluding the 2 years prior to diagnosis) was not associated with risk of pancreatic cancer; OR (95% CI) 1.02 (0.85 – 1.22). Neither the dose nor the duration of PPI or H₂RA use was associated with pancreatic cancer risk. No consistent patterns of association were seen when cumulative exposure (dose and duration) to these drugs was examined separately or together.

Conclusion: PPI/H₂RA use, in a UK population, was not associated with pancreatic cancer risk.