Dataset Information

Added value and cascade effects of inflammatory marker tests in UK primary care: a cohort study from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and plasma viscosity) are commonly used in primary care. Though established for specific diagnostic purposes, there is uncertainty around their utility as a non-specific marker to rule out underlying disease in primary care.

Aim

To identify the value of inflammatory marker testing in primary care as a rule-out test, and measure the cascade effects of testing in terms of further blood tests, GP appointments, and referrals.

Design and setting

Cohort study of 160 000 patients with inflammatory marker testing in 2014, and 40 000 untested age, sex, and practice-matched controls, using UK primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Method

The primary outcome was incidence of relevant disease, including infections, autoimmune conditions, and cancers, among those with raised versus normal inflammatory markers and untested controls. Process outcomes included rates of GP consultations, blood tests, and referrals in the 6 months after testing.

Results

The overall incidence of disease following a raised inflammatory marker was 15%: 6.3% infections, 5.6% autoimmune conditions, 3.7% cancers. Inflammatory markers had an overall sensitivity of <50% for the primary outcome, any relevant disease (defined as any infections, autoimmune conditions, or cancers). For 1000 inflammatory marker tests performed, the authors would anticipate 236 false-positives, resulting in an additional 710 GP appointments, 229 phlebotomy appointments, and 24 referrals in the following 6 months.

Conclusion

Inflammatory markers have poor sensitivity and should not be used as a rule-out test. False-positive results are common and lead to increased rates of follow-on GP consultations, tests, and referrals.

SUBMITTER: Watson J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6582446 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionWhat is the prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom, and what is the variation between practices?MethodsA cross sectional study included all adult patients potentially at risk of a prescribing or monitoring error defined by a combination of diagnoses and prescriptions in 526 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) up to 1 April 2013. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of potentially hazardous prescriptions of anticoagulants, anti-platelets, NSAIDs, β blockers, glitazones, metformin, digoxin, antipsychotics, combined hormonal contraceptives, and oestrogens and monitoring by blood test less frequently than recommended for patients with repeated prescriptions of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and loop diuretics, amiodarone, methotrexate, lithium, or warfarin.Study answer and limitations49 927 of 949 552 patients at risk triggered at least one prescribing indicator (5.26%, 95% confidence interval 5.21% to 5.30%) and 21 501 of 182 721 (11.8%, 11.6% to 11.9%) triggered at least one monitoring indicator. The prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing ranged from almost zero to 10.2%, and for inadequate monitoring ranged from 10.4% to 41.9%. Older patients and those prescribed multiple repeat medications had significantly higher risks of triggering a prescribing indicator whereas younger patients with fewer repeat prescriptions had significantly higher risk of triggering a monitoring indicator. There was high variation between practices for some indicators. Though prescribing safety indicators describe prescribing patterns that can increase the risk of harm to the patient and should generally be avoided, there will always be exceptions where the indicator is clinically justified. Furthermore there is the possibility that some information is not captured by CPRD for some practices-for example, INR results in patients receiving warfarin.What this study addsThe high prevalence for certain indicators emphasises existing prescribing risks and the need for their appropriate consideration within primary care, particularly for older patients and those taking multiple medications. The high variation between practices indicates potential for improvement through targeted practice level intervention.Funding, competing interests, data sharingNational Institute for Health Research through the Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (grant No GMPSTRC-2012-1). Data from CPRD cannot be shared because of licensing restrictions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between statin use and risk of biliary tract cancers (BTC).DesignThis is a nested case-control study conducted in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We included cases diagnosed with incident primary BTCs, including cancers of the gall bladder, bile duct (ie, both intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma), ampulla of Vater and mixed type, between 1990 and 2017. For each case, we selected five controls who did not develop BTCs at the time of case diagnosis, matched by sex, year of birth, calendar time and years of enrolment in the general practice using incidence density sampling. Exposures were defined as two or more prescription records of statins 1 year prior to BTC diagnosis or control selection. ORs and 95% CIs for associations between statins and BTC overall and by subtypes were estimated using conditional logistic regression, adjusted for relevant confounders.ResultsWe included 3118 BTC cases and 15 519 cancer-free controls. Current statin use versus non-use was associated with a reduced risk of all BTCs combined (adjusted OR=0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98). The reduced risks were most pronounced among long-term users, as indicated by increasing number of prescriptions (ptrend=0.016) and cumulative dose of statins (ptrend=0.008). The magnitude of association was similar for statin use and risk of individual types of BTCs. The reduced risk of BTCs associated with a record of current statin use versus non-use was more pronounced among persons with diabetes (adjusted OR=0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91). Among non-diabetics, the adjusted OR for current statin use versus non-use was 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.03, pheterogeneity=0.007).ConclusionCompared with non-use of statins, current statin use is associated with 12% lower risk of BTCs; no association found with former statin use. If replicated, particularly in countries with a high incidence of BTCs, our findings could pave the way for evaluating the value of statins for BTC chemoprevention.

Project description:AimTo evaluate drug therapy for alcohol dependence in the 12 months after first diagnosis in UK primary care.DesignOpen cohort study.SettingGeneral practices contributing data to the UK Clinical Practice Research Database.Participants39,980 people with an incident diagnosis of alcohol dependence aged 16 years or older between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2013.Main outcome measureUse of pharmacotherapy (acamprosate, disulfiram, naltrexone, baclofen and topiramate) to promote abstinence from alcohol or reduce drinking to safe levels in the first 12 months after a recorded diagnosis of alcohol dependence.FindingsOnly 4,677 (11.7%) of the cohort received relevant pharmacotherapy in the 12 months following diagnosis. Of the 35,303 that did not receive pharmacotherapy, 3,255 (9.2%) received psychosocial support. The remaining 32,048 (80.2%) did not receive either mode of treatment in the first 12 months. Factors that independently reduced the likelihood of receiving pharmacotherapy included: being male (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.74; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.78); older (65-74 years: OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77); being from a practice based in the most deprived quintile (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.64); and being located in Northern Ireland (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91). The median duration to initiation of pharmacotherapy was 0.80 months (95% CI 0.70 to 1.00) for acamprosate and 0.60 months (95% CI 0.43 to 0.73) for disulfiram. Persistence analysis for those receiving acamprosate and disulfiram revealed that many patients never received a repeat prescription; persistence at 6 months was 27.7% for acomprosate and 33.2% for disulfiram. The median duration of therapy was 2.10 months (95% CI 1.87 to 2.53) for acamprosate and 3.13 months (95% CI 2.77 to 3.36) for disulfiram.ConclusionDrug therapy to promote abstinence in alcohol dependent patients was low, with the majority of patients receiving no therapy, either psychological or pharmacological. When drug therapy was prescribed, persistence was low with most patients receiving only one prescription. Our data show that treatment for alcohol dependence is haphazard, and there is an urgent need to explore strategies for improving clinical management of this patient group.