The value of age and medical history for predicting colorectal cancer and adenomas in people referred for colonoscopy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colonoscopy is an invasive and costly procedure with a risk of serious complications. It would therefore be useful to prioritise colonoscopies by identifying people at higher risk of either cancer or premalignant adenomas. The aim of this study is to assess a model that identifies people with colorectal cancer, advanced, large and small adenomas.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients seen by gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons between April 2004 and December 2006 completed a validated, structured self-administered questionnaire prior to colonoscopy. Information was collected on symptoms, demographics and medical history. Multinomial logistic regression was used to simultaneously assess factors associated with findings on colonoscopy of cancer, advanced adenomas and adenomas sized 6 -9 mm, and ≤ 5 mm. The area under the curve of ROC curve was used to assess the incremental gain of adding demographic variables, medical history and symptoms (in that order) to a base model that included only age.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Sociodemographic variables, medical history and symptoms (from 8,204 patients) jointly provide good discrimination between colorectal cancer and no abnormality (AUC 0.83), but discriminate less well between adenomas and no abnormality (AUC advanced adenoma 0.70; other adenomas 0.67). Age is the dominant risk factor for cancer and adenomas of all sizes. Having a colonoscopy within the last 10 years confers protection for cancers and advanced adenomas.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our models provide guidance about which factors can assist in identifying people at higher risk of disease using easily elicited information. This would allow colonoscopy to be prioritised for those for whom it would be of most benefit.</p

Chest pain in primary care: is the localization of pain diagnostically helpful in the critical evaluation of patients? - A cross sectional study

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Traditional textbooks still assign pain localization a certain discriminative role in the differential diagnosis of chest pain. The aim of our study was to synthesize pain drawings from a large sample of chest pain patients and to examine whether pain localizations differ for different underlying etiologies. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study including 1212 consecutive patients with chest pain recruited in 74 primary care offices in Germany. Primary care providers (PCPs) marked pain localization and radiation of each patient on a pictogram. After 6 months, an independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient, deciding on the etiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment. PCP drawings were entered in a specially designed computer program to produce merged pain charts for different etiologies. Dissimilarities between individual pain localizations and differences on the level of diagnostic groups were analyzed using the Hausdorff distance and the C-index. RESULTS: Pain location in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) did not differ from the combined group of all other patients, including patients with chest wall syndrome (CWS), gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) or psychogenic chest pain. There was also no difference in chest pain location between male and female CHD patients. CONCLUSIONS: Pain localization is not helpful in discriminating CHD from other common chest pain etiologies

Guidelines for management of ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack 2008

This article represents the update of the European Stroke Initiative Recommendations for Stroke Management. These guidelines cover both ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attacks, which are now considered to be a single entity. The article covers referral and emergency management, Stroke Unit service, diagnostics, primary and secondary prevention, general stroke treatment, specific treatment including acute management, management of complications, and rehabilitation

Somatic mosaicism and common genetic variation contribute to the risk of very-early-onset inflammatory bowel disease

Abstract: Very-early-onset inflammatory bowel disease (VEO-IBD) is a heterogeneous phenotype associated with a spectrum of rare Mendelian disorders. Here, we perform whole-exome-sequencing and genome-wide genotyping in 145 patients (median age-at-diagnosis of 3.5 years), in whom no Mendelian disorders were clinically suspected. In five patients we detect a primary immunodeficiency or enteropathy, with clinical consequences (XIAP, CYBA, SH2D1A, PCSK1). We also present a case study of a VEO-IBD patient with a mosaic de novo, pathogenic allele in CYBB. The mutation is present in ~70% of phagocytes and sufficient to result in defective bacterial handling but not life-threatening infections. Finally, we show that VEO-IBD patients have, on average, higher IBD polygenic risk scores than population controls (99 patients and 18,780 controls; P < 4 × 10−10), and replicate this finding in an independent cohort of VEO-IBD cases and controls (117 patients and 2,603 controls; P < 5 × 10−10). This discovery indicates that a polygenic component operates in VEO-IBD pathogenesis

Coronary heart disease in primary care: accuracy of medical history and physical findings in patients with chest pain - a study protocol for a systematic review with individual patient data.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is a common complaint in primary care, with coronary heart disease (CHD) being the most concerning of many potential causes. Systematic reviews on the sensitivity and specificity of symptoms and signs summarize the evidence about which of them are most useful in making a diagnosis. Previous meta-analyses are dominated by studies of patients referred to specialists. Moreover, as the analysis is typically based on study-level data, the statistical analyses in these reviews are limited while meta-analyses based on individual patient data can provide additional information. Our patient-level meta-analysis has three unique aims. First, we strive to determine the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms and signs for myocardial ischemia in primary care. Second, we investigate associations between study- or patient-level characteristics and measures of diagnostic accuracy. Third, we aim to validate existing clinical prediction rules for diagnosing myocardial ischemia in primary care. This article describes the methods of our study and six prospective studies of primary care patients with chest pain. Later articles will describe the main results. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis of studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms and signs for diagnosing coronary heart disease in primary care. We will perform bivariate analyses to determine the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios of individual symptoms and signs and multivariate analyses to explore the diagnostic value of an optimal combination of all symptoms and signs based on all data of all studies. We will validate existing clinical prediction rules from each of the included studies by calculating measures of diagnostic accuracy separately by study. DISCUSSION: Our study will face several methodological challenges. First, the number of studies will be limited. Second, the investigators of original studies defined some outcomes and predictors differently. Third, the studies did not collect the same standard clinical data set. Fourth, missing data, varying from partly missing to fully missing, will have to be dealt with.Despite these limitations, we aim to summarize the available evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms and signs for diagnosing CHD in patients presenting with chest pain in primary care. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (University of York): CRD42011001170

Measurement of blood pressure for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in different ethnic groups: One size fits all

Background Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and prevalence varies by ethnic group. The diagnosis and management of blood pressure are informed by guidelines largely based on data from white populations. Objective This study addressed whether accuracy of blood pressure measurement in terms of diagnosis of hypertension varies by ethnicity by comparing two measurement modalities (clinic blood pressure and home monitoring) with a reference standard of ambulatory BP monitoring in three ethnic groups. Methods Cross-sectional population study (June 2010 - December 2012) with patients (40-75 years) of white British, South Asian and African Caribbean background with and without a previous diagnosis of hypertension recruited from 28 primary care practices. The study compared the test performance of clinic BP (using various protocols) and home-monitoring (one week) with a reference standard of mean daytime ambulatory measurements using a threshold of 140/90mmHg for clinic and 135/85mmHg for out of office measurement. Results A total of 551 participants had complete data of whom 246 were white British, 147 South Asian and 158 African Caribbean. No consistent difference in accuracy of methods of blood pressure measurement was observed between ethnic groups with or without a prior diagnosis of hypertension: for people without hypertension, clinic measurement using three different methodologies had high specificity (75 - 97%) but variable sensitivity (33 - 65%) whereas home monitoring had sensitivity of 68 - 88% and specificity of 64 - 80%. For people with hypertension, detection of a raised blood pressure using clinic measurements had sensitivities of 34 - 69% with specificity of 73 - 92% and home monitoring had sensitivity (81 - 88%) and specificity (55 - 65%). Conclusions For people without hypertension, ABPM remains the choice for diagnosing hypertension compared to the other modes of BP measurement regardless of ethnicity. Differences in accuracy of home monitoring and clinic monitoring (higher sensitivity of the former; higher specificity of the latter) were also not affected by ethnicity.</p

Ethnicity and Differences Between Clinic and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the relationship of ethnicity to the differences between blood pressure (BP) measured in a clinic setting and by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in individuals with a previous diagnosis of hypertension (HT) and without a previous diagnosis of hypertension (NHT). METHODS: A cross-sectional comparison of BP measurement was performed in 770 participants (white British (WB, 39%), South Asian (SA, 31%), and African Caribbean (AC, 30%)) in 28 primary care clinics in West Midlands, United Kingdom. Mean differences between daytime ABPM, standardized clinic (mean of 3 occasions), casual clinic (first reading on first occasion), and last routine BP taken at the general practitioner practice were compared in HT and NHT individuals. RESULTS: Daytime systolic and diastolic ABPM readings were similar to standardized clinic BP (systolic: 128 (SE 0.9) vs. 125 (SE 0.9) mm Hg (NHT) and 132 (SE 0.7) vs. 131 (SE 0.7) mm Hg (HT)) and were not associated with ethnicity to a clinically important extent. When BP was taken less carefully, differences emerged: casual clinic readings were higher than ABPM, particularly in the HT group where the systolic differences approached clinical relevance (131 (SE 1.2) vs. 129 (SE 1.0) mm Hg (NHT) and 139 (SE 0.9) vs. 133 (SE 0.7) mm Hg (HT)) and were larger in SA and AC hypertensive individuals (136 (SE 1.5) vs. 133 (SE 1.2) mm Hg (WB), 141 (SE 1.7) vs. 133 (SE 1.4) mm Hg (SA), and 142 (SE 1.6) vs. 134 (SE 1.3) mm Hg (AC); mean differences: 3 (0-7), P = 0.03 and 4 (1-7), P = 0.01, respectively). Differences were also observed for the last practice reading in SA and ACs. CONCLUSIONS: BP differences between ethnic groups where BP is carefully measured on multiple occasions are small and unlikely to alter clinical management. When BP is measured casually on a single occasion or in routine care, differences appear that could approach clinical relevance