Did the use of open invitations in place of timed appointment invitations reduce the uptake of breast screening in the London region during the COVID-19 recovery?

OBJECTIVE: The Covid-19 pandemic created a backlog of women awaiting an invitation for breast screening in the UK. To recover in a timely fashion, the National Health Service programme opted to issue open invitations (OI) to women rather than the standard pre-booked timed appointments (TA). Historically, OIs have been shown to result in lower uptake. The aim of this study was to make use of a natural experiment to compare uptake in groups sent an OI with those sent a TA during a period when both invitation methods were in use. METHODS: Women invited for routine screening at one of the six London breast screening services from September 2020 to March 2021 were included and grouped according to the type of invitation they had received (TA or OI). The outcome was attendance within 6 months of opening the screening episode. Data were analysed by logistic regression. RESULTS: During the period of the study, 78,192 (32.5%) women received a TA and 162,680 (67.5%) received an OI. In the TA group, 47,391 (60.6%) attended within six months of offered appointment and in the OI group 86,430 (53.1%) attended. This difference was significant (p < 0.001). The odds ratio (95% CI) for the attended outcome was 1.44 (1.33-1.55) adjusted for differences in deprivation and for invitation category (first invitation or subsequent invitation). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the view that TA delivers a higher uptake than OI. It suggests that during this period over 12,000 women in London, who would have been expected to attend if given the standard TA, did not attend their appointment having received an OI.

Using ISARIC 4C mortality score to predict dynamic changes in mortality risk in COVID-19 patients during hospital admission.

As SARS-CoV-2 infections continue to cause hospital admissions around the world, there is a continued need to accurately assess those at highest risk of death to guide resource use and clinical management. The ISARIC 4C mortality score provides mortality risk prediction at admission to hospital based on demographic and physiological parameters. Here we evaluate dynamic use of the 4C score at different points following admission. Score components were extracted for 6,373 patients admitted to Barts Health NHS Trust hospitals between 1st August 2020 and 19th July 2021 and total score calculated every 48 hours for 28 days. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) statistics were used to evaluate discrimination of the score at admission and subsequent inpatient days. Patients who were still in hospital at day 6 were more likely to die if they had a higher score at day 6 than others also still in hospital who had the same score at admission. Discrimination of dynamic scoring in those still in hospital was superior with the area under the curve 0.71 (95% CI 0.69-0.74) at admission and 0.82 (0.80-0.85) by day 8. Clinically useful changes in the dynamic parts of the score are unlikely to be associated with subject-level measurements. Dynamic use of the ISARIC 4C score is likely to provide accurate and timely information on mortality risk during a patient's hospital admission.

Impact of changes to the interscreening interval and faecal immunochemical test threshold in the national bowel cancer screening programme in England: results from the FIT pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) faces endoscopy capacity challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and plans to lower the screening starting age. This may necessitate modifying the interscreening interval or threshold. METHODS: We analysed data from the English Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) pilot, comprising 27,238 individuals aged 59-75, screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) using FIT. We estimated screening sensitivity to CRC, adenomas, advanced adenomas (AA) and mean sojourn time of each pathology by faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) thresholds, then predicted the detection of these abnormalities by interscreening interval and f-Hb threshold. RESULTS: Current 2-yearly screening with a f-Hb threshold of 120 µg/g was estimated to generate 16,092 colonoscopies, prevent 186 CRCs, detect 1142 CRCs, 7086 adenomas and 4259 AAs per 100,000 screened over 15 years. A higher threshold at 180 µg/g would reduce required colonoscopies to 11,500, prevent 131 CRCs, detect 1077 CRCs, 4961 adenomas and 3184 AAs. A longer interscreening interval of 3 years would reduce required colonoscopies to 10,283, prevent 126 and detect 909 CRCs, 4796 adenomas and 2986 AAs. CONCLUSION: Increasing the f-Hb threshold was estimated to be more efficient than increasing the interscreening interval regarding overall colonoscopies per screen-benefited cancer. Increasing the interval was more efficient regarding colonoscopies per cancer prevented.

The projected impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on breast cancer deaths in England due to the cessation of population screening: a national estimation.

BACKGROUND: Population breast screening services in England were suspended in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we estimate the number of breast cancers whose detection may be delayed because of the suspension, and the potential impact on cancer deaths over 10 years. METHODS: We estimated the number and length of screening delays from observed NHS Breast Screening System data. We then estimated additional breast cancer deaths from three routes: asymptomatic tumours progressing to symptomatically diagnosed disease, invasive tumours which remain screen-detected but at a later date, and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) progressing to invasive disease by detection. We took progression rates, prognostic characteristics, and survival rates from published sources. RESULTS: We estimated that 1,489,237 women had screening delayed by around 2-7 months between July 2020 and June 2021, leaving 745,277 outstanding screens. Depending on how quickly this backlog is cleared, around 2500-4100 cancers would shift from screen-detected to symptomatic cancers, resulting in 148-452 additional breast cancer deaths. There would be an additional 164-222 screen-detected tumour deaths, and 71-97 deaths from DCIS that progresses to invasive cancer. CONCLUSIONS: An estimated 148-687 additional breast cancer deaths may occur as a result of the pandemic-related disruptions. The impact depends on how quickly screening services catch up with delays.

Sex differences in treatment and outcomes of patients with in-hospital ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Two cohorts face high mortality after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI): females and patients with in-hospital STEMI. The aim of this study was to evaluate sex differences in ischemic times and outcomes of in-hospital STEMI patients. METHODS: Consecutive STEMI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were prospectively recruited from 30 hospitals into the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (2013-2018). Sex discrepancies within in-hospital STEMIs were compared with out-of-hospital STEMIs. The primary endpoint was 12-month all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included symptom-to-device (STD) time and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). To investigate the relationship between sex and 12-month mortality for in-hospital versus out-of-hospital STEMIs, an interaction analysis was included in the multivariable models. RESULTS: A total of 7493 STEMI patients underwent PCI of which 494 (6.6%) occurred in-hospital. In-hospital versus out-of-hospital STEMIs comprised 31.9% and 19.9% females, respectively. Female in-hospital STEMIs were older (69.5 vs. 65.9 years, p = .003) with longer adjusted geometric mean STD times (104.6 vs. 94.3 min, p < .001) than men. Female versus male in-hospital STEMIs had no difference in 12-month mortality (27.1% vs. 20.3%, p = .92) and MACE (22.8% vs. 19.3%, p = .87). Female sex was not independently associated with 12-month mortality for in-hospital STEMIs which was consistent across the STEMI cohort (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.94-1.70, p = .13). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital STEMIs are more frequent in females relative to out-of-hospital STEMIs. Despite already being under medical care, females with in-hospital STEMIs experienced a 10-min mean excess in STD time compared with males, after adjustment for confounders. Adjusted 12-month mortality and MACE were similar to males.

Differences in outcomes of patients with in-hospital versus out-of-hospital ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a registry analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) that occur while already in hospital ('in-hospital STEMI') face high mortality. However, data about this patient population are scarce. We sought to investigate differences in reperfusion and outcomes of in-hospital versus out-of-hospital STEMI. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients with STEMI all treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across 30 centres were prospectively recruited into the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (2013-2018). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Patients with in-hospital STEMI were compared with patients with out-of-hospital STEMI with a primary endpoint of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary endpoints included ischaemic times, all-cause mortality and major bleeding. RESULTS: Of 7493 patients with PCI-treated STEMI, 494 (6.6%) occurred in-hospital. Patients with in-hospital STEMI were older (67.1 vs 62.4 years, p<0.001), more often women (32% vs 19.9%, p<0.001), with more comorbidities. Patients with in-hospital STEMI had higher 30-day MACE (20.4% vs 9.8%, p<0.001), mortality (12.1% vs 6.9%, p<0.001) and major bleeding (4.9% vs 2.3%, p<0.001), than patients with out-of-hospital STEMI. According to guideline criteria, patients with in-hospital STEMI achieved symptom-to-device times of ≤70 min and ≤90 min in 29% and 47%, respectively. Patients with out-of-hospital STEMI achieved door-to-device times of ≤90 min in 71%. Occurrence of STEMI while in hospital independently predicted higher MACE (adjusted OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.36, p<0.001) and 12-month mortality (adjusted OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.07, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with in-hospital STEMI experience delays to reperfusion with significantly higher MACE and mortality, compared with patients with out-of-hospital STEMI, after adjustment for confounders. Focused strategies are needed to improve recognition and outcomes in this high-risk and understudied population.

Recovery of the breast screening programme following pandemic-related delays: Should we focus on round length or uptake?

OBJECTIVES: The NHS Breast Screening programme is recovering from the hiatus in screening in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, open rather than timed invitations are issued, which leads to lower uptake but more rapid coverage of the eligible population by invitation and therefore closer adherence to a round length of 3 years. We aimed to estimate the likely effect on numbers of cancers detected at incident screens of a range of round lengths and uptake rates. METHODS: We assumed exponential distributions of time to incidence of preclinical screen-detectable cancer and of time to progression thereafter to symptomatic clinical disease. We derived numerical values of these, along with screening sensitivity, from published research results and statistics from the NHS Breast Screening programme. These were used to calculate numbers of cancers detected at incident screens at ages 51-70 by round length and uptake rates. RESULTS: We found that in a homogeneous population of cancers, a 4-year round length with uptake of 62%, as observed with timed appointments in London before the pandemic, would result in 295 cancers screen detected per 10,000 invited, compared to 222 cancers with a 3-year round and uptake of 46%, as observed in London during the recovery period. Similar results were found when we posited two populations, one of rapidly progressing and one of slowly progressing cancers. CONCLUSIONS: It may be more productive in terms of early detection to focus on uptake rather than round length in the programme's recovery from the pandemic.

Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test screening for colorectal cancer: A key informant interview study.

OBJECTIVES: People who are referred for colonoscopy, following an abnormal colorectal cancer (CRC) screening result, are at increased risk of CRC. Despite this, many individuals decline the procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate why. METHODS: As little is currently known about non-attendance at follow-up colonoscopy, and follow-up of abnormal screening results is a nurse-led process, we decided to conduct key informant interviews with Specialist Screening Practitioners ([SSPs] nurses working in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Program). Interviews were conducted online. Transcripts were assessed using inductive and deductive coding techniques. RESULTS: 21 SSPs participated in an interview. Five main types of barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy were described, namely: Sociocultural, Practical, Psychological, Health-related and COVID-related. Key psychological and sociocultural factors included: 'Fear of pain and discomfort associated with the procedure' and 'Lack of support from family and friends'. Key practical, health-related and COVID-related factors included: 'Family and work commitments', 'Existing health conditions as competing priorities' and 'Fear of getting COVID-19 at the hospital'. CONCLUSIONS: A range of barriers and facilitators to follow-up colonoscopy exist. Future studies conducted with patients are needed to further explore barriers to colonoscopy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Strategies to reduce non-attendance should adopt a multifaceted approach.

Rescue PCI in the management of STEMI: Contemporary results from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry.

BACKGROUND: Fibrinolysis is an important reperfusion strategy in the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when timely access to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is unavailable. Rescue PCI is generally thought to have worse outcomes than PPCI in STEMI. We aimed to determine short- and long-term outcomes of patients with rescue PCI versus PPCI for treatment of STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients admitted with STEMI (excluding out-of-hospital cardiac arrest) within the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) registry between 2005 and 2018 treated with either rescue PCI or PPCI were included in this retrospective cohort analysis. Comparison of 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and long-term mortality between the two groups was performed. There were 558 patients (7.1%) with rescue PCI and 7271 with PPCI. 30-day all-cause mortality (rescue PCI 6% vs. PPCI 5%, p = 0.47) and MACE (rescue PCI 10.3% vs. PPCI 8.9%, p = 0.26) rates were similar between the two groups. Rates of in-hospital major bleeding (rescue PCI 6% vs. PPCI 3.4%, p = 0.002) and 30-day stroke (rescue PCI 2.2% vs. PPCI 0.8%, p < 0.001) were higher following rescue PCI. The odds ratio for haemorrhagic stroke in the rescue PCI group was 10.3. Long-term mortality was not significantly different between the groups (rescue PCI 20% vs. PPCI 19%, p = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: With contemporary interventional techniques and medical therapy, rescue PCI remains a valuable strategy for treating patients with failed fibrinolysis where PPCI is unavailable and it has been suggested in extenuating circumstances where alternative revascularisation strategies are considered.

Cardiovascular disease and COVID-19: Australian and New Zealand consensus statement.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) increases the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19, and COVID-19 itself causes serious cardiac sequelae. Strategies to minimise the risk of viral transmission to health care workers and uninfected cardiac patients while prioritising high quality cardiac care are urgently needed. We conducted a rapid literature appraisal and review of key documents identified by the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand Board and Council members, the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons, and key cardiology, surgical and public health opinion leaders. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Common acute cardiac manifestations of COVID-19 include left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, arrhythmias and acute coronary syndromes. The presence of underlying CVD confers a five- to tenfold higher case fatality rate with COVID-19 disease. Special precautions are needed to avoid viral transmission to this population at risk. Adaptive health care delivery models and resource allocation are required throughout the health care system to address this need. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: Cardiovascular health services and cardiovascular health care providers need to recognise the increased risk of COVID-19 among CVD patients, upskill in the management of COVID-19 cardiac manifestations, and reorganise and innovate in service delivery models to meet demands. This consensus statement, endorsed by the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons, the National Heart Foundation of Australia and the High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia summarises important issues and proposes practical approaches to cardiovascular health care delivery to patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Weekly COVID-19 testing with household quarantine and contact tracing is feasible and would probably end the epidemic.

The COVID-19 epidemic can probably be ended and normal life restored, perhaps quite quickly, by weekly SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing together with household quarantine and systematic contact tracing. Isolated outbreaks could then be contained by contact tracing, supplemented if necessary by temporary local reintroduction of population testing or lockdown. Leading public health experts have recommended that this should be tried in a demonstration project in which a medium-sized city introduces weekly testing and lifts lockdown completely. The idea was not considered by the groups whose predictions have guided UK policy, so we have examined the statistical case for such a study. The combination of regular testing with strict household quarantine, which was not analysed in their models, has remarkable power to reduce transmission to the community from other household members as well as providing earlier diagnosis and facilitating rapid contact tracing.