Rates of medical or surgical treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: the ECLIPSE trial 10-year observational follow-up study.

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding is a common problem that can significantly affect women's lives until menopause. There is a lack of evidence on longer-term outcomes after seeking health care and treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. Objectives: To assess the continuation rates of medical treatments and the rates of ablative and surgical interventions among women who had participated in the ECLIPSE trial (ISRCTN86566246) 10 years after initial management for heavy menstrual bleeding in primary care. To explore experiences of heavy menstrual bleeding and influences on treatment for women. Design: This was a prospective observational cohort study, with a parallel qualitative study. Setting: Primary care. Participants: A total of 206 women with heavy menstrual bleeding who had participated in the ECLIPSE trial consented to providing outcome data via a questionnaire approximately 10 years after original randomisation. Their mean age at follow-up was 54 years (standard deviation 5 years). A purposeful sample of 36 women also participated in semistructured qualitative interviews. Interventions: The ECLIPSE trial randomised participants to either the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (52 mg) or the usual medical treatment (oral tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen or progesterone alone, chosen as clinically appropriate by general practitioners and women). Women could subsequently swap or cease their allocated treatment. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were rates of ablative and surgical treatments; the rate of continuation of medical treatments; and quality of life using the Short Form questionnaire-36 items and EuroQol-5 Dimensions; women's experiences of heavy menstrual bleeding; and the influences on their decisions around treatment. Results: Over the 10-year follow-up period, 60 out of 206 (29%) women had received a surgical intervention [hysterectomy, n = 34 (17%); endometrial ablation, n = 26 (13%)]. Between 5 and 10 years post trial intervention, 89 women (43%) had ceased all medical treatments and 88 (43%) were using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system alone or in combination with other oral treatments. More women in the usual medical treatment group had also used the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system than women in the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group. Fifty-six women (28%) used the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system at 10 years. There was no statistically significant difference in generic quality-of-life scores between the two original trial groups, although small improvements in the majority of domains were seen in both groups across time. Women reported wide-ranging impacts on their quality of life and normalisation of their heavy menstrual bleeding experience as a result of the taboo around menstruation. Women's treatment decisions and experiences were influenced by the perceived quality of health-care interactions with clinicians and their climacteric status. Limitations: Fewer than half of the original 571 participants participated; however, the cohort was clinically and demographically representative of the original trial population. Conclusions: Medical treatments for women with heavy menstrual bleeding can be initiated in primary care, with low rates of surgical intervention and improvement in quality of life observed 10 years later. Clinicians should be aware of the considerable challenges that women with heavy menstrual bleeding experience at presentation and subsequently over time, and the importance and value to women of patient-centred communication in this context. Future work: Any further evaluation of treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding should include long-term evaluation of outcomes and adherence. Trial registration: The original ECLIPSE trial was registered as ISRCTN86566246. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Heavy menstrual bleeding is a common problem that can significantly affect women's lives, yet many women do not seek medical help. Medical treatments, such as tablets and a hormonal coil inserted in the womb, were shown to help women with heavy menstrual bleeding in a previous clinical trial that we conducted, called ECLIPSE. In the ECLIPSE trial, women provided information for 5 years after their treatment started. We planned to continue to ask these women about their periods, their symptoms and quality of life, and the treatments that they chose about 10 years after they first joined the trial. We did this using questionnaires and by interviewing women. We received questionnaires from 206 out of the 490 women (42%) who had participated in the ECLIPSE trial 10 years earlier. Responders were, on average, 54 years old, and half reported that they had reached the menopause. About 3 in 10 women overall had either received a hysterectomy or undergone destruction of the womb lining. Just over one-quarter of women were using the hormonal coil. Quality of life remained improved and was generally higher than that before treatment. There was no big difference in quality of life or in the numbers of women having surgery between those who first used tablets and those who received the coil. Women described the wide-ranging impact of heavy bleeding on their lives and the taboo around periods. Women's experience of good or poor communication with their doctors, and thoughts about fertility and menopause, influenced the treatment choices that they made. Women's quality of life was improved by medical treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding, even as menopause approached, and this shows the importance of these treatments. This research can help doctors and women to make more informed decisions about medical and surgical treatments.

Women's experiences of heavy menstrual bleeding and medical treatment: a qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is common and can affect women's lives. Evidence on women's experiences and their treatment of this problem after seeking primary care is lacking. AIM: To explore women's experiences of HMB and their medical treatment up to 10 years after initial management in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a qualitative study in UK primary care. METHOD: Semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of 36 women who had participated in the ECLIPSE trial of medical treatments for HMB in primary care (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or other usual medical treatments - oral tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen; or progesterone alone). Data were analysed thematically and a process of respondent validation was undertaken. RESULTS: Women reported the wide-ranging and debilitating impact of HMB on their lives. They had often normalised their experience underlining persisting societal taboos about menstruation and reflecting low general awareness of HMB as treatable. Women commonly delayed seeking help for several years. They could then be frustrated by lack of a medical explanation for HMB. Women who had pathology identified felt able to make better sense of their HMB. Experiences of medical treatments varied considerably but were strongly influenced by the perceived quality of healthcare interactions with clinicians. Other influences on women's treatment included considerations for their fertility, health concerns, family and peers, and views when approaching menopause. CONCLUSION: Clinicians should be aware of the considerable challenges faced by women with HMB; widely differing experiences of, and influences on, their treatment; and the value of patient-centred communication in this context.

Medical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding in primary care: 10-year data from the ECLIPSE trial.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem that can significantly affect women's lives. There is a lack of evidence on long-term outcomes after seeking treatment. AIM: To assess continuation rates of medical treatments and rates of surgery in women 10 years after initial management for HMB in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective observational cohort study. METHOD: Women with HMB who participated in the ECLIPSE primary care trial (ISRCTN86566246) completed questionnaires 10 years after randomisation to the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or other usual medical treatments (oral tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen; or progesterone alone). Outcomes were rates of surgery, medical treatments, and quality of life using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and EuroQoL EQ-5D. RESULTS: The responding cohort of 206 women was demographically and clinically representative of the original trial population. Mean age at baseline was 41.9 years (SD 4.9) and 53.7 years (SD 5.1) at follow-up. Over the 10-year follow-up, 60 of 206 (29.1%) women had surgery (hysterectomy n = 34, 16.5%; endometrial ablation n = 26, 12.6%). Between 5 and 10 years, 89 women (43.2%) ceased all medical treatments and 88 (42.7%) used LNG-IUS alone or in combination with other treatments. Fifty-six women (27.2%) were using LNG-IUS at 10 years. There were improvements over time in quality-of-life scores, with no evidence of differences in these or other outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Medical treatments for women with HMB can be successfully initiated in primary care, with low rates of surgery and improvement in quality of life observed a decade later.

Introducing genetic testing with case finding for familial hypercholesterolaemia in primary care: qualitative study of patient and health professional experience.

BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a common inherited condition causing elevated cholesterol, premature heart disease, and early death. Although FH can be effectively treated, over 80% of people with FH remain undetected. AIM: To explore patient and health professional experiences of introducing genetic testing with case finding for FH in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study in UK general practice. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of 41 participants (24 patients and 17 health professionals) from eight practices, using an electronic case-finding tool (FAMCAT) to identify patients with higher likelihood of having FH and who were then offered diagnostic genetic testing in primary care. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: While prior awareness of FH was low, patients were unsurprised to be identified as being at risk, and positive about being offered genetic testing by their practice. Patients not found to have FH were relieved, although some felt frustrated that their high cholesterol lacked a clear cause. Those confirmed to have FH largely expected and accepted this outcome. Practitioners saw detection of FH as an important new opportunity for preventive care. They found the case-finding tool easy to apply and noted patients' high uptake of genetic testing. While they were comfortable referring appropriate patients for further specialist management, GPs sought clearer definition about responsibility for identification and long- term care of FH in future care pathways. CONCLUSION: Introducing genetic testing with electronic case finding for FH in primary care was positively experienced by patients and practitioners. Further development of this approach could help improve detection of FH in the general population.

Comparing the performance of the novel FAMCAT algorithms and established case-finding criteria for familial hypercholesterolaemia in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a common inherited disorder causing premature coronary heart disease (CHD) and death. We have developed the novel Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Case Ascertainment Tool (FAMCAT 1) case-finding algorithm for application in primary care, to improve detection of FH. The performance of this algorithm was further improved by including personal history of premature CHD (FAMCAT 2 algorithm). This study has evaluated their performance, at 95% specificity, to detect genetically confirmed FH in the general population. We also compared these algorithms to established clinical case-finding criteria. METHODS: Prospective validation study, in 14 general practices, recruiting participants from the general adult population with cholesterol documented. For 260 participants with available health records, we determined possible FH cases based on FAMCAT thresholds, Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) score, Simon-Broome criteria and recommended cholesterol thresholds (total cholesterol >9.0 mmol/L if ≥30 years or >7.5 mmol/L if <30 years), using clinical data from electronic and manual extraction of patient records and family history questionnaires. The reference standard was genetic testing. We examined detection rate (DR), sensitivity and specificity for each case-finding criteria. RESULTS: At 95% specificity, FAMCAT 1 had a DR of 27.8% (95% CI 12.5% to 50.9%) with sensitivity of 31.2% (95% CI 11.0% to 58.7%); while FAMCAT 2 had a DR of 45.8% (95% CI 27.9% to 64.9%) with sensitivity of 68.8% (95% CI 41.3% to 89.0%). DLCN score ≥6 points yielded a DR of 35.3% (95% CI 17.3% to 58.7%) and sensitivity of 37.5% (95% CI 15.2% to 64.6%). Using recommended cholesterol thresholds resulted in DR of 28.0% (95% CI 14.3% to 47.6%) with sensitivity of 43.8% (95% CI 19.8% to 70.1%). Simon-Broome criteria had lower DR 11.3% (95% CI 6.0% to 20.0%) and specificity 70.9% (95% CI 64.8% to 76.5%) but higher sensitivity of 56.3% (95% CI 29.9% to 80.2%). CONCLUSIONS: In primary care, in patients with cholesterol documented, FAMCAT 2 performs better than other case-finding criteria for detecting genetically confirmed FH, with no prior clinical review required for case finding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03934320.

Case-finding and genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a common inherited disorder that remains mostly undetected in the general population. Through FH case-finding and direct access to genetic testing in primary care, this intervention study described the genetic and lipid profile of patients found at increased risk of FH and the outcomes in those with positive genetic test results. METHODS: In 14 Central England general practices, a novel case-finding tool (Familial Hypercholetserolaemia Case Ascertainment Tool, FAMCAT1) was applied to the electronic health records of 86 219 patients with cholesterol readings (44.5% of total practices' population), identifying 3375 at increased risk of FH. Of these, a cohort of 336 consenting to completing Family History Questionnaire and detailed review of their clinical data, were offered FH genetic testing in primary care. RESULTS: Genetic testing was completed by 283 patients, newly identifying 16 with genetically confirmed FH and 10 with variants of unknown significance. All 26 (9%) were recommended for referral and 19 attended specialist assessment. In a further 153 (54%) patients, the test suggested polygenic hypercholesterolaemia who were managed in primary care. Total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels were higher in those patients with FH-causing variants than those with other genetic test results (p=0.010 and p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Electronic case-finding and genetic testing in primary care could improve identification of FH; and the better targeting of patients for specialist assessment. A significant proportion of patients identified at risk of FH are likely to have polygenic hypercholesterolaemia. There needs to be a clearer management plan for these individuals in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03934320.

Improving primary care identification of familial breast cancer risk using proactive invitation and decision support.

Family history of breast cancer is a key risk factor, accounting for up to 10% of cancers. We evaluated the proactive assessment of familial breast cancer (FBC) risk in primary care. Eligible women (30 to 60 years) were recruited from eight English general practices. Practices were trained on FBC risk assessment. In four randomly-assigned practices, women were invited to complete a validated, postal family history questionnaire, which practice staff inputted into decision support software to determine cancer risk. Those with increased risk were offered specialist referral. Usual care was observed in the other four practices. In intervention practices, 1127/7012 women (16.1%) returned family history questionnaires, comprising 1105 (98%) self-reported white ethnicity and 446 (39.6%) educated to University undergraduate or equivalent qualification, with 119 (10.6%) identified at increased breast cancer risk and offered referral. Sixty-seven (56%) women recommended referral were less than 50 years old. From 66 women attending specialists, 26 (39.4%) were confirmed to have high risk and recommended annual surveillance (40-60 years) and surgical prevention; while 30 (45.5%) were confirmed at moderate risk, with 19 offered annual surveillance (40-50 years). The remaining 10 (15.2%) managed in primary care. None were recommended chemoprevention. In usual care practices, only ten women consulted with concerns about breast cancer family history. This study demonstrated proactive risk assessment in primary care enables accurate identification of women, including many younger women, at increased risk of breast cancer. To improve generalisability across the population, more active methods of engagement need to be explored.Trial registration: CRUK Clinical Trials Database 11779.

Specialist recommendation for chemoprevention medications in patients at familial risk of breast cancer: a cross-sectional survey in England.

In England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline for familial breast cancer recommends chemoprevention for women at high and moderate familial risk of breast cancer. However, prescribing of chemoprevention has not improved since the introduction of the guideline in 2013. The study aims to identify the current practice, in England, of familial cancer specialists offering chemoprevention and recommending prescribing in primary care. This was an anonymized national cross-sectional survey of familial breast cancer risk services in England. Lead clinicians were sent an online survey link. The survey questions included whether chemoprevention was offered/considered for high- and moderate-risk women, when chemoprevention prescribing and recommendation to primary care started, medications prescribed, age groups considered for chemoprevention, and existence of a shared prescribing protocol with primary care. The survey was sent to 115 hospital services; responses from 50 services (43%) were included in the analysis. Of the 40 services offering chemoprevention for high-risk women, 15 (38%) did not prescribe but 31 (78%) recommended prescribing to primary care. Of the 31 services considering chemoprevention for moderate risk, eight (26%) did not prescribe with 26 (84%) recommended prescribing to primary care. Only three services reported having a shared protocol with primary care. Within 3 years of the guidelines, many services recognized the role of chemoprevention for both high and moderate risk with a key role for primary care to initiate prescribing. However, there is still room for improvement.

Characteristics predicting recommendation for familial breast cancer referral in a cohort of women from primary care.

Family history of breast and related cancers can indicate increased breast cancer (BC) risk. In national familial breast cancer (FBC) guidelines, the risk is stratified to guide referral decisions. We aimed to identify characteristics associated with the recommendation for referral in a large cohort of women undergoing FBC risk assessment in a recent primary care study. Demographic, family history, psychological and behavioural factors were collected with family history questionnaires, psychological questionnaires and manual data extraction from general practice electronic health records. Participants were women aged 30-60 with no previous history of breast or ovarian cancer. Data from 1127 women were analysed with stepwise logistic regression. Two multivariable logistic models were developed to predict recommendations for referral: using the entire cohort (n = 1127) and in a subgroup with uncertain risks (n = 168). Model performance was assessed by the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). In all 1127 women, a multivariable model incorporating five family history components (BC aged < 40, bilateral BC, prostate cancer, first degree relative with ovarian cancer, paternal family history of BC) and having a mammogram in the last 3 years, performed well (AUC = 0.86). For the 168 uncertain risk women, only paternal family history of BC remained significant (AUC = 0.71). Clinicians should pay particular attention to these five family history components when assessing FBC risk, especially prostate cancer which is not in the current national guidelines.

Effectiveness of interventions to identify and manage patients with familial cancer risk in primary care: a systematic review.

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of strategies to identify and manage patients with familial risk of breast, ovarian, colorectal and prostate cancer in primary care to improve clinical outcomes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were searched from January 1980 to October 2017. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI). Primary outcomes were cancer incidence, cancer-related clinical outcomes or the identification of cancer predisposition; secondary outcomes were the appropriateness of referral, uptake of preventive strategies and cognitive and psychological effect. From 11,842 abstracts, 111 full texts were reviewed and three eligible studies (nine articles) identified. Two were cluster RCTs and one NRSI; all used risk assessment software. No studies identified our primary outcomes, with no consistent outcome across the three studies. In one RCT, intervention improved the proportion of genetic referrals meeting referral guidelines for breast cancer (OR 4.5, 95% CI 1.6 to 13.1). In the other RCT, there was no difference in screening adherence between the intervention and control group. However, there was borderline increased risk perception (OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.59) in the subgroup that under-estimated their colon cancer risk. In the NRSI, there was no change in psychological distress in patients at increased familial breast cancer risk, but population risk patients had reduced anxiety after intervention (state anxiety mean change - 3, 95% CI - 5 to - 2). Future studies should have better-defined comparator groups and longer follow-up and assess outcomes using validated tools.

Tiotropium Bromide/Olodaterol (Stiolto Respimat): Once-Daily Combination Therapy for the Maintenance of COPD.

Tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (Stiolto Respimat): once-daily combination therapy for the maintenance of COPD.