BackgroundWe investigated demographic and clinical predictors of lower participation in bowel screening relative to breast and cervical screening.MethodsData linkage study of routinely collected clinical data from 430,591 women registered with general practices in the Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board. Participation in the screening programmes was measured by attendance at breast or cervical screening or the return of a bowel screening kit.Results72.6% of 159,993 women invited attended breast screening, 80.7% of 309,899 women invited attended cervical screening and 61.7% of 180,408 women invited completed bowel screening. Of the 68,324 women invited to participate in all three screening programmes during the study period, 52.1% participated in all three while 7.2% participated in none. Women who participated in breast (OR = 3.34 (3.21, 3.47), p < 0.001) or cervical (OR = 3.48 (3.32, 3.65), p < 0.001) were more likely to participate in bowel screening.ConclusionParticipation in bowel screening was lower than breast or cervical for this population although the same demographic factors were associated with uptake, namely lower social deprivation, increasing age, low levels of comorbidity and prior non-malignant neoplasms. As women who complete breast and cervical are more likely to also complete bowel screening, interventions at these procedures to encourage bowel screening participation should be explored.

SummaryWe previously showed that levels of chromosome damage induced by ionizing radiation were, on average, higher in G 2 and G 0 lymphocytes of breast cancer patients than of normal healthy controls, but that there was no correlation between the results in the two assays. We proposed that enhanced sensitivity to G 2 or G 0 irradiation was a marker of low-penetrance predisposition to breast cancer, and have recently demonstrated heritability of sensitivity in families of breast cancer cases. We have now applied these assays to patients with head and neck cancers, for whom there is epidemiological evidence of inherited predisposition in addition to environmental causes. The mean frequency of radiation-induced G 2 aberrations was higher in the 42 patients than in 27 normal controls, but not significantly so. However, cases less than 45 years old were significantly more sensitive than normals of the same age range (P = 0.046), whereas there was no difference between patients and normals of less than 45 years. Also, there was an inverse correlation between G 2 sensitivity and age for patients but not for normals. Radiation-induced micronuclei in G 0 cells were more frequent in 49 patients than in 31 normals (P = 0.056) but, as with the G 2 assay, the greatest difference was seen between early-onset patients and young normals. Again there was an inverse correlation with age for patients but not for normals. Six patients with enhanced toxicity to radiotherapy were G 2 tested and four other such patients were G 0 tested; levels of chromosome damage were not significantly greater than in patients with normal reactions. Both assays were used on 64 individuals (39 patients, 25 normals) and there was no significant correlation between the results. We suggest that a proportion of early-onset head and neck cancer patients are genetically predisposed and that each of the two assays detects a different subset of these cases.

Aims Ischaemic heart disease persists as the leading cause of death in both men and women in most countries and sex disparities, defined as differences in health outcomes and their determinants, may be relevant. We examined sex disparities in presenting characteristics, treatment and all-cause mortality in patients hospitalized with myocardial infarction (MI) or angina. Methods and results We conducted a cohort study of all patients admitted with MI or angina (01 October 2013 to 30 June 2016) from a secondary care acute coronary syndrome e-Registry in NHS Scotland linked with national registers of community drug dispensation and mortality data. A total of 7878 patients hospitalized for MI or angina were prospectively included; 3161 (40%) were women. Women were older, more deprived, had a greater burden of comorbidity, were more often treated with guideline-recommended therapy preadmission and less frequently received immediate invasive management. Men were more likely to receive coronary angiography [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.52, confidence interval (CI) 1.37–1.68] and percutaneous coronary intervention (adjusted OR 1.68, CI 1.52–1.86). Women were less comprehensively treated with evidence-based therapies post-MI. Women had worse crude survival, primarily those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (14.3% vs. 8.0% at 1 year, P &lt; 0.001), but this finding was explained by differences in baseline factors. Men with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction had a higher risk of all-cause death at 30 days [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.72, CI 1.16–2.56] and 1 year (adjusted HR 1.38, CI 1.12–1.69). Conclusion After taking account of baseline risk factors, sex differences in treatment pathway, use of invasive management, and secondary prevention therapies indicate disparities in guideline-directed management of women hospitalized with MI or angina.

IntroductionThere is an evidence gap about how to best treat patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafts (CABGs) presenting with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) because historically, these patients were excluded from pivotal randomised trials. We aim to undertake a pilot trial of routine non-invasive management versus routine invasive management in patients with NSTE-ACS with prior CABG and optimal medical therapy during routine clinical care. Our trial is a proof-of-concept study for feasibility, safety, potential efficacy and health economic modelling. We hypothesise that a routine invasive approach in patients with NSTE-ACS with prior CABG is not superior to a non-invasive approach with optimal medical therapy.Methods and analysis60 patients will be enrolled in a randomised clinical trial in 4 hospitals. A screening log will be prospectively completed. Patients not randomised due to lack of eligibility criteria and/or patient or physician preference and who give consent will be included in a registry. We will gather information about screening, enrolment, eligibility, randomisation, patient characteristics and adverse events (including post-discharge). The primary efficacy outcome is the composite of all-cause mortality, rehospitalisation for refractory ischaemia/angina, myocardial infarction and hospitalisation for heart failure. The primary safety outcome is the composite of bleeding, stroke, procedure-related myocardial infarction and worsening renal function. Health status will be assessed using EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) assessed at baseline and 6 monthly intervals, for at least 18 months.Trial registration numberNCT01895751 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Aims: Therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) is a mainstay of treatment for heart failure (HF), diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). These agents have been associated with development of acute kidney injury (AKI) during intercurrent illness. Risk factors for AKI in patients prescribed ACEi/ARB therapy are not well described. Methods:We captured the incidence of AKI in patients commencing ACEi/ARB during 2009-2015 using anonymised patient records. Hospital-coded AKI was defined from hospital episode statistics; biochemical AKI was ascertained from laboratory data. Risk factors for biochemically detected and hospitalised AKI were investigated. Results:Of 61,318 patients prescribed ACEi/ARB, with 132 885 person years (py) follow-up, there were 1070 hospitalisations with AKI as a diagnosis recorded and a total of 4645 AKI events, including AKI episodes indicated by biochemical KDIGObased creatinine change criteria. Incidence of any AKI event was 35.0 per 1000-py, hospital-coded AKI was 7.8 per 1000-py and biochemical AKI was 33.7 per 1000-py.Independent risk factors in a multivariable model for hospital-coded AKI events were age, male gender, HF, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, socioeconomic deprivation, diuretic or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory use (all P < 0.001). Conclusion:In patients prescribed ACEi/ARB, the highest risk of AKI is associated with conditions which are considered strong evidence-based indications for their prescription. Socio-economic status is an under-reported risk factor for AKI with these agents. Strategies targeted at prevention of AKI may be of benefit, such as enhanced awareness based on higher risk comorbidities. K E Y W O R D Sacute kidney injury, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, chronic kidney disease, heart failure