Showing posts with label respiratory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label respiratory. Show all posts

Saturday, 5 May 2018

"Health inequalities in relation to people with learning disabilities": LeDeR reports.

LeDeR mentioned in the title of this post, refers to the Learning Disabilities Mortality Review, an English initiative designed to "make improvements to the lives of people with learning disabilities." Part of that 'make improvements' statement covers the important area of health inequality and some truly shocking early mortality risks that seems to follow a diagnosis of learning (intellectual) disability. To quote: "Today, people with learning disabilities die, on average, 15-20 years sooner than people in the general population, with some of those deaths identified as being potentially amenable to good quality healthcare." Remind me what century we live in again...

I've covered early mortality in the context of learning disability before on this blog (see here and see here) and how various factors seem to 'converge' to place someone diagnosed with a learning disability at some significant disadvantage when it comes to living a healthy life or being faced with an early death. So things like an acknowledgement that various physical conditions seems to be 'over-represented' alongside learning disability and the idea that diagnostic overshadowing is quite prevalent are some key points to consider (see here). Minus any sweeping generalisations, I should also mention that the quality of the care received (or sometimes not received) by some people diagnosed with a learning disability is also sometimes part of the picture too (see here).

The LeDeR report covering 2017 [1] once again paints a pretty grim picture of how we, as a society, treat some of how most vulnerable members. Some media coverage of the publication of the report can be seen here and other bloggers have dissected some of the observations (see here). The report notes from the period 1st July 2016 to 30th November 2017 there were over 1300 deaths reported to the LeDeR programme. Also: "The median age at death of people with learning disabilities (aged four years and over) was 58 years (range 4-97 years). For males it was 59; for females 56." And: "More than a quarter (28%) of deaths were of people aged under 50 years." More than a quarter of deaths were noted in those under 50 years of age. Let that sink in, as it appears that being diagnosed with a learning disability impacts on how long you're likely to live. Perhaps just as important was another observation made: "People with profound or multiple disabilities had a median age at death of 41 years; those with mild or moderate learning disabilities had a median age at death of 63 years." There appears to be a dose-related relationship between mortality and how disabled a person was.

Details on the cause of death also revealed some important patterns. Respiratory illness was mentioned on the death certificate of some 30% of people - the most frequently cited cause - and diseases of the circulatory system in around 15%. In more detail, these categorisations covered specific diagnoses such as pneumonia and sepsis. I should also mention that epilepsy was also mentioned as a cause of death in around 4-6% of cases.

Where next? Well, the report does make some recommendations to try and reduce/eliminate such health inequalities in the context of learning disability. Obviously, not every death recorded could have been avoided, but there are potential ways and means in which care might (should!) be improved to help lessen the risk of early mortality for some. Outside of things like 'strengthening collaboration and information sharing' noted in the report, I was drawn to a few other recommendations including one stating that "all people with learning disabilities with two or more long term conditions (related to either physical or mental health) should have a local, named health care coordinator" and another that: "There should be a national focus on pneumonia and sepsis in people with learning disabilities, to raise awareness about their prevention, identification and early treatment." I can't disagree with such future directions assuming that is, that the money required to set in motion such recommendations, also follows suit.

I'm becoming increasingly aware that there is a real issue present in the care of many different groups of people, specifically where a learning, developmental or psychiatric diagnosis is mentioned. People with a learning disability are at a heightened risk of early mortality. People diagnosed with a developmental disorder such as autism are at a heightened risk of early mortality (see here and see here). People diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as schizophrenia are at a heightened risk of early mortality (see here and see here). It strikes me that the time may be right to set up an independent commission covering these (often, very often, overlapping) diagnostic areas, and look at putting into action new ways of ensuring that such diagnoses are not a gateway to an early death.

----------

[1] The Learning Disabilities Mortality Review (LeDeR) Programme. 2018. Annual Report December 2017.

----------

Friday, 17 February 2017

Vitamin D halting colds and flu?

"Overall, the study said one person would be spared infection for every 33 taking vitamin D supplements. That is more effective than flu vaccination, which needs to treat 40 to prevent one case, although flu is far more serious than the common cold."

That was some of the media interpretation of the paper - "systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data" - published by Adrian Martineau and colleagues [1] looking at the collected data on vitamin D supplementation "on risk of acute respiratory tract infection." Including data on approximately 11,000 'randomised' participants reported in 25 studies, authors assessed whether the quite messy data on vitamin d supplementation potentially decreasing the risk of acute respiratory tract infection showed any semi-definitive trends.

Results: "Vitamin D supplementation resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one acute respiratory tract infection." Further: "Use of vitamin D did not influence risk of serious adverse events of any cause... or death due to any cause. Instances of potential adverse reactions to vitamin D were rare." And finally: "Subgroup analysis revealed that daily or weekly vitamin D supplementation without additional bolus doses protected against acute respiratory tract infection, whereas regimens containing large bolus doses did not."

I note that in the BBC news report on the Martineau paper we are told: "Public Health England (PHE) says the infections data is not conclusive, although it does recommend supplements." This slightly counter-intuitive position follows more general advice from the powers-that-be that perhaps we should all be taking a little more vitamin D (see here) given what is emerging when it comes to the varied functions of the sunshine vitamin/hormone. But bear in mind that supplementation comes with potential risks too (see here) particularly when people forget to treat their vitamins and minerals as what they are: biologically active pharmaceutics. Neither is everyone completely sold on the idea that vitamin D 'could stop colds or flu' as an accompanying editorial to the Martineau paper makes clear [2]: "The results are heterogeneous and not sufficiently applicable to the general population."

What such research does advance however, is that vitamin D is a potentially important nutrient (more so for some groups) and one that we should be [cautiously] dedicating a lot more investigation to for all-manner of possible reasons (see here and see here) outside of just bone health and the English disease. And within that scheme of research, don't forget a few things: (a) there's more to vitamin D metabolism than just 'getting enough' and (b) even today, science is still finding out new things about the chemistry of vitamin D [3]. In short, the scheme of science around vitamin D needs to be broad...

----------

[1] Martineau AR. et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ 2017; 356: i6583.

[2] Bolland MJ. & Avenell A. Do vitamin D supplements help prevent respiratory tract infections? BMJ 2017; 356: j456.

[3] Pauwels S. et al. 1β,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3: A new vitamin D metabolite in human serum. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2017 Feb 10. pii: S0960-0760(17)30040-7.

----------

ResearchBlogging.org Adrian R Martineau, David A Jolliffe, Richard L Hooper, Lauren Greenberg, John F Aloia, Peter Bergman, Gal Dubnov-Raz, Susanna Esposito, & et al (2017). Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data BMJ : 10.1136/bmj.i6583

Thursday, 21 May 2015

Respiratory illness and schizophrenia

"Schizophrenia is associated with impaired lung function and increased risk for pneumonia, COPD [Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and chronic bronchitis."

That was the primary conclusion reached in the paper by Krista Partti and colleagues [1] who aimed to "compare the respiratory health of people with psychosis with that of the general population." Their findings, based on data from "a nationally representative sample of 8028 adult Finns" (Finns as in inhabitants of Finland) involved collected data on the frequency of respiratory disease/symptoms as well as measuring lung function via the technique known as spirometry. Tobacco smoking or exposure to smoking, one of the primary causes of respiratory illness in the general population, was "quantified with serum cotinine levels."

"Participants with schizophrenia and other non-affective psychoses had significantly lower lung function values compared with the general population, and the association remained significant for schizophrenia after adjustment for smoking and other potential confounders." Indeed, as per the opening sentence to this post, authors reported some pretty elevated odds ratios (ORs) for various respiratory illnesses related to a diagnosis of schizophrenia compared with asymptomatic controls.

This is not the first time that respiratory diseases have been reported as potentially being more frequently diagnosed in cases of schizophrenia. Schoepf and colleagues [2] reported that in their cohort of those diagnosed with schizophrenia, various physical comorbidity were detected including COPD. As a predictor of "general hospital mortality" both COPD and bronchitis were included in the list of diseases. Other studies have arrived at similar conclusions [3] including data derived from the 'big data' producer that is Taiwan as per the findings from Hsu and colleagues [4].

As per the NHS Choices entry on COPD: "The main cause of COPD is smoking." Tobacco smoking is reported to be more frequently present in cases of schizophrenia [5] albeit with the need for some caution when it comes to making sweeping statements about the overlap [6]. It's therefore not beyond the realms of possibility that smoking habits may very well have a primary role in the association reported by Partti et al particularly in light of their findings on cotinine levels.

That being said, and acknowledging that smoking cessation programmes may be lifesavers for people with schizophrenia as they are for the rest of the population, I'm interested in whether there may be other factors at work when it comes to lung function and schizophrenia. Airway physiology, for example, might be something to consider, particularly in light of other findings when it comes to autism covered previously on this blog (see here). I'm not trying to downplay lifestyle factors [7], just sayin' that we need to cover all the potential bases including looking at whether familial transmission might also be a factor to consider [8].

Music: Song 2 by Blur.

----------

[1] Partti K. et al. Lung function and respiratory diseases in people with psychosis: population-based study. Br J Psychiatry. 2015 Apr 9.

[2] Schoepf D. et al. Physical comorbidity and its relevance on mortality in schizophrenia: a naturalistic 12-year follow-up in general hospital admissions. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2014 Feb;264(1):3-28.

[3] Hendrie HC. et al. Health outcomes and cost of care among older adults with schizophrenia: a 10-year study using medical records across the continuum of care. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2014 May;22(5):427-36.

[4] Hsu JH. et al. Increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in patients with schizophrenia: a population-based study. Psychosomatics. 2013 Jul-Aug;54(4):345-51.

[5] Kelly C. & McCreadie R. Cigarette smoking and schizophrenia. BJPsych Advances. 2000; 6.

[6] Chapman S. et al. Citation bias in reported smoking prevalence in people with schizophrenia. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2009 Mar;43(3):277-82.

[7] Filik R. et al. The cardiovascular and respiratory health of people with schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2006 Apr;113(4):298-305.

[8] Zöller  B. et al. Familial transmission of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adoptees: a Swedish nationwide family study. BMJ Open 2015;5:e007310 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007310

----------

ResearchBlogging.org Partti K, Vasankari T, Kanervisto M, Perälä J, Saarni SI, Jousilahti P, Lönnqvist J, & Suvisaari J (2015). Lung function and respiratory diseases in people with psychosis: population-based study. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science PMID: 25858177