CT-Screening for lung cancer does not increase the use of anxiolytic or antidepressant medication

Linda Kaerlev, Maria Iachina, Jesper Holst Pedersen, Anders Green, Bente Mertz Nørgård, Linda Kaerlev, Maria Iachina, Jesper Holst Pedersen, Anders Green, Bente Mertz Nørgård

Abstract

Background: CT screening for lung cancer has recently been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality, but screening may have adverse mental health effects. We calculated risk ratios for prescription of anti-depressive (AD) or anxiolytic (AX) medication redeemed at Danish pharmacies for participants in The Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST).

Methods: The DLCST was a randomized clinical trial which comprised 4,104 former or present smokers who were randomized from 12 May 2004 to 20 June 2006 to either CT scan of the chest, lung-function test and filling in questionnaires annually for five years in the period 1 April 2006-31 March 2010 (n = 2,052), or to a control group (n = 2,052) receiving similar procedures except CT scan. We used CT scan intervention group versus control group status as exposure. The follow-up period for use of AD or AX was three years. Baseline data on civil status, socioeconomic status, and co-morbidity as well as outcome data on AD and AX were obtained by linkage to national registries.

Results: The intervention and the control groups did not differ by age, gender, civil status, socio-economic position, co-morbidity index or former use of AD or AX. The adjusted risk ratio for at least one recipe of AD or AX in the CT intervention group during follow-up was not increased when adjusting for previous use of AD or AX, HR 1.00, 95 % CI (0.90-1.12). Similar results were seen when excluding subjects using AD or AX in a four-month or two-year period before baseline, when analyzing AD and AX separately, or requiring at least two recipes.

Conclusions: We found no indications that participation in a lung cancer CT-screening program increases the risk of specific adverse mental health outcomes.

Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov Protocol Registration System (NCT00496977).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Unadjusted risk estimates for AD or AX in the intervention group (2) and in the control group (1).

References

    1. The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395–409.
    1. van den Bergh KA, Essink-Bot ML, Bunge EM, Scholten ET, Prokop M, van Iersel CA. et al.Impact of computed tomography screening for lung cancer on participants in a randomized controlled trial (NELSON trial) Cancer. 2008;113:396–404. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23590.
    1. Brodersen J, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. The benefits and harms of screening for cancer with a focus on breast screening. Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2010;120:89–94.
    1. Bunge EM, van den Bergh KA, Essink-Bot ML, van Klaveren RJ, de Koning HJ. High affective risk perception is associated with more lung cancer-specific distress in CT screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2008;62:385–390. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2008.03.029.
    1. Pedersen JH, Ashraf H, Dirksen A, Bach K, Hansen H, Toennesen P. et al.The Danish randomized lung cancer CT screening trial–overall design and results of the prevalence round. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4:608–614. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181a0d98f.
    1. Hestbech MS, Siersma V, Dirksen A, Pedersen JH, Brodersen J. Participation bias in a randomised trial of screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2011;73:325–331. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2010.12.018.
    1. Ashraf H, Tonnesen P, Holst PJ, Dirksen A, Thorsen H, Dossing M. Effect of CT screening on smoking habits at 1-year follow-up in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST) Thorax. 2009;64:388–392. doi: 10.1136/thx.2008.102475.
    1. Clark MM, Jett JR. Change in smoking status after low-dose spiral chest CT screening for lung cancer: opportunity for smoking intervention. Thorax. 2009;64:371–372. doi: 10.1136/thx.2008.111039.
    1. Pieters MS, Jennekens-Schinkel A, Schoemaker HC, Cohen AF. Self-selection for personality variables among healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;33:101–106. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1992.tb04007.x.
    1. Ball CJ, McLaren PM, Morrison PJ. The personality structure of 'normal' volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1993;36:369–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1993.tb00379.x.
    1. Almeida L, Kashdan TB, Nunes T, Coelho R, Albino-Teixeira A, Soares-da-Silva P. Who volunteers for phase I clinical trials? Influences of anxiety, social anxiety and depressive symptoms on self-selection and the reporting of adverse events. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;64:575–582. doi: 10.1007/s00228-008-0468-8.
    1. Berto D, Milleri S, Squassante L, Baroldi PA. Evaluation of personality as a component of the healthy condition of volunteers participating in phase I studies. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;51:209–213. doi: 10.1007/s002280050185.
    1. Bunce SC, Noblett KL, McCloskey MS, Coccaro EF. High prevalence of personality disorders among healthy volunteers for research: implications for control group bias. J Psychiatr Res. 2005;39:421–430. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2004.09.005.
    1. Ashraf H, de HB, Shaker SB, Dirksen A, Bach KS, Hansen H. et al.Lung nodule volumetry: segmentation algorithms within the same software package cannot be used interchangeably. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:1878–1885. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1749-z.
    1. Pedersen CB. The Danish Civil Registration System. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:22–25. doi: 10.1177/1403494810387965.
    1. Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M. The Danish National Patient Register. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:30–33. doi: 10.1177/1403494811401482.
    1. Statistics Denmark. Statistics Denmark. , ; 2011.
    1. Kildemoes HW, Sorensen HT, Hallas J. The Danish National Prescription Registry. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:38–41. doi: 10.1177/1403494810394717.
    1. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, Mackenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic co-morbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–383. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.
    1. Iachina M, Green A, Jakobsen E. The impact of co-morbidity on survival of patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A joint model for survival and mixed-effect models with missing measurements in covariates. Unpublished Work. 2011; : .
    1. WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC Index. , ; 2011. .
    1. van Iersel CA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G, Mali WP, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K. et al.Risk-based selection from the general population in a screening trial: selection criteria, recruitment and power for the Dutch-Belgian randomised lung cancer multi-slice CT screening trial (NELSON) Int J Cancer. 2007;120:868–874. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22134.
    1. Baecke E, de Koning HJ, Otto SJ, van Iersel CA, van Klaveren RJ. Limited contamination in the Dutch-Belgian randomized lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) Lung Cancer. 2010;69:66–70. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2009.08.015.
    1. Kaerlev L, Kolstad HA, Hansen AM, Thomsen JF, Kaergaard A, Rugulies R. et al.Are risk estimates biased in follow-up studies of psychosocial factors with low base-line participation? BMC Public Health. 2011;11:539. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-539.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren