You are here
We have particular expertise in design and analysis of occupational and environmental epidemiological surveys
In addition to our specific research projects, we provide assistance with:
- statistical design
- data management
- presentation of results
- dissemination of findings
We also have a well-established, highly thought of teaching programme.
Lungs At Work in Kent
A study, funded by the Colt Foundation, is examining the impact of respiratory symptoms, COPD and airflow obstruction (FEV1) on present and future employment in 51-60 year olds in Kent.
Phase 1: initial postal cross-sectional survey of over 20,000 people completed in 2007, demonstrating the significant impact of breathlessness on work performance in this age group.
Phase 2: Just under 2000 volunteers in full time work completed a detailed clinical assessment, involving spirometry, exercise and muscle strength testing and measurement of fat free mass as well as blood sampling.
Spirometry results demonstrated that airflow obstruction was significantly associated with impairment in work performance in this general population, particularly in individuals reporting breathlessness.
Phase 3: follow up postal questionnaire survey focusing on job changes in the intervening 18 months, repeat clinical assessment to compare participants experiencing job loss or change in circumstances with individuals from the same population who reported no difference in their employment situation.
Occupational lung and heart disease in welders
The research comprises:
- A cross-sectional and panel study looking at the effects of welding fume exposure on welders’ lungs and heart who are working in a repair shipyard in the Middle East; specifically looking at lung disease and arterial stiffness.
- Analysis of historical longitudinal data of welders from the same shipyard.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies on arc welding fume effects and obstructive lung disease.
The effects of real-world exposures to diesel traffic emissions on cardio-respiratory outcomes in patients with COPD and IHD: ‘Oxford Street 2’ - a BHF funded study
- Paul Cullinan, Fan Chung, Rudy Sinharay; Ben Barratt and Frank Kelly (Environmental Research Group, KCL); Jim Zhang (Dukes University USA)
The objectives of this study are to compare the clinical, physiological and inflammatory responses in patients with COPD and IHD after exposure to ambient levels of diesel emission particles in Oxford Street (high levels) and in Hyde Park (low levels).
Physiological outcomes measured included lung function, impulse oscillometry and arterial stiffness.
We would like determine the mechanistic explanations for any physiological findings. In particular we have taken serum samples to look at:
- Markers that relate to endothelial dysfunction including P-selectin (sCD62P) & sCD40L
Markers of oxidative stress including 8-isoprostane and malondialdehyde (oxidative stress)
Habitual gait speed: A novel prognostic marker in COPD?
This MRC-funded research study aims to assess whether usual walking speed is a useful marker of disease severity and whether it has prognostic value in COPD.
The reliability of the gait speed and the association between gait speed and existing measures of exercise capacity will be assessed in stable COPD patients. The ability of gait speed to predict early hospital readmission in hospitalized patients at discharge following acute exacerbation of COPD will be prospectively evaluated. Furthermore, the ability of gait speed to predict mortality will be prospectively assessed in a cohort of stable COPD patients followed up for a minimum of two years.
Post-marketing surveillance in CF
- Stephanie MacNeill, Diana Bilton (Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust), Martin Wildman (Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust) and the CF Trust
In collaboration with the CF Trust and a number of pharmaceutical companies, we are involved in post-marketing safety studies of new treatments for patients with CF. These observational studies are designed to assess and monitor long-term safety outcomes of new treatments in everyday use. The studies we are involved in have the unique feature of making use of routinely collected clinical data on both treated and untreated patients from the UK CF Registry patient database. Using the rich data available on the CF Registry allows us to collect a range of clinical outcomes on both patients who are receiving the treatment under study as well as comparable groups of untreated patients with CF. As these are observational studies, selection of an appropriate comparator group is important to ensure that safety events are not due to disease severity. As such, we are using specialised statistical techniques to ensure that our comparator groups are similarly likely to receive the study treatments.
Our work at Imperial College London is funded by the CF Trust.
Quality improvement in cystic fibrosis (CF): What can we learn from each other?
- Stephanie MacNeill, Janet Allen (CF Trust), Diana Bilton (Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust), Jonathan Boote (University of Sheffield), Siobhan Carr (Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust), Paul Cullinan, Caroline Elston (King’s College Hospital NHS Trust), Steve Harrison (Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust), Mohammed Mohammed (University of Bradford), Livia Pierotti and Martin Wildman (Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust)
Patients with CF are treated at specialist centres offering dedicated paediatric or adult care. The CF Trust – the national UK charity for CF - maintains a national registry database of detailed clinical and demographic information on all patients attending these specialist centres. Patients are invited to attend annual reviews and based on these data the Trust produces annual reports describing the health of patients. The reports are available on the CF Trust website to be accessed by patients and clinicians alike (http://www.cysticfibrosis.org.uk/about-cf/publications/cf-registry-reports). Since 2008 these reports have included comparisons between centres in terms of key clinical outcomes using simple rankings. While these comparisons give a sense of the distribution of outcomes between centres, they encourage the reader to assume that centres with the highest lung function measures are “better” than those with lower values. This is misleading on two grounds:
1) The rankings make no allowances for the differences in the intake of patients.
2) The rankings include no formal tests comparing centres. Without formal comparisons we cannot say that there is evidence that outcomes are better at one centre than another let alone conclude that any observed differences are related to the process of care.
Our aim in this study is to avoid the inappropriate interpretation of league tables and to adopt a more systematic and scientific method based on "statistical process control" (SPC) to identify exceptional CF care services in the UK in terms of clinically meaningful outcomes.
Study funded by the NIHR HSDR programme.