Regulation of lymphocyte trafficking to the human gut in physiology and disease

Memory T cell recruitment to the non-lymphoid tissue of the intestine (the gut lamina propria) requires the interactions between integrin a4B7 and its ligand Mucosal Addressin Cell Adhesion Molecule-1 (MAdCAM-1), which is exclusively expressed in the gut microvasculature. T cell homing to small intestine also requires the expression of chemokine receptor CCR9 on T cells, whose ligand - the gut chemokine CCL25 - is abundantly expressed in the small intestine. The a4B7 integrin and chemokine receptor CCR9 are known as the "homing" molecules whose expression is "imprinted" on T cells by intestinal dendritic cells during antigen presentation. In the first part of this thesis, data from in vitro studies showed that other than retinoic acid, soluble tissue-derived factors such as the gut chemokine CCL25 and T cell growth factor IL-2 also contributed to the induction of gut-homing receptor acquisition. Moreover, the expression of a4B7 integrin and CCR9 appeared to be modulated differently. The present study suggests that under the influence of tissue-derived factors, T cell acquisition of a4B7 integrin is the "default" response at steady state, and that only fully activated T cells are able to express high levels of CCR9. In the second part of this thesis, T cell gut homing was investigated in the context of disease, i.e. inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). IBD is characterized by excessive lymphocyte infiltration to the intestine. By quantitatively analyzing peripheral blood and intestinal lymphocyte subsets, proportional changes in the circulating gut-homing T cells (a4B7+) was found to be associated with CD. In addition, my data suggest that downregulation of T cell receptor zeta chain (TcRC) correlates to disease severity in both CD and UC. Measuring TcRC expression may thus provide an additional tool for the monitoring and management of IBD

Patient recruitment to a diabetic retinopathy screening trial through optimised patient information materials : an embedded study within a trial (SWAT)

Background: Printed participant information about trials is often technical, long and difficult to navigate. Optimisation and user testing can improve information materials, and may improve participant understanding and rates of recruitment. Methods: A study within a trial (SWAT) was undertaken within the ISDR trial. Potential participants in the ISDR trial were randomised to receive either the standard trial information or revised information that had been optimised through information design and user testing. Results: A total of 3,169 patients were randomised in the SWAT. Recruitment rates to the ISDR trial were 25.3% in the optimised information group and 26.1% in the standard information group (odds ratio 0.951; 95% CI 0.752 to 1.201; p=0.672). Clinic attendance rates were 71.6% in the optimised information group and 69.3% in the standard information group (OR 1.145; 95% CI 0.885 to 1.480; p=0.304). Conclusions: Optimisation of participant information through information design and user testing did not affect rate of recruitment to the host ISDR trial

Regulation of the host immune system by helminth parasites

Helminth parasite infections are associated with a battery of immunomodulatory mechanisms, which impact all facets of the host immune response to ensure their persistence within the host. This broad-spectrum modulation of host immunity has intended and unintended consequences, both advantageous and disadvantageous. Thus the host may benefit from suppression of collateral damage during parasite infection, and from reduced allergic, autoimmune and inflammatory reactions. However, helminth infection can also be detrimental in reducing vaccine responses, increasing susceptibility to co-infection, and potentially reducing tumor immunosurveillance. In this review we will summarize the panoply of immunomodulatory mechanisms used by helminths, their potential utility in human disease, and prospective areas of future research

Safety, Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness of Individualised Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy: The ISDR Randomised Controlled Trial

Background: varying diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening intervals, informed by personal risk-levels, empowers people with diabetes (PWD), and offers reallocation of resources to high risk groups, while addressing the increasing prevalence of diabetes. Safety data on extending intervals is minimal. We evaluated the safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of individualised risk-based variable-interval population screening compared to usual care, with design input from PWD.Methods: two-arm, parallel assignment, equivalence randomised controlled trial (minimum 2 year follow-up) in PWD aged ≥12 years registered with one English screening programme. Randomisation was 1:1 to individualised screening (6, 12 or 24 months for high, medium and low risk) determined by a risk calculation engine, using local demographic, screening and clinical data, or to annual screening (control). Primary outcome was attendance (safety). A secondary safety outcome was the development of sight threatening DR (STDR). Cost effectiveness was evaluated within a 2 year time horizon from NHS and societal perspectives.Findings: 4534 participants were randomised, 2265 to the individualised and 2269 to the control arm. Attendance rates at first follow-up were equivalent between individualised (1754/2097, 83·6%) and control (1883/2224, 84·7%) arms (difference -1·0, 95% CI -3·2 to 1·2). STDR detection rates were non-inferior: individualised 1·4%, control 1·7% (- 0·3, -1·1 to 0·5). Sensitivity analyses confirmed findings. Incremental QALYs/person were non-significant: EQ-5D-5L 0·035 (CI -0·04, 0·13), HUI3 0·009 (CI -0·09, 0·10). Incremental cost savings were £21·31 (CI 15·24, 26·79)/person for the NHS and £28·87 (CI 21·08, 35·78) including societal costs. 43·2% fewer screening appointments were required in the individualised arm.Interpretation: stakeholders involved in diabetes care can be reassured by this largest ophthalmic RCT in DR screening to date that extended and individualised risk-based intervals can be safely and cost effectively introduced in established screening programmes

Safety and cost-effectiveness of individualised screening for diabetic retinopathy: the ISDR open-label, equivalence RCT

Aims/hypothesis Using variable diabetic retinopathy screening intervals, informed by personal risk levels, offers improved engagement of people with diabetes and reallocation of resources to high-risk groups, while addressing the increasing prevalence of diabetes. However, safety data on extending screening intervals are minimal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of individualised, variable-interval, risk-based population screening compared with usual care, with wide ranging input from individuals with diabetes. Methods This was a two-arm, parallel-assignment, equivalence RCT (minimum 2 year follow-up) in individuals with diabetes aged 12 years or older registered with a single English screening programme. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 at baseline to individualised screening at 6, 12 or 24 months for those at high, medium and low risk, respectively, as determined at each screening episode by a risk-calculation engine using local demographic, screening and clinical data, or to annual screening (control group). Screening staff and investigators were observer-masked to allocation and interval. Data were collected within the screening programme. The primary outcome was attendance (safety). A secondary safety outcome was the development of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated within a 2 year time horizon from National Health Service and societal perspectives. Results A total of 4534 participants were randomised. After withdrawals, there were 2097 participants in the individualised screening arm and 2224 in the control arm. Attendance rates at first follow-up were equivalent between the two arms (individualised screening 83.6%; control arm 84.7%; difference −1.0 [95% CI −3.2, 1.2]), while sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy detection rates were non inferior in the individualised screening arm (individualised screening 1.4%, control arm 1.7%; difference −0.3 [95% CI −1.1, 0.5]). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. No important adverse events were observed. Mean differences in complete case quality adjusted life-years (EuroQol Five-Dimension Questionnaire, Health Utilities Index Mark 3) did not significantly differ from zero

Incidence of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy in an established urban screening programme: An 11-year cohort study

Aims: systematic annual screening to detect sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) is established in the United Kingdom. We designed an observational cohort study to provide up-to-date data for policy makers and clinical researchers on incidence of key screening endpoints in people with diabetes attending one screening programme running for over 30 years.Methods: all people with diabetes aged ≥12 years registered with general practices in the Liverpool health district were offered inclusion. Data sources comprised: primary care (demographics, systemic risk factors), Liverpool Diabetes Eye Screening Programme (retinopathy grading), Hospital Eye Services (slit lamp biomicroscopy assessment of screen positives).Results: 133,366 screening episodes occurred in 28,384 people over 11 years. Overall incidences were: screen positive 6.7% (95% CI 6.5–6.8), screen positive for retinopathy 3.1% (3.0–3.1), unassessable images 2.6% (2.5–2.7), other significant eye diseases 1.0% (1.0–1.1). 1.6% (1.6–1.7) had sight-threatening retinopathy confirmed by slit lamp biomicroscopy. The annual incidence of screen positive and screen positive for retinopathy showed consistent declines from 8.8%–10.6% and 4.4%–4.6% in 2007/09 to 4.4%–6.8% and 2.3%–2.9% in 2013/17, respectively. Rates of STDR (true positive) were consistently below 2% after 2008/09. Screen positive rates were higher in first time attenders (9.9% [9.4–10.2] vs. 6.1% [6.0–6.2]) in part due to ungradeable images (4.1% vs. 2.3%) and other eye disease (2.4% vs. 0.8%). 4.5% (3.9–5.2) of previous non-attenders had sight-threatening retinopathy. Compared with people with type 2 diabetes, those with type 1 disease demonstrated higher rates of screen positive (11.9% vs. 6.0%) and STDR (6.4% vs. 1.2%). Overall prevalence of any retinopathy was 27.2% (27.0–27.4).Conclusions: in an established screening programme with a stable population screen, positive rates show a consistent fall over time to a low level. Of those who are screen positive, fewer than 50% are screen positive for diabetic retinopathy. Most are due to sight threatening maculopathy. The annual incidence of STDR is under 2% suggesting future work on redefining screen positive and supporting extended intervals for people at low risk. Higher rates of screen positive and STDR are seen in first time attenders. Those who have never attended for screening should be specifically targeted.</p

Individualised screening for diabetic retinopathy: the ISDR study—rationale, design and methodology for a randomised controlled trial comparing annual and individualised risk-based variable-interval screening

Introduction Currently, all people with diabetes (PWD) aged 12 years and over in the UK are invited for screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) annually. Resources are not increasing despite a 5% increase in the numbers of PWD nationwide each year. We describe the rationale, design and methodology for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the safety, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of personalised variable-interval risk-based screening for DR. This is the first randomised trial of personalised screening for DR and the largest ophthalmic RCT in the UK. Methods and analysis PWD attending seven screening clinics in the Liverpool Diabetic Eye Screening Programme were recruited into a single site RCT with a 1:1 allocation to individualised risk-based variable-interval or annual screening intervals. A risk calculation engine developed for the trial estimates the probability that an individual will develop referable disease (screen positive DR) within the next 6, 12 or 24 months using demographic, retinopathy and systemic risk factor data from primary care and screening programme records. Dynamic, secure, real-time data connections have been developed. The primary outcome is attendance for follow-up screening. We will test for equivalence in attendance rates between the two arms. Secondary outcomes are rates and severity of DR, visual outcomes, cost-effectiveness and health-related quality of life. The required sample size was 4460 PWD. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from National Research Ethics Service Committee North West – Preston, reference 14/NW/0034. Results will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. This pragmatic RCT will inform screening policy in the UK and elsewhere. Trial registration number ISRCTN87561257; Pre-results

Global burden of respiratory infections associated with seasonal influenza in children under 5 years in 2018: a systematic review and modelling study

Background: Seasonal influenza virus is a common cause of acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI) in young children. In 2008, we estimated that 20 million influenza-virus-associated ALRI and 1 million influenza-virus-associated severe ALRI occurred in children under 5 years globally. Despite this substantial burden, only a few low-income and middle-income countries have adopted routine influenza vaccination policies for children and, where present, these have achieved only low or unknown levels of vaccine uptake. Moreover, the influenza burden might have changed due to the emergence and circulation of influenza A/H1N1pdm09. We aimed to incorporate new data to update estimates of the global number of cases, hospital admissions, and mortality from influenza-virus-associated respiratory infections in children under 5 years in 2018. Methods: We estimated the regional and global burden of influenza-associated respiratory infections in children under 5 years from a systematic review of 100 studies published between Jan 1, 1995, and Dec 31, 2018, and a further 57 high-quality unpublished studies. We adapted the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias. We estimated incidence and hospitalisation rates of influenza-virus-associated respiratory infections by severity, case ascertainment, region, and age. We estimated in-hospital deaths from influenza virus ALRI by combining hospital admissions and in-hospital case-fatality ratios of influenza virus ALRI. We estimated the upper bound of influenza virus-associated ALRI deaths based on the number of in-hospital deaths, US paediatric influenza-associated death data, and population-based childhood all-cause pneumonia mortality data in six sites in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Findings: In 2018, among children under 5 years globally, there were an estimated 109·5 million influenza virus episodes (uncertainty range [UR] 63·1–190·6), 10·1 million influenza-virus-associated ALRI cases (6·8–15·1); 870 000 influenza-virus-associated ALRI hospital admissions (543 000–1 415 000), 15 300 in-hospital deaths (5800–43 800), and up to 34 800 (13 200–97 200) overall influenza-virus-associated ALRI deaths. Influenza virus accounted for 7% of ALRI cases, 5% of ALRI hospital admissions, and 4% of ALRI deaths in children under 5 years. About 23% of the hospital admissions and 36% of the in-hospital deaths were in infants under 6 months. About 82% of the in-hospital deaths occurred in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Interpretation: A large proportion of the influenza-associated burden occurs among young infants and in low-income and lower middle-income countries. Our findings provide new and important evidence for maternal and paediatric influenza immunisation, and should inform future immunisation policy particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. Funding: WHO; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Fil: Wang, Xin. University of Edinburgh; Reino UnidoFil: Li, You. University of Edinburgh; Reino UnidoFil: O'Brien, Katherine L.. University Johns Hopkins; Estados UnidosFil: Madhi, Shabir A.. University of the Witwatersrand; SudáfricaFil: Widdowson, Marc Alain. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Estados UnidosFil: Byass, Peter. Umea University; SueciaFil: Omer, Saad B.. Yale School Of Public Health; Estados UnidosFil: Abbas, Qalab. Aga Khan University; PakistánFil: Ali, Asad. Aga Khan University; PakistánFil: Amu, Alberta. Dodowa Health Research Centre; GhanaFil: Azziz-Baumgartner, Eduardo. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Estados UnidosFil: Bassat, Quique. University Of Barcelona; EspañaFil: Abdullah Brooks, W.. University Johns Hopkins; Estados UnidosFil: Chaves, Sandra S.. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Estados UnidosFil: Chung, Alexandria. University of Edinburgh; Reino UnidoFil: Cohen, Cheryl. National Institute For Communicable Diseases; SudáfricaFil: Echavarría, Marcela Silvia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET; ArgentinaFil: Fasce, Rodrigo A.. Public Health Institute; ChileFil: Gentile, Angela. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital General de Niños "Ricardo Gutiérrez"; ArgentinaFil: Gordon, Aubree. University of Michigan; Estados UnidosFil: Groome, Michelle. University of the Witwatersrand; SudáfricaFil: Heikkinen, Terho. University Of Turku; FinlandiaFil: Hirve, Siddhivinayak. Kem Hospital Research Centre; IndiaFil: Jara, Jorge H.. Universidad del Valle de Guatemala; GuatemalaFil: Katz, Mark A.. Clalit Research Institute; IsraelFil: Khuri Bulos, Najwa. University Of Jordan School Of Medicine; JordaniaFil: Krishnan, Anand. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences; IndiaFil: de Leon, Oscar. Universidad del Valle de Guatemala; GuatemalaFil: Lucero, Marilla G.. Research Institute For Tropical Medicine; FilipinasFil: McCracken, John P.. Universidad del Valle de Guatemala; GuatemalaFil: Mira-Iglesias, Ainara. Fundación Para El Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria; EspañaFil: Moïsi, Jennifer C.. Agence de Médecine Préventive; FranciaFil: Munywoki, Patrick K.. No especifíca;Fil: Ourohiré, Millogo. No especifíca;Fil: Polack, Fernando Pedro. Fundación para la Investigación en Infectología Infantil; ArgentinaFil: Rahi, Manveer. University of Edinburgh; Reino UnidoFil: Rasmussen, Zeba A.. National Institutes Of Health; Estados UnidosFil: Rath, Barbara A.. Vienna Vaccine Safety Initiative; AlemaniaFil: Saha, Samir K.. Child Health Research Foundation; BangladeshFil: Simões, Eric A.F.. University of Colorado; Estados UnidosFil: Sotomayor, Viviana. Ministerio de Salud de Santiago de Chile; ChileFil: Thamthitiwat, Somsak. Thailand Ministry Of Public Health; TailandiaFil: Treurnicht, Florette K.. University of the Witwatersrand; SudáfricaFil: Wamukoya, Marylene. African Population & Health Research Center; KeniaFil: Lay-Myint, Yoshida. Nagasaki University; JapónFil: Zar, Heather J.. University of Cape Town; SudáfricaFil: Campbell, Harry. University of Edinburgh; Reino UnidoFil: Nair, Harish. University of Edinburgh; Reino Unid

Global, regional, and national prevalence and mortality burden of sickle cell disease, 2000-2021: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND: Previous global analyses, with known underdiagnosis and single cause per death attribution systems, provide only a small insight into the suspected high population health effect of sickle cell disease. Completed as part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021, this study delivers a comprehensive global assessment of prevalence of sickle cell disease and mortality burden by age and sex for 204 countries and territories from 2000 to 2021. METHODS: We estimated cause-specific sickle cell disease mortality using standardised GBD approaches, in which each death is assigned to a single underlying cause, to estimate mortality rates from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-coded vital registration, surveillance, and verbal autopsy data. In parallel, our goal was to estimate a more accurate account of sickle cell disease health burden using four types of epidemiological data on sickle cell disease: birth incidence, age-specific prevalence, with-condition mortality (total deaths), and excess mortality (excess deaths). Systematic reviews, supplemented with ICD-coded hospital discharge and insurance claims data, informed this modelling approach. We employed DisMod-MR 2.1 to triangulate between these measures-borrowing strength from predictive covariates and across age, time, and geography-and generated internally consistent estimates of incidence, prevalence, and mortality for three distinct genotypes of sickle cell disease: homozygous sickle cell disease and severe sickle cell β-thalassaemia, sickle-haemoglobin C disease, and mild sickle cell β-thalassaemia. Summing the three models yielded final estimates of incidence at birth, prevalence by age and sex, and total sickle cell disease mortality, the latter of which was compared directly against cause-specific mortality estimates to evaluate differences in mortality burden assessment and implications for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). FINDINGS: Between 2000 and 2021, national incidence rates of sickle cell disease were relatively stable, but total births of babies with sickle cell disease increased globally by 13·7% (95% uncertainty interval 11·1-16·5), to 515 000 (425 000-614 000), primarily due to population growth in the Caribbean and western and central sub-Saharan Africa. The number of people living with sickle cell disease globally increased by 41·4% (38·3-44·9), from 5·46 million (4·62-6·45) in 2000 to 7·74 million (6·51-9·2) in 2021. We estimated 34 400 (25 000-45 200) cause-specific all-age deaths globally in 2021, but total sickle cell disease mortality burden was nearly 11-times higher at 376 000 (303 000-467 000). In children younger than 5 years, there were 81 100 (58 800-108 000) deaths, ranking total sickle cell disease mortality as 12th (compared to 40th for cause-specific sickle cell disease mortality) across all causes estimated by the GBD in 2021. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show a strikingly high contribution of sickle cell disease to all-cause mortality that is not apparent when each death is assigned to only a single cause. Sickle cell disease mortality burden is highest in children, especially in countries with the greatest under-5 mortality rates. Without comprehensive strategies to address morbidity and mortality associated with sickle cell disease, attainment of SDG 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4 is uncertain. Widespread data gaps and correspondingly high uncertainty in the estimates highlight the urgent need for routine and sustained surveillance efforts, further research to assess the contribution of conditions associated with sickle cell disease, and widespread deployment of evidence-based prevention and treatment for those with sickle cell disease. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Global, regional, and national burden of osteoarthritis, 1990–2020 and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis in adults, characterised by chronic pain and loss of mobility. Osteoarthritis most frequently occurs after age 40 years and prevalence increases steeply with age. WHO has designated 2021–30 the decade of healthy ageing, which highlights the need to address diseases such as osteoarthritis, which strongly affect functional ability and quality of life. Osteoarthritis can coexist with, and negatively effect, other chronic conditions. Here we estimate the burden of hand, hip, knee, and other sites of osteoarthritis across geographies, age, sex, and time, with forecasts of prevalence to 2050. Methods In this systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study, osteoarthritis prevalence in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 was estimated using data from population-based surveys from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis, and US insurance claims for all of the osteoarthritis sites, including the other types of osteoarthritis category. The reference case definition was symptomatic, radiographically confirmed osteoarthritis. Studies using alternative definitions from the reference case definition (for example self-reported osteoarthritis) were adjusted to reference using regression models. Osteoarthritis severity distribution was obtained from a pooled meta-analysis of sources using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index. Final prevalence estimates were multiplied by disability weights to calculate years lived with disability (YLDs). Prevalence was forecast to 2050 using a mixed-effects model. Findings Globally, 595 million (95% uncertainty interval 535–656) people had osteoarthritis in 2020, equal to 7·6% (95% UI 6·8–8·4) of the global population, and an increase of 132·2% (130·3–134·1) in total cases since 1990. Compared with 2020, cases of osteoarthritis are projected to increase 74·9% (59·4–89·9) for knee, 48·6% (35·9–67·1) for hand, 78·6% (57·7–105·3) for hip, and 95·1% (68·1–135·0) for other types of osteoarthritis by 2050. The global age-standardised rate of YLDs for total osteoarthritis was 255·0 YLDs (119·7–557·2) per 100 000 in 2020, a 9·5% (8·6–10·1) increase from 1990 (233·0 YLDs per 100 000, 109·3–510·8). For adults aged 70 years and older, osteoarthritis was the seventh ranked cause of YLDs. Age-standardised prevalence in 2020 was more than 5·5% in all world regions, ranging from 5677·4 (5029·8–6318·1) per 100 000 in southeast Asia to 8632·7 (7852·0–9469·1) per 100 000 in high-income Asia Pacific. Knee was the most common site for osteoarthritis. High BMI contributed to 20·4% (95% UI –1·7 to 36·6) of osteoarthritis. Potentially modifiable risk factors for osteoarthritis such as recreational injury prevention and occupational hazards have not yet been explored in GBD modelling. Interpretation Age-standardised YLDs attributable to osteoarthritis are continuing to rise and will lead to substantial increases in case numbers because of population growth and ageing, and because there is no effective cure for osteoarthritis. The demand on health systems for care of patients with osteoarthritis, including joint replacements, which are highly effective for late stage osteoarthritis in hips and knees, will rise in all regions, but might be out of reach and lead to further health inequity for individuals and countries unable to afford them. Much more can and should be done to prevent people getting to that late stage