Expansion of HCV treatment access to people who have injected drugs through effective translation of research into public health policy:Scotland's experience

Seven years have elapsed since the Scottish Government launched its Hepatitis C Action Plan – a Plan to improve services to prevent transmission of infection, particularly among people who inject drugs (PWID), identify those infected and ensure those infected receive optimal treatment. The Plan was underpinned by industrial scale funding (around £100 million, in addition to the general NHS funding, will have been invested by 2015), and a web of accountable national and local multi-disciplinary multi-agency networks responsible for the planning, development and delivery of services. Initiatives ranged from the introduction of testing in specialist drug services through finger-prick blood sampling by non-clinical staff, to the setting of government targets to ensure rapid scale-up of antiviral therapy. The Plan was informed by comprehensive national monitoring systems, indicating the extent of the problem not just in terms of numbers infected, diagnosed and treated but also the more penetrative data on the number advancing to end-stage liver disease and death, and also through compelling modelling work demonstrating the potential beneficial impact of scaling-up therapy and the mounting cost of not acting. Achievements include around 50% increase in the proportion of the infected population diagnosed (38% to 55%); a sustained near two-and-a-half fold increase in the annual number of people initiated onto therapy (470 to 1050) with more pronounced increases among PWID (300 to 840) and prisoners (20 to 140); and reversing of an upward trend in the overall number of people living with chronic infection. The Action Plan has demonstrated that a Government-backed, coordinated and invested approach can transform services and rapidly improve the lives of thousands. Cited as “an impressive example of a national strategy” by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, the Scottish Plan has also provided fundamental insights of international relevance into the management of HCV among PWID

An observational study to assess if automated diabetic retinopathy image assessment software can replace one or more steps of manual imaging grading and to determine their cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy screening in England involves labour-intensive manual grading of retinal images. Automated retinal image analysis systems (ARIASs) may offer an alternative to manual grading. OBJECTIVES: To determine the screening performance and cost-effectiveness of ARIASs to replace level 1 human graders or pre-screen with ARIASs in the NHS diabetic eye screening programme (DESP). To examine technical issues associated with implementation. DESIGN: Observational retrospective measurement comparison study with a real-time evaluation of technical issues and a decision-analytic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness. SETTING: A NHS DESP. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive diabetic patients who attended a routine annual NHS DESP visit. INTERVENTIONS: Retinal images were manually graded and processed by three ARIASs: iGradingM (version 1.1; originally Medalytix Group Ltd, Manchester, UK, but purchased by Digital Healthcare, Cambridge, UK, at the initiation of the study, purchased in turn by EMIS Health, Leeds, UK, after conclusion of the study), Retmarker (version 0.8.2, Retmarker Ltd, Coimbra, Portugal) and EyeArt (Eyenuk Inc., Woodland Hills, CA, USA). The final manual grade was used as the reference standard. Arbitration on a subset of discrepancies between manual grading and the use of an ARIAS by a reading centre masked to all grading was used to create a reference standard manual grade modified by arbitration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Screening performance (sensitivity, specificity, false-positive rate and likelihood ratios) and diagnostic accuracy [95% confidence intervals (CIs)] of ARIASs. A secondary analysis explored the influence of camera type and patients' ethnicity, age and sex on screening performance. Economic analysis estimated the cost per appropriate screening outcome identified. RESULTS: A total of 20,258 patients with 102,856 images were entered into the study. The sensitivity point estimates of the ARIASs were as follows: EyeArt 94.7% (95% CI 94.2% to 95.2%) for any retinopathy, 93.8% (95% CI 92.9% to 94.6%) for referable retinopathy and 99.6% (95% CI 97.0% to 99.9%) for proliferative retinopathy; and Retmarker 73.0% (95% CI 72.0% to 74.0%) for any retinopathy, 85.0% (95% CI 83.6% to 86.2%) for referable retinopathy and 97.9% (95% CI 94.9 to 99.1%) for proliferative retinopathy. iGradingM classified all images as either 'disease' or 'ungradable', limiting further iGradingM analysis. The sensitivity and false-positive rates for EyeArt were not affected by ethnicity, sex or camera type but sensitivity declined marginally with increasing patient age. The screening performance of Retmarker appeared to vary with patient's age, ethnicity and camera type. Both EyeArt and Retmarker were cost saving relative to manual grading either as a replacement for level 1 human grading or used prior to level 1 human grading, although the latter was less cost-effective. A threshold analysis testing the highest ARIAS cost per patient before which ARIASs became more expensive per appropriate outcome than human grading, when used to replace level 1 grader, was Retmarker £3.82 and EyeArt £2.71 per patient. LIMITATIONS: The non-randomised study design limited the health economic analysis but the same retinal images were processed by all ARIASs in this measurement comparison study. CONCLUSIONS: Retmarker and EyeArt achieved acceptable sensitivity for referable retinopathy and false-positive rates (compared with human graders as reference standard) and appear to be cost-effective alternatives to a purely manual grading approach. Future work is required to develop technical specifications to optimise deployment and address potential governance issues. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, a Fight for Sight Grant (Hirsch grant award) and the Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and the University College London Institute of Ophthalmology

Screening for glucose intolerance and development of a lifestyle education programme for prevention of Type 2 diabetes in a population with intellectual disabilities

Background: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is believed to be higher among people with intellectual disability (ID) than in the general population. However, research on prevalence and prevention in this population is limited. Objectives: The objectives of this programme of work were to establish a programme of research that would significantly enhance the knowledge and understanding of impaired glucose regulation (IGR) and T2DM in people with ID; to test strategies for the early identification of IGR and T2DM in people with ID; and to develop a lifestyle education programme and educator training protocol to promote behaviour change in a population with ID and IGR (or at a high risk of T2DM/CVD). Setting: Leicestershire, UK. Participants: Adults with ID were recruited from community settings, including residential homes and family homes. Adults with mild to moderate ID who had an elevated body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 25 kg/m2 and/or IGR were invited to take part in the education programme. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the screening programme was the prevalence of screen-detected T2DM and IGR. The uptake, feasibility and acceptability of the intervention were assessed. Data sources: Participants were recruited from general practices, specialist ID services and clinics, and through direct contact. Results: A total of 930 people with ID were recruited to the screening programme: 58% were male, 80% were white and 68% were overweight or obese. The mean age of participants was 43.3 years (standard deviation 14.2 years). Bloods were obtained for 675 participants (73%). The prevalence of previously undiagnosed T2DM was 1.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5% to 2%] and of IGR was 5% (95% CI 4% to 7%). Abnormal IGR was more common in those of non-white ethnicity; those with a first-degree family history of diabetes; those with increasing weight, waist circumference, BMI, diastolic blood pressure or triglycerides; and those with lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We developed a lifestyle educational programme for people with ID, informed by findings from qualitative stakeholder interviews (health-care professionals, n = 14; people with ID, n = 7) and evidence reviews. Subsequently, 11 people with ID (and carers) participated in pilot education sessions (two groups) and five people attended education for the feasibility stage (one group). We found that it was feasible to collect primary outcome measures on physical activity and sedentary behaviour using wrist-worn accelerometers. We found that the programme was relatively costly, meaning that large changes in activity or diet (or a reduction in programme costs) would be necessary for the programme to be cost-effective. We also developed a quality development process for assessing intervention fidelity. Limitations: We were able to screen only around 30% of the population and involved only a small number in the piloting and feasibility work. Conclusions: The results from this programme of work have significantly enhanced the existing knowledge and understanding of T2DM and IGR in people with ID. We have developed a lifestyle education programme and educator training protocol to promote behaviour change in this population. Future work: Further work is needed to evaluate the STOP Diabetes intervention to identify cost-effective strategies for its implementation