Parental experiences of a diagnosis of neonatal diabetes and perceptions of newborn screening for glucose: a qualitative study

Neonatal diabetes presents <6 months of life but delays in recognition result in presentation with life-threatening hyperglycaemia/diabetic ketoacidosis. Early identification and rapid genetic diagnosis is crucial and ensures correct treatment/management. Adding 'glucose' to newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) could aid prompt detection but requires evidence of parental acceptance. Objectives: Increase understanding of parental experience of presentation/recognition of neonatal diabetes and perceptions of glucose testing within NBS. Setting: UK families confirmed with a genetic diagnosis of neonatal diabetes, November 2014-2018, were invited to participate. Participants: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 parents of 14 children. 8 had transient neonatal diabetes: KCNJ11 (n=5), ABCC8 (n=1), 6q24 (n=2), 6 had permanent neonatal diabetes: KCNJ11 (n=4), INS (n=1), homozygous GCK (n=1). Primary and secondary outcome measures: Interviews audio recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic content analysis. Results: 3 key themes emerged:Babies were extremely ill at hospital admission, with extended stays in intensive care required.Identification of diabetes was not 'standardised' and perceived a 'chance' finding.Adding glucose to NBS was universally considered extremely positive. Conclusions: Diagnosis of neonatal diabetes is frequently delayed, resulting in critically ill presentation with prolonged intensive care support, additional healthcare costs and familial distress. Potential to detect hyperglycaemia earlier was universally endorsed by parents with no negative consequences identified. Although further study including a larger number of individuals is needed to confirm our findings this study provides the first evidence of acceptability of glucose testing fulfilling Wilson-Jungner criteria for implementation within the NBS programme.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Publisher URL to access it via the publisher's site.MS is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) 70@70 Senior Nurse and Midwife Research Leaderpublished version, accepted version, submitted versio

Uses of strength-based interventions for people with serious mental illness: a critical review

Background: For the past 3 decades, mental health practitioners have increasingly adopted aspects and tools of strength-based approaches. Providing strength-based intervention and amplifying strengths relies heavily on effective interpersonal processes. Aim: This article is a critical review of research regarding the use of strength-based approaches in mental health service settings. The aim is to discuss strength-based interventions within broader research on recovery, focussing on effectiveness and advances in practice where applicable. Method: A systematic search for peer-reviewed intervention studies published between 2001 and December 2014 yielded 55 articles of potential relevance to the review. Results: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies was used to appraise the quality of the studies. Our review found emerging evidence that the utilisation of a strength-based approach improves outcomes including hospitalisation rates, employment/educational attainment, and intrapersonal outcomes such as self-efficacy and sense of hope. Conclusion: Recent studies confirm the feasibility of implementing a high-fidelity strength-based approach in clinical settings and its relevance for practitioners in health care. More high-quality studies are needed to further examine the effectiveness of strength-based approaches

Population-Based Assessment of a Biomarker-Based Screening Pathway to Aid Diagnosis of Monogenic Diabetes in Young-Onset Patients

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the American Diabetes Association via the DOI in this record.Objective: Monogenic diabetes, a young-onset form of diabetes, is often misdiagnosed as Type 1 diabetes, resulting in unnecessary treatment with insulin. A screening approach for monogenic diabetes is needed to accurately select suitable patients for expensive diagnostic genetic testing. We used C-peptide and islet autoantibodies, highly sensitive and specific biomarkers for discriminating Type 1 from non-Type 1 diabetes, in a biomarker screening pathway for monogenic diabetes. Research Design and Methods: We studied patients diagnosed ≤30y, currently <50y, in two UK regions with existing high detection of monogenic diabetes. The biomarker screening pathway comprised 3 stages: 1) Assessment of endogenous insulin secretion using urinary C-peptide/creatinine ratio (UCPCR); 2) If UCPCR≥0.2nmol/mmol, measurement of GAD and IA2 islet autoantibodies; 3) If negative for both autoantibodies, molecular genetic diagnostic testing for 35 monogenic diabetes subtypes. Results: 1407 patients participated (1365 no known genetic cause, 34 monogenic diabetes, 8 cystic-fibrosis-related diabetes). 386/1365(28%) had UCPCR≥0.2nmol/mmol. 216/386(56%) of these patients were negative for GAD and IA2 and underwent molecular genetic testing. 17 new cases of monogenic diabetes were diagnosed (8 common MODY (Sanger sequencing), 9 rarer causes (next generation sequencing)) in addition to the 34 known cases (estimated prevalence of 3.6% (51/1407) (95%CI: 2.7-4.7%)). The positive predictive value was 20%, suggesting a 1-in-5 detection rate for the pathway. The negative predictive value was 99.9%. Conclusions: The biomarker screening pathway for monogenic diabetes is an effective, cheap, and easily implemented approach to systematically screening all young-onset patients. The minimum prevalence of monogenic diabetes is 3.6% of patients diagnosed ≤30y.This study was funded by the Department of Health and Wellcome Trust Health Innovation Challenge Award (HICF-1009-041; WT-091985). ATH and SE are Wellcome Trust Senior Investigators. ATH is an NIHR Senior Investigator. BS, ATH, MH, SE, and BK are core members of the NIHR Exeter Clinical Research Facility. EP is a Wellcome Trust New Investigator. TM is supported by NIHR CSO Fellowship. JP is partly funded by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for the South West (PenCLAHRC)

Patterns of postmeal insulin secretion in individuals with sulfonylurea- treated KCNJ11 neonatal diabetes show predominance of non- KATP- channel pathways

Insulin secretion in sulfonylurea-treated KCNJ11 permanent neonatal diabetes mellitus (PNDM) is thought to be mediated predominantly through amplifying non-KATP-channel pathways such as incretins. Affected individuals report symptoms of postprandial hypoglycemia after eating protein/fat-rich foods. We aimed to assess the physiological response to carbohydrate and protein/fat in people with sulfonylurea-treated KCNJ11 PNDM.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Publisher URL to access the full-text via the publisher's site

Complex and alternate consent pathways in clinical trials: methodological and ethical challenges encountered by underserved groups and a call to action

Background: Informed consent is considered a fundamental requirement for participation in trials, yet obtaining consent is challenging in a number of populations and settings. This may be due to participants having communication or other disabilities, their capacity to consent fluctuates or they lack capacity, or in emergency situations where their medical condition or the urgent nature of the treatment precludes seeking consent from either the participant or a representative. These challenges, and the subsequent complexity of designing and conducting trials where alternative consent pathways are required, contribute to these populations being underserved in research. Recognising and addressing these challenges is essential to support trials involving these populations and ensure that they have an equitable opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, research. Given the complex nature of these challenges, which are encountered by both adults and children, a cross-disciplinary approach is required. Discussion: A UK-wide collaboration, a sub-group of the Trial Conduct Working Group in the MRC-NIHR Trial Methodology Research Partnership, was formed to collectively address these challenges. Members are drawn from disciplines including bioethics, qualitative research, trials methodology, healthcare professions, and social sciences. This commentary draws on our collective expertise to identify key populations where particular methodological and ethical challenges around consent are encountered, articulate the specific issues arising in each population, summarise ongoing and completed research, and identify targets for future research. Key populations include people with communication or other disabilities, people whose capacity to consent fluctuates, adults who lack the capacity to consent, and adults and children in emergency and urgent care settings. Work is ongoing by the sub-group to create a database of resources, to update NIHR guidance, and to develop proposals to address identified research gaps. Conclusion: Collaboration across disciplines, sectors, organisations, and countries is essential if the ethical and methodological challenges surrounding trials involving complex and alternate consent pathways are to be addressed. Explicating these challenges, sharing resources, and identifying gaps for future research is an essential first step. We hope that doing so will serve as a call to action for others seeking ways to address the current consent-based exclusion of underserved populations from trials

Complex and alternate consent pathways in clinical trials: methodological and ethical challenges encountered by underserved groups and a call to action

Background: Informed consent is considered a fundamental requirement for participation in trials, yet obtaining consent is challenging in a number of populations and settings. This may be due to participants having communication or other disabilities, their capacity to consent fluctuates or they lack capacity, or in emergency situations where their medical condition or the urgent nature of the treatment precludes seeking consent from either the participant or a representative. These challenges, and the subsequent complexity of designing and conducting trials where alternative consent pathways are required, contribute to these populations being underserved in research. Recognising and addressing these challenges is essential to support trials involving these populations and ensure that they have an equitable opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, research. Given the complex nature of these challenges, which are encountered by both adults and children, a cross-disciplinary approach is required. Discussion: A UK-wide collaboration, a sub-group of the Trial Conduct Working Group in the MRC-NIHR Trial Methodology Research Partnership, was formed to collectively address these challenges. Members are drawn from disciplines including bioethics, qualitative research, trials methodology, healthcare professions, and social sciences. This commentary draws on our collective expertise to identify key populations where particular methodological and ethical challenges around consent are encountered, articulate the specific issues arising in each population, summarise ongoing and completed research, and identify targets for future research. Key populations include people with communication or other disabilities, people whose capacity to consent fluctuates, adults who lack the capacity to consent, and adults and children in emergency and urgent care settings. Work is ongoing by the sub-group to create a database of resources, to update NIHR guidance, and to develop proposals to address identified research gaps. Conclusion: Collaboration across disciplines, sectors, organisations, and countries is essential if the ethical and methodological challenges surrounding trials involving complex and alternate consent pathways are to be addressed. Explicating these challenges, sharing resources, and identifying gaps for future research is an essential first step. We hope that doing so will serve as a call to action for others seeking ways to address the current consent-based exclusion of underserved populations from trials

Noninvasive Fetal Genotyping by Droplet Digital PCR to Identify Maternally Inherited Monogenic Diabetes Variants

Background: Babies of women with heterozygous pathogenic glucokinase (GCK) variants causing mild fasting hyperglycemia are at risk of macrosomia if they do not inherit the variant. Conversely, babies who inherit a pathogenic hepatocyte nuclear factor 4α (HNF4A) diabetes variant are at increased risk of high birth weight. Noninvasive fetal genotyping for maternal pathogenic variants would inform pregnancy management. Methods: Droplet digital PCR was used to quantify reference and variant alleles in cell-free DNA extracted from blood from 38 pregnant women heterozygous for a GCK or HNF4A variant and to determine fetal fraction by measurement of informative maternal and paternal variants. Droplet numbers positive for the reference/alternate allele together with the fetal fraction were used in a Bayesian analysis to derive probability for the fetal genotype. The babies' genotypes were ascertained postnatally by Sanger sequencing. Results: Droplet digital PCR assays for GCK or HNF4A variants were validated for testing in all 38 pregnancies. Fetal fraction of ≥2% was demonstrated in at least 1 cell-free DNA sample from 33 pregnancies. A threshold of ≥0.95 for calling homozygous reference genotypes and ≤0.05 for heterozygous fetal genotypes allowed correct genotype calls for all 33 pregnancies with no false-positive results. In 30 of 33 pregnancies, a result was obtained from a single blood sample. Conclusions: This assay can be used to identify pregnancies at risk of macrosomia due to maternal monogenic diabetes variants.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Publisher URL to access it via the publisher's site.A.T. Hattersley and M.H. Shepherd are supported by the NIHR Exeter Clinical Research Facility, which is a partnership between the University of Exeter Medical School College of Medicine and Health, and Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial

BACKGROUND: Allopurinol is a urate-lowering therapy used to treat patients with gout. Previous studies have shown that allopurinol has positive effects on several cardiovascular parameters. The ALL-HEART study aimed to determine whether allopurinol therapy improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. METHODS: ALL-HEART was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial done in 18 regional centres in England and Scotland, with patients recruited from 424 primary care practices. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older, with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a central web-based randomisation system accessed via a web-based application or an interactive voice response system, to receive oral allopurinol up-titrated to a dose of 600 mg daily (300 mg daily in participants with moderate renal impairment at baseline) or to continue usual care. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding randomly assigned patients later found to have met one of the exclusion criteria). The safety analysis population included all patients in the modified intention-to-treat usual care group and those who took at least one dose of randomised medication in the allopurinol group. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2013-003559-39, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN32017426. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2014, and Oct 2, 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and then randomly assigned to receive allopurinol or usual care. After exclusion of 216 patients after randomisation, 5721 participants (mean age 72·0 years [SD 6·8], 4321 [75·5%] males, and 5676 [99·2%] white) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, with 2853 in the allopurinol group and 2868 in the usual care group. Mean follow-up time in the study was 4·8 years (1·5). There was no evidence of a difference between the randomised treatment groups in the rates of the primary endpoint. 314 (11·0%) participants in the allopurinol group (2·47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11·3%) in the usual care group (2·37 events per 100 patient-years) had a primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·89–1·21], p=0·65). 288 (10·1%) participants in the allopurinol group and 303 (10·6%) participants in the usual care group died from any cause (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·87–1·20], p=0·77). INTERPRETATION: In this large, randomised clinical trial in patients aged 60 years or older with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout, there was no difference in the primary outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death between participants randomised to allopurinol therapy and those randomised to usual care. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research

Screening for neonatal diabetes at day 5 of life using dried blood spot glucose measurement.

The majority of infants with neonatal diabetes mellitus present with severe ketoacidosis at a median of 6 weeks. The treatment is very challenging and can result in severe neurological sequelae or death. The genetic defects that cause neonatal diabetes are present from birth. We aimed to assess if neonatal diabetes could be diagnosed earlier by measuring glucose in a dried blood spot collected on day 5 of life.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Additional Link above to access the full-text via the publisher's site.Published