Digital health, cardiometabolic disease and ethnicity: an analysis of United Kingdom government policies from 2010 to 2022.

Recent health policies in the United Kingdom (UK) and internationally have focussed on digitisation of healthcare. We examined UK policies for evidence of government action addressing health inequalities and digital health, using cardiometabolic disease as an exemplar. Using a systematic search methodology, we identified 87 relevant policy documents published between 2010 and 2022. We found increasing emphasis on digital health, including for prevention, diagnosis and management of cardiometabolic disease. Several policies also focused on tackling health inequalities and improving digital access. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified inequalities. No policies addressed ethnic inequalities in digital health for cardiometabolic disease, despite high prevalence in minority ethnic communities. Our findings suggest that creating opportunities for digital inclusion and reduce longer-term health inequalities, will require future policies to focus on: the heterogeneity of ethnic groups; cross-sectoral disadvantages which contribute to disease burden and digital accessibility; and disease-specific interventions which lend themselves to culturally tailored solutions.

Disease activity, burden and suffering in patients with ulcerative colitis in the UK cohort recruited into the global ICONIC study.

Objective: The Understanding the Impact of Ulcerative Colitis and Its Associated Disease Burden on Patients (ICONIC) was a 2-year, global, prospective, observational study assessing disease burden in adults recently diagnosed (≤36 months) with ulcerative colitis (UC) receiving routine outpatient care, irrespective of disease severity or treatment. A subanalysis was conducted to understand the UK perspective. Design/method: All eligible consenting patients enrolled in ICONIC from the UK were included in the subanalysis of patient-reported and physician-reported outcomes at baseline and year 2 (Y2). Results: Sixty-three UK patients were included (mean age 43.4 years, 58.7% female). At baseline and Y2, the mean (±SD) Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI) scores were 3.6 (±3.3) and 1.5 (±1.5); Patient Modified Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (P-SSCAI) were 4.9 (±4.0) and 2.6 (±2.6), respectively. Physician-reported Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure (PRISM) median scores (assessing inverse of suffering) were 3.5 (IQR 2.0-6.8) at baseline and 5.5 (IQR 3.6-6.9) at Y2; patient-reported PRISM scores were 4.7 (IQR 2.6-6.9) and 5.4 (IQR 3.2-8.0), respectively. At baseline, SCCAI and P-SCCAI were strongly correlated (r=0.86, p<0.0001), and patient-reported and physician-reported PRISM scores moderately correlated (r=0.67, p<0.0001). At Y2, moderate correlations were observed (SCCAI vs P-SCCAI: r=0.72, p<0.0001; patient-reported vs physician- reported PRISM: r=0.60, p<0.0001). Rating Form of IBD Patient Concerns scores indicated patients' greatest concerns were with energy level, having an ostomy bag and effects of medication (baseline scores >3.0). Conclusions: These findings demonstrated the multifaceted burden of disease in patients recently diagnosed with UC in the UK. Agreement between patients and physicians on disease activity/severity varied according to the instrument used.

Treatment adaptations and outcomes of patients experiencing inflammatory bowel disease flares during the early COVID-19 pandemic: the PREPARE-IBD multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic offered a unique opportunity to understand inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management during unexpected disruption. This could help to guide practice overall. AIMS: To compare prescribing behaviour for IBD flares and outcomes during the early pandemic with pre-pandemic findings METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study comprising patients who contacted IBD teams for symptomatic flares between March and June 2020 in 60 National Health Service trusts in the United Kingdom. Data were compared with a pre-pandemic cohort after propensity-matching for age and physician global assessment of disease activity. RESULTS: We included 1864 patients in each of the pandemic and pre-pandemic cohorts. The principal findings were reduced systemic corticosteroid prescription during the pandemic in Crohn's disease (prednisolone: pandemic 26.5% vs. 37.1%; p < 0.001) and ulcerative colitis (UC) (prednisolone: pandemic 33.5% vs. 40.7%, p < 0.001), with increases in poorly bioavailable oral corticosteroids in Crohn's (pandemic 15.6% vs. 6.8%; p < 0.001) and UC (pandemic 11.8% vs. 5.2%; p < 0.001). Ustekinumab (Crohn's and UC) and vedolizumab (UC) treatment also significantly increased. Three-month steroid-free remission in each period was similar in Crohn's (pandemic 28.4% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.17) and UC (pandemic 36.4% vs. 40.2%; p = 0.095). Patients experiencing a flare and suspected COVID-19 were more likely to have moderately-to-severely active disease at 3 months than those with a flare alone. CONCLUSIONS: Despite treatment adaptations during the pandemic, steroid-free outcomes were comparable with pre-pandemic levels, although concurrent flare and suspected COVID-19 caused worse outcomes. These findings have implications for IBD management during future pandemics and for standard practice.

Frameworks for Implementation, Uptake, and Use of Cardiometabolic Disease-Related Digital Health Interventions in Ethnic Minority Populations: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions have become increasingly common across health care, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health inequalities, particularly with respect to ethnicity, may not be considered in frameworks that address the implementation of digital health interventions. We considered frameworks to include any models, theories, or taxonomies that describe or predict implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess how health inequalities are addressed in frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; health and ethnic inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. METHODS: SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched to identify papers on frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; ethnically or culturally diverse populations and health inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. We assessed the extent to which frameworks address health inequalities, specifically ethnic inequalities; explored how they were addressed; and developed recommendations for good practice. RESULTS: Of 58 relevant papers, 22 (38%) included frameworks that referred to health inequalities. Inequalities were conceptualized as society-level, system-level, intervention-level, and individual. Only 5 frameworks considered all levels. Three frameworks considered how digital health interventions might interact with or exacerbate existing health inequalities, and 3 considered the process of health technology implementation, uptake, and use and suggested opportunities to improve equity in digital health. When ethnicity was considered, it was often within the broader concepts of social determinants of health. Only 3 frameworks explicitly addressed ethnicity: one focused on culturally tailoring digital health interventions, and 2 were applied to management of cardiometabolic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Existing frameworks evaluate implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions, but to consider factors related to ethnicity, it is necessary to look across frameworks. We have developed a visual guide of the key constructs across the 4 potential levels of action for digital health inequalities, which can be used to support future research and inform digital health policies.

The association between inflammatory bowel disease and mental ill health: a retrospective cohort study using data from UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and mental illnesses experience worse IBD outcomes. AIM: To describe the incidence of mental illnesses, including deliberate self-harm, in IBD patients. METHODS: A population-based retrospective cohort study using IQVIA medical research data of a primary care database covering the whole UK, between January 1995 and January 2021. IBD patients of all ages were matched 4:1 by demographics and primary care practice to unexposed controls. Following exclusion of patients with mental ill health at study entry, adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of developing depression, anxiety, deliberate self-harm, severe mental illness and insomnia were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: We included 48,799 incident IBD patients: 28,352 with ulcerative colitis and 20,447 with Crohn's disease. Incidence rate ratios of mental illness were higher in IBD patients than controls (all p < 0.001): deliberate self-harm 1.31 (95% CI 1.16-1.47), anxiety 1.17 (1.11-1.24), depression 1.36 (1.31-1.42) and insomnia 1.62 (1.54-1.69). Patients with Crohn's disease were more likely to develop deliberate self-harm HR 1.51 (95% CI 1.28-1.78), anxiety 1.38 (1.16-1.65), depression 1.36 (1.26-1.47) and insomnia 1.74 (1.62-1.86). Patients with IBD are at increased risk of deliberate self-harm (HR 1.20 [1.07-1.35]). The incidence rate ratios of mental illnesses were particularly high during the first year following IBD diagnosis: anxiety 1.28 (1.13-1.46), depression 1.62 (1.48-1.77) and insomnia 1.99 (1.78-2.21). CONCLUSION: Deliberate self-harm, depression, anxiety and insomnia were more frequent among patients with IBD. IBD is independently associated with an increased risk of deliberate self-harm.

Ambulatory care management of 69 patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis in comparison to 695 inpatients: insights from a multicentre UK cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) traditionally requires inpatient hospital management for intravenous therapies and/or colectomy. Ambulatory ASUC care has not yet been evaluated in large cohorts. AIMS: We used data from PROTECT, a UK multicentre observational COVID-19 inflammatory bowel disease study, to report the extent, safety and effectiveness of ASUC ambulatory pathways. METHODS: Adults (≥18 years old) meeting Truelove and Witts criteria between 1 January 2019-1 June 2019 and 1 March 2020-30 June 2020 were recruited to PROTECT. We used demographic, disease phenotype, treatment outcomes and 3-month follow-up data. Primary outcome was rate of colectomy during the index ASUC episode. Secondary outcomes included corticosteroid response, time to and rate of rescue or primary induction therapy, response to rescue or primary induction therapy, time to colectomy, mortality, duration of inpatient treatment and hospital readmission and colectomy within 3 months of index flare. We compared outcomes in three cohorts: (1) patients treated entirely in inpatient setting; ambulatory patients subdivided into; (2) patients managed as ambulatory from diagnosis and (3) patients hospitalised and subsequently discharged to ambulatory care for continued intravenous steroids. RESULTS: 37% (22/60) participating hospitals used ambulatory pathways. Of 764 eligible patients, 695 (91%) patients received entirely inpatient care, 15 (2%) patients were managed as ambulatory from diagnosis and 54 (7%) patients were discharged to ambulatory pathways. Aside from younger age in patients treated as ambulatory from diagnosis, no significant differences in disease or patient phenotype were observed. The rate of colectomy (15.0% (104/695) vs 13.3% (2/15) vs 13.0% (7/54), respectively, p=0.96) and secondary outcomes were similar among all three cohorts. Stool culture and flexible sigmoidoscopy were less frequently performed in ambulatory cohorts. Forty per cent of patients treated as ambulatory from diagnosis required subsequent hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: In a post hoc analysis of one of the largest ASUC cohorts collected to date, we report an emerging UK ambulatory practice which challenges treatment paradigms. However, our analysis remains underpowered to detect key outcome measures and further studies exploring clinical and cost-effectiveness as well as patient and physician acceptability are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04411784.

Socioeconomic deprivation, age and language are barriers to accessing personal health records: a cross-sectional study of a large hospital-based personal health record system.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate barriers to accessing a hospital-based personal health record (PHR) system. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: This study was conducted in a large secondary and tertiary acute care trust in Birmingham, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from 28 637 patients who attended liver medicine, diabetes, renal medicine or endocrinology specialist outpatient clinics from 1 June 2017 to 31 May 2018. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was sign up to and activation of the PHR. The secondary outcomes were the use of the PHR, defined as the number of logons and frequency of access of specific PHR functions. RESULTS: 8070 patients (28.2%) were signed up to the PHR and 4286 patients (53.1% of those signed up) went on to activate their PHR account. Patients aged 75 years and older were significantly less likely to be signed up (adjusted OR, aOR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.44) or to activate (aOR 0.39, 0.32 to 0.47) their PHR than patients aged 35-54. Patients who did not need an interpreter were more likely to be signed up (aOR 1.63, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.99) and to activate (aOR 3.16, 95% CI 1.96 to 5.09) their PHR. Patients living in the least deprived areas were more than twice as likely to be signed up (aOR 2.31, 95% CI 2.04 to 2.63), and were three times more likely to activate their PHR (aOR 2.99, 95% CI 2.40 to 3.71), than those in the most deprived. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic deprivation, older age and non-English language were significant barriers to accessing a hospital-based PHR. Strategies are needed to account for these factors to ensure that PHRs do not widen health inequalities.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for the management of iron deficiency anaemia in adults.

Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) is a major cause of morbidity and burden of disease worldwide. It can generally be diagnosed by blood testing and remedied by iron replacement therapy (IRT) using the oral or intravenous route. The many causes of iron deficiency include poor dietary intake and malabsorption of dietary iron, as well as a number of significant gastrointestinal (GI) pathologies. Because blood is iron-rich it can result from chronic blood loss, and this is a common mechanism underlying the development of IDA-for example, as a consequence of menstrual or GI blood loss.Approximately a third of men and postmenopausal women presenting with IDA have an underlying pathological abnormality, most commonly in the GI tract. Therefore optimal management of IDA requires IRT in combination with appropriate investigation to establish the underlying cause. Unexplained IDA in all at-risk individuals is an accepted indication for fast-track secondary care referral in the UK because GI malignancies can present in this way, often in the absence of specific symptoms. Bidirectional GI endoscopy is the standard diagnostic approach to examination of the upper and lower GI tract, though radiological scanning is an alternative in some situations for assessing the large bowel. In recurrent or refractory IDA, wireless capsule endoscopy plays an important role in assessment of the small bowel.IDA may present in primary care or across a range of specialties in secondary care, and because of this and the insidious nature of the condition it has not always been optimally managed despite the considerable burden of disease- with investigation sometimes being inappropriate, incorrectly timed or incomplete, and the role of IRT for symptom relief neglected. It is therefore important that contemporary guidelines for the management of IDA are available to all clinicians. This document is a revision of previous British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines, updated in the light of subsequent evidence and developments.

New dimensions for hospital services and early detection of disease: a Review from the Lancet Commission into liver disease in the UK.

This Review, in addressing the unacceptably high mortality of patients with liver disease admitted to acute hospitals, reinforces the need for integrated clinical services. The masterplan described is based on regional, geographically sited liver centres, each linked to four to six surrounding district general hospitals-a pattern of care similar to that successfully introduced for stroke services. The plan includes the establishment of a lead and deputy lead clinician in each acute hospital, preferably a hepatologist or gastroenterologist with a special interest in liver disease, who will have prime responsibility for organising the care of admitted patients with liver disease on a 24/7 basis. Essential for the plan is greater access to intensive care units and high-dependency units, in line with the reconfiguration of emergency care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This Review strongly recommends full implementation of alcohol care teams in hospitals and improved working links with acute medical services. We also endorse recommendations from paediatric liver services to improve overall survival figures by diagnosing biliary atresia earlier based on stool colour charts and better caring for patients with impaired cognitive ability and developmental mental health problems. Pilot studies of earlier diagnosis have shown encouraging progress, with 5-6% of previously undiagnosed cases of severe fibrosis or cirrhosis identified through use of a portable FibroScan in primary care. Similar approaches to the detection of early asymptomatic disease are described in accounts from the devolved nations, and the potential of digital technology in improving the value of clinical consultation and screening programmes in primary care is highlighted. The striking contribution of comorbidities, particularly obesity and diabetes (with excess alcohol consumption known to be a major factor in obesity), to mortality in COVID-19 reinforces the need for fiscal and other long delayed regulatory measures to reduce the prevalence of obesity. These measures include the food sugar levy and the introduction of the minimum unit price policy to reduce alcohol consumption. Improving public health, this Review emphasises, will not only mitigate the severity of further waves of COVID-19, but is crucial to reducing the unacceptable burden from liver disease in the UK.

Assessment, endoscopy, and treatment in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (PROTECT-ASUC): a multicentre, observational, case-control study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of evidence to support safe and effective management of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify alterations to established conventional evidence-based management of acute severe ulcerative colitis during the early COVID-19 pandemic, the effect on outcomes, and any associations with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: The PROTECT-ASUC study was a multicentre, observational, case-control study in 60 acute secondary care hospitals throughout the UK. We included adults (≥18 years) with either ulcerative colitis or inflammatory bowel disease unclassified, who presented with acute severe ulcerative colitis and fulfilled the Truelove and Witts criteria. Cases and controls were identified as either admitted or managed in emergency ambulatory care settings between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic period cohort), or between Jan 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019 (historical control cohort), respectively. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or colectomy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04411784. FINDINGS: We included 782 patients (398 in the pandemic period cohort and 384 in the historical control cohort) who met the Truelove and Witts criteria for acute severe ulcerative colitis. The proportion of patients receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or surgery was higher during the pandemic period than in the historical period (217 [55%] of 393 patients vs 159 [42%] of 380 patients; p=0·00024) and the time to rescue therapy was shorter in the pandemic cohort than in the historical cohort (p=0·0026). This difference was driven by a greater use of rescue and primary induction therapies with biologicals, ciclosporin, or tofacitinib in the COVID-19 pandemic period cohort than in the historical control period cohort (177 [46%] of 387 patients in the COVID-19 cohort vs 134 [36%] of 373 patients in the historical cohort; p=0·0064). During the pandemic, more patients received ambulatory (outpatient) intravenous steroids (51 [13%] of 385 patients vs 19 [5%] of 360 patients; p=0·00023). Fewer patients received thiopurines (29 [7%] of 398 patients vs 46 [12%] of 384; p=0·029) and 5-aminosalicylic acids (67 [17%] of 398 patients vs 98 [26%] of 384; p=0·0037) during the pandemic than in the historical control period. Colectomy rates were similar between the pandemic and historical control groups (64 [16%] of 389 vs 50 [13%] of 375; p=0·26); however, laparoscopic surgery was less frequently performed during the pandemic period (34 [53%] of 64] vs 38 [76%] of 50; p=0·018). Five (2%) of 253 patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during hospital treatment. Two (2%) of 103 patients re-tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the 3-month follow-up were positive 5 days and 12 days, respectively, after discharge from index admission. Both recovered without serious outcomes. INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 pandemic altered practice patterns of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons in the management of acute severe ulcerative colitis but was associated with similar outcomes to a historical cohort. Despite continued use of high-dose corticosteroids and biologicals, the incidence of COVID-19 within 3 months was low and not associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes. FUNDING: None.