Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards for Interventions That Use Artificial Intelligence (CHEERS-AI).

OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations (EEs) are commonly used by decision makers to understand the value of health interventions. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) provide reporting guidelines for EEs. Healthcare systems will increasingly see new interventions that use artificial intelligence (AI) to perform their function. We developed Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards for Interventions that use AI (CHEERS-AI) to ensure EEs of AI-based health interventions are reported in a transparent and reproducible manner. METHODS: Potential CHEERS-AI reporting items were informed by 2 published systematic literature reviews of EEs and a contemporary update. A Delphi study was conducted using 3 survey rounds to elicit multidisciplinary expert views on 26 potential items, through a 9-point Likert rating scale and qualitative comments. An online consensus meeting was held to finalize outstanding reporting items. A digital health patient group reviewed the final checklist from a patient perspective. RESULTS: A total of 58 participants responded to survey round 1, 42, and 31 of whom responded to rounds 2 and 3, respectively. Nine participants joined the consensus meeting. Ultimately, 38 reporting items were included in CHEERS-AI. They comprised the 28 original CHEERS 2022 items, plus 10 new AI-specific reporting items. Additionally, 8 of the original CHEERS 2022 items were elaborated on to ensure AI-specific nuance is reported. CONCLUSIONS: CHEERS-AI should be used when reporting an EE of an intervention that uses AI to perform its function. CHEERS-AI will help decision makers and reviewers to understand important AI-specific details of an intervention, and any implications for the EE methods used and cost-effectiveness conclusions.

Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden.

Socioeconomic Deprivation and the Risk of Sight-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy: A Population-Based Cohort Study in the U.K.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the associations between socioeconomic deprivation and sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from 175,628 individuals with diabetes in the Health Improvement Network were used to assess the risk of STDR across Townsend Deprivation Index quantiles using Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: Among individuals with T1D, the risk of STDR was three times higher (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.67, 95% CI 1.05-7.78) in the most deprived quintile compared with the least deprived quintile. In T2D, the most deprived quintile had a 28% higher risk (aHR 1.28; 95% CI 1.15-1.43) than the least deprived quintile. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing socioeconomic deprivation is associated with a higher risk of developing STDR in people with diabetes. This underscores persistent health disparities linked to poverty, even within a country offering free universal health care. Further research is needed to address health equity concerns in socioeconomically deprived regions.

Adalimumab vs placebo as add-on to Standard Therapy for autoimmune Uveitis: Tolerability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness-a protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ASTUTE trial).

INTRODUCTION: Adalimumab is an effective treatment for autoimmune non-infectious uveitis (ANIU), but it is currently only funded for a minority of patients with ANIU in the UK as it is restricted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Ophthalmologists believe that adalimumab may be effective in a wider range of patients. The Adalimumab vs placebo as add-on to Standard Therapy for autoimmune Uveitis: Tolerability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness (ASTUTE) trial will recruit patients with ANIU who do and do not meet funding criteria and will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab versus placebo as an add-on therapy to standard care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ASTUTE trial is a multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, pragmatic randomised controlled trial with a 16-week treatment run-in (TRI). At the end of the TRI, only responders will be randomised (1:1) to 40 mg adalimumab or placebo (both are the study investigational medicinal product) self-administered fortnightly by subcutaneous injection. The target sample size is 174 randomised participants. The primary outcome is time to treatment failure (TF), a composite of signs indicative of active ANIU. Secondary outcomes include individual TF components, retinal morphology, adverse events, health-related quality of life, patient-reported side effects and visual function, best-corrected visual acuity, employment status and resource use. In the event of TF, open-label drug treatment will be restarted as per TRI for 16 weeks, and if a participant responds again, allocation will be switched without unmasking and treatment with investigational medicinal product restarted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval from South Central - Oxford B REC in June 2020. The findings will be presented at international meetings, by peer-reviewed publications and through patient organisations and newsletters to patients, where available. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN31474800. Registered 14 April 2020.

The value of standards for health datasets in artificial intelligence-based applications.

Artificial intelligence as a medical device is increasingly being applied to healthcare for diagnosis, risk stratification and resource allocation. However, a growing body of evidence has highlighted the risk of algorithmic bias, which may perpetuate existing health inequity. This problem arises in part because of systemic inequalities in dataset curation, unequal opportunity to participate in research and inequalities of access. This study aims to explore existing standards, frameworks and best practices for ensuring adequate data diversity in health datasets. Exploring the body of existing literature and expert views is an important step towards the development of consensus-based guidelines. The study comprises two parts: a systematic review of existing standards, frameworks and best practices for healthcare datasets; and a survey and thematic analysis of stakeholder views of bias, health equity and best practices for artificial intelligence as a medical device. We found that the need for dataset diversity was well described in literature, and experts generally favored the development of a robust set of guidelines, but there were mixed views about how these could be implemented practically. The outputs of this study will be used to inform the development of standards for transparency of data diversity in health datasets (the STANDING Together initiative).

Quantitative and qualitative assessment of anterior segment optical coherence tomography capture of disease state in childhood anterior uveitis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) assessment of anterior chamber inflammation is an emerging tool. We describe the performance of AS-OCT in a paediatric population. METHODS: A mixed-methods prospective study, using routine clinical assessment as reference standard, and AS-OCT, with Tomey CASIA2 or Heidelberg Spectralis HS1, as index test, with data collected on patient perceptions of imaging. Repeatability, diagnostic indices, responsiveness to clinical change and clinical correlations of imaging-based metrics (image cell count, size, density and brightness) were assessed, with construction of receiver operated characteristic curves. Exploratory thematic analysis of responses from families was undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 90 children (180 eyes) underwent imaging. Bland Altman limits of agreement for CASIA2 repeatability ranged from +17 cells (95% CI 13.6 to 21.1) to -19 cells (95% CI -15.6 to -23.2) and HS1 from +1 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.2) to -1.0 (-1.2 to -0.8) cells. CASIA2 imaging had higher sensitivity of 0.92 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.97) vs HS1 imaging 0.17 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.34), with positive correlation between clinical grade and CASIA2 cell count (coefficient 12.8, p=0.02, 95% CI 2.2 to 23.4). Change in clinical grade at follow-up examinations correlated with change in image based 'cell' count (r2=0.79, p<0.001). Patients reported a potential positive impact of seeing their disease activity. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that OCT-based imaging holds the promise of deeper understanding of disease, improved patient experience and more granular monitoring of activity with resultant improved outcomes, but further work is needed to refine acquisition and analysis protocols.

Outreach screening to address demographic and economic barriers to diabetic retinopathy care in rural China.

IMPORTANCE: Poor access to existing care for diabetic retinopathy (DR) limits effectiveness of proven treatments. OBJECTIVES: We examined whether outreach screening in rural China improves equity of access. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We compared prevalence of female sex, age > = 65 years, primary education or below, and requiring referral care for DR between three cohorts with diabetes examined for DR in neighboring areas of Guangdong, China: passive case detection at secondary-level hospitals (n = 193); persons screened during primary-level DR outreach (n = 182); and individuals with newly- or previously-diagnosed diabetes in a population survey (n = 579). The latter reflected the "ideal" reach of a screening program. RESULTS: Compared to the population cohort, passive case detection reached fewer women (50·8% vs. 62·3%, p = 0·006), older adults (37·8% vs. 51·3%, p < 0·001), and less-educated persons (39·9% vs. 89·6%, p < 0·001). Outreach screening, compared to passive case detection, improved representation of the elderly (49·5% vs. 37·8%, p = 0·03) and less-educated (70·3% vs. 39·9%, p<0·001). The proportion of women (59.8% vs 62.3%, P>0.300) and persons aged > = 65 years (49.5% vs 51.3%, p = 0.723) in the outreach screening and population cohorts did not differ significantly. Prevalence of requiring referral care for DR was significantly higher in the outreach screening cohort (28·0%) than the population (14·0%) and passive case detection cohorts (7·3%, p<0·001 for both). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Primary-level outreach screening improves access for the poorly-educated and elderly, and removes gender inequity in access to DR care in this setting, while also identifying more severely-affected patients than case finding in hospital.

Teleophthalmology-enabled and artificial intelligence-ready referral pathway for community optometry referrals of retinal disease (HERMES): a Cluster Randomised Superiority Trial with a linked Diagnostic Accuracy Study-HERMES study report 1-study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Recent years have witnessed an upsurge of demand in eye care services in the UK. With a large proportion of patients referred to Hospital Eye Services (HES) for diagnostics and disease management, the referral process results in unnecessary referrals from erroneous diagnoses and delays in access to appropriate treatment. A potential solution is a teleophthalmology digital referral pathway linking community optometry and HES. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The HERMES study (Teleophthalmology-enabled and artificial intelligence-ready referral pathway for community optometry referrals of retinal disease: a cluster randomised superiority trial with a linked diagnostic accuracy study) is a cluster randomised clinical trial for evaluating the effectiveness of a teleophthalmology referral pathway between community optometry and HES for retinal diseases. Nested within HERMES is a diagnostic accuracy study, which assesses the accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI) decision support system (DSS) for automated diagnosis and referral recommendation. A postimplementation, observational substudy, a within-trial economic evaluation and discrete choice experiment will assess the feasibility of implementation of both digital technologies within a real-life setting. Patients with a suspicion of retinal disease, undergoing eye examination and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans, will be recruited across 24 optometry practices in the UK. Optometry practices will be randomised to standard care or teleophthalmology. The primary outcome is the proportion of false-positive referrals (unnecessary HES visits) in the current referral pathway compared with the teleophthalmology referral pathway. OCT scans will be interpreted by the AI DSS, which provides a diagnosis and referral decision and the primary outcome for the AI diagnostic study is diagnostic accuracy of the referral decision made by the Moorfields-DeepMind AI system. Secondary outcomes relate to inappropriate referral rate, cost-effectiveness analyses and human-computer interaction (HCI) analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee (REC 20/LO/1299). Findings will be reported through academic journals in ophthalmology, health services research and HCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18106677 (protocol V.1.1).

Creating a Health Utility Value for Birdshot Chorioretinopathy.

PURPOSE: To create a health utility value for birdshot chorioretinopathy (BCR) using Time Trade-Off (TTO) and Standard Gamble (SG) utilities. METHOD: Adult BCR patients completed TTO, SG, EQ-5D-5L, and NEI VFQ-25 questionnaires and underwent a detailed history and clinical examination. RESULTS: A total of 28 BCR patients (9 M, 19 F; mean age 62 years, range 47-83) were included. There were 22 patients with a logMAR vision of 0.3 or better in both eyes. Mean TTO was 0.90 ± SD 0.18 (range 0.33-1.0) and mean SG was 0.94 ± SD 0.14 (range 0.5-1.0). TTO correlated with EQ-5D-5L index value (p = .024) and NEI VFQ-25 composite score (p = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Of 28 patients with BCR, 11 would trade remaining life (mean 5.4 years), and 6 would take a risk of immediate death (mean 28% risk), in return for perfect vision in both eyes for the rest of their life.

Review of study reporting guidelines for clinical studies using artificial intelligence in healthcare.

High-quality research is essential in guiding evidence-based care, and should be reported in a way that is reproducible, transparent and where appropriate, provide sufficient detail for inclusion in future meta-analyses. Reporting guidelines for various study designs have been widely used for clinical (and preclinical) studies, consisting of checklists with a minimum set of points for inclusion. With the recent rise in volume of research using artificial intelligence (AI), additional factors need to be evaluated, which do not neatly conform to traditional reporting guidelines (eg, details relating to technical algorithm development). In this review, reporting guidelines are highlighted to promote awareness of essential content required for studies evaluating AI interventions in healthcare. These include published and in progress extensions to well-known reporting guidelines such as Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-AI (study protocols), Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-AI (randomised controlled trials), Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-AI (diagnostic accuracy studies) and Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis-AI (prediction model studies). Additionally there are a number of guidelines that consider AI for health interventions more generally (eg, Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM), minimum information (MI)-CLAIM, MI for Medical AI Reporting) or address a specific element such as the 'learning curve' (Developmental and Exploratory Clinical Investigation of Decision-AI) . Economic evaluation of AI health interventions is not currently addressed, and may benefit from extension to an existing guideline. In the face of a rapid influx of studies of AI health interventions, reporting guidelines help ensure that investigators and those appraising studies consider both the well-recognised elements of good study design and reporting, while also adequately addressing new challenges posed by AI-specific elements.

Health data poverty: an assailable barrier to equitable digital health care.

Data-driven digital health technologies have the power to transform health care. If these tools could be sustainably delivered at scale, they might have the potential to provide everyone, everywhere, with equitable access to expert-level care, narrowing the global health and wellbeing gap. Conversely, it is highly possible that these transformative technologies could exacerbate existing health-care inequalities instead. In this Viewpoint, we describe the problem of health data poverty: the inability for individuals, groups, or populations to benefit from a discovery or innovation due to a scarcity of data that are adequately representative. We assert that health data poverty is a threat to global health that could prevent the benefits of data-driven digital health technologies from being more widely realised and might even lead to them causing harm. We argue that the time to act is now to avoid creating a digital health divide that exacerbates existing health-care inequalities and to ensure that no one is left behind in the digital era.

Advancing UK Regulatory Science Strategy in the Context of Global Regulation: a Stakeholder Survey.

BACKGROUND: The UK's transition from the European Union creates both an urgent need and key opportunity for the UK and its global collaborators to consider new approaches to the regulation of emerging technologies, underpinned by regulatory science. This survey aimed to identify the most accurate definition of regulatory science, to define strategic areas of the regulation of healthcare innovation which can be informed through regulatory science and to explore the training and infrastructure needed to advance UK and international regulatory science. METHODS: A survey was distributed to UK healthcare professionals, academics, patients, health technology assessment agencies, ethicists and trade associations, as well as international regulators, pharmaceutical companies and small or medium enterprises which have expertise in regulatory science and in developing or applying regulation in healthcare. Subsequently, a descriptive quantitative analyses of survey results and directed thematic analysis of free-text comments were applied. RESULTS: Priority areas for UK regulatory science identified by 145 participants included the following: flexibility: the capability of regulations to adapt to novel products and target patient outcomes; co-development: collaboration across sectors, e.g. patients, manufacturers, regulators, and educators working together to develop appropriate training for novel product deployment; responsiveness: the preparation of frameworks which enable timely innovation required by emerging events; speed: the rate at which new products can reach the market; reimbursement: developing effective tools to track and evaluate outcomes for "pay for performance" products; and education and professional development. CONCLUSIONS: The UK has a time-critical opportunity to establish its national and international strategy for regulatory science leadership by harnessing broader academic input, developing strategic cross-sector collaborations, incorporating patients' experiences and perspectives, and investing in a skilled workforce.

Monitoring indirect impact of COVID-19 pandemic on services for cardiovascular diseases in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To monitor hospital activity for presentation, diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular diseases during the COVID-19) pandemic to inform on indirect effects. METHODS: Retrospective serial cross-sectional study in nine UK hospitals using hospital activity data from 28 October 2019 (pre-COVID-19) to 10 May 2020 (pre-easing of lockdown) and for the same weeks during 2018-2019. We analysed aggregate data for selected cardiovascular diseases before and during the epidemic. We produced an online visualisation tool to enable near real-time monitoring of trends. RESULTS: Across nine hospitals, total admissions and emergency department (ED) attendances decreased after lockdown (23 March 2020) by 57.9% (57.1%-58.6%) and 52.9% (52.2%-53.5%), respectively, compared with the previous year. Activity for cardiac, cerebrovascular and other vascular conditions started to decline 1-2 weeks before lockdown and fell by 31%-88% after lockdown, with the greatest reductions observed for coronary artery bypass grafts, carotid endarterectomy, aortic aneurysm repair and peripheral arterial disease procedures. Compared with before the first UK COVID-19 (31 January 2020), activity declined across diseases and specialties between the first case and lockdown (total ED attendances relative reduction (RR) 0.94, 0.93-0.95; total hospital admissions RR 0.96, 0.95-0.97) and after lockdown (attendances RR 0.63, 0.62-0.64; admissions RR 0.59, 0.57-0.60). There was limited recovery towards usual levels of some activities from mid-April 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial reductions in total and cardiovascular activities are likely to contribute to a major burden of indirect effects of the pandemic, suggesting they should be monitored and mitigated urgently.

Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant for Treating Recurrent Non-infectious Uveitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Alimera Sciences, the company manufacturing fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (FAc) 0.19 mg (tradename ILUVIEN®), to submit evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of FAc for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre + , was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper contains a summary of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by the company, the ERG's critique on the submitted evidence, and the guidance issued by the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The company submission (CS) was mainly informed by the PSV-FAI-001 trial in which FAc was compared with (limited) current practice [(L)CP], which was not considered to be representative of UK clinical practice by the ERG. There was no comparison of FAc to any treatment listed in the final scope, and especially to the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (dexamethasone), which was considered to be a relevant comparator by the AC. The primary outcome of the PSV-FAI-001 was recurrence of uveitis in the treated eye. Most of the events for the primary outcome were imputed during the PSV-FAI-001 trial, which probably led to an overestimation of the number of recurrences of disease, and a biased estimate of the relative effectiveness of FAc versus (L)CP. Finally, the place of FAc in the treatment pathway was not clearly defined by the company. Substantial uncertainty surrounded the cost-effectiveness results due to the shortcomings of the clinical evidence. Additionally, the quality of life of patients was not measured during the PSV-FAI-001 trial and long-term effectiveness data of FAc were lacking. The ERG adjusted several issues identified in the CS and added dexamethasone as a comparator in the decision analytic model. The ERG presented multiple analyses as base-cases because several elements of the assessment remained uncertain. The fully incremental ERG results ranged from dexamethasone (extendedly) dominating FAc (when assuming a hazard ratio of 1 or 0.7 for dexamethasone versus FAc) to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £30,153 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for FAc versus (L)CP [when assuming a hazard ratio of 0.456 for dexamethasone versus (L)CP]. The ICER of FAc versus (L)CP ranged from £12,325 to £30,153 per QALY gained. After a second AC meeting where alternative company scenarios comparing FAc with dexamethasone were considered by the AC, the AC concluded that "the results of the company's analyses ranged from the fluocinolone acetonide implant being dominant (that is, it was more effective and costs less), to an ICER of £29,461 per QALY gained, and most of the ICERs were below £20,000 per QALY gained". Therefore, the AC recommended FAc as a cost-effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye in the final TA590 guidance (published July 2019).

Dexamethasone implant for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a dexamethasone implant plus current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) compared with current practice alone, in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or pan-uveitis and to identify areas for future research. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate the costs and benefits of dexamethasone. Systematic reviews were performed to identify available relevant evidence. Quality of life data from the key randomised-controlled trial (HURON) was used to estimate the interventions' effectiveness compared with the trial's comparator arm (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis took a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of one dexamethasone implant compared with LCP is estimated as £19 509 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The factors with the largest impact on the results were rate of blindness and relative proportion of blindness cases avoided by dexamethasone. Using plausible alternative assumptions, dexamethasone could be cost saving or it may be associated with an ICER of £56 329 per QALY gained compared with LCP. CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone is estimated to be cost-effective using generally accepted UK thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around these results due to scarcity of evidence. Future research on the following would help provide more reliable estimates: effectiveness of dexamethasone versus current practice (instead of LCP), with subgroup analyses for unilateral and bilateral uveitis, incidence of long-term blindness and effectiveness of dexamethasone in avoiding blindness.

Adalimumab for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab compared with current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis and to identify areas for future research. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate costs and benefits of the interventions. Systematic reviews were performed to identify the available relevant clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence. Data collected in two key randomised controlled trials (VISUAL I and VISUAL II) were used to estimate the interventions' effectiveness compared with the trials' comparator arms (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis was performed from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources. RESULTS: The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of adalimumab versus LCP for the base case are £92 600 and £318 075 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for active and inactive uveitis, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER varied from £15 579 to £120 653 and £35 642 to £800 775 per QALY for active and inactive uveitis. CONCLUSION: The estimated ICERs of adalimumab versus LCP are above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Adalimumab may be more cost-effective in patients with active uveitis at greater risk of blindness. However, there is an unmet need for additional primary data to provide more reliable estimates in several important areas, including effectiveness of adalimumab versus current practice (instead of LCP), incidence of long-term blindness, adalimumab effectiveness in avoiding blindness, and rates and time to remission while on adalimumab.

Multiple deprivation, vision loss, and ophthalmic disease in adults: global perspectives.

The association between socioeconomic position and morbidity and mortality has long been recognized. We evaluate the evidence for an association between multiple aspects of deprivation and ocular health in a global context. This is a systematic review of studies that evaluated deprivation in the adult population in the context of the major acquired causes of visual loss such as cataract, diabetic eye disease, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration, and ocular trauma. The search strategy identified relevant studies reported between 1946 and August 2016, with randomized control trials, case-control, cohort, and cross-sectional study designs being selected for inclusion. The studies identified in this review from across the world demonstrate the extent to which the common themes such as low educational attainment and low income may be associated with increased incidence of various sight-threatening conditions and may adversely affect access to specialist assessment and delivery of treatment. Health inequality may always persist, but an increased recognition of the importance of the various impacts of deprivation may empower policy makers to target limited resources to the most vulnerable groups in order to deliver the greatest benefit.