Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 29
Filtrar
1.
BMJ Open Gastroenterol ; 11(1)2024 Jun 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38830687

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Patients with coeliac disease (CD) need to follow a strict gluten-free diet to manage symptoms and prevent complications. Restrictions imposed by the diet can be challenging and affect quality of life (QoL). We explored sources of variation in QoL among patients with CD. DESIGN: We conducted an online survey of coeliac patients in the UK, including a CD-specific QoL tool (CD-QOL V.1.0), questions on diet adherence and an optional comment box at the end. The survey was disseminated via social media and went live between January and March 2021. We performed multiple linear regression and free text analysis. RESULTS: We found a median CD-QOL score of 61 (IQR 44-76, range 4-100, n=215) suggesting good QoL (Good >59); however, the individual QoL scores varied significantly. Regression analyses showed that people who found diet adherence difficult and people adhering very strictly had a lower QoL. Free text comments suggested that people who adhered very strictly may do so because they have symptoms with minimal gluten exposure. People who found diet adherence difficult may be people who only recently started the diet and were still adjusting to its impact. Comments also highlighted that individuals with CD often perceive a lack of adequate follow-up care and support after diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Better support and follow-up care is needed for people with CD to help them adjust to a gluten-free diet and minimise the impact on their QoL. Better education and increased awareness are needed among food businesses regarding cross-contamination to reduce anxiety and accidental gluten exposure.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Celíaca , Dieta Sin Gluten , Cooperación del Paciente , Calidad de Vida , Humanos , Enfermedad Celíaca/dietoterapia , Enfermedad Celíaca/psicología , Calidad de Vida/psicología , Dieta Sin Gluten/psicología , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Cooperación del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Anciano , Adulto Joven , Adolescente
2.
BMJ Open ; 14(2): e072026, 2024 Feb 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38336454

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies have suggested that fibrates and glitazones may have a role in brain tumour prevention. We examined if there is support for these observations using primary care records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). DESIGN: We conducted two nested case-control studies using primary and secondary brain tumours identified within CPRD between 2000 and 2016. We selected cases and controls among the population of individuals who had been treated with any anti-diabetic or anti-hyperlipidaemic medication to reduce confounding by indication. SETTING: Adults older than 18 years registered with a general practitioner in the UK contributing data to CPRD. RESULTS: We identified 7496 individuals with any brain tumour (4471 primary; 3025 secondary) in total. After restricting cases and controls to those prescribed any anti-diabetic or anti-hyperlipidaemic medication, there were 1950 cases and 7791 controls in the fibrate and 480 cases with 1920 controls in the glitazone analyses. Longer use of glitazones compared with all other anti-diabetic medications was associated with a reduced risk of primary (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.89 per year, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98), secondary (aOR 0.87 per year, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99) or combined brain tumours (aOR 0.88 per year, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95). There was little evidence that fibrate exposure was associated with risk of either primary or secondary brain tumours. CONCLUSIONS: Longer exposure to glitazones was associated with reduced primary and secondary brain tumour risk. Further basic science and population-based research should explore this finding in greater detail, in terms of replication and mechanistic studies.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Encefálicas , Diabetes Mellitus , Hiperlipidemias , Neoplasias Primarias Secundarias , Tiazolidinedionas , Adulto , Humanos , Hiperlipidemias/complicaciones , Hiperlipidemias/tratamiento farmacológico , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Ácidos Fíbricos/uso terapéutico , Tiazolidinedionas/uso terapéutico , Reino Unido/epidemiología
3.
Br J Gen Pract ; 74(739): e71-e77, 2024 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38191567

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Coeliac disease (CD) presents with non-specific symptoms, and delays to diagnosis are common. The traditional diagnostic pathway involves serological testing followed by endoscopic biopsy; however, the evidence is increasing about the effectiveness of a diagnosis without the need for a biopsy. AIM: To understand the patient's experience of being diagnosed with CD. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study was conducted, which involved semi-structured interviews with adults diagnosed with CD living in the UK. METHOD: Participants (n = 20) were purposefully sampled from 200 adults who had completed a diagnostic confidence survey. Interviews were conducted via video-conferencing software (Zoom), recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Interviewees faced pre-diagnostic uncertainty, presenting with non-specific symptoms that many experienced for several years and may have normalised. GPs often attributed their symptoms to alternative diagnoses, commonly, irritable bowel syndrome or anaemia. Investigations caused further uncertainty, with half of the interviewees unaware that their initial serology included a test for CD, and reporting long waits for endoscopy and challenges managing their diet around the procedure. Their uncertainty reduced once they received their biopsy results. Endoscopy was presented as the 'gold standard' for diagnosis and most interviewees believed that the procedure was necessary for diagnostic confidence and conviction in a lifelong gluten-free diet. CONCLUSION: Patients experience uncertainty on the pathway to a diagnosis of CD. GPs could improve their experiences by being mindful of the possibility of CD and sharing information about serological testing. Policy and guidance should address the time to endoscopy and diet during diagnosis. If diagnosis without biopsy is adopted, then consideration should be given to clinical pathway implementation and communication approaches to reduce patient uncertainty.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Celíaca , Adulto , Humanos , Enfermedad Celíaca/diagnóstico , Dieta Sin Gluten , Biopsia/métodos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Investigación Cualitativa
4.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 30(4): 445-452, 2024 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38182052

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Centor and McIsaac scores are clinical prediction rules for diagnosing group A streptococcus (GAS) infection in patients with pharyngitis. Their recommended thresholds vary between guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the McIsaac and Centor scores to diagnose GAS pharyngitis and evaluate their impact on antibiotic prescribing at each threshold in patients presenting to secondary care. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to September 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies of patients presenting with acute pharyngitis to emergency or outpatient clinics that estimated the accuracy of McIsaac or Centor scores against throat cultures and/or rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) as reference standards. TESTS: Centor or McIsaac score. REFERENCE STANDARD: Throat cultures and/or RADT. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The sensitivities and specificities of the McIsaac and Centor scores were pooled at each threshold using bivariate random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included (eight McIsaac and six Centor scores). Eight studies had unclear and six had a high risk of bias. The McIsaac score had higher estimated sensitivity and lower specificity relative to Centor scores at equivalent thresholds but with wide and overlapping confidence regions. Using either score as a triage to RADT to decide antibiotic treatment would reduce antibiotic prescription to patients with non-GAS pharyngitis relative to RADT test for everyone, but also reduce antibiotic prescription to patients with GAS. DISCUSSION: Centor and McIsaac scores are equally ineffective at triaging patients who need antibiotics presenting with pharyngitis at hospitals. At high thresholds, too many true positive cases are missed, whereas at low thresholds, too many false positives are treated, leading to the over prescription of antibiotics. The former may be compensated by adequate safety netting by clinicians, ensuring that patients can seek help if symptoms worsen.


Asunto(s)
Faringitis , Infecciones Estreptocócicas , Humanos , Atención Secundaria de Salud , Infecciones Estreptocócicas/diagnóstico , Infecciones Estreptocócicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Estreptocócicas/microbiología , Faringitis/diagnóstico , Faringitis/tratamiento farmacológico , Faringitis/microbiología , Streptococcus pyogenes , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Sensibilidad y Especificidad
6.
Value Health ; 27(3): 301-312, 2024 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38154593

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Celiac disease (CD) is thought to affect around 1% of people in the United Kingdom, but only approximately 30% are diagnosed. The aim of this work was to assess the cost-effectiveness of strategies for identifying adults and children with CD in terms of who to test and which tests to use. METHODS: A decision tree and Markov model were used to describe testing strategies and model long-term consequences of CD. The analysis compared a selection of pre-test probabilities of CD above which patients should be screened, as well as the use of different serological tests, with or without genetic testing. Value of information analysis was used to prioritize parameters for future research. RESULTS: Using serological testing alone in adults, immunoglobulin A (IgA) tissue transglutaminase (tTG) at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening) was most cost-effective. If combining serological testing with genetic testing, human leukocyte antigen combined with IgA tTG at a 5% pre-test probability was most cost-effective. In children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leukocyte antigen plus IgA tTG. Value of information analysis highlighted the probability of late diagnosis of CD and the accuracy of serological tests as important parameters. The analysis also suggested prioritizing research in adult women over adult men or children. CONCLUSIONS: For adults, these cost-effectiveness results suggest UK National Screening Committee Criteria for population-based screening for CD should be explored. Substantial uncertainty in the results indicate a high value in conducting further research.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Celíaca , Niño , Masculino , Adulto , Humanos , Femenino , Enfermedad Celíaca/diagnóstico , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Transglutaminasas , Inmunoglobulina A , Antígenos HLA
7.
Implement Sci ; 18(1): 67, 2023 Dec 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38049846

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Germ Defence ( www.germdefence.org ) is an evidence-based interactive website that promotes behaviour change for infection control within households. To maximise the potential of Germ Defence to effectively reduce the spread of COVID-19, the intervention needed to be implemented at scale rapidly. METHODS: With NHS England approval, we conducted an efficient two-arm (1:1 ratio) cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine the effectiveness of randomising implementation of Germ Defence via general practitioner (GP) practices across England, UK, compared with usual care to disseminate Germ Defence to patients. GP practices randomised to the intervention arm (n = 3292) were emailed and asked to disseminate Germ Defence to all adult patients via mobile phone text, email or social media. Usual care arm GP practices (n = 3287) maintained standard management for the 4-month trial period and then asked to share Germ Defence with their adult patients. The primary outcome was the rate of GP presentations for respiratory tract infections (RTI) per patient. Secondary outcomes comprised rates of acute RTIs, confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses and suspected COVID-19 diagnoses, COVID-19 symptoms, gastrointestinal infection diagnoses, antibiotic usage and hospital admissions. The impact of the intervention on outcome rates was assessed using negative binomial regression modelling within the OpenSAFELY platform. The uptake of the intervention by GP practice and by patients was measured via website analytics. RESULTS: Germ Defence was used 310,731 times. The average website satisfaction score was 7.52 (0-10 not at all to very satisfied, N = 9933). There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of RTIs between intervention and control practices (rate ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.96, 1.06, p = 0.70). This was similar to all other eight health outcomes. Patient engagement within intervention arm practices ranged from 0 to 48% of a practice list. CONCLUSIONS: While the RCT did not demonstrate a difference in health outcomes, we demonstrated that rapid large-scale implementation of a digital behavioural intervention is possible and can be evaluated with a novel efficient prospective RCT methodology analysing routinely collected patient data entirely within a trusted research environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in the ISRCTN registry (14602359) on 12 August 2020.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Medicina General , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio , Adulto , Humanos , Inglaterra , Atención Primaria de Salud
8.
BJGP Open ; 7(1)2023 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36693759

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Use of laboratory testing has increased in the UK over the past few decades, with considerable geographical variation. AIM: To evaluate what laboratory tests are used to monitor people with hypertension, type 2 (T2) diabetes, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) and assess variation in test use in UK primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Longitudinal cohort study of people registered with UK general practices between June 2013 and May 2018 and previously diagnosed with hypertension, T2 diabetes, or CKD. METHOD: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) primary care data linked to ethnic group and deprivation was used to examine testing rates over time, by GP practice, age, sex, ethnic group, and socioeconomic deprivation, with age-sex standardisation. RESULTS: Nearly 1 million patients were included, and more than 27 million tests. The most ordered tests were for renal function (1463 per 1000 person-years), liver function (1063 per 1000 person-years), and full blood count (FBC; 996 per 1000 person-years). There was evidence of undertesting (compared with current guidelines) for HbA1c and albumin:creatinine ratio (ACR) or microalbumin, and potential overtesting of lipids, FBC, liver function, and thyroid function. Some GP practices had up to 27 times higher testing rates than others (HbA1c testing among patients with CKD). CONCLUSION: Testing rates are no longer increasing, but they are not always within the guidelines for monitoring long-term conditions (LTCs). There was considerable variation by GP practice, indicating uncertainty over the most appropriate testing frequencies for different conditions. Standardising the monitoring of LTCs based on the latest evidence would provide greater consistency of access to monitoring tests.

9.
Health Technol Assess ; 26(44): 1-310, 2022 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36321689

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by ingesting gluten. It affects approximately 1% of the UK population, but only one in three people is thought to have a diagnosis. Untreated coeliac disease may lead to malnutrition, anaemia, osteoporosis and lymphoma. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to define at-risk groups and determine the cost-effectiveness of active case-finding strategies in primary care. DESIGN: (1) Systematic review of the accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease. (2) Routine data analysis to develop prediction models for identification of people who may benefit from testing for coeliac disease. (3) Systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for coeliac disease. (4) Systematic review of the accuracy of genetic tests for coeliac disease (literature search conducted in April 2021). (5) Online survey to identify diagnostic thresholds for testing, starting treatment and referral for biopsy. (6) Economic modelling to identify the cost-effectiveness of different active case-finding strategies, informed by the findings from previous objectives. DATA SOURCES: For the first systematic review, the following databases were searched from 1997 to April 2021: MEDLINE® (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase® (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Cochrane Library, Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( WHO ICTRP ) and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For the second systematic review, the following databases were searched from January 1990 to August 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews ( KSR ) Evidence, WHO ICTRP and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For prediction model development, Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and a subcohort of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children were used; for estimates for the economic models, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum was used. REVIEW METHODS: For review 1, cohort and case-control studies reporting on a diagnostic indicator in a population with and a population without coeliac disease were eligible. For review 2, diagnostic cohort studies including patients presenting with coeliac disease symptoms who were tested with serological tests for coeliac disease and underwent a duodenal biopsy as reference standard were eligible. In both reviews, risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were fitted, in which binomial likelihoods for the numbers of true positives and true negatives were assumed. RESULTS: People with dermatitis herpetiformis, a family history of coeliac disease, migraine, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis or chronic liver disease are 1.5-2 times more likely than the general population to have coeliac disease; individual gastrointestinal symptoms were not useful for identifying coeliac disease. For children, women and men, prediction models included 24, 24 and 21 indicators of coeliac disease, respectively. The models showed good discrimination between patients with and patients without coeliac disease, but performed less well when externally validated. Serological tests were found to have good diagnostic accuracy for coeliac disease. Immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase had the highest sensitivity and endomysial antibody the highest specificity. There was little improvement when tests were used in combination. Survey respondents (n = 472) wanted to be 66% certain of the diagnosis from a blood test before starting a gluten-free diet if symptomatic, and 90% certain if asymptomatic. Cost-effectiveness analyses found that, among adults, and using serological testing alone, immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase was most cost-effective at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening). Strategies using immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody plus human leucocyte antigen or human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability had similar cost-effectiveness results, which were also similar to the cost-effectiveness results of immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase at a 1% pre-test probability. The most practical alternative for implementation within the NHS is likely to be a combination of human leucocyte antigen and immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing among those with a pre-test probability above 1.5%. Among children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase, but there was uncertainty around the most cost-effective pre-test probability. There was substantial uncertainty in economic model results, which means that there would be great value in conducting further research. LIMITATIONS: The interpretation of meta-analyses was limited by the substantial heterogeneity between the included studies, and most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. The main limitations of the prediction models were that we were restricted to diagnostic indicators that were recorded by general practitioners and that, because coeliac disease is underdiagnosed, it is also under-reported in health-care data. The cost-effectiveness model is a simplification of coeliac disease and modelled an average cohort rather than individuals. Evidence was weak on the probability of routine coeliac disease diagnosis, the accuracy of serological and genetic tests and the utility of a gluten-free diet. CONCLUSIONS: Population screening with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase (1% pre-test probability) and of immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody followed by human leucocyte antigen testing or human leucocyte antigen testing followed by immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability appear to have similar cost-effectiveness results. As decisions to implement population screening cannot be made based on our economic analysis alone, and given the practical challenges of identifying patients with higher pre-test probabilities, we recommend that human leucocyte antigen combined with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing should be considered for adults with at least a 1.5% pre-test probability of coeliac disease, equivalent to having at least one predictor. A more targeted strategy of 10% pre-test probability is recommended for children (e.g. children with anaemia). FUTURE WORK: Future work should consider whether or not population-based screening for coeliac disease could meet the UK National Screening Committee criteria and whether or not it necessitates a long-term randomised controlled trial of screening strategies. Large prospective cohort studies in which all participants receive accurate tests for coeliac disease are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019115506 and CRD42020170766. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Around 1 in 100 people in the UK has coeliac disease. It develops when the immune system attacks the lining of the gut after eating gluten. It is thought that only one in three people with coeliac disease is currently diagnosed. Without treatment, people with coeliac disease are at an increased risk of anaemia, osteoporosis and cancer. Treatment is a lifelong gluten-free diet. Diagnosing coeliac disease is difficult. Some people have minimal or non-specific symptoms, such as pain, indigestion or bloating, so knowing who to test is tricky. WHAT DID WE DO?: We wanted to establish who should be tested for coeliac disease, what tests should be used and whether or not invasive testing (a gut biopsy) is necessary for everyone. We looked at existing studies and data from general practices, and conducted an online survey, and brought everything together in an economic (cost) analysis. WHAT DID WE FIND?: Using individual symptoms is not helpful to identify people who may have coeliac disease. People with coeliac disease are more likely to have a combination of symptoms. People with anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis, thyroid disorders, immunoglobulin A deficiency, Down syndrome, Turner syndrome or a family history of coeliac disease are more likely to have coeliac disease and should be offered tests. Common blood tests for coeliac disease are very accurate, particularly when used in combination with genetic testing. Blood tests alone can be used for diagnosis for some people. Others will need a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. Whether or not this is needed depends on their risk of coeliac disease: whether or not they have symptoms and whether or not they have a condition that puts them at higher risk. Shared decision-making is important for individuals considering an invasive test, depending on how certain they want to be about their diagnosis before starting a gluten-free diet.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Celíaca , Osteoporosis , Neoplasias Cutáneas , Estados Unidos , Adulto , Niño , Masculino , Humanos , Femenino , Estudios Longitudinales , Estudios Prospectivos , Inmunoglobulina A , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
10.
EClinicalMedicine ; 46: 101376, 2022 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35434586

RESUMEN

Background: Coeliac disease (CD) affects approximately 1% of the population, although only a fraction of patients are diagnosed. Our objective was to develop diagnostic prediction models to help decide who should be offered testing for CD in primary care. Methods: Logistic regression models were developed in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD (between Sep 9, 1987 and Apr 4, 2021, n=107,075) and externally validated in CPRD Aurum (between Jan 1, 1995 and Jan 15, 2021, n=227,915), two UK primary care databases, using (and controlling for) 1:4 nested case-control designs. Candidate predictors included symptoms and chronic conditions identified in current guidelines and using a systematic review of the literature. We used elastic-net regression to further refine the models. Findings: The prediction model included 24, 24, and 21 predictors for children, women, and men, respectively. For children, the strongest predictors were type 1 diabetes, Turner syndrome, IgA deficiency, or first-degree relatives with CD. For women and men, these were anaemia and first-degree relatives. In the development dataset, the models showed good discrimination with a c-statistic of 0·84 (95% CI 0·83-0·84) in children, 0·77 (0·77-0·78) in women, and 0·81 (0·81-0·82) in men. External validation discrimination was lower, potentially because 'first-degree relative' was not recorded in the dataset used for validation. Model calibration was poor, tending to overestimate CD risk in all three groups in both datasets. Interpretation: These prediction models could help identify individuals with an increased risk of CD in relatively low prevalence populations such as primary care. Offering a serological test to these patients could increase case finding for CD. However, this involves offering tests to more people than is currently done. Further work is needed in prospective cohorts to refine and confirm the models and assess clinical and cost effectiveness. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant number NIHR129020).

11.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther ; 55(5): 514-527, 2022 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35043426

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There is growing support for a biopsy avoidant approach to diagnose coeliac disease in both children and adults, using a serological diagnosis instead. AIMS: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coeliac disease in adults and children. METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched between January 1990 and August 2020. Eligible diagnostic studies evaluated the accuracy of serological tests for coeliac disease against duodenal biopsy. Risk of bias assessment was performed using QUADAS-2. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate serology sensitivity and specificity at the most commonly reported thresholds. RESULTS: 113 studies (n = 28,338) were included, all in secondary care populations. A subset of studies were included in meta-analyses due to variations in diagnostic thresholds. Summary sensitivity and specificity of immunoglobulin A (IgA) anti-tissue transglutaminase were 90.7% (95% confidence interval: 87.3%, 93.2%) and 87.4% (84.4%, 90.0%) in adults (5 studies) and 97.7% (91.0%, 99.4%) and 70.2% (39.3%, 89.6%) in children (6 studies); and of IgA endomysial antibodies were 88.0% (75.2%, 94.7%) and 99.6% (92.3%, 100%) in adults (5 studies) and 94.5% (88.9%, 97.3%) and 93.8% (85.2%, 97.5%) in children (5 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-tissue transglutaminase sensitivity appears to be sufficient to rule out coeliac disease in children. The high specificity of endomysial antibody in adults supports its use to rule in coeliac disease. This evidence underpins the current development of clinical guidelines for a serological diagnosis of coeliac disease. Studies in primary care are needed to evaluate serological testing strategies in this setting.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Celíaca , Adulto , Autoanticuerpos , Niño , Humanos , Inmunoglobulina A , Proteína Glutamina Gamma Glutamiltransferasa 2 , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Pruebas Serológicas , Transglutaminasas
12.
Int J Mol Sci ; 22(23)2021 Nov 24.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34884490

RESUMEN

The early-life microbiome (ELM) interacts with the psychosocial environment, in particular during early-life adversity (ELA), defining life-long health trajectories. The ELM also plays a significant role in the maturation of the immune system. We hypothesised that, in this context, the resilience of the oral microbiomes, despite being composed of diverse and distinct communities, allows them to retain an imprint of the early environment. Using 16S amplicon sequencing on the EpiPath cohort, we demonstrate that ELA leaves an imprint on both the salivary and buccal oral microbiome 24 years after exposure to adversity. Furthermore, the changes in both communities were associated with increased activation, maturation, and senescence of both innate and adaptive immune cells, although the interaction was partly dependent on prior herpesviridae exposure and current smoking. Our data suggest the presence of multiple links between ELA, Immunosenescence, and cytotoxicity that occur through long-term changes in the microbiome.


Asunto(s)
Experiencias Adversas de la Infancia/estadística & datos numéricos , Bacterias/clasificación , Sistema Inmunológico , Acontecimientos que Cambian la Vida , Microbiota , Mucosa Bucal/microbiología , Saliva/microbiología , Adulto , Bacterias/genética , Bacterias/aislamiento & purificación , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Niño , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Adulto Joven
13.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0258501, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34695139

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) is around 1%, but diagnosis is challenged by varied presentation and non-specific symptoms and signs. This study aimed to identify diagnostic indicators that may help identify patients at a higher risk of CD in whom further testing is warranted. METHODS: International guidance for systematic review methods were followed and the review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020170766). Six databases were searched until April 2021. Studies investigating diagnostic indicators, such as symptoms or risk conditions, in people with and without CD were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Summary sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were estimated for each diagnostic indicator by fitting bivariate random effects meta-analyses. FINDINGS: 191 studies reporting on 26 diagnostic indicators were included in the meta-analyses. We found large variation in diagnostic accuracy estimates between studies and most studies were at high risk of bias. We found strong evidence that people with dermatitis herpetiformis, migraine, family history of CD, HLA DQ2/8 risk genotype, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis, or chronic liver disease are more likely than the general population to have CD. Symptoms, psoriasis, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, fractures, type 2 diabetes, and multiple sclerosis showed poor diagnostic ability. A sensitivity analysis revealed a 3-fold higher risk of CD in first-degree relatives of CD patients. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted testing of individuals with dermatitis herpetiformis, migraine, family history of CD, HLA DQ2/8 risk genotype, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis, or chronic liver disease could improve case-finding for CD, therefore expediting appropriate treatment and reducing adverse consequences. Migraine and chronic liver disease are not yet included as a risk factor in all CD guidelines, but it may be appropriate for these to be added. Future research should establish the diagnostic value of combining indicators.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Celíaca , Humanos , Sensibilidad y Especificidad
14.
Front Immunol ; 12: 674532, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34394074

RESUMEN

Early Life Adversity (ELA) is closely associated with the risk for developing diseases later in life, such as autoimmune diseases, type-2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. In humans, early parental separation, physical and sexual abuse or low social-economic status during childhood are known to have great impact on brain development, in the hormonal system and immune responses. Maternal deprivation (MD) is the closest animal model available to the human situation. This paradigm induces long lasting behavioral effects, causes changes in the HPA axis and affects the immune system. However, the mechanisms underlying changes in the immune response after ELA are still not fully understood. In this study we investigated how ELA changes the immune system, through an unbiased analysis, viSNE, and addressed specially the NK immune cell population and its functionality. We have demonstrated that maternal separation, in both humans and rats, significantly affects the sensitivity of the immune system in adulthood. Particularly, NK cells' profile and response to target cell lines are significantly changed after ELA. These immune cells in rats are not only less cytotoxic towards YAC-1 cells, but also show a clear increase in the expression of maturation markers after 3h of maternal separation. Similarly, individuals who suffered from ELA display significant changes in the cytotoxic profile of NK cells together with decreased degranulation capacity. These results suggest that one of the key mechanisms by which the immune system becomes impaired after ELA might be due to a shift on the senescent state of the cells, specifically NK cells. Elucidation of such a mechanism highlights the importance of ELA prevention and how NK targeted immunotherapy might help attenuating ELA consequences.


Asunto(s)
Experiencias Adversas de la Infancia , Crecimiento y Desarrollo/inmunología , Células Asesinas Naturales/inmunología , Células Asesinas Naturales/fisiología , Estrés Psicológico/inmunología , Inmunidad Adaptativa/inmunología , Inmunidad Adaptativa/fisiología , Adulto , Animales , Corticosterona/sangre , Modelos Animales de Enfermedad , Femenino , Glucosa , Crecimiento y Desarrollo/fisiología , Humanos , Masculino , Privación Materna , Ratas , Ratas Wistar
15.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(8): 1096-1108, 2021 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34015531

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are the most common reason to seek medical care, with many patients receiving inappropriate antibiotics. Novel testing approaches to identify aetiology at the point-of-care are required to accurately guide antibiotic treatment. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of biomarker combinations to rapidly differentiate between acute bacterial or viral RTI aetiology. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched to February 2021. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Diagnostic accuracy studies comparing accuracy of point-of-care and rapid diagnostic tests in primary or secondary care, consisting of biomarker combinations, to identify bacterial or viral aetiology of RTI. METHODS: Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity of tests reported by more than one study were meta-analysed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Twenty observational studies (3514 patients) were identified. Eighteen were judged at high risk of bias. For bacterial aetiologies, sensitivity ranged from 61% to 100% and specificity from 18% to 96%. For viral aetiologies, sensitivity ranged from 59% to 97% and specificity from 74% to 100%. Studies evaluating two commercial tests were meta-analysed. For ImmunoXpert, the summary sensitivity and specificity were 85% (95% CI 75%-91%, k = 4) and 86% (95% CI 73%-93%, k = 4) for bacterial infections, and 90% (95% CI 79%-96%, k = 3) and 92% (95% CI 83%-96%, k = 3) for viral infections, respectively. FebriDx had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 84% (95% CI 75%-90%, k = 4) and 93% (95% CI 90%-95%, k = 4) for bacterial infections, and 87% (95% CI 72%-95%; k = 4) and 82% (95% CI 66%-86%, k = 4) for viral infections, respectively. CONCLUSION: Combinations of biomarkers show potential clinical utility in discriminating the aetiology of RTIs. However, the limitations in the evidence base, due to a high proportion of studies with high risk of bias, preclude firm conclusions. Future research should be in primary care and evaluate patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness with experimental study designs. CLINICAL TRIAL: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020178973.


Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Infecciones Bacterianas , Pruebas en el Punto de Atención , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio , Virosis , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Infecciones Bacterianas/diagnóstico , Infecciones Bacterianas/tratamiento farmacológico , Biomarcadores , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Humanos , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/diagnóstico , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Virosis/diagnóstico , Virosis/tratamiento farmacológico
16.
Trials ; 22(1): 263, 2021 Apr 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33836825

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of randomising dissemination of the Germ Defence behaviour change website via GP practices across England UK. TRIAL DESIGN: A two-arm (1:1 ratio) cluster randomised controlled trial implementing Germ Defence via GP practices compared with usual care. PARTICIPANTS: Setting: All Primary care GP practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: All patients aged 16 years and over who were granted access by participating GP practices. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: We will ask staff at GP practices randomised to the intervention arm to share the weblink to Germ Defence with all adult patients registered at their practice during the 4-month trial implementation period and care will otherwise follow current standard management. Germ Defence is an interactive website ( http://GermDefence.org/ ) employing behaviour change techniques and practical advice on how to reduce the spread of infection in the home. The coronavirus version of Germ Defence helps people understand what measures to take and when to take them to avoid infection. This includes hand washing, avoiding sharing rooms and surfaces, dealing with deliveries and ventilating rooms. Using behaviour change techniques, it helps users think through and adopt better home hygiene habits and find ways to solve any barriers, providing personalised goal setting and tailored advice that fits users' personal circumstances and problem solving to overcome barriers. Comparator: Patients at GP practices randomised to the usual care arm will receive current standard management for the 4-month trial period after which we will ask staff to share the link to Germ Defence with all adult patients registered at their practice. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is the effects of implementing Germ Defence on prevalence of all respiratory tract infection diagnoses during the 4-month trial implementation period. The secondary outcomes are: 1) incidence of COVID-19 diagnoses 2) incidence of COVID-19 symptom presentation 3) incidence of gastrointestinal infections 4) number of primary care consultations 5) antibiotic usage 6) hospital admissions 7) uptake of GP practices disseminating Germ Defence to their patients 8) usage of the Germ Defence website by individuals who were granted access by their GP practice RANDOMISATION: GP practices will be randomised on a 1:1 basis by the independent Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration (BRTC). Clinical Commission Groups (CCGs) in England will be divided into blocks according to region, and equal numbers in each block will be randomly allocated to intervention or usual care. The randomisation schedule will be generated in Stata statistical software by a statistician not otherwise involved in the enrolment of general practices into the study. BLINDING (MASKING): The principal investigators, the statistician and study collaborators will remain blinded from the identity of randomised practices until the end of the study. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): To detect planned effect size (based on PRIMIT trial, Little et al, 2015): 11.1 million respondents from 6822 active GP practices. Assuming 25% of these GP practices will engage, we will contact all GP practices in England spread across 135 Clinical Commissioning Groups. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 2.0, dated 13 January 2021. Implementation is ongoing. The implementation period started on 10 November 2020 and will end on 10 March 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in the ISRCTN registry ( isrctn.com/ ISRCTN14602359 ) on 12 August 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/prevención & control , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/métodos , Conductas Relacionadas con la Salud , Pandemias , Adulto , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Medicina General , Humanos , Internet , Atención Primaria de Salud , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Resultado del Tratamiento
17.
J Health Serv Res Policy ; 26(4): 242-250, 2021 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33225763

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of an admission avoidance pathway within a new integrated respiratory service on the number of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)-related hospital admissions in England. METHODS: We used interrupted time series analysis to estimate the effects of the admission avoidance pathway on COPD hospital admissions, length of stay, and 30-day readmissions. We included all unplanned admissions with COPD as primary diagnosis using Hospital Episode Statistics, comparing the intervention region with a demographically similar control region in the two years before and one year after the implementation of the new service. RESULTS: Unplanned hospital admissions for COPD exacerbations followed a clear seasonal pattern, peaking in early winter. We found no evidence that the admission avoidance pathway influenced the rate of hospital admissions or 30-day readmissions. We found weak evidence of a trend change in length of stay following the launch of the admission avoidance pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Our study adds to the growing body of evidence that suggests that additional admission avoidance capacity alone does not lead to a measurable reduction in admissions or length of stay. Further investigation is required to understand the reasons why. A longer follow-up may be required to see some of the potential benefits.


Asunto(s)
Hospitalización , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Hospitales , Humanos , Análisis de Series de Tiempo Interrumpido , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/epidemiología , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/terapia
18.
BMC Fam Pract ; 21(1): 257, 2020 12 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33278890

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: We have shown previously that current recommendations in UK guidelines for monitoring long-term conditions are largely based on expert opinion. Due to a lack of robust evidence on optimal monitoring strategies and testing intervals, the guidelines are unclear and incomplete. This uncertainty may underly variation in testing that has been observed across the UK between GP practices and regions. METHODS: Our objective was to audit current testing practices of GPs in the UK; in particular, perspectives on laboratory tests for monitoring long-term conditions, the workload, and how confident GPs are in ordering and interpreting these tests. We designed an online survey consisting of multiple-choice and open-ended questions that was promoted on social media and in newsletters targeting GPs practicing in UK. The survey was live between October-November 2019. The results were analysed using a mixed-methods approach. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 550 GPs, of whom 69% had more than 10 years of experience. The majority spent more than 30 min per day on testing (78%), but only half of the respondents felt confident in dealing with abnormal results (53%). There was a high level of disagreement for whether liver function tests and full blood counts should be done 'routinely', 'sometimes', or 'never' in patients with a certain long-term condition. The free text comments revealed three common themes: (1) pressures that promote over-testing, i.e. guidelines or protocols, workload from secondary care, fear of missing something, patient expectations; (2) negative consequences of over-testing, i.e. increased workload and patient harm; and (3) uncertainties due to lack of evidence and unclear guidelines. CONCLUSION: These results confirm the variation that has been observed in test ordering data. The results also show that most GPs spent a significant part of their day ordering and interpreting monitoring tests. The lack of confidence in knowing how to act on abnormal test results underlines the urgent need for robust evidence on optimal testing and the development of clear and unambiguous testing recommendations. Uncertainties surrounding optimal testing has resulted in an over-use of tests, which leads to a waste of resources, increased GP workload and potential patient harm.


Asunto(s)
Pruebas Diagnósticas de Rutina , Carga de Trabajo , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Humanos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
19.
BMJ Open ; 10(10): e038994, 2020 10 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33020103

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Coeliac disease (CD) is a systemic immune-mediated disorder triggered by gluten in genetically predisposed individuals. CD is diagnosed using a combination of serology tests and endoscopic biopsy of the small intestine. However, because of non-specific symptoms and heterogeneous clinical presentation, diagnosing CD is challenging. Early detection of CD through improved case-finding strategies can improve the response to a gluten-free diet, patients' quality of life and potentially reduce the risk of complications. However, there is a lack of consensus in which groups may benefit from active case-finding. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review to determine the accuracy of diagnostic indicators (such as symptoms and risk factors) for CD in adults and children, and thus can help identify patients who should be offered CD testing. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science will be searched from 1997 until 2020. Screening will be performed in duplicate. Data extraction will be performed by one and checked by a second reviewer. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or referral to a third reviewer. We will produce a narrative summary of identified prediction models. Studies, where 2×2 data can be extracted or reconstructed, will be treated as diagnostic accuracy studies, that is, the diagnostic indicators are the index tests and CD serology and/or biopsy is the reference standard. For each diagnostic indicator, we will perform a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of the sensitivity and specificity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals, academic and public presentations and social media. We will convene an implementation panel to advise on the optimum strategy for enhanced dissemination. We will discuss findings with Coeliac UK to help with dissemination to patients. Ethical approval is not applicable, as this is a systematic review and no research participants will be involved. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020170766.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Celíaca , Adulto , Enfermedad Celíaca/diagnóstico , Niño , Humanos , Tamizaje Masivo , Metaanálisis como Asunto , Calidad de Vida , Proyectos de Investigación , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto
20.
Fam Pract ; 37(6): 845-853, 2020 11 28.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32820328

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown unwarranted variation in test ordering among GP practices and regions, which may lead to patient harm and increased health care costs. There is currently no robust evidence base to inform guidelines on monitoring long-term conditions. OBJECTIVES: To map the extent and nature of research that provides evidence on the use of laboratory tests to monitor long-term conditions in primary care, and to identify gaps in existing research. METHODS: We performed a scoping review-a relatively new approach for mapping research evidence across broad topics-using data abstraction forms and charting data according to a scoping framework. We searched CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE to April 2019. We included studies that aimed to optimize the use of laboratory tests and determine costs, patient harm or variation related to testing in a primary care population with long-term conditions. RESULTS: Ninety-four studies were included. Forty percent aimed to describe variation in test ordering and 36% to investigate test performance. Renal function tests (35%), HbA1c (23%) and lipids (17%) were the most studied laboratory tests. Most studies applied a cohort design using routinely collected health care data (49%). We found gaps in research on strategies to optimize test use to improve patient outcomes, optimal testing intervals and patient harms caused by over-testing. CONCLUSIONS: Future research needs to address these gaps in evidence. High-level evidence is missing, i.e. randomized controlled trials comparing one monitoring strategy to another or quasi-experimental designs such as interrupted time series analysis if trials are not feasible.


Asunto(s)
Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico/normas , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Atención Primaria de Salud , Humanos , Análisis de Series de Tiempo Interrumpido
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...