Nailfold capillaroscopy: a survey of current UK practice and 'next steps' to increase uptake among rheumatologists.

OBJECTIVES: To identify barriers to the use of nailfold capillaroscopy as a diagnostic tool for patients presenting with Raynaud's phenomenon in UK rheumatology centres and to obtain rheumatologists' views on a proposed internet-based standardized system for clinical reporting of nailfold capillaroscopy images. METHODS: An online survey was developed using expert opinion from clinicians, scientists and health service researchers. The survey was piloted and sent to UK-based rheumatologists using established electronic mailing lists between October 2020 and March 2021. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 104 rheumatologists representing rheumatology centres across the UK responded to the survey. Wide variations in terms of workloads and practices were described. Thirty-four (33%) respondents reported using nailfold capillaroscopy only at their own centre, 33 (32%) referred to other centres, 9 (9%) did both and 28 (27%) did not use capillaroscopy at all. Of the 43 respondents using capillaroscopy on site, 25 (58%) used either a dermatoscope or universal serial bus microscope and 9 (21%) used videocapillaroscopy. Among the 61 respondents not undertaking capillaroscopy on site, barriers included lack of equipment (85%), lack of experience in acquiring images (69%) and lack of expertise in interpreting images (67%). Sixty-six respondents (63%) expressed interest in an internet-based, standardized automated system for reporting images. CONCLUSION: Most UK rheumatologists currently do not perform nailfold capillaroscopy on site. An internet-based nailfold capillaroscopy system for use with low-cost microscopes as well as with videocapillaroscopy could help increase uptake of capillaroscopy and thereby facilitate early diagnosis of SSc across the UK.

Cost-effectiveness of a policy-based intervention to reduce melanoma and other skin cancers associated with indoor tanning.

BACKGROUND: The use of indoor tanning devices causes melanoma and other skin cancers with resulting morbidity, mortality and increased healthcare costs. Policymakers require robust economic evidence to inform decisions about a possible ban of such devices to mitigate these burdens. OBJECTIVES: To assess the health costs and consequences of introducing a policy-based intervention across England to ban commercial indoor tanning with an accompanying public information campaign. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis, adopting a healthcare system perspective, was conducted using a decision model to track a national cohort of 18-year-olds over a lifetime time horizon. A nationwide ban on commercial indoor tanning combined with a public information campaign (the policy-based intervention) was compared with the status quo of availability of commercial indoor tanning. The expected costs (currency, GBP; price year, 2019) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated. Net monetary benefit (NMB) (net benefit measured in cost compared with an accepted threshold) and net health benefit (NHB) (net gain in QALYs compared with an accepted threshold) of implementation were calculated. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to calculate the probability that the intervention was cost-effective. RESULTS: Compared with the current situation, a ban on commercial indoor tanning combined with a public information campaign would result in 1206 avoided cases of melanoma, 207 fewer melanoma deaths and 3987 averted cases of keratinocyte cancers over the lifetime of all 18-year-olds (n = 618 873) living in England in 2019. An additional 497 QALYs would be realized along with healthcare cost-savings of £697 858. This intervention would result in an NMB of £10.6m and an NHB of 530 QALYS. Multiple sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000, there is a 99% likelihood of this policy-based intervention being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a ban on commercial indoor tanning across England with an accompanying public information campaign would be an effective use of healthcare resources.

The effect on work presenteeism of job retention vocational rehabilitation compared to a written self-help work advice pack for employed people with inflammatory arthritis: protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (the WORKWELL trial).

BACKGROUND: Work problems are common in people with inflammatory arthritis. Up to 50% stop work within 10 years due to their condition and up to 67% report presenteeism (i.e. reduced work productivity), even amongst those with low disease activity. Job retention vocational rehabilitation (JRVR) may help prevent or postpone job loss and reduce presenteeism through work assessment, work-related rehabilitation and enabling job accommodations. This aims to create a better match between the person's abilities and their job demands. The objectives of the Workwell trial are to test the overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of JRVR (WORKWELL) provided by additionally trained National Health Service (NHS) occupational therapists compared to a control group who receive self-help information both in addition to usual care. METHODS: Based on the learning from a feasibility trial (the WORK-IA trial: ISRCTN76777720 ), the WORKWELL trial is a multi-centre, pragmatic, individually-randomised parallel group superiority trial, including economic evaluation, contextual factors analysis and process evaluation. Two hundred forty employed adults with rheumatoid arthritis, undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis or psoriatic arthritis (in secondary care), aged 18 years or older with work instability will be randomised to one of two groups: a self-help written work advice pack plus usual care (control intervention); or WORKWELL JRVR plus a self-help written work advice pack and usual care. WORKWELL will be delivered by occupational therapists provided with additional JRVR training from the research team. The primary outcome is presenteeism as measured using the Work Limitations Questionnaire-25. A comprehensive range of secondary outcomes of work, health, contextual factors and health resource use are included. Outcomes are measured at 6- and 12- months (with 12-months as the primary end-point). A multi-perspective within-trial cost-effectiveness analyses will also be conducted. DISCUSSION: This trial will contribute to the evidence base for provision of JRVR to people with inflammatory arthritis. If JRVR is found to be effective in enabling people to keep working, the findings will support decision-making about provision of JRVR by rheumatology teams, therapy services and healthcare commissioners, and providing evidence of the effectiveness of JRVR and the economic impact of its implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.Gov: NCT03942783 . Registered 08/05/2019 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03942783 ); ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN61762297 . Registered:13/05/2019 ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN61762297 ). Retrospectively registered.

Critical points for an accurate human genome analysis.

Next-generation sequencing is radically changing how DNA diagnostic laboratories operate. What started as a single-gene profession is now developing into gene panel sequencing and whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing (WES/WGS) analyses. With further advances in sequencing technology and concomitant price reductions, WGS will soon become the standard and be routinely offered. Here, we focus on the critical steps involved in performing WGS, with a particular emphasis on points where WGS differs from WES, the important variables that should be taken into account, and the quality control measures that can be taken to monitor the process. The points discussed here, combined with recent publications on guidelines for reporting variants, will facilitate the routine implementation of WGS into a diagnostic setting.

Exploring the feasibility of delivering standardized genomic care using ophthalmology as an example.

PURPOSE: Broadening access to genomic testing and counseling will be necessary to realize the benefits of personalized health care. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of delivering a standardized genomic care model for inherited retinal dystrophy (IRD) and of using selected measures to quantify its impact on patients. METHODS: A pre-/post- prospective cohort study recruited 98 patients affected by IRD to receive standardized multidisciplinary care. A checklist was used to assess the fidelity of the care process. Three patient-reported outcome measures-the Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS-24), the ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A), and the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D)-and a resource-use questionnaire were administered to investigate rates of missingness, ceiling effects, and changes over time. RESULTS: The care model was delivered consistently. Higher rates of missingness were found for the genetic-specific measure (GCOS-24). Considerable ceiling effects were observed for the generic measure (EQ-5D). The ICECAP-A yielded less missing data without significant ceiling effects. It was feasible to use telephone interviews for follow-up data collection. CONCLUSION: The study highlighted challenges and solutions associated with efforts to standardize genomic care for IRD. The study identified appropriate methods for a future definitive study to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the care model.Genet Med advance online publication 02 March 2017.

A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention. METHODS: In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to researchers and statisticians involved in processing and analysing the data. The allocation was not masked to general practices, pharmacists, patients, or researchers who visited practices to extract data. [corrected]. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; ß blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299. FINDINGS: 72 general practices with a combined list size of 480,942 patients were randomised. At 6 months' follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0·58, 95% CI 0·38-0·89); a ß blocker if they had asthma (0·73, 0·58-0·91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0·51, 0·34-0·78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker's ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months. INTERPRETATION: The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records. FUNDING: Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.

Reasons for using indoor tanning devices: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.

PURPOSE: Despite the established causal links to skin cancer, skin ageing and eye inflammation, people continue to use indoor tanning devices (hereafter 'sunbeds'). Understanding the reasons underlying the use of sunbeds is essential for developing effective interventions. The purpose of this study was to collate all existing evidence from qualitative papers published to date that had assessed motivations for using sunbeds. METHODS: Six databases were searched from inception to February 2020 for qualitative studies that explored adults' experiences of using sunbeds. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and a narrative evidence synthesis was used to collate findings from each primary study. RESULTS: Users of sunbeds were motivated primarily by aesthetic concerns but also by perceived psychological benefits (well-being, confidence and 'fitting in') and physical benefits (improvement in skin conditions such as acne, acquiring vitamin D and preventing sunburn). People also chose indoor tanning over alternatives such as fake tans because they considered the alternatives unacceptable and did not consider indoor tanning a serious health risk. To date, no studies have explored alternatives to meeting non-aesthetic needs related to the use of sunbeds. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive explanation for the practice of indoor tanning provides the basis for development of complex interventions to reduce the harm caused by using sunbeds. Effective interventions should include promotion of alternatives, such as different methods of relaxing, to satisfy underlying motivations, changing social norms and correcting misperceptions about health benefits.

Estimating the Cost of 3 Risk Prediction Strategies for Potential Use in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program.

Background: Economic evaluations have suggested that risk-stratified breast cancer screening may be cost-effective but have used assumptions to estimate the cost of risk prediction. The aim of this study was to identify and quantify the resource use and associated costs required to introduce a breast cancer risk-stratification approach into the English national breast screening program. Methods: A micro-costing study, conducted alongside a cohort-based prospective trial (BC-PREDICT), identified the resource use and cost per individual (£; 2021 price year) of providing a risk-stratification strategy at a woman's first mammography. Costs were calculated for 3 risk-stratification approaches: Tyrer-Cuzick survey, Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement, and Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement and testing for 142 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). Costs were determined for the intervention as implemented in the trial and in the health service. Results: The cost of providing the risk-stratification strategy was calculated to be £16.45 for the Tyrer-Cuzick survey approach, £21.82 for the Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement, and £102.22 for the Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement and SNP testing. Limitations: This study did not use formal expert elicitation methods to synthesize estimates. Conclusion: The costs of risk prediction using a survey and breast density measurement were low, but adding SNP testing substantially increases costs. Implementation issues present in the trial may also significantly increase the cost of risk prediction. Implications: This is the first study to robustly estimate the cost of risk-stratification for breast cancer screening. The cost of risk prediction using questionnaires and automated breast density measurement was low, but full economic evaluations including accurate costs are required to provide evidence of the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening. Highlights: Economic evaluations have suggested that risk-stratified breast cancer screening may be a cost-effective use of resources in the United Kingdom.Current estimates of the cost of risk stratification are based on pragmatic assumptions.This study provides estimates of the cost of risk stratification using 3 strategies and when these strategies are implemented perfectly and imperfectly in the health system.The cost of risk stratification is relatively low unless single nucleotide polymorphisms are included in the strategy.