Effect of obstructive sleep apnoea on retinal microvascular function: a randomised controlled trial

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology - Retinal microvascular endothelial dysfunction is thought to be of importance in the development of ocular vascular diseases....     

Conserving resources in the diagnosis of intraoral fibroepithelial polyps

Fibroepithelial polyps (FEPs) are common, benign intraoral lesions that tend to develop slowly at predictable sites, often in response to local irritation or trauma. Historical precedent often results in referral to oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) departments for biopsy, often irrespective of symptoms, and histological assessment. OMFS and pathology services are struggling to cope with an increasing workload that will potentially lead to widespread delays to diagnosis and treatment. Over the past 20 years, clinical pathways and guidance have been developed to ensure that healthcare interventions, such as the removal of third molars, tonsils, skin tags, and benign moles, are evidence-based, have a net patient benefit, and ensure the best use of finite NHS resources. However, no such guidance exists for intraoral lesions and we regard this as an oversight. We analysed the removal of 682 FEPs over a seven-year period and report sensitivities of 92.4% for a “confirmed clinical suspicion of an FEP” and 99.7% for a “confirmed clinical suspicion of a benign diagnosis”. The incidence of non-benign disease was 0.3%. Primary care dentists should be able to diagnose and monitor FEPs and refer only if symptoms are serious or in high-risk patients or sites. Adopting this practice across the UK could free up to 1825 four-hour OMFS clinics, 405 hours of consultant histopathologists’ time, and recurring savings to the NHS estimated to be in the region of £620 000/annum. We believe that the removal of FEPs should be reclassified as an “intervention not normally funded”, and the time and resources put to better use treating patients with lesions of questionable pathology.     

Day-level associations of physical activity and sedentary time in mother–child dyads across three years: a multi-wave longitudinal study using accelerometers

Journal of Behavioral Medicine - Understanding associations between mothers’ and children’s physical activity and sedentary behavior on more fine-grained timescales can provide insights...     

A Type 1 diabetes technology pathway: consensus statement for the use of technology in Type 1 diabetes

In both adults and children with diabetes, technologies such as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion using insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring can help improve diabetes control, reduce hypoglycaemia and improve quality of life. Access to these technologies in the UK is very variable. Some technologies are recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, while others have not been appraised, and new technologies are emerging all the time. Additionally, different guidelines for adults and children further complicate access to diabetes technology in the transition from paediatric to adult care. Against this background, Diabetes UK and NHS England have brought together a multidisciplinary group of experts, including clinicians and people with diabetes, to develop this consensus guideline, combining the different technologies into a common pathway to aid clinical and policy decision‐making. We created a pathway that supports the incremental addition of technology as monotherapy and then dual therapy in the same way that we incrementally add in therapeutic agents to support people with Type 2 diabetes to achieve their personalized glycaemic targets. The pathway emphasizes the importance of structured education, specialist support and appropriate access to psychological therapies, as essential pillars for optimized use of diabetes‐related technology, and recommends the re‐evaluation of its use when the individual is unable either to use the technology appropriately or to achieve the intended outcomes. This pathway is endorsed by UK‐wide clinical and patient associations and we recommend that providers and commissioners use it to ensure the right individual with diabetes has access to the right technology in a timely way to help achieve better outcomes.