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.     

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Hydrogel Rectal Spacer in Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy

Purpose

A hydrogel rectal spacer (HRS) is a medical device that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to increase the separation between the prostate and rectum. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HRS use for reduction in radiation therapy (RT) toxicities in patients with prostate cancer (PC) undergoing external beam RT (EBRT).

Prognostic tools for hypertrophic scar formation based on fundamental differences in systemic immunity

Unpredictable hypertrophic scarring (HS) occurs after approximately 35% of all surgical procedures and causes significant physical and psychological complaints. Parallel to the need to understanding the mechanisms underlying HS formation, a prognostic tool is needed. The objective was to determine whether (systemic) immunological differences exist between patients who develop HS and those who develop normotrophic scars (NS) and to assess whether those differences can be used to identify patients prone to developing HS. A prospective cohort study with NS and HS groups in which (a) cytokine release by peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and (b) the irritation threshold (IT) after an irritant (sodium lauryl sulphate) patch test was evaluated. Univariate regression analysis of PBMC cytokine secretion showed that low MCP‐1, IL‐8, IL‐18 and IL‐23 levels have a strong correlation with HS (P < .010‐0.004; AUC = 0.790‐0.883). Notably, combinations of two or three cytokines (TNF‐a, MCP‐1 and IL‐23; AUC: 0.942, Nagelkerke R²: 0.727) showed an improved AUC indicating a better correlation with HS than single cytokine analysis. These combination models produce good prognostic results over a broad probability range (sensitivity: 93.8%, specificity 86.7%, accuracy 90,25% between probability 0.3 and 0.7). Furthermore, the HS group had a lower IT than the NS group and an accuracy of 68%. In conclusion, very fundamental immunological differences exist between individuals who develop HS and those who do not, whereas the cytokine assay forms the basis of a predictive prognostic test for HS formation, the less invasive, easily performed irritant skin patch test is more accessible for daily practice.