Search

Introduction. With reliable tests and preventative treatments now available the United Kingdom has introduced a prototype population-based paediatric (ages 3–13) screening programme for type 1 diabetes (T1D). To aid its ethical and sustainable implementation this work explores parental views around the concept of this programme to determine how their involvement might be encouraged and supported. Research Design and Methods. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with 38 parents and the data were analysed using a purposely developed "Burden of Screening" framework, which presented the data within three domains describing the various elements of screening participation; pre-screening tasks designated to participants; factors influencing engagement with screening; and consequences of screening participation. Results. Regarding pre-screening tasks designated to participants, the importance of clear communication about the condition were apparent with parents expressing uncertainty of the benefits of screening against the potential anxiety engendered. In factors influencing their engagement with screening participants described their preference for less invasive testing techniques, the reassurance of structured support from healthcare professionals inherent within the programme, and the potential benefit of peer support. Regarding the consequences of screening participation parents described how a positive result might lead to overly protective behaviours, and anxiety from watching and waiting for the onset of symptomatic T1D. Conclusions. The benefits of T1D screening need to be clearly communicated to facilitate uptake. To this end the use of decision-support tools and better targeted educational materials should be explored. Post-testing, parents expressed preferences for peer support and access to psychological counselling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Identifying children at risk of type 1 diabetes allows education for symptom recognition and monitoring to reduce the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis at presentation. We aimed to explore stakeholder views towards paediatric general population screening for type 1 diabetes in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: Qualitative interviews were undertaken with 25 stakeholders, including diabetes specialists, policymakers and community stakeholders who could be involved in a future type 1 diabetes screening programme in the UK. A thematic framework analysis was performed using the National Screening Committee's evaluative criteria as the overarching framework. Results: Diabetic ketoacidosis prevention was felt to be a priority and proposed benefits of screening included education, monitoring and helping the family to better prepare for a future with type 1 diabetes. However, diabetes specialists were cautious about general population screening because of lack of evidence for public acceptability. Concerns were raised about the harms of living with risk, provoking health anxiety and threatening the child's right to an 'open future'. Support systems that met the clinical and psychological needs of the family living with risk were considered essential. Stakeholders were supportive of research into general population screening and acknowledged this would be a priority if an immunoprevention agent were licensed in the UK. Conclusions: Although stakeholders suggested the harms of UK paediatric general population screening currently outweigh the benefits, this view would potentially be altered if prevention therapies were licensed. In this case, an evidence‐based screening strategy would need to be formulated and public acceptability explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low-volume antibody assays can be used to track SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in settings where active testing for virus is limited and remote sampling is optimal. We developed 12 ELISAs detecting total or antibody isotypes to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid, spike protein or its receptor binding domain (RBD), 3 anti-RBD isotype specific luciferase immunoprecipitation system (LIPS) assays and a novel Spike-RBD bridging LIPS total-antibody assay. We utilized pre-pandemic (n=984) and confirmed/suspected recent COVID-19 sera taken pre-vaccination rollout in 2020 (n=269). Assays measuring total antibody discriminated best between pre-pandemic and COVID-19 sera and were selected for diagnostic evaluation. In the blind evaluation, two of these assays (Spike Pan ELISA and Spike-RBD Bridging LIPS assay) demonstrated >97% specificity and >92% sensitivity for samples from COVID-19 patients taken >21 days post symptom onset or PCR test. These assays offered better sensitivity for the detection of COVID-19 cases than a commercial assay which requires 100-fold larger serum volumes. This study demonstrates that low-volume in-house antibody assays can provide good diagnostic performance, and highlights the importance of using well-characterized samples and controls for all stages of assay development and evaluation. These cost-effective assays may be particularly useful for seroprevalence studies in low and middle-income countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]