Objectives: Obesity is an increasing clinical and public health concern. This study aimed to answer the question: 'What is the probability of an obese person attaining normal body weight?'Methods: A sample of men and women aged 20 years and over was drawn from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Participants who received bariatric surgery were excluded. The probability of attaining either normal weight, or 5% reduction in body weight, were estimated. women attained normal body weight. In simple obesity (BMI 30·0-34·9 Kg/m 2 ), the annual probability of attaining normal weight was 1 in 210 for men and 1 in 124 for women, increasing to 1 in 1,290 for men and 1 in 677 for women with morbid obesity (BMI 40·0-44·9 Kg/m 2 ). The annual probability of achieving a 5% weight reduction was 1 in 8 for men, and 1 in 7 for women with morbid obesity. Among participants who lost 5% body weight, 52·7% (95% confidence interval 52·4 to 53·0%) showed weight regain at two years and 78·0% (77·7 to 78·3%) at five years. Conclusions:The low probability of attaining normal weight, or maintaining weight loss, raises questions concerning whether current obesity treatment frameworks, grounded in community-based weight management programmes, may be expected to achieve public health impact.3

Background Diabetic retinopathy screening in England involves labour-intensive manual grading of retinal images. Automated retinal image analysis systems (ARIASs) may offer an alternative to manual grading. Objectives To determine the screening performance and cost-effectiveness of ARIASs to replace level 1 human graders or pre-screen with ARIASs in the NHS diabetic eye screening programme (DESP). To examine technical issues associated with implementation. Design Observational retrospective measurement comparison study with a real-time evaluation of technical issues and a decision-analytic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Setting A NHS DESP. Participants Consecutive diabetic patients who attended a routine annual NHS DESP visit. Interventions Retinal images were manually graded and processed by three ARIASs: iGradingM (version 1.1; originally Medalytix Group Ltd, Manchester, UK, but purchased by Digital Healthcare, Cambridge, UK, at the initiation of the study, purchased in turn by EMIS Health, Leeds, UK, after conclusion of the study), Retmarker (version 0.8.2, Retmarker Ltd, Coimbra, Portugal) and EyeArt (Eyenuk Inc., Woodland Hills, CA, USA). The final manual grade was used as the reference standard. Arbitration on a subset of discrepancies between manual grading and the use of an ARIAS by a reading centre masked to all grading was used to create a reference standard manual grade modified by arbitration. Main outcome measures Screening performance (sensitivity, specificity, false-positive rate and likelihood ratios) and diagnostic accuracy [95% confidence intervals (CIs)] of ARIASs. A secondary analysis explored the influence of camera type and patients’ ethnicity, age and sex on screening performance. Economic analysis estimated the cost per appropriate screening outcome identified. Results A total of 20,258 patients with 102,856 images were entered into the study. The sensitivity point estimates of the ARIASs were as follows: EyeArt 94.7% (95% CI 94.2% to 95.2%) for any retinopathy, 93.8% (95% CI 92.9% to 94.6%) for referable retinopathy and 99.6% (95% CI 97.0% to 99.9%) for proliferative retinopathy; and Retmarker 73.0% (95% CI 72.0% to 74.0%) for any retinopathy, 85.0% (95% CI 83.6% to 86.2%) for referable retinopathy and 97.9% (95% CI 94.9 to 99.1%) for proliferative retinopathy. iGradingM classified all images as either ‘disease’ or ‘ungradable’, limiting further iGradingM analysis. The sensitivity and false-positive rates for EyeArt were not affected by ethnicity, sex or camera type but sensitivity declined marginally with increasing patient age. The screening performance of Retmarker appeared to vary with patient’s age, ethnicity and camera type. Both EyeArt and Retmarker were cost saving relative to manual grading either as a replacement for level 1 human grading or used prior to level 1 human grading, although the latter was less cost-effective. A threshold analysis testing the highest ARIAS cost per patient before which ARIASs became more expensive per appropriate outcome than human grading, when used to replace level 1 grader, was Retmarker £3.82 and EyeArt £2.71 per patient. Limitations The non-randomised study design limited the health economic analysis but the same retinal images were processed by all ARIASs in this measurement comparison study. Conclusions Retmarker and EyeArt achieved acceptable sensitivity for referable retinopathy and false-positive rates (compared with human graders as reference standard) and appear to be cost-effective alternatives to a purely manual grading approach. Future work is required to develop technical specifications to optimise deployment and address potential governance issues. Funding The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, a Fight for Sight Grant (Hirsch grant award) and the Department of Health’s NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and the University College London Institute of Ophthalmology.

Ageing is assumed to be accompanied by greater health care expenditures but the association is also viewed as a ‘red herring’. This study aimed to evaluate whether age is associated with health care costs in the senior elderly, using electronic health records for 98,220 participants aged 80 years and over registered with the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics (2010–2014). Annual costs of health care utilization were estimated from a two-part model; multiple fractional polynomial models were employed to evaluate the non-linear association of age with predicted health care costs while also controlling for comorbidities, impairments, and death proximity. Annual health care costs increased from 80 years (£2972 in men, £2603 in women) to 97 (men; £4721) or 98 years (women; £3963), before declining. Costs were significantly elevated in the last year of life but this effect declined with age, from £10,027 in younger octogenarians to £7021 in centenarians. This decline was steeper in participants with comorbidities or impairments; £14,500 for 80–84-year-olds and £6752 for centenarians with 7+ impairments. At other times, comorbidity and impairments, not age, were main drivers of costs. We conclude that comorbidities, impairments, and proximity to death are key mediators of age-related increases in health care costs. While the costs of comorbidity among survivors are not generally associated with age, additional costs in the last year of life decline with age.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10198-017-0926-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Maintaining adequately high organ donation rates proves essential to offering patients all appropriate and available treatment options. However, the act of donation is in itself an individual decision that requires a depth of understanding that interacts with the social setting and the institutional framework into which an individual is embedded. This study contributes to understanding factors driving organ donation rates by examining how country regulation, individuals' awareness of regulatory setting, social interactions and socio-demographic determinants influence individuals' willingness to donate their own organs or those of a relative.