Histopathology reporting of temporal artery biopsy specimens for giant cell arteritis: results of a modified Delphi study.

The temporal artery biopsy (TAB) is regarded as the gold-standard test in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA). There is a lack of agreement among experienced pathologists regarding the diagnostic features and classification of inflammation observed in TAB sections in the diagnosis of GCA. AIMS: The aim of this research study was to establish consensus on the key parameters which should be included in a standardised reporting proforma for TAB specimens. We specifically investigated factors pertaining to clinical information, specimen handling and microscopic pathological features. METHODS: A modified Delphi process, comprising three survey rounds and three virtual consensus group meetings, was undertaken by 13 UK-based pathology or ophthalmology consultants, with a 100% response rate across the three rounds. Initial statements were formulated after a literature review and participants were asked to rate their agreement using a nine-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined a priori as an agreement of ≥70% and individual feedback was provided after each round, together with data on the distribution of group responses. RESULTS: Overall, 67 statements reached consensus and 17 statements did not. The participants agreed on the core microscopic features to be included in a pathology report and felt that a proforma would facilitate consistent reporting practices. CONCLUSIONS: Our work revealed uncertainty surrounding the correlation between clinical parameters (eg, laboratory markers of inflammation and steroid therapy duration) and microscopic findings, and we propose areas for future research.

Primary care trust commissioning of varicose vein intervention--new guidance needed?

OBJECTIVES: In light of evidence of national variability in service commissioning of varicose vein intervention, our aim was to evaluate the current state of primary care trust commissioning for all forms of varicose vein intervention in England. We also sought to clarify the extent to which access to endovenous and surgical varicose vein services is being restricted. METHODS: Under the Freedom of Information Act (2001), a structured email survey was sent to 108 primary care trusts in England. Trusts were asked how many elective endovenous laser therapy and open procedures were commissioned from 2008 to 2011 and they were asked to submit their commissioning policy for analysis. The 'qualifying criteria' expressed in each policy were analysed by theme and geographical region. RESULTS: Of 108 surveys, 95 (88%) were completed and returned. Of these, 91 (96%) stated that varicose vein interventions were actively commissioned. Eighty-eight (97%) of primary care trusts that commissioned varicose vein interventions stated that access was restricted. Qualifying criteria varied considerably between regions. CONCLUSIONS: Access to varicose vein intervention appears to be restricted, with national variation in commissioning across England. This might have an impact on patient care and surgical training. We propose that a national decision be made about which varicose vein patients should be offered funding for treatment on the National Health Service.