World's first smartphone test for type 2 diabetes launches in UK & could prevent thousands of heart attacks and strokes
The app-based check is designed to make it easier for people to spot their risk and could help cut complications such as heart attacks, strokes, and kidney disease, which are often linked to diabetes.
3
Patients place a drop of blood from a finger-prick onto a chip, which is then scanned by the PocDoc app to give results almost instantly.
NHS trusts in Cumbria and the North East are the first to roll it out, with a nationwide launch planned later this year.
The Government has hailed the app as a 'potential game-changer' in the fight against diabetes as results come in within minutes, instead of the days or weeks it can currently take.
Around 5.2 million people in the UK have type 2 diabetes, with cases still rising - and a further 1.3 million thought to be undiagnosed.
'Enabling screening for type 2 diabetes risk including blood biomarkers via a smartphone app is something that has never been done before,' said PocDoc chief executive Steve Roest.
Professor Julia Newton, medical director at HI NENC, said the test could reach people who struggle with conventional health checks.
"Most people over the age of 40 are invited for an NHS health check every five years, but depending on where you live a large chunk don't attend," she said.
"One of the reasons we've found is accessing a health check in a conventional setting.
"So if those tests are made more easily available, which this test does, then we have the opportunity to reach far more people."
She added: "If you consider the number of people with diabetes who go onto have heart attacks and strokes, if we can manage their risk before it becomes a problem that will reduce admissions to hospital, reduce mortality, and reduce complications from diabetes, such as kidney disease, heart disease, and stroke disease."
High blood pressure, high cholesterol and type 2 diabetes are all dubbed 'silent killers' - should we really be that worried?
The HbA1c finger-prick test is considered the gold standard blood test. This is because it shows average blood sugar levels over the past two to three months, giving a clearer picture than daily checks.
Steve said the app fits directly with Health Secretary Wes Streeting's 10-year NHS plan, spotting illnesses earlier, tailoring care, and shifting more testing and diagnosis into homes and communities.
'There's a huge gap in screening for preventable diseases,' he said.
'Right now, the system, not just in the UK but worldwide, cannot find, assess, and diagnose enough people to make a dent in tackling heart attacks, strokes, and type 2 diabetes.'
Health minister Stephen Kinnock told The i Paper that the app rollout was important because type 2 diabetes is on the rise across England.
'This is a potential game-changer and exactly the type of technology we want to see in the NHS as part of the 10 Year Health Plan – bringing our health service firmly into the 21st century and care directly into people's homes.
'We will make using the NHS as simple and convenient as online banking or shopping, while helping companies bring new technology into the health service more quickly.'
The seed of the device was planted 30 years ago when Steve was a teenager and witnessed his father having a catastrophic stroke in his early forties, due to undiagnosed cardiovascular disease (CVD).
'Using smartphones to deliver diagnostics is exactly what could have saved my dad from having so many [health] problems. He's cost the NHS a fortune,' Steve said.
Around £9bn is spent on treating complications arising from diabetes, such as heart disease, kidney problems, and nerve damage.
Studies suggest that the annual cost of the disease could increase to £16.9 bn in the next 25 years.
The app's launch comes 24 hours after the of diabetes care in a decade.
Around 750,000 patients with CVD or early-onset diabetes would benefit from fat jabs sooner, rather than keeping them for the later stages of treatment, new guidance states.
How do I treat type 2 diabetes?
If you're diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, you'll need to eat healthily, take regular exercise and have frequent checks, including blood tests.
Try to quit if you smoke, and cut down on alcohol.
Type 2 diabetes can get worse over time, and people living with the condition often need medicine, usually in the form of tablets or injections
However, some people can put their type 2 diabetes into remission by losing weight, where their blood sugar is reduced below the diabetes range.
This can often be done through a low-calorie diet, but this is not suitable for everyone, so it's important to get medical advice first.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Couple hit with £100 parking fine at NHS surgery despite spending just five minutes there after being refused emergency treatment
A couple received a £100 parking fine at an NHS urgent care centre - even though they stayed there for just five minutes after being refused treatment. Rebecca Elmes drove her boyfriend Aaron Rayment-Davis to Harold Wood Polyclinic in Romford, east London, after he developed a crippling pain in his left ear. After walking into the reception on the evening of June 16, they were told the clinic was only open for triage and they would need to try the A&E department at a local hospital instead. The pair, both 26, walked back into the car and drove off - only to receive a £100 parking fine in the post a month later. Parkingeye - a private firm that turns over £57million a year - noted that their car had arrived at the car park just after 6.50pm and spent only five minutes there before leaving. Patients are required to enter their number plate details into a machine at reception to get free parking, but the couple insist they never had the chance to do so. 'When we arrived at the clinic, we went to put our number plate into the machine but you can't do that before you've been booked in and seen,' Mr Rayment-Davis, a quantity surveyor, told the Daily Mail. 'We'd only been there for a few minutes so assumed there would be no issue. We wanted to get to the other hospital as quickly as possible because I was in a lot of pain. I also felt completely disoriented and couldn't hear out of my left ear.' The pair, both 26, left the surgery after just five minutes when they were refused treatment - only to receive a £100 parking fine in the post a month later Ms Elmes and Mr Rayment-Davis appealed Parkingeye's £100 fine but the company turned this down on the basis that 'no parking was purchased' - even though the couple insist they had no chance to do so. However, they reluctantly agreed to pay a reduced fee of £60 to avoid being liable for the full £100 amount. Ms Elmes, who works at a groom at local stables, called the decision 'absolutely ridiculous'. 'We were there for five minutes - they literally turned us away and didn't give us a chance to do anything,' she said. 'They are just milking everyone - and in a medical situation where people are seriously injured or ill it's even worse. 'Parkingeye rejected the appeal saying we didn't have a good enough excuse. 'We were worried that if we didn't pay the £60 and continued appealing we'd be out of pocket.' Mr Rayment-Davis was assessed in the A&E at nearby Queens Hospital Hospital but told the wait time would be four hours and it would be better to go to King George's in Ilford instead. When he was eventually seen to, he was told he had an ear infection and a burst ear drum. 'The doctor explained that it was a good thing I was seen, as leaving it longer would have led to more infection and damage,' he said. Parkingeye is one of the biggest private parking companies in Britain and operates more than 3,500 sites nationwide, including hospitals, supermarkets, hotels and service stations. It uses automatic number plate technology to scan registration plates, and then pays the DVLA to assess the owner's address, which is the only way it can properly enforce fines. As with several other private parking firms, it has repeatedly been criticised for its aggressive tactics. The Government is currently carrying out a consultation on proposals to 'raise standards' in the private parking industry following a barrage of customer complaints. Holly Edwards previously received a £100 fine for parking outside the Harold Wood Polyclinic while she was having a scan. The company director was confident about getting it overturned after she sent Parkingeye a GP appointment note showing she was there legitimately. The company rejected her appeal on the basis that she had failed to input her car registration details. But Ms Edwards insisted she did type in her registration details as requested - and said the claim she hadn't 'angered me even more'. Controversially, drivers are often not given a receipt by Parkingeye's registration machines, meaning they often have no evidence if the company accuses them of inputting it incorrectly when they receive a fine. A Parkingeye spokesperson said: 'The car park at Harold Wood Polyclinic features 12 prominent and highly-visible signs throughout providing information on how to use the car park responsibly. 'This includes guidance that parking is for patients and visitors only and that they must register their vehicle at terminals at reception to receive free parking for the duration of their appointment. 'The terminals on the ground and first floors are both available and accessible to visitors before being booked in by reception staff. The motorist correctly received a parking charge on June 16 for parking and not registering their vehicle. 'Parkingeye operates a BPA (British Parking Association) audited appeals process, which motorists can use to appeal their Parking Charge. If anyone has mitigating circumstances we would encourage them to appeal. 'The motorist's appeal was rejected due to not providing any evidence for breaking the rules of the car park, payment of the charge was then made.'
North Wales Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Manufacturers given 18 months to cut sugar and salt in baby food products
Accompanying new guidelines to clarify labelling on baby food will help parents make informed choices about what they feed their children, the Department of Health and Social Care said. Manufacturers will be challenged to change the recipes for their products to reduce levels of salt and sugar, without the use of sweeteners, which are not permitted for use in commercial baby food. For example, baby desserts and breakfasts such as rice pudding, custard and ready-to-eat fruity porridge should contain less than 10g of total sugar per 100g, while baby meals should have no more than 60mg of salt per 100 calories or 100mg per 100 calories if cheese is included in the recipe. The guidelines will also tackle misleading labelling that often conflicts with official feeding advice. For example, some products labelled as snacks for babies from seven months on directly contradict government recommendations that children aged between six and 12 months do not need snacks between meals, only milk. Manufacturers will also be told to stop using misleading marketing claims that make products appear healthier than they are, for example products with labels such as 'contains no nasties' when they may be high in sugar. The move comes as data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, published in June, shows that more than two thirds of children aged 18 months to three years are eating too much sugar, while more than a fifth of children aged four to five years are overweight or living with obesity in England. High sugar intake in children's diets is a significant factor contributing to high rates of childhood obesity in the UK, which is among the highest in western Europe. Obesity rates have doubled since the 1990s, including among children. Obesity costs the NHS £11.4 billion a year and is one of the root causes of diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Public health minister Ashley Dalton said: 'Every child deserves a healthy, happy start to life. But babies' development is being harmed by poor diets and unhealthy food, holding them back and piling up pressure on the NHS. 'Too often, parents are bombarded with confusing labels, disguising unhealthy foods packed with hidden sugars and salt. 'Our plan for change will tackle this, giving parents the information they need and providing children with good nutritious food. 'I'm determined to make it far easier for parents to keep their children healthy. 'From working with influencers to get children exercising, to banning junk food ads near schools, our 10-year health plan will help kids today be part of the healthiest generation of children ever.' Katharine Jenner, director of the Obesity Health Alliance, said: 'For too long, commercial baby foods have been promoting high-sugar products disguised as 'healthy options', using misleading packaging. 'These new guidelines put the industry on notice: this practice must end. 'Making it easier for parents to buy healthier products is a baby step in the right direction – but what's really needed is a giant leap. 'It should not even be possible to sell baby food that goes against official feeding guidance, and the public agrees, with three in four people supporting a ban on high-sugar baby foods. 'If the industry fails to act quickly, the Government must step in with mandatory rules to set children up for a lifetime of good health.' Dr Kawther Hashem, head of research and impact at Action on Sugar, said: 'Our research has consistently shown excessive levels of sugars in commercial baby foods. 'These long-overdue voluntary guidelines are a step in the right direction, but they must not be the final word. 'Consuming too much sugar on a regular basis means children are taking in excess calories that, if not used for energy, are stored as fat. 'This increases the risk of weight gain and, if it starts early, that excess weight is often carried into adolescence and adulthood, raising the risk of overweight, obesity and agonising tooth decay. 'If we're serious about protecting our youngest children, these guidelines must be made mandatory. 'We urge the Government to closely monitor progress and act swiftly if companies fail to change.' Professor Simon Kenny, NHS England's national clinical director for children and young people, said: 'I can't overstate just how important good nutrition is during these formative months for babies' health in the long term, and you can't beat fresh foods. 'Reducing the salt and sugar levels in shop-bought baby food is a really important step, and these new guidelines alongside clearer labelling will help empower busy parents to make nutritious choices that give their children the best possible start in life.' Dr Hannah Brisden, head of policy and advocacy at the Food Foundation, said: 'Giving every child the best start in life begins with good nutrition. 'Today's announcement on commercial baby foods highlights the need to protect families from aggressive marketing and end misleading claims on sugary products. 'Our research found up to 43 claims on a single baby snack, despite many being high in sugar. 'The industry has been warned to clean up their act with voluntary guidelines, but to truly protect children, mandatory standards are needed. 'We urge the Government to monitor progress closely and be ready to step in if companies don't act.'
Glasgow Times
25 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Manufacturers given 18 months to cut sugar and salt in baby food products
Accompanying new guidelines to clarify labelling on baby food will help parents make informed choices about what they feed their children, the Department of Health and Social Care said. Manufacturers will be challenged to change the recipes for their products to reduce levels of salt and sugar, without the use of sweeteners, which are not permitted for use in commercial baby food. For example, baby desserts and breakfasts such as rice pudding, custard and ready-to-eat fruity porridge should contain less than 10g of total sugar per 100g, while baby meals should have no more than 60mg of salt per 100 calories or 100mg per 100 calories if cheese is included in the recipe. The guidelines will also tackle misleading labelling that often conflicts with official feeding advice. For example, some products labelled as snacks for babies from seven months on directly contradict government recommendations that children aged between six and 12 months do not need snacks between meals, only milk. Manufacturers will also be told to stop using misleading marketing claims that make products appear healthier than they are, for example products with labels such as 'contains no nasties' when they may be high in sugar. The move comes as data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, published in June, shows that more than two thirds of children aged 18 months to three years are eating too much sugar, while more than a fifth of children aged four to five years are overweight or living with obesity in England. High sugar intake in children's diets is a significant factor contributing to high rates of childhood obesity in the UK, which is among the highest in western Europe. Obesity rates have doubled since the 1990s, including among children. Obesity costs the NHS £11.4 billion a year and is one of the root causes of diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Public health minister Ashley Dalton said: 'Every child deserves a healthy, happy start to life. But babies' development is being harmed by poor diets and unhealthy food, holding them back and piling up pressure on the NHS. 'Too often, parents are bombarded with confusing labels, disguising unhealthy foods packed with hidden sugars and salt. 'Our plan for change will tackle this, giving parents the information they need and providing children with good nutritious food. 'I'm determined to make it far easier for parents to keep their children healthy. 'From working with influencers to get children exercising, to banning junk food ads near schools, our 10-year health plan will help kids today be part of the healthiest generation of children ever.' Katharine Jenner, director of the Obesity Health Alliance, said: 'For too long, commercial baby foods have been promoting high-sugar products disguised as 'healthy options', using misleading packaging. 'These new guidelines put the industry on notice: this practice must end. 'Making it easier for parents to buy healthier products is a baby step in the right direction – but what's really needed is a giant leap. 'It should not even be possible to sell baby food that goes against official feeding guidance, and the public agrees, with three in four people supporting a ban on high-sugar baby foods. 'If the industry fails to act quickly, the Government must step in with mandatory rules to set children up for a lifetime of good health.' Dr Kawther Hashem, head of research and impact at Action on Sugar, said: 'Our research has consistently shown excessive levels of sugars in commercial baby foods. 'These long-overdue voluntary guidelines are a step in the right direction, but they must not be the final word. 'Consuming too much sugar on a regular basis means children are taking in excess calories that, if not used for energy, are stored as fat. 'This increases the risk of weight gain and, if it starts early, that excess weight is often carried into adolescence and adulthood, raising the risk of overweight, obesity and agonising tooth decay. 'If we're serious about protecting our youngest children, these guidelines must be made mandatory. 'We urge the Government to closely monitor progress and act swiftly if companies fail to change.' Professor Simon Kenny, NHS England's national clinical director for children and young people, said: 'I can't overstate just how important good nutrition is during these formative months for babies' health in the long term, and you can't beat fresh foods. 'Reducing the salt and sugar levels in shop-bought baby food is a really important step, and these new guidelines alongside clearer labelling will help empower busy parents to make nutritious choices that give their children the best possible start in life.' Dr Hannah Brisden, head of policy and advocacy at the Food Foundation, said: 'Giving every child the best start in life begins with good nutrition. 'Today's announcement on commercial baby foods highlights the need to protect families from aggressive marketing and end misleading claims on sugary products. 'Our research found up to 43 claims on a single baby snack, despite many being high in sugar. 'The industry has been warned to clean up their act with voluntary guidelines, but to truly protect children, mandatory standards are needed. 'We urge the Government to monitor progress closely and be ready to step in if companies don't act.'
