The cost of implementing the COVID-19 shielding policy in Wales.

BACKGROUND: The EVITE Immunity study investigated the effects of shielding Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) people during the COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes and healthcare costs in Wales, United Kingdom, to help prepare for future pandemics. Shielding was intended to protect those at highest risk of serious harm from COVID-19. We report the cost of implementing shielding in Wales. METHODS: The number of people shielding was extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Resources supporting shielding between March and June 2020 were mapped using published reports, web pages, freedom of information requests to Welsh Government and personal communications (e.g. with the office of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales). RESULTS: At the beginning of shielding, 117,415 people were on the shielding list. The total additional cost to support those advised to stay home during the initial 14 weeks of the pandemic was £13,307,654 (£113 per person shielded). This included the new resources required to compile the shielding list, inform CEV people of the shielding intervention and provide medicine and food deliveries. The list was adjusted weekly over the 3-month period (130,000 people identified by June 2020). Therefore the cost per person shielded lies between £102 and £113 per person. CONCLUSION: This is the first evaluation of the cost of the measures put in place to support those identified to shield in Wales. However, no data on opportunity cost was available. The true costs of shielding including its budget impact and opportunity costs need to be investigated to decide whether shielding is a worthwhile policy for future health emergencies.

Experiences and views of people who frequently call emergency ambulance services: A qualitative study of UK service users.

INTRODUCTION: People who call emergency ambulances frequently are often vulnerable because of health and social circumstances, have unresolved problems or cannot access appropriate care. They have higher mortality rates. Case management by interdisciplinary teams can help reduce demand for emergency services and is available in some UK regions. We report results of interviews with people who use emergency ambulance services frequently to understand their experiences of calling and receiving treatment. METHODS: We used a two-stage recruitment process. A UK ambulance service identified six people who were known to them as frequently calling emergency services. Through third-sector organisations, we also recruited nine individuals with healthcare experiences reflecting the characteristics of people who call frequently. We gained informed consent to record and transcribe all telephone interviews. We used thematic analysis to explore the results. RESULTS: People said they make frequent calls to emergency ambulance services as a last resort when they perceive their care needs are urgent and other routes to help have failed. Those with the most complex health needs generally felt their immediate requirements were not resolved and underlying mental and physical problems led them to call again. A third of respondents were also attended to by police and were arrested for behaviour associated with their health needs. Those callers receiving case management did not know they were selected for this. Some respondents were concerned that case management could label frequent callers as troublemakers. CONCLUSION: People who make frequent calls to emergency ambulance services feel their health and care needs are urgent and ongoing. They cannot see alternative ways to receive help and resolve problems. Communication between health professionals and service users appears inadequate. More research is needed to understand service users' motivations and requirements to inform design and delivery of accessible and effective services. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with relevant experience were involved in developing, undertaking and disseminating this research. Two public contributors helped design and deliver the study, including developing and analysing service user interviews and drafting this paper. Eight public members of a Lived Experience Advisory Panel contributed at key stages of study design, interpretation and dissemination. Two more public contributors were members of an independent Study Steering Committee.

Hughes abdominal closure versus standard mass closure to reduce incisional hernias following surgery for colorectal cancer: the HART RCT.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias can cause chronic pain and complications and affect quality of life. Surgical repair requires health-care resources and has a significant associated failure rate. A prospective, multicentre, single-blinded randomised controlled trial was conducted to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Hughes abdominal closure method compared with standard mass closure following surgery for colorectal cancer. The study randomised, in a 1 : 1 ratio, 802 adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) undergoing surgical resection for colorectal cancer from 28 surgical departments in UK centres. INTERVENTION: Hughes abdominal closure or standard mass closure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernias at 1 year, as assessed by clinical examination. Within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses over 1 year were conducted from an NHS and a social care perspective. A key secondary outcome was quality of life, and other outcomes included the incidence of incisional hernias as detected by computed tomography scanning. RESULTS: The incidence of incisional hernia at 1-year clinical examination was 50 (14.8%) in the Hughes abdominal closure arm compared with 57 (17.1%) in the standard mass closure arm (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.27; p = 0.4). In year 2, the incidence of incisional hernia was 78 (28.7%) in the Hughes abdominal closure arm compared with 84 (31.8%) in the standard mass closure arm (odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.25; p = 0.43). Computed tomography scanning identified a total of 301 incisional hernias across both arms, compared with 100 identified by clinical examination at the 1-year follow-up. Computed tomography scanning missed 16 incisional hernias that were picked up by clinical examination. Hughes abdominal closure was found to be less cost-effective than standard mass closure. The mean incremental cost for patients undergoing Hughes abdominal closure was £616.45 (95% confidence interval -£699.56 to £1932.47; p = 0.3580). Quality of life did not differ significantly between the study arms at any time point. LIMITATIONS: As this was a pragmatic trial, the control arm allowed surgeon discretion in the approach to standard mass closure, introducing variability in the techniques and equipment used. Intraoperative randomisation may result in a loss of equipoise for some surgeons. Follow-up was limited to 2 years, which may not have been enough time to see a difference in the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Hughes abdominal closure did not significantly reduce the incidence of incisional hernias detected by clinical examination and was less cost-effective at 1 year than standard mass closure in colorectal cancer patients. Computed tomography scanning may be more effective at identifying incisional hernias than clinical examination, but the clinical benefit of this needs further research. FUTURE WORK: An extended follow-up using routinely collected NHS data sets aims to report on incisional hernia rates at 2-5 years post surgery to investigate any potential mortality benefit of the closure methods. Furthermore, the proportion of incisional hernias identified by a computed tomography scan (at 1 and 2 years post surgery), but not during clinical examination (occult hernias), proceeding to surgical repair within 3-5 years after the initial operation will be explored. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN25616490. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bowel cancer treatment involves surgery for the majority of patients. A complication of this surgery is the formation of a hernia at the site of the incision in the abdominal wall, known as an incisional hernia. The lining of the abdomen, fat or the intestine can squeeze through the gap and form a lump under the skin. An incisional hernia can form any time after surgery and can cause serious complications and pain, and can also affect the patient's quality of life. Surgery to correct incisional hernias is not always successful, so finding a way of preventing them is important. This research compares the traditional way of sewing up the abdomen, where the two sides are brought together in one layer with a continuous thread, with an alternative method called the Hughes abdominal closure method/Hughes repair. In the Hughes repair, a series of horizontal and vertical stitches are arranged to spread the load and ease the tension across the wound. A total of 802 patients from 28 sites in the UK were recruited to the trial. Half of the patients were randomly allocated to have traditional abdominal closure and half were randomised to have Hughes abdominal closure. All were followed up for 1 year after surgery to assess whether or not an incisional hernia had occurred. We also assessed quality of life during follow-up, and we compared the costs and benefits of each procedure to see which option was the better value for money. By comparing the results from the two methods, it was hoped that the best method of abdominal closure to reduce the risk of an incisional hernia occurring would be found. The analysis of the data suggested that the risk of an incisional hernia was no different with either closure method. Furthermore, Hughes abdominal closure was more expensive and provided less value for money than standard abdominal closure.

Management of iron deficiency anaemia in secondary care across England between 2012 and 2018: a real-world analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics.

Objective: Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) occurs in 2%-5% of men and postmenopausal women in the developed world and, if left untreated, can significantly impair quality of life or decompensate chronic illnesses. Approximately 10% of men and postmenopausal women with IDA have underlying gastrointestinal malignancy. This study identifies trends in the management of IDA in secondary care in England. Design/method: The Hospital Episode Statistics database was used to analyse IDA-related hospital and outpatient admissions (elective and non-elective) in National Health Service England between April 2012 and March 2018. Outcome measures included rates of readmission, length of stay (LOS) and cost per admission. Results: Between 2012/2013 and 2017/2018, there was a 72% increase in hospital admissions for patients with a primary diagnosis of IDA and a 68% increase in hospital spells, with the number of cases being managed non-electively increasing by 58%. Non-electively managed patients had a longer LOS (3.10 vs 0.04 days, respectively) and increased rate of readmissions within 30 days (24.1% vs 6.6%) versus patients managed electively. Average day-case cost was £449 versus £1676 for non-elective admission. Across the 195 clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England, non-elective spells per 100 000 population demonstrated extensive and widening variability, ranging from 18 to 118 in 2017/2018 compared with 11-55 in 2012/2013. Conclusion: The current analysis highlights several opportunities to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs. There is an opportunity to improve day-case services by looking at the difference between CCGs and the variability in care and to reduce the number of non-elective admissions.

Feasibility and economic assessment of chromocolonoscopy for detection of proximal serrated neoplasia within a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme (CONSCOP): an open-label, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Most post-colonoscopy interval colorectal cancers are proximal; serrated polyps are often precursors to these cancers and are considered difficult to detect. We assessed the safety, feasibility, and economic effect of chromocolonoscopy on detection of proximal serrated neoplasia. METHODS: We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled non-inferiority trial including patients from Bowel Screening Wales centres. Participants who tested positive for faecal occult blood and who were eligible for and considered fit to have colonoscopy (patients with known cases of polyposis syndromes, Lynch syndrome, and chronic inflammatory disease were excluded) were randomly assigned (1:1; with the use of minimisation, stratified by centre with an 80:20 random element) to either standard white light colonoscopy (standard group) or chromocolonoscopy (indigo carmine dye [0·2%]; chromocolonoscopy group) using a secure, internet-based, computerised, randomisation system that used centralised, dynamic allocation. Participants were followed up for 1 year and data from index colonoscopies and associated clearance procedures were analysed. All proximal polyps were reviewed by an expert pathologist panel. The main outcome on which power was based was time taken to perform the colonoscopy procedure, defined as from the time when the scope was inserted to withdrawal from the anus, assessed in the per-protocol population. The non-inferiority margin was 15 min. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01972451. FINDINGS: Between Nov 20, 2014, and June 16, 2016, 741 (72%) of 1031 patients screened were eligible and consented: 360 were randomly assigned to white light colonoscopy and 381 to chromocolonoscopy. In the chromocolonoscopy group, the procedure took a mean of 36·8 min (SD 15·0), compared with a mean of 30·6 min (13·7) in the standard group (mean difference 6·3 min [95% CI 4·2-8·4] longer with chromocolonoscopy than in the standard group). The mean difference was within the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Detection rates for proximal serrated lesions were significantly higher in the chromocolonoscopy group than in the control group (45 [12%] of 381 patients vs 23 [6%] of 360 patients; odds ratio 1·96 [95% CI 1·16-3·32]; p=0·012). Serious adverse events (four cases of postpolypectomy bleeding [two in each group], and one case of anxiety and hyperventilation [in the chromocolonoscopy group]), colonoscopy quality measures, comfort scores, and sedation were similar between groups. INTERPRETATION: Chromocolonoscopy is feasible within a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme, is safe, and has significantly increased detection of proximal serrated neoplasia and other polyp types compared with standard colonoscopy. Larger randomised trials of chromocolonoscopy, powered for improved detection of significant serrated polyps and for longer-term follow-up to investigate the effect on reduction of interval cancers within screening populations, are warranted. FUNDING: Health and Care Research Wales (RfPPB-1021).

Effects and costs of implementing predictive risk stratification in primary care: a randomised stepped wedge trial.

AIM: We evaluated the introduction of a predictive risk stratification model (PRISM) into primary care. Contemporaneously National Health Service (NHS) Wales introduced Quality and Outcomes Framework payments to general practices to focus care on those at highest risk of emergency admission to hospital. The aim of this study was to evaluate the costs and effects of introducing PRISM into primary care. METHODS: Randomised stepped wedge trial with 32 general practices in one Welsh health board. The intervention comprised: PRISM software; practice-based training; clinical support through two 'general practitioner (GP) champions' and technical support. The primary outcome was emergency hospital admissions. RESULTS: Across 230 099 participants, PRISM implementation increased use of health services: emergency hospital admission rates by 1 % when untransformed (while change in log-transformed rate ΔL=0.011, 95% CI 0.010 to 0.013); emergency department (ED) attendance rates by untransformed 3 % (while ΔL=0.030, 95% CI 0.028 to 0.032); outpatient visit rates by untransformed 5 % (while ΔL=0.055, 95% CI 0.051 to 0.058); the proportion of days with recorded GP activity by untransformed 1 % (while ΔL=0.011, 95% CI 0.007 to 0.014) and time in hospital by untransformed 3 % (while ΔL=0.029, 95% CI 0.026 to 0.031). Thus NHS costs per participant increased by £76 (95% CI £46 to £106). CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of PRISM resulted in a statistically significant increase in emergency hospital admissions and use of other NHS services without evidence of benefits to patients or the NHS.

Facet-joint injections for non-specific low back pain: a feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Pain of lumbar facet-joint origin is a common cause of low back pain in adults and may lead to chronic pain and disability, with associated health and socioeconomic implications. The socioeconomic burden includes an inability to return to work resulting in loss of productivity in addition to direct and indirect health-care utilisation costs. Lumbar facet-joints are paired synovial joints between the superior and inferior articular processes of consecutive lumbar vertebrae and between the fifth lumbar vertebra and the sacrum. Facet-joint pain is defined as pain that arises from any structure that is part of the facet-joints, including the fibrous capsule, synovial membrane, hyaline cartilage and bone. This pain may be treated by intra-articular injections with local anaesthetic and steroid, although this treatment is not standardised. At present, there is no definitive research to support the use of targeted lumbar facet-joint injections to manage this pain. Because of the lack of high-quality, robust clinical evidence, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on the management of chronic low back pain [NICE. Low Back Pain in Adults: Early Management. Clinical guideline (CG88). London: NICE; 2009] did not recommend the use of spinal injections despite their perceived potential to reduce pain intensity and improve rehabilitation, with NICE calling for further research to be undertaken. The updated guidelines [NICE. Low Back Pain and Sciatica in Over 16s: Assessment and Management. NICE guideline (NG59). London: NICE; 2016] again do not recommend the use of spinal injections. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of carrying out a definitive study to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lumbar facet-joint injections compared with a sham procedure in patients with non-specific low back pain of > 3 months' duration. DESIGN: Blinded parallel two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Initially planned as a multicentre study involving three NHS trusts in the UK, recruitment took place in the pain and spinal orthopaedic clinics at Barts Health NHS Trust only. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients referred by their GP to the specialist clinics with non-specific low back pain of at least 3 months' duration despite NICE-recommended best non-invasive care (education and one of a physical exercise programme, acupuncture or manual therapy). Patients who had already received lumbar facet-joint injections or who had had previous back surgery were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Participants who had a positive result following a diagnostic test (single medial branch nerve blocks) were randomised and blinded to receive either intra-articular lumbar facet-joint injections with steroids (intervention group) or a sham procedure (control group). All participants were invited to attend a group-based combined physical and psychological (CPP) programme. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In addition to the primary outcome of feasibility, questionnaires were used to assess a range of pain-related (including the Brief Pain Inventory and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire version 2) and disability-related (including the EuroQol-5 Dimensions five-level version and Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire) issues. Health-care utilisation and cost data were also assessed. The questionnaire visits took place at baseline and at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months post randomisation. The outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation groups. RESULTS: Of 628 participants screened for eligibility, nine were randomised to receive the study intervention (intervention group, n = 5; sham group, n = 4), six completed the CPP programme and eight completed the study. LIMITATIONS: Failure to achieve our expected recruitment targets led to early closure of the study by the funder. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the small number of participants recruited to the study, we were unable to draw any conclusions about the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of intra-articular lumbar facet-joint injections in the management of non-specific low back pain. Although we did not achieve the target recruitment rate from the pain clinics, we demonstrated our ability to develop a robust study protocol and deliver the intended interventions safely to all nine randomised participants, thus addressing many of the feasibility objectives. FUTURE WORK: Stronger collaborations with primary care may improve the recruitment of patients earlier in their pain trajectory who are suitable for inclusion in a future trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2014-003187-20 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12191542. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lightweight fibreglass heel casts in the management of ulcers of the heel in diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ulcers of the foot in people with diabetes mellitus are slow to heal and result in considerable cost and patient suffering. The prognosis is worst for ulcers of the heel. OBJECTIVE: To assess both the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of lightweight fibreglass casts in the management of heel ulcers. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, observer-blinded randomised controlled trial. A central randomisation centre used a computer-generated random number sequence to allocate participants to groups. SETTING: Thirty-five specialist diabetic foot secondary care centres in the UK. Those recruited were aged ≥ 18 years and had diabetes mellitus complicated by ulcers of the heel of grades 2-4 on the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel scale. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 509 participants [68% male, 15% with type 1 diabetes mellitus, mean age 67.5 years (standard deviation 12.4 years)] were randomised 1 : 1 to the intervention (n = 256) or the control (n = 253) arm. The primary outcome data were available for 425 participants (212 from the intervention arm and 213 from the control arm) and exceeded the total required; attrition was 16.5%. The median ulcer area at baseline was 275 mm2 [interquartile range (IQR) 104-683 mm2] in the intervention group and 206 mm2 (IQR 77-649 mm2) in the control group. There were no differences between the two groups at baseline in any parameter, neither in relation to the participant nor in relation to their ulcer. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group received usual care supplemented by the addition of an individually moulded, lightweight, fibreglass heel cast. The control group received usual care alone. The intervention phase continued either until the participant's ulcer had healed (maintained for 28 days) or for 24 weeks, whichever occurred first. During this intervention phase, the participants were reviewed every 2 weeks, and the fibreglass casts were replaced when they were no longer usable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was ulcer healing (confirmed by a blinded observer and maintained for 4 weeks) within 24 weeks. Other outcome measures included the time taken for the ulcer to heal, the percentage reduction in the cross-sectional area, the reduction in local pain, amputation, survival and health economic analysis. The study was powered to define a difference in healing of 15% (55% intervention vs. 40% control). RESULTS: Forty-four per cent (n = 94) of the intervention group healed within 24 weeks, compared with 37% (n = 80) of the control participants (odds ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.14; p = 0.088), using an intention-to-treat analysis. No differences were observed between the two groups for any secondary outcome. LIMITATIONS: Although the component items of care were standardised, because this was a pragmatic trial, usual care was not uniform. There was some evidence of a small excess of adverse events in the intervention group; however, non-blinded observers documented these events. There was no excess of adverse device effects. CONCLUSIONS: There may be a small increase in healing with the use of a heel cast, but the estimate was not sufficiently precise to provide strong evidence of an effect. There was no evidence of any subgroup in which the intervention appeared to be particularly effective. A health economic analysis suggested that it is unlikely that the intervention represents good value for money. The provision of a lightweight heel cast may be of benefit to some individuals, but we have found no evidence to justify the routine adoption of this in clinical practice. FUTURE WORK: It is unlikely that further study of this intervention will have an impact on usual clinical care, and so future efforts should be directed towards other interventions designed to improve the healing of ulcers in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN62524796. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The epidemiology, healthcare and societal burden and costs of asthma in the UK and its member nations: analyses of standalone and linked national databases.

BACKGROUND: There are a lack of reliable data on the epidemiology and associated burden and costs of asthma. We sought to provide the first UK-wide estimates of the epidemiology, healthcare utilisation and costs of asthma. METHODS: We obtained and analysed asthma-relevant data from 27 datasets: these comprised national health surveys for 2010-11, and routine administrative, health and social care datasets for 2011-12; 2011-12 costs were estimated in pounds sterling using economic modelling. RESULTS: The prevalence of asthma depended on the definition and data source used. The UK lifetime prevalence of patient-reported symptoms suggestive of asthma was 29.5 % (95 % CI, 27.7-31.3; n = 18.5 million (m) people) and 15.6 % (14.3-16.9, n = 9.8 m) for patient-reported clinician-diagnosed asthma. The annual prevalence of patient-reported clinician-diagnosed-and-treated asthma was 9.6 % (8.9-10.3, n = 6.0 m) and of clinician-reported, diagnosed-and-treated asthma 5.7 % (5.7-5.7; n = 3.6 m). Asthma resulted in at least 6.3 m primary care consultations, 93,000 hospital in-patient episodes, 1800 intensive-care unit episodes and 36,800 disability living allowance claims. The costs of asthma were estimated at least £1.1 billion: 74 % of these costs were for provision of primary care services (60 % prescribing, 14 % consultations), 13 % for disability claims, and 12 % for hospital care. There were 1160 asthma deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma is very common and is responsible for considerable morbidity, healthcare utilisation and financial costs to the UK public sector. Greater policy focus on primary care provision is needed to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations, hospitalisations and deaths, and reduce costs.

Estimating the incidence, prevalence and true cost of asthma in the UK: secondary analysis of national stand-alone and linked databases in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales-a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma is now one of the most common long-term conditions in the UK. It is therefore important to develop a comprehensive appreciation of the healthcare and societal costs in order to inform decisions on care provision and planning. We plan to build on our earlier estimates of national prevalence and costs from asthma by filling the data gaps previously identified in relation to healthcare and broadening the field of enquiry to include societal costs. This work will provide the first UK-wide estimates of the costs of asthma. In the context of asthma for the UK and its member countries (ie, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), we seek to: (1) produce a detailed overview of estimates of incidence, prevalence and healthcare utilisation; (2) estimate health and societal costs; (3) identify any remaining information gaps and explore the feasibility of filling these and (4) provide insights into future research that has the potential to inform changes in policy leading to the provision of more cost-effective care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Secondary analyses of data from national health surveys, primary care, prescribing, emergency care, hospital, mortality and administrative data sources will be undertaken to estimate prevalence, healthcare utilisation and outcomes from asthma. Data linkages and economic modelling will be undertaken in an attempt to populate data gaps and estimate costs. Separate prevalence and cost estimates will be calculated for each of the UK-member countries and these will then be aggregated to generate UK-wide estimates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals have been obtained from the NHS Scotland Information Services Division's Privacy Advisory Committee, the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Collaboration Review System, the NHS South-East Scotland Research Ethics Service and The University of Edinburgh's Centre for Population Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee. We will produce a report for Asthma-UK, submit papers to peer-reviewed journals and construct an interactive map.

The cost effectiveness of NHS physiotherapy support for occupational health (OH) services.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain is detrimental to quality of life (QOL) and disruptive to activities of daily living. It also places a major economic burden on healthcare systems and wider society. In 2006, the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) established a three tiered self-referral Occupational Health Physiotherapy Pilot Project (OHPPP) comprising: 1.) telephone advice and triage, 2.) face-to-face physiotherapy assessment and treatment if required, and 3.) workplace assessment and a return-to-work facilitation package as appropriate. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the pilot service. METHODS: A pragmatic cohort study was undertaken, with all OHPPP service users between September 2008 and February 2009 being invited to participate. Participants were assessed on clinical status, yellow flags, sickness absence and work performance at baseline, after treatment and at 3 month follow up. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from both top-down and bottom-up perspectives and cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (cost/QALY) was calculated. The cost-effectiveness analysis assessed the increase in service cost that would be necessary before the cost-effectiveness of the service was compromised. RESULTS: A total of 515 patients completed questionnaires at baseline. Of these, 486 were referred for face to face assessment with a physiotherapist and were included in the analysis for the current study. 264 (54.3%) and 199 (40.9%) were retained at end of treatment and 3 month follow up respectively. An improvement was observed at follow up in all the clinical outcomes assessed, as well as a reduction in healthcare resource usage and sickness absence, and improvement in self-reported work performance. Multivariate regression indicated that baseline and current physical health were associated with work-related outcomes at follow up. The costs of the service were £194-£360 per service user depending on the method used, and the health gains contributed to a cost/QALY of £1386-£7760, which would represent value for money according to current UK thresholds. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the service would remain cost effective until the service costs were increased to 160% per user. CONCLUSIONS: This pragmatic evaluation of the OHPPP indicated that it was likely to be feasible in terms of service usage and could potentially be cost effective in terms of QALYs. Further, the study confirmed that improving physical health status for musculoskeletal pain patients is important in reducing problems with work capacity and related costs. This study suggests that this type of service could be potentially be useful in reducing the burden of pain and should be further investigated, ideally via randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Prioritising pain in policy making: the need for a whole systems perspective.

This review aims to bring together current evidence on the impact of chronic pain in terms of its economic costs, cost to healthcare services and benefit agencies, and quality of life, and to discuss the implications of this for government policies. Quantifying the burden and cost of pain is challenging due to its multi-factorial nature and wide reaching effects. Nonetheless, there is a consensus that chronic pain has a significant impact on levels of resources across society and on quality of life. Pain is a complex bio-psychosocial experience and chronic pain is a consequence, in part, of adopting a narrow biomedical treatment approach to a problem which requires a multi-disciplinary approach to address the psychosocial, behavioural and biomedical aspects of pain. Although effective pain management interventions and programmes exist, provision of these services is inconsistent, and chronic pain is not given the priority it requires in view of the extent of its burden on individuals and society. Current relevant government policies in U.K. are discussed to highlight the need to prioritise pain and adopt a whole-systems approach to its management if governments are to successfully reduce its cost and burden.

Nuclear factor kappaB mediates a procoagulant response in monocytes during extracorporeal circulation.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the mechanism of procoagulant activity and inhibition in whole blood during extracorporeal circulation. METHODS: In this study we examine the development of procoagulant activity and monocyte activation in heparinized whole blood passing through a closed circuit consisting of a pump and silicone envelope membrane oxygenator for 6 hours. RESULTS: Anaphylatoxins, C3a and C5a, determined by means of enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay, appeared in the blood within 30 minutes of circulation. Circulated blood developed a marked potential for coagulation demonstrated in a 1-step clotting assay that reached maximal activity by 4 hours of circulation. This procoagulant activity was neutralized by anti-tissue factor antibody, suggesting a prominent role for the extrinsic pathway in pump-induced intravascular coagulation. Isolation of monocytes from circulated blood revealed that tissue factor expression is upregulated on the cell surface. Furthermore, we observed nuclear factor kappaB nuclear translocation in monocytes from blood passing through the circuit, suggesting that tissue factor expression was due to monocyte stimulation and transcriptional activation of the tissue factor gene. Tissue factor expression resulted in an approximately 30-fold increase in thrombin generation. Monocyte nuclear factor kappaB activation, monocyte tissue factor expression, thrombin generation, and the procoagulant activity of blood in extracorporeal circulation were all blocked by the proteasome inhibitor MG132. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that intravascular tissue factor expression during extracorporeal circulation of blood is due to nuclear factor kappaB-mediated activation of monocytes (possibly by complement), which can be controlled pharmacologically.