The use of Reflectance Confocal Microscopy to diagnose Malignant Melanoma and Lentigo Maligna in the United Kingdom: A Prospective Observational Trial at a Single Centre.

BACKGROUND: Previous work with Reflectance Confocal Microscopy (RCM) imaging has shown high sensitivity and specificity for Malignant Melanoma (MM), but to date there have been no studies on a UK cohort. OBJECTIVES: The study hypothesised that RCM could be used prospectively to accurately diagnose MM and lentigo maligna (LM) in a private UK secondary care, single clinician setting. The study assessed the potential for RCM to be used as a routine screening procedure. METHODS: 597 patients were recruited consecutively where MM or LM featured in the differential diagnosis after clinical examination. A sequential record was made of the clinical, dermoscopic, and RCM findings by a single dermatologist [HS] prior to biopsy. Imaging used the arm-mounted confocal microscope unless access was restricted and required the handheld probe. The likelihood of MM was scored for each modality, each diagnosis building on the last. Histology was assessed by a single blinded histopathologist [JJ]. RESULTS: 734 lesions were included in the analysis, including 86 MM and LM with a median diameter of 7.0 mm. The benign to malignant ratio was 3 to 1 (non-melanocytic malignancies included) and 8.3 to 1 for MM and LM only. The sensitivity and specificity for MM and LM was 62.8% (95% CI 51.70% to 72.98%) and 63.2% (59.27% to 66.84%) for clinical examination; 91.9% (83.95% to 96.66%) and 42.1% (38.14% to 45.88%) for dermoscopy; 94.2% (86.95% to 98.09%) and 83.2% (79.91% to 85.84%) for RCM. For RCM, PPV was 42.4% (38.13% to 46.81%) and NPV was 99.1% (97.87% to 99.60%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that RCM can reliably diagnose MM and is fast enough to be integrated into UK pigmented lesion clinics by dermatologists trained in RCM. "Number needed to treat" dropped from 3.9 with clinical examination to 3.0 with dermoscopy to 1.3 with RCM.

The use of Reflectance Confocal Microscopy to diagnose Basal Cell Carcinoma in the United Kingdom: A Prospective Observational Trial at a Single Centre.

BACKGROUND: Previous work with Reflectance Confocal Microscopy (RCM) imaging has shown high sensitivity and specificity for Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC), but to date there have been few studies on a UK cohort. OBJECTIVES: The study hypothesised that RCM could be used prospectively to accurately diagnose BCC in a private UK secondary care, single clinician setting. The study assessed the potential for RCM to be used as a routine diagnostic procedure. METHODS: 522 lesions were recruited prospectively where BCC featured in the differential diagnosis after clinical examination. 78 were subsequently excluded. Imaging used the arm-mounted confocal microscope unless access was restricted and required the handheld probe. The likelihood of BCC was scored for each modality, each diagnosis building on the last. Histology was assessed by a single blinded histopathologist [JJ]. RESULTS: 444 lesions from 326 patients were included in the analysis, including 327 BCCs. Median maximum diameter was 6 mm. The sensitivity and specificity for BCC was 69.42% (64.11% to 74.37%) and 52.99% (43.55% to 62.28%) for clinical examination alone; 91.77% (88.25% to 94.51%) and 41.03% (32.02% to 50.50%) plus dermoscopy; 98.78% (96.91% to 99.67%) and 85.47% (77.76% to 91.30%) plus RCM. For RCM PPV was 95.01% (92.14% to 97.07%) and NPV was 96.15% (90.44% to 98.94%). Area under the curve increased from 0.61 to 0.66 to 0.92 as modalities were added. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that RCM can, reliably and quickly, diagnose BCC, and that the addition of RCM to dermoscopy permits higher diagnostic accuracy for BCC in the UK. The specificity and sensitivity of the RCM diagnosis did not alter significantly with experience, reflecting the ease and speed of acquiring the skill. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03509415.

Geographical differences in the financial impacts of different forms of tobacco licence fees on small retailers in Scotland.

OBJECTIVE: Retailer licencing fees are a promising avenue to regulate tobacco availability. However, they face strong opposition from retailers and the tobacco industry, who argue significant financial impacts. This study compares the impacts of different forms of tobacco licence schemes on retailers' profits in Scotland. METHODS: We calculated gross profits from tobacco sales in 179 convenience stores across Scotland using 1 099 697 electronic point-of-sale records from 16 weeks between 2019 and 2022. We estimated different fees using universal, volumetric and separate urban/rural schemes. We identified the point at which 50% of retailers would no longer make a gross profit on tobacco sales for each scheme and modelled the financial impact of 10 incremental fee levels. The financial impact was assessed based on changes in retailers' tobacco gross profits. Differences by neighbourhood deprivation and urban/rural status were examined. RESULTS: The gross profit from tobacco per convenience store averaged £15 859/year. Profits were 2.29 times higher in urban (vs rural) areas and 1.59 times higher in high-deprivation (vs low-deprivation) areas, attributable to higher sales volumes. Tobacco gross profit decreased proportionally with increasing fee levels. Universal and urban/rural fees had greater gross profit reductions in rural and/or less deprived areas, where profits were lower, compared with volumetric fees. CONCLUSION: The introduction of tobacco licence fees offers a potential opportunity for reducing the availability of tobacco retailers. The likely impact of a tobacco licence fee is sensitive to the type of licence scheme implemented, the level at which fees are set and the retailers' location in relation to neighbourhood deprivation and rurality.

Brief interventions for smoking and alcohol associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a population survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 health care delivery underwent considerable changes. It is unclear how this may have affected the delivery of Brief Interventions (BIs) for smoking and alcohol. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol in primary care in England and whether certain priority groups (e.g., less advantaged socioeconomic positions, or a history of a mental health condition) were differentially affected. METHODS: We used nationally representative data from a monthly cross-sectional survey in England between 03/2014 and 06/2022. Monthly trends in the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol were examined using generalised additive models among adults who smoked in the past-year (weighted N = 31,390) and those using alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels (AUDIT score 38, weighted N = 22,386), respectively. Interactions were tested between social grade and the change in slope after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and results reported stratified by social grade. Further logistic regression models assessed whether changes in the of receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol, respectively, from 12/2016 to 01/2017 and 10/2020 to 06/2022 (or 03/2022 in the case of BIs for alcohol), depended on history of a mental health condition. RESULTS: The receipt of smoking BIs declined from an average prevalence of 31.8% (95%CI 29.4-35.0) pre-March 2020 to 24.4% (95%CI 23.5-25.4) post-March 2020. The best-fitting model found that after March 2020 there was a 12-month decline before stabilising by June 2022 in social grade ABC1 at a lower level (~ 20%) and rebounding among social grade C2DE (~ 27%). Receipt of BIs for alcohol was low (overall: 4.1%, 95%CI 3.9-4.4) and the prevalence was similar pre- and post-March 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The receipt of BIs for smoking declined following March 2020 but rebounded among priority socioeconomic groups of people who smoked. BIs for alcohol among those who use alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels were low and there was no appreciable change over time. Maintaining higher BI delivery among socioeconomic and mental health priority groups of smokers and increasing and higher risk alcohol users is important to support reductions in smoking and alcohol related inequalities.

The effect of a minimum price per unit of alcohol in Scotland on alcohol-related ambulance call-outs: A controlled interrupted time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: On 1 May 2018, Scotland introduced a minimum unit price (MUP) of £0.50 for alcohol, with one UK unit of alcohol being 10 ml of pure ethanol. This study measured the association between MUP and changes in the volume of alcohol-related ambulance call-outs in the overall population and in call-outs subsets (night-time call-outs and subpopulations with higher incidence of alcohol-related harm). DESIGN: An interrupted time-series (ITS) was used to measure variations in the daily volume of alcohol-related call-outs. We performed uncontrolled ITS on both the intervention and control group and a controlled ITS built on the difference between the two series. Data were from electronic patient clinical records from the Scottish Ambulance Service. SETTING AND CASES: Alcohol-related ambulance call-outs (intervention group) and total ambulance call-outs for people aged under 13 years (control group) in Scotland, from December 2017 to March 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Call-outs were deemed alcohol-related if ambulance clinicians indicated that alcohol was a 'contributing factor' in the call-out and/or a validated Scottish Ambulance Service algorithm determined that the call-out was alcohol-related. FINDINGS: No statistically significant association in the volume of call-outs was found in both the uncontrolled series [step change = 0.062, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.012, 0.0135 P = 0.091; slope change = -0.001, 95% CI = -0.001, 0.1 × 10-3 P = 0.139] and controlled series (step change = -0.01, 95% CI = -0.317, 0.298 P = 0.951; slope change = -0.003, 95% CI = -0.008, 0.002 P = 0.257). Similarly, no significant changes were found for the night-time series or for any population subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be no statistically significant association between the introduction of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland and the volume of alcohol-related ambulance call-outs. This was observed overall, across subpopulations and at night-time.

Estimation of integrated price elasticities for alcohol and tobacco in the United Kingdom using the living costs and food survey 2006-2017.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence shows that price is an important policy lever in reducing consumption of alcohol and tobacco. However, there is little evidence of the cross-price effect between alcohol and tobacco. METHODS: This paper uses an econometric model which estimates participation and consumption elasticities, on data from the UK Living Costs and Food Survey 2006-2017 and extends the literature by, for the first time, estimating joint price elasticities for disaggregated alcohol and tobacco products. This paper presents new price elasticities and compares them to the existing literature. RESULTS: The own-price elasticity estimates are all negative for both participation and consumption. There is no pattern to the estimates of cross-price elasticities. The elasticity estimates, when used in the Sheffield Tobacco and Alcohol Policy Model, produce bigger changes in consumption for the same change in price compared to other elasticity estimates in the existing literature. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Consumption of alcohol and tobacco are affected by the prices of one another. Policymakers should bear this in mind when devising alcohol or tobacco pricing policies.

Alcohol and smoking brief interventions by socioeconomic position: a population-based, cross-sectional study in Great Britain.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol and smoking brief interventions (BIs) in general practice have been shown to be effective in lowering alcohol and smoking-related harm. AIM: To assess prevalence of self-reported BI receipt among increasing or higher-risk drinkers and past-year smokers in England, Scotland, and Wales, and associations between intervention receipt and socioeconomic position. DESIGN & SETTING: Cross-sectional study using data from a monthly population-based survey in England, Scotland, and Wales. METHOD: The study comprised 47 799 participants (15 573 increasing or higher-risk drinkers [alcohol use disorders identification test consumption score ≥5] and 7791 past-year smokers) surveyed via telephone in 2020-2022 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). All data were self-reported. Prevalence of self-reported BI receipt was assessed descriptively; associations between receipt and socioeconomic position were analysed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among adults in England, Scotland, and Wales, 32.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 31.8 to 32.7) reported increasing or higher-risk drinking and 17.7% (95% CI = 17.3 to 18.1) past-year smoking. Among increasing or higher-risk drinkers, 58.0% (95% CI = 57.1 to 58.9) consulted with a GP in the past year, and of these, 4.1% (95% CI = 3.6 to 4.6) reported receiving BIs. Among past-year smokers, 55.8% (95% CI = 54.5 to 57.1) attended general practice in the past year; of these, 41.0% (95% CI = 39.4 to 42.7) stated receiving BIs. There was a tendency for patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds to receive more alcohol (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.38, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.73) or smoking BIs (aOR 1.11, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.26), but for the latter the results were statistically non-significant. Results did not differ notably by nation within Great Britain. CONCLUSION: BIs in general practice are more common for smoking than for alcohol. A greater proportion of BIs for alcohol were found to be delivered to people who were from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds and who were increasing or higher-risk drinkers.

The contribution of health behaviour to socioeconomic inequalities in alcohol harm: Analysis of the UK biobank, a large cohort study with linked health outcomes.

This is the first study to use the UK Biobank database to: 1) test whether participants of a low socioeconomic position (SEP) are less likely to drink, but more likely to suffer alcohol-related harm, and 2) test the contribution of behavioural factors. The database contains health-related information from 500,000 UK residents that were recruited aged 40-69 between 2006 and 2010. Our analysis focuses on participants resident in England (86% of the total sample). We obtained baseline demographics, survey data regarding alcohol consumption and other behaviours, and linked death and hospital-admission records. The primary outcome was time from study entry to experiencing an alcohol-attributable event (hospital admission or death). The relationship between alcohol-attributable harm and five measures of SEP (area-level deprivation, housing tenure, employment status, household income and qualifications) was investigated using time-to-event analysis. Average weekly alcohol consumption, other drinking behaviours (drinking history and beverage preference), and lifestyle factors (BMI and smoking status) were added incrementally as covariates in nested regression models to investigate whether they could explain the relationship between harm and SEP. 432,722 participants (197,449 men and 235,273 women) were included in the analysis with 3,496,431 person-years of follow-up. Those of a low SEP were most likely to be never/former drinkers or high-risk drinkers. However, alcohol consumption could not explain experiences of alcohol-attributable harm between SEP groups (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.48; 95% Confidence Interval 1.45-1.51, after adjusting for alcohol consumption). Drinking history, drinking mostly spirits, an unhealthy Body Mass Index and smoking all increased the risk of alcohol-attributable harm. However, these factors only partially explain SEP differences in alcohol harm as the HR for the most deprived vs the least deprived was still 1.28 after adjustment. This suggests that improving wider health behaviour of the most deprived could reduce alcohol-related inequalities. However, a substantial proportion of the variance in alcohol harm remains unexplained.

Practitioner and digitally delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in people not seeking alcohol treatment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of practitioner versus digitally delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis comprising comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials, robust screening and selection methods and appraisal with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Network meta-analyses were conducted in Stata using random effects, frequentist models. The confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) tool was used to assess confidence in effect sizes. SETTING: Online or community or health settings where the intervention was immediately accessible without referral. PARTICIPANTS: Non treatment-seeking hazardous or harmful drinkers. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was mean difference in alcohol consumption (g/wk); secondary outcome was number of single high intensity drinking episodes. Baseline consumption was analysed as a covariate. FINDINGS: Of 201 included trials (94 753 participants), 152 reported a consumption outcome that could be converted to grams/week; 104 reported number of single high intensity drinking episodes. At 1 and 6 months, practitioner delivered interventions reduced consumption more than digitally delivered interventions (1 month: -23 g/wk (95% CI, -43 to -2); 6 months: -14 g/wk [95% CI, -25 to -3]). At 12 months there was no evidence of difference between practitioner and digitally delivered interventions (-6 g/wk [95% CI, -24 to 12]). There was no evidence of a difference in single high intensity drinking episodes between practitioner and digitally delivered interventions at any time point. Effect sizes were small, but could impact across a population with relatively high prevalence of hazardous and harmful drinking. Heterogeneity was a concern. Some inconsistency was indicated at 1 and 6 months, but little evidence was apparent at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Practitioner delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption are more effective than digitally delivered interventions up to 6 months; at 12 months there is no evidence of a difference.

Moderators of changes in smoking, drinking and quitting behaviour associated with the first COVID-19 lockdown in England.

AIM: To estimate changes in smoking, drinking and quitting behaviour from before to during the first COVID-19 lockdown in England, and whether changes differed by age, sex or social grade. DESIGN: Representative cross-sectional surveys of adults, collected monthly between August 2018 and July 2020. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 36 980 adults (≥ 18 years). MEASUREMENTS: Independent variables were survey month (pre-lockdown: August-February versus lockdown months: April-July) and year (pandemic: 2019/20 versus comparator: 2018/19). Smoking outcomes were smoking prevalence, cessation, quit attempts, quit success and use of evidence-based or remote cessation support. Drinking outcomes were high-risk drinking prevalence, alcohol reduction attempts and use of evidence-based or remote support. Moderators were age, sex and occupational social grade (ABC1 = more advantaged/C2DE = less advantaged). FINDINGS: Relative to changes during the same time period in 2018/19, lockdown was associated with significant increases in smoking prevalence [+24.7% in 2019/20 versus 0.0% in 2018/19, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.12-1.63] and quit attempts (+39.9 versus -22.2%, aOR = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.76-3.50) among 18-34-year-olds, but not older groups. Increases in cessation (+156.4 versus -12.5%, aOR = 3.08, 95% CI = 1.86-5.09) and the success rate of quit attempts (+99.2 versus +0.8%, aOR = 2.29, 95% CI = 1.31-3.98) were also observed, and did not differ significantly by age, sex or social grade. Lockdown was associated with a significant increase in high-risk drinking prevalence among all socio-demographic groups (+39.5 versus -7.8%, aOR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.64-1.98), with particularly high increases among women (aOR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.87-2.53) and social grades C2DE (aOR = 2.34, 95% CI = 2.00-2.74). Alcohol reduction attempts increased significantly among high-risk drinkers from social grades ABC1 (aOR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.78-3.00) but not C2DE (aOR = 1.25, 95% CI = 0.83-1.88). There were few significant changes in use of support for smoking cessation or alcohol reduction, although samples were small. CONCLUSIONS: In England, the first COVID-19 lockdown was associated with increased smoking prevalence among younger adults and increased high-risk drinking prevalence among all adults. Smoking cessation activity also increased: more younger smokers made quit attempts during lockdown and more smokers quit successfully. Socio-economic disparities in drinking behaviour were evident: high-risk drinking increased by more among women and those from less advantaged social grades (C2DE), but the rate of reduction attempts increased only among the more advantaged social grades (ABC1).

Understanding long-term trends in smoking in England, 1972-2019: an age-period-cohort approach.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Smoking prevalence has been falling in England for more than 50 years, but remains a prevalent and major public health problem. This study used an age-period-cohort (APC) approach to measure lifecycle, historical and generational patterns of individual smoking behaviour. DESIGN: APC analysis of repeated cross-sectional smoking prevalence data obtained from three nationally representative surveys. SETTING: England (1972-2019). PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 18-90 years. MEASUREMENTS: We studied relative odds of current smoking in relation to age in single years from 18 to 90, 24 groups of 2-year survey periods (1972-73 to 2018-19) and 20 groups of 5-year birth cohorts (1907-11 to 1997-2001). Age and period rates were studied for two groups of birth cohorts: those aged 18-25 years and those aged over 25 years. FINDINGS: Relative to age 18, the odds of current smoking increased with age until approximately age 25 [odds ratio (OR) = 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.41-1.56] and then decreased progressively to age 90 (OR = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.04-0.08). They also decreased almost linearly with period relative to 1972-73 (for 2018-19: OR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.26-0.34) and with birth cohort relative to 1902-06, with the largest decreased observed for birth cohort 1992-96 (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.35-0.46) and 1997-2001 (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.74-0.88). Smoking declined in the 18-25 age group by an average of 7% over successive 2-year periods and by an average of 5% in those aged over 25. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking in England appears to have declined over recent decades mainly as a result of reduced smoking uptake before age 25, and to a lesser extent to smoking cessation after age 25.

Efficacy of a theory-driven program to implement alcohol screening and brief interventions in primary health-care: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Screening and brief interventions (SBI) in primary health-care practices (PHCP) are effective in reducing reported alcohol consumption, but have not been routinely implemented. Most programs seeking to improve implementation rates have lacked a theoretical rationale. This study aimed to test whether a theory-based intervention for PHCPs could significantly increase alcohol SBI delivery. DESIGN: Two-arm, cluster-randomized controlled, parallel, 12-month follow-up, trial. SETTING: PHCPs in Portugal. PARTICIPANTS: Staff from 12 PHCPs (n = 222, 81.1% women): nurses (35.6%), general practitioners (28.8%), receptionists (26.1%) and family medicine residents (9.5%); patients screened for alcohol use: intervention n = 8062; controls n = 58. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: PHCPs were randomized to receive a training and support program (n = 6; 110 participants) tailored to the barriers and facilitators for implementing alcohol SBIs following the principles of the Behavior Change Wheel/Theoretical Domains Framework approach, or to a waiting-list control (n = 6; 112 participants). Training was delivered over the first 12 weeks of the trial. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the proportion of eligible patients screened (unit of analysis: patient list). Secondary outcomes included the brief intervention (BI) rate per screen-positive patient and the population-based BI rate (unit of analysis: patient list), and changes in health providers' perceptions of barriers to implementation and alcohol-related knowledge (unit of analysis: health provider). FINDINGS: The implementation program had a significant effect on the screening activity in the intervention practices compared with control practices at the 12-month follow-up (21.7% vs. 0.16%, intention-to-treat analysis, p = 0.003). Although no significant difference was found on the BI rate per screen-positive patient (intervention 85.7% vs. control 63.6%, p = 0.55, Bayes factor = 0.28), the intervention was effective in increasing the population-based BI rate (intervention 0.69% vs. control 0.02%, p = 0.006). Health providers in the intervention arm reported fewer barriers to SBI implementation and higher levels of alcohol-related knowledge at 12-month follow-up than those in control practices. CONCLUSION: A theory-based implementation program, which included training and support activities, significantly increased alcohol screening and population-based brief intervention rates in primary care.

Effects of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in South Africa across different drinker groups and wealth quintiles: a modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the potential impact of minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol on alcohol consumption, spending and health in South Africa. We provide these estimates disaggregated by different drinker groups and wealth quintiles. DESIGN: We developed an epidemiological policy appraisal model to estimate the effects of MUP across sex, drinker groups (moderate, occasional binge, heavy) and wealth quintiles. Stakeholder interviews and workshops informed model development and ensured policy relevance. SETTING: South African drinking population aged 15+. PARTICIPANTS: The population (aged 15+) of South Africa in 2018 stratified by drinking group and wealth quintiles, with a model time horizon of 20 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in standard drinks (SDs) (12 g of ethanol) consumed, weekly spend on alcohol, annual number of cases and deaths for five alcohol-related health conditions (HIV, intentional injury, road injury, liver cirrhosis and breast cancer), reported by drinker groups and wealth quintile. RESULTS: We estimate an MUP of R10 per SD would lead to an immediate reduction in consumption of 4.40% (-0.93 SD/week) and an increase in spend of 18.09%. The absolute reduction is greatest for heavy drinkers (-1.48 SD/week), followed by occasional binge drinkers (-0.41 SD/week) and moderate drinkers (-0.40 SD/week). Over 20 years, we estimate 20 585 fewer deaths and 9 00 332 cases averted across the five health-modelled harms.Poorer drinkers would see greater impacts from the policy (consumption: -7.75% in the poorest quintile, -3.19% in richest quintile). Among the heavy drinkers, 85% of the cases averted and 86% of the lives saved accrue to the bottom three wealth quintiles. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that MUP would reduce alcohol consumption in South Africa, improving health outcomes while raising retail and tax revenue. Consumption and harm reductions would be greater in poorer groups.

The SPECTRUM Consortium: a new UK Prevention Research Partnership consortium focussed on the commercial determinants of health, the prevention of non-communicable diseases, and the reduction of health inequalities.

The main causes of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), health inequalities and health inequity include consumption of unhealthy commodities such as tobacco, alcohol and/or foods high in fat, salt and/or sugar. These exposures are preventable, but the commodities involved are highly profitable. The economic interests of 'Unhealthy Commodity Producers' (UCPs) often conflict with health goals but their role in determining health has received insufficient attention. In order to address this gap, a new research consortium has been established. This open letter introduces the SPECTRUM ( S haping  Public h Ealth poli Cies  To  Reduce ineq Ualities and har M)Consortium: a multi-disciplinary group comprising researchers from 10 United Kingdom (UK) universities and overseas, and partner organisations including three national public health agencies in Great Britain (GB), five multi-agency alliances and two companies providing data and analytic support. Through eight integrated work packages, the Consortium seeks to provide an understanding of the nature of the complex systems underlying the consumption of unhealthy commodities, the role of UCPs in shaping these systems and influencing health and policy, the role of systems-level interventions, and the effectiveness of existing and emerging policies. Co-production is central to the Consortium's approach to advance research and achieve meaningful impact and we will involve the public in the design and delivery of our research. We will also establish and sustain mutually beneficial relationships with policy makers, alongside our partners, to increase the visibility, credibility and impact of our evidence. The Consortium's ultimate aim is to achieve meaningful health benefits for the UK population by reducing harm and inequalities from the consumption of unhealthy commodities over the next five years and beyond.

Do dual purchasers behave differently? An analysis of purchasing data for households that buy both alcohol and tobacco in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Dual purchasers of alcohol and tobacco are at increased health risk from the interacting health impacts of alcohol and tobacco use. They are also at financial risk from exposure to the dual financial cost of policies that increase alcohol and tobacco prices. Understanding whose alcohol and tobacco use exposes them to these health and financial risks is important for understanding the inequality impacts of control policies. This study explores the extent to which household spending on alcohol and tobacco combined varies between socio-economic groups and compares this with results for households which purchase only one of the commodities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of household-level alcohol and tobacco purchasing data. SETTING: United Kingdom, 2012-17. PARTICIPANTS/CASES: A total of 26 021 households. MEASUREMENTS: We analysed transaction-level data from individual 14-day spending diaries in the Living Cost and Food Survey (LCFS). We used this to calculate expenditure, volumes of alcohol and tobacco purchased, and the price paid per unit of alcohol (1 unit = 8 g) and per stick of tobacco. This was compared with equivalized total expenditure and quintiles of equivalized household income. Prices were calibrated and pack sizes were imputed using empirical sales data from Nielsen/CGA to correct for reporting bias. FINDINGS: Dual purchasing households spent [95% confidence interval] more on alcohol and more on tobacco than their single-purchasing counterparts. In general, lower-income households spent less on both alcohol and tobacco than higher-income households. Furthermore, dual purchasing households in the lowest income group were most exposed to potential increases in price than were other income groups, with (CI = 12.41-13.15%) of their total household budget spent on alcohol and tobacco. CONCLUSIONS: Dual purchasers of alcohol and tobacco in the United Kingdom appear to be concentrated evenly among income groups. However, dual purchasers may experience particularly large effects from pricing policies, as they spend a substantially higher proportion of their overall household expenditure on alcohol and tobacco than do households that purchase only one of the commodities.

Quantile regression of tobacco tax pass-through in the UK 2013-2019. How have manufacturers passed through tax changes for different tobacco products?

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of tax increases relies heavily on the tobacco industry passing on such increases to smokers (also referred to as 'pass-through'). Previous research has found heterogeneous levels of tax pass-through across the market segments of tobacco products available to smokers. This study uses retail sales data to assess the extent to which recent tax changes have been passed on to smokers and whether this varies across the price distribution. METHODS: We use panel data quantile regression analysis on Nielsen commercial data of tobacco price and sales in the UK from January 2013 to March 2019 combined with official UK tax rates and inflation to calculate the rate of tax pass-through for factory made (FM) cigarettes and roll your own (RYO) tobacco. RESULTS: Following increases in the specific tax payable on tobacco, we find evidence of overshifting across the price distribution for both FM and RYO. The rate of the overshift in tax increased the more expensive the products were. This was consistent for FM and RYO. Additionally, our findings suggest that the introduction of standardised packaging was not followed by changes in how the tobacco industry responded to tax increases. CONCLUSIONS: Following the repeated introduction of increases in specific tobacco tax as well as standardised packaging, we show that the tobacco industry applies techniques to keep the cheapest tobacco cheaper relative to the more expensive products when passing on tax increases to smokers.

Impact of Socioeconomic Differences on Distributional Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

Public health decision makers value interventions for their effects on overall health and health inequality. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) incorporates health inequality concerns into economic evaluation by accounting for how parameters, such as effectiveness, differ across population groups. A good understanding of how and when accounting for socioeconomic differences between groups affects the assessment of intervention impacts on overall health and health inequality could inform decision makers where DCEA would add most value. We interrogated 2 DCEA models of smoking and alcohol policies using first national level and then local authority level information on various socioeconomic differences in health and intervention use. Through a series of scenario analyses, we explored the impact of altering these differences on the DCEA results. When all available evidence on socioeconomic differences was incorporated, provision of a smoking cessation service was estimated to increase overall health and increase health inequality, while the screening and brief intervention for alcohol misuse was estimated to increase overall health and reduce inequality. Ignoring all or some socioeconomic differences resulted in minimal change to the estimated impact on overall health in both models; however, there were larger effects on the estimated impact on health inequality. Across the models, there were no clear patterns in how the extent and direction of socioeconomic differences in the inputs translated into the estimated impact on health inequality. Modifying use or coverage of either intervention so that each population group matched the highest level improved the impacts to a greater degree than modifying intervention effectiveness. When local level socioeconomic differences were considered, the magnitude of the impacts was altered; in some cases, the direction of impact on inequality was also altered.

Impact of the introduction and withdrawal of financial incentives on the delivery of alcohol screening and brief advice in English primary health care: an interrupted time-series analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of the introduction and withdrawal of financial incentives on alcohol screening and brief advice delivery in English primary care. DESIGN: Interrupted time-series using data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. Data were split into three periods: (1) before the introduction of financial incentives (1 January 2006-31 March 2008); (2) during the implementation of financial incentives (1 April 2008-31 March 2015); and (3) after the withdrawal of financial incentives (1 April 2015-31 December 2016). Segmented regression models were fitted, with slope and step change coefficients at both intervention points. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: Newly registered patients (16+) in 500 primary care practices for 2006-16 (n = 4 278 723). MEASUREMENTS: The outcome measures were percentage of patients each month who: (1) were screened for alcohol use; (2) screened positive for higher-risk drinking; and (3) were reported as having received brief advice on alcohol consumption. FINDINGS: There was no significant change in the percentage of newly registered patients who were screened for alcohol use when financial incentives were introduced. However, the percentage fell (P < 0.001) immediately when incentives were withdrawn, and fell by a further 2.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.21-3.70] patients per 1000 each month thereafter. After the introduction of incentives, there was an immediate increase of 9.05 (95% CI = 3.87-14.23) per 1000 patients screening positive for higher-risk drinking, but no significant further change over time. Withdrawal of financial incentives was associated with an immediate fall in screen-positive rates of 29.96 (95% CI = 19.56-40.35) per 1000 patients, followed by a rise each month thereafter of 2.14 (95% CI = 1.51-2.77) per 1000. Screen-positive patients recorded as receiving alcohol brief advice increased by 20.15 (95% CI = 12.30-28.00) per 1000 following the introduction of financial incentives, and continued to increase by 0.39 (95% CI = 0.26-0.53) per 1000 monthly until withdrawal. At this point, delivery of brief advice fell by 18.33 (95% CI = 11.97-24.69) per 1000 patients and continued to fall by a further 0.70 (95% CI = 0.28-1.12) per 1000 per month. CONCLUSIONS: Removing a financial incentive for alcohol prevention in English primary care was associated with an immediate and sustained reduction in the rate of screening for alcohol use and brief advice provision. This contrasts with no, or limited, increase in screening and brief advice delivery rates following the introduction of the scheme.

Socioeconomic inequalities in the delivery of brief interventions for smoking and excessive drinking: findings from a cross-sectional household survey in England.

OBJECTIVES: Brief interventions (BI) for smoking and risky drinking are effective and cost-effective policy approaches to reducing alcohol harm currently used in primary care in England; however, little is known about their contribution to health inequalities. This paper aims to investigate whether self-reported receipt of BI is associated with socioeconomic position (SEP) and whether this differs for smoking or alcohol. DESIGN: Population survey of 8978 smokers or risky drinkers in England aged 16+ taking part in the Alcohol and Smoking Toolkit Studies. MEASURES: Survey participants answered questions regarding whether they had received advice and support to cut down their drinking or smoking from a primary healthcare professional in the past 12 months as well as their SEP, demographic details, whether they smoke and their motivation to cut down their smoking and/or drinking. Respondents also completed the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Smokers were defined as those reporting any smoking in the past year. Risky drinkers were defined as those scoring eight or more on the AUDIT. RESULTS: After adjusting for demographic factors and patterns in smoking and drinking, BI delivery was highest in lower socioeconomic groups. Smokers in the lowest social grade had 30% (95% CI 5% to 61%) greater odds of reporting receipt of a BI than those in the highest grade. The relationship for risky drinking appeared stronger, with those in the lowest social grade having 111% (95% CI 27% to 252%) greater odds of reporting BI receipt than the highest grade. Rates of BI delivery were eight times greater among smokers than risky drinkers (48.3% vs 6.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Current delivery of BI for smoking and drinking in primary care in England may be contributing to a reduction in socioeconomic inequalities in health. This effect could be increased if intervention rates, particularly for drinking, were raised.

Cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve delivery of brief interventions for heavy drinking in primary care: results from the ODHIN trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening and brief interventions (SBIs) for heavy drinking are an effective and cost-effective approach to reducing alcohol-related harm, yet delivery rates remain low. This study uses trial data to estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies to increase SBI delivery. METHODS: Data from a large cluster-randomized trial were combined with the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model, a policy appraisal tool, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of eight strategies to increase SBI delivery in primary care in England, Poland and the Netherlands: care as usual (control), training and support (TS), financial reimbursement (FR), referral of patients to an online brief intervention (eBI) and all combinations of TS, FR and eBI. cost-effectiveness was assessed from a healthcare perspective by comparing health benefits (measured in Quality-Adjusted Life Years) with total implementation costs and downstream healthcare savings for each strategy over a 30-year horizon and calculating Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: All trialled strategies were cost-effective compared to control. TS combined with FR was the most cost-effective approach in England (more effective and less costly than control) and Poland (ICER €4632 vs. next-best strategy). This combination is not cost-effective in the Netherlands, where TS alone is the most cost-effective approach (ICER €3386 vs. next-best strategy). CONCLUSIONS: Structured TS, financial incentives and access to online interventions are all estimated to be cost-effective methods of improving delivery of alcohol brief interventions. TS and FR together may be the most cost-effective approach, however this is sensitive to country characteristics and alternative BI effect assumptions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov trial identifier: NCT01501552.