Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on depression incidence and healthcare service use among patients with depression: an interrupted time-series analysis from a 9-year population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on depression burden focused on the earlier pandemic phase specific to lockdowns, but the longer-term impact of the pandemic is less well-studied. In this population-based cohort study, we examined the short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on depression incidence and healthcare service use among patients with depression. METHODS: Using the territory-wide electronic medical records in Hong Kong, we identified all patients aged ≥ 10 years with new diagnoses of depression from 2014 to 2022. We performed an interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis to examine changes in incidence of medically attended depression before and during the pandemic. We then divided all patients into nine cohorts based on year of depression incidence and studied their initial and ongoing service use patterns until the end of 2022. We applied generalized linear modeling to compare the rates of healthcare service use in the year of diagnosis between patients newly diagnosed before and during the pandemic. A separate ITS analysis explored the pandemic impact on the ongoing service use among prevalent patients with depression. RESULTS: We found an immediate increase in depression incidence (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.10-1.33, p < 0.001) in the population after the pandemic began with non-significant slope change, suggesting a sustained effect until the end of 2022. Subgroup analysis showed that the increases in incidence were significant among adults and the older population, but not adolescents. Depression patients newly diagnosed during the pandemic used 11% fewer resources than the pre-pandemic patients in the first diagnosis year. Pre-existing depression patients also had an immediate decrease of 16% in overall all-cause service use since the pandemic, with a positive slope change indicating a gradual rebound over a 3-year period. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, service provision for depression was suboptimal in the face of increased demand generated by the increasing depression incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings indicate the need to improve mental health resource planning preparedness for future public health crises.

Living Alone With Mild-to-Moderate Dementia Over a Two-Year Period: Longitudinal Findings From the IDEAL Cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the experiences of people with dementia living alone or with others and how these may change over two years. DESIGN: We analysed longitudinal data from three assessment waves, one year apart, in the British IDEAL cohort. SETTING: Participants with mild-to-moderate dementia were recruited through National Health Service providers, where possible with a family caregiver, and interviewed at home. PARTICIPANTS: The current analyses include 281 people with dementia living alone and 1,244 living with others at baseline; follow-up data were available for 200 and 965 respectively at time 2 and 144 and 696 respectively at time 3. For those living alone, 140 nonresident caregivers contributed at baseline, 102 at time 2 and 81 at time 3. For those living with others, 1,127 family caregivers contributed at baseline, 876 at time 2 and 670 at time 3. MEASUREMENTS: Assessments covered: cognitive and functional ability; self-reported perceptions of health, mood, social engagement, quality of life, satisfaction with life and well-being; use of in-home and community care; and transitions into residential care. RESULTS: People living alone tended to have better cognitive and functional ability and were more frequent users of in-home care. However, they experienced poorer physical, social, and psychological health and reduced quality of life, satisfaction with life, and well-being. These differences persisted over time and rates of transition into residential care were higher. CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate continuing in place for people with dementia living alone, a dual focus on supporting functional ability and addressing psychosocial needs is essential in the context of an enabling policy framework.

Scaling-up an evidence-based intervention for family carers of people with dementia: Current and future costs and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The STrAtegies for RelaTives (START) intervention is effective and cost-effective in supporting family carers of people with dementia. It is currently not available to all eligible carers in England. What would be the impacts on service costs and carer health-related quality of life if START was provided to all eligible carers in England, currently and in future? METHODS: Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data from a previously conducted randomised controlled trial were combined with current and future projections of numbers of people with newly diagnosed dementia to estimate overall and component costs and health-related quality of life outcomes between 2015 (base year for projections) and 2040. RESULTS: Scaling-up START requires investments increasing annually but would lead to significant savings in health and social care costs. Family carers of people with dementia would experience improvements in mental health and quality of life, with clinical effects lasting at least 6 years. Scaling up the START intervention to eligible carers was estimated to cost £9.4 million in 2020, but these costs would lead to annual savings of £68 million, and total annual quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 1247. Although the costs of START would increase to £19.8 million in 2040, savings would rise to £142.7 million and Quality adjusted life years gained to 1883. CONCLUSIONS: Scaling-up START for family carers of people with dementia in England would improve the lives of family carers and reduce public sector costs. Family carers play a vital part in dementia care; evidence-based interventions that help them to maintain this role, such as START, should be available across the country.

The landscape of inequalities in dementia across Europe: First insights from the INTERDEM taskforce.

BACKGROUND: Getting a diagnosis of dementia does not equate to equitable access to care. People with dementia and unpaid carers face many barriers to care, which can vary within, and across, different countries and cultures. With little evidence across different countries, the aim of this scoping exercise was to identify the different and similar types of inequalities in dementia across Europe, and provide recommendations for addressing these. METHODS: We conducted a brief online survey with INTERDEM and INTERDEM Academy members across Europe, and with members of Alzheimer Europe's European Working Group of People with Dementia and Carers in February and March 2023. Members were asked about whether inequalities in dementia care existed within their country; if yes, to highlight three key inequalities. Responses on barriers were coded into groups, and frequencies of inequalities were calculated. Highlighted inequalities were discussed and prioritised at face-to-face and virtual consensus meetings in England, Ireland, Italy, and Poland, involving people with dementia, unpaid carers, health and social care providers, and non-profit organisations. RESULTS: Forty-nine academics, PhD students, people with dementia and unpaid carers from 10 countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Malta, Netherlands, UK) completed the survey. The most frequently identified inequalities focused on unawareness and lack of information, higher level system issues (i.e. lack of communication among care professionals), lack of service suitability, and stigma. Other barriers included workforce training and knowledge, financial costs, culture and language, lack of single-point-of-contact person, age, and living location/postcode lottery. There was general consensus among people living dementia and care providers of unawareness as a key barrier in different European countries, with varied priorities in Ireland depending on geographical location. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide a first insight on dementia inequalities across Europe, generate cross-country learnings on how to address these inequalities in dementia, and can underpin further solution-focused research that informs policy and key decision makers to implement changes.

Digital technologies to prevent falls in people living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment: a rapid systematic overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: Falls are a common cause of potentially preventable death, disability and loss of independence with an annual estimated cost of £4.4bn. People living with dementia (PlwD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have an increased fall risk. This overview evaluates evidence for technologies aiming to reduce falls and fall risk for PlwD or MCI. METHODS: In October 2022, we searched five databases for evidence syntheses. We used standard methods to rapidly screen, extract data, assess risk of bias and overlap, and synthesise the evidence for each technology type. RESULTS: We included seven systematic reviews, incorporating 22 relevant primary studies with 1,412 unique participants. All reviews had critical flaws on AMSTAR-2: constituent primary studies were small, heterogeneous, mostly non-randomised and assessed as low or moderate quality. Technologies assessed were: wearable sensors, environmental sensor-based systems, exergaming, virtual reality systems. We found no evidence relating to apps. Review evidence for the direct impact on falls was available only from environmental sensors, and this was inconclusive. For wearables and virtual reality technologies there was evidence that technologies may differentiate PlwD who fell from those who did not; and for exergaming that balance may be improved. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for technology to reduce falls and falls risk for PlwD and MCI is methodologically weak, based on small numbers of participants and often indirect. There is a need for higher-quality RCTs to provide robust evidence for effectiveness of fall prevention technologies. Such technologies should be designed with input from users and consideration of the wider implementation context.

Long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of life of people with dementia and their family carers.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have longitudinally mapped quality of life (QoL) trajectories of newly diagnosed people with dementia and their carers, particularly during coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: In a UK cohort study, 261 newly diagnosed people with dementia and 206 family carers were assessed prior to the pandemic (July 2019-March 2020), followed up after the first lockdown (July-October 2020) and then again a year and 2 years later. Latent growth curve modelling examined the level and change of QoL over the four time-points using dementia-specific QoL measures (DEMQOL and C-DEMQOL). RESULTS: Despite variations in individual change scores, our results suggest that generally people with dementia maintained their QoL during the pandemic and experienced some increase towards the end of the period. This contrasted with carers who reported a general deterioration in their QoL over the same period. 'Confidence in future' and 'Feeling supported' were the only carer QoL subscales to show some recovery post-pandemic. DISCUSSION: It is positive that even during a period of global disruption, decline in QoL is not inevitable following the onset of dementia. However, it is of concern that carer QoL declined during this same period even after COVID-19 restrictions had been lifted. Carers play an invaluable role in the lives of people with dementia and wider society, and our findings suggest that, post-pandemic, they may require greater support to maintain their QoL.

Comorbid health conditions and their impact on social isolation, loneliness, quality of life, and well-being in people with dementia: longitudinal findings from the IDEAL programme.

BACKGROUND: Most people with dementia have multiple health conditions. This study explores (1) number and type of health condition(s) in people with dementia overall and in relation to age, sex, dementia type, and cognition; (2) change in number of health conditions over two years; and (3) whether over time the number of health conditions at baseline is related to social isolation, loneliness, quality of life, and/or well-being. METHODS: Longitudinal data from the IDEAL (Improving the experience of Dementia and Enhancing Active Life) cohort were used. Participants comprised people with dementia (n = 1490) living in the community (at baseline) in Great Britain. Health conditions using the Charlson Comorbidity Index, cognition, social isolation, loneliness, quality of life, and well-being were assessed over two years. Mixed effects modelling was used. RESULTS: On average participants had 1.8 health conditions at baseline, excluding dementia; increasing to 2.5 conditions over two years. Those with vascular dementia or mixed (Alzheimer's and vascular) dementia had more health conditions than those with Alzheimer's disease. People aged ≥ 80 had more health conditions than those aged < 65 years. At baseline having more health conditions was associated with increased loneliness, poorer quality of life, and poorer well-being, but was either minimally or not associated with cognition, sex, and social isolation. Number of health conditions had either minimal or no influence on these variables over time. CONCLUSIONS: People with dementia in IDEAL generally had multiple health conditions and those with more health conditions were lonelier, had poorer quality of life, and poorer well-being.

Health conditions in spousal caregivers of people with dementia and their relationships with stress, caregiving experiences, and social networks: longitudinal findings from the IDEAL programme.

OBJECTIVES: Longitudinal evidence documenting health conditions in spousal caregivers of people with dementia and whether these influence caregivers' outcomes is scarce. This study explores type and number of health conditions over two years in caregivers of people with dementia and subgroups based on age, sex, education, hours of care, informant-rated functional ability, neuropsychiatric symptoms, cognition of the person with dementia, and length of diagnosis in the person with dementia. It also explores whether over time the number of health conditions is associated with caregivers' stress, positive experiences of caregiving, and social networks METHODS: Longitudinal data from the IDEAL (Improving the experience of Dementia and Enhancing Active Life) cohort were used. Participants comprised spousal caregivers (n = 977) of people with dementia. Self-reported health conditions using the Charlson Comorbidity Index, stress, positive experiences of caregiving, and social network were assessed over two years. Mixed effect models were used RESULTS: On average participants had 1.5 health conditions at baseline; increasing to 2.1 conditions over two years. More health conditions were reported by caregivers who were older, had no formal education, provided 10 + hours of care per day, and/or cared for a person with more neuropsychiatric symptoms at baseline. More baseline health conditions were associated with greater stress at baseline but not with stress over time. Over two years, when caregivers' health conditions increased, their stress increased whereas their social network diminished DISCUSSION: Findings highlight that most caregivers have their own health problems which require management to avoid increased stress and shrinking of social networks.

Parent- and teacher-reported associations from adolescent bifactor models of psychopathology: an outcome-wide association study of 26 outcomes in mid-life.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent mental health problems have lasting impacts on health and social functioning later in life. Evidence to date mostly comes from studies of specific diagnostic categories/dimensions, but hierarchical models can elucidate associations with general as well as specific dimensions of psychopathology. We provide evidence on long-term outcomes of general and specific dimensions of adolescent psychopathology using both parent and teacher reports. METHODS: Parents and teachers from the Isle of Wight study completed Rutter behaviour scales when participants were 14-15 years old (n = 2,275), assessing conduct, emotional and hyperactivity problems. Metric-invariant bifactor models for parents and teachers were used to test domain-specific and domain-general associations with 26 self-reported psychosocial outcomes at mid-life (age 44-45 years, n = 1,423). Analyses examined the individual and joint contributions of parent and teacher reports of adolescent psychopathology. All analyses were adjusted for covariates (gender, IQ and family social class) and weighted to adjust for the probability of nonresponse. RESULTS: Parent- and teacher-reported general factors of psychopathology (GFP) were associated with 15 and 12 outcomes, respectively, across the socioeconomic, relationship, health and personality domains, along with an index of social exclusion. Nine outcomes were associated with both parent- and teacher-reported GFP, with no differences in the strength of the associations across reporters. Teacher-reported specific factors (conduct, emotional and hyperactivity) were associated with 21 outcomes, and parent-reported specific factors were associated with seven. Five outcomes were associated with the same specific factors from both reporters; only one showed reporter differences in the strength of the associations. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the relevance of the GFP and the utility of teacher as well as parent reports of adolescent mental health in predicting psychosocial outcomes later in the life course.

Research evaluating the effectiveness of dementia interventions in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic mapping of 340 randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: More people with dementia live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries, but best-practice care recommendations are often based on studies from high-income countries. We aimed to map the available evidence on dementia interventions in LMICs. METHODS: We systematically mapped available evidence on interventions that aimed to improve the lives of people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or their carers in LMICs (registered on PROSPERO: CRD42018106206). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2008 and 2018. We searched 11 electronic academic and grey literature databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane CENTRAL, Social Care Online, BASE, MODEM Toolkit) and examined the number and characteristics of RCTs according to intervention type. We used the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: We included 340 RCTs with 29,882 (median, 68) participants, published 2008-2018. Over two-thirds of the studies were conducted in China (n = 237, 69.7%). Ten LMICs accounted for 95.9% of included RCTs. The largest category of interventions was Traditional Chinese Medicine (n = 149, 43.8%), followed by Western medicine pharmaceuticals (n = 109, 32.1%), supplements (n = 43, 12.6%), and structured therapeutic psychosocial interventions (n = 37, 10.9%). Overall risk of bias was judged to be high for 201 RCTs (59.1%), moderate for 136 (40.0%), and low for 3 (0.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-generation on interventions for people with dementia or MCI and/or their carers in LMICs is concentrated in just a few countries, with no RCTs reported in the vast majority of LMICs. The body of evidence is skewed towards selected interventions and overall subject to high risk of bias. There is a need for a more coordinated approach to robust evidence-generation for LMICs.

A qualitative exploration of older people's lived experiences of homelessness and memory problems - stakeholder perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The numbers of older people experiencing both homelessness and memory problems are growing, yet their complex health, housing and care needs remain undelineated and unmet. There is a critical gap in understanding what can improve the care, support and experiences of this group. In this qualitative study we explore how stakeholders understand memory problems among older people in the context of homelessness and consider what they judge gets in the way of achieving positive outcomes. METHOD: We conducted reflexive thematic analysis of qualitative interviews (n = 49) using a semi-structured topic guide, with 17 older people (aged ≥ 50 years) experiencing memory problems and homelessness, 15 hostel staff and managers, and 17 health, housing and social care practitioners. We recruited participants from six homelessness hostels, one specialist care home and National Health and Local Authority Services in England. RESULTS: We identified four overarching themes. The population is not taken seriously; multiple causes are hard to disentangle; risk of exploitation and vulnerability; and (dis)connection and social isolation. The transience and lack of stability associated with homelessness intensified the disorienting nature of memory and cognitive impairment, and those providing direct and indirect support required flexibility and persistence, with staff moving beyond traditional roles to advocate, provide care and safeguard individuals. Memory problems were perceived by frontline staff and older people to be overlooked, misinterpreted, and misattributed as being caused by alcohol use, resulting in pervasive barriers to achieving positive and desired outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to meet the needs of older people living with memory problems and experiencing homelessness and future interventions must reflect the complexity of their lives, often in the context of long-term alcohol use and current service provision and we make suggestions as to what could be done to improve the situation.

Implementing a home-based personalised cognitive rehabilitation intervention for people with mild-to-moderate dementia: GREAT into Practice.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based rehabilitative interventions, if widely implemented, could equip people with dementia and their families to manage life with the condition and reduce the need for health and care services. The aim of this translational study, building on evidence from the GREAT randomised controlled trial, was to develop a foundation for implementing the GREAT Cognitive Rehabilitation intervention in community-based services for people with mild-to-moderate dementia. METHODS: Key elements of the implementation strategy were identifying and supporting managerial and clinical leadership, conducting collaborative planning and target-setting, training and supporting practitioners, and providing external facilitation. We developed implementation plans with, and trained staff in, 14 organisations. We subsequently worked closely with 11 of these, 10 National Health Service organisations and one private home care provider, to support practitioners to deliver GREAT Cognitive Rehabilitation over a 12-month period. Outcome evaluation examined the perspectives of local steering group members, practitioners and service users, and the reach, effectiveness and cost of the intervention. RESULTS: Implementation was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, but six organisations completed at least six months of intervention delivery. Forty-one practitioners, mainly occupational therapists, provided the intervention, and 54 people with dementia completed a course of GREAT Cognitive Rehabilitation. Goal attainment by people with dementia exceeded levels of improvement seen in the original trial. People with dementia, carers, practitioners and steering group members all evaluated the intervention positively, and economic analysis indicated that the intervention could be provided at modest cost. However, we identified a range of mainly organisational barriers that impeded implementation and limited the potential for sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: GREAT Cognitive Rehabilitation benefits people with dementia, can be delivered effectively at modest cost in routine services, and is viewed positively by people with dementia, family carers and practitioners. To fully realise these benefits and achieve widespread and sustainable implementation, however, requires sufficient resources and a reorientation of service priorities towards preventive and rehabilitative approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Central Portfolio Management System, registration number 38994.

The link between cognitive health and neighbourhood: perceptions of the public, and of policy-makers, about problems and solutions.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence indicates associations between neighbourhood-related factors such as pollution, social isolation and physical inactivity, and cognition, that is, our ability to think clearly, learn and remember. The evidence raises the possibility of neighbourhood intervention playing a role in protecting population cognitive health. However, there is little understanding of these associations among the public and policy-makers, what they mean and how they might be acted on. In this study we explored perceptions of the public and policy-makers about influences of neighbourhood factors on brain functioning, and how they should inform policy. METHODS: Qualitative methods were used in three phases; the study ran in parallel with a quantitative study looking at neighbourhood influences on cognition. In phase one, focus groups were conducted with middle-aged (40-69) members of the public to inform statistical modelling. In phase two, similar focus groups were held in four case study areas chosen based on the modelling results. In phase three, interviews with people in public health and policy roles were conducted, including people in the case study sites. RESULTS: Participants described effects on their cognition from community, culture and social interactions, access to green spaces and nature, upkeep and safety of the area, and pollution, traffic and noise. Solutions included better local consultation and involvement in policy and planning, support for community interactions and active and public transport, and education on cognition. There was little awareness, but much interest, from local policy-makers and implementers, about links between cognition and place. Barriers to implementation included lack of: effective engagement with local communities, local funding and joined-up health and neighbourhood policy. CONCLUSIONS: People can perceive impacts of neighbourhoods on brain functioning and suggest ways local areas can be improved to support cognitive health. There is support for the idea of population-level interventions to support cognitive health.

Effects of mental health status during adolescence on primary care costs in adulthood across three British cohorts.

PURPOSE: This study examines the association between mental health problems in adolescence and general practice (GP) costs during adulthood up to age 50 in the UK. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of three British birth cohorts (individuals born in single weeks in 1946, 1958 and 1970). Data for the three cohorts were analysed separately. All respondents who participated in the cohort studies were included. Adolescent mental health status was assessed in each cohort using the Rutter scale (or, for one cohort, a forerunner of that scale) completed in interviews with parents and teachers when cohort members were aged around 16. Presence and severity of conduct and emotional problems were modelled as independent variables in two-part regression models in which the dependent variable was costs of GP services from data collection sweeps up to mid-adulthood. All analyses were adjusted for covariates (cognitive ability, mother's education, housing tenure, father's social class and childhood physical disability). RESULTS: Adolescent conduct and emotional problems, particularly when coexisting, were associated with relatively high GP costs in adulthood up to age 50. Associations were generally stronger in females than males. CONCLUSION: Associations between adolescent mental health problems and annual GP cost were evident decades later, to age 50, suggesting that there could be significant future savings to healthcare budgets if rates of adolescent conduct and emotional problems could be reduced. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

The worldwide costs of dementia in 2019.

INTRODUCTION: Dementia is a leading cause of death and disability globally. Estimating total societal costs demonstrates the wide impact of dementia and its main direct and indirect economic components. METHODS: We constructed a global cost model for dementia, presenting costs as cumulated global and regional costs. RESULTS: In 2019, the annual global societal costs of dementia were estimated at US $1313.4 billion for 55.2 million people with dementia, corresponding to US $23,796 per person with dementia. Of the total, US $213.2 billion (16%) were direct medical costs, US $448.7 billion (34%) direct social sector costs (including long-term care), and US $651.4 billion (50%) costs of informal care. DISCUSSION: The huge costs of dementia worldwide place enormous strains on care systems and families alike. Although most people with dementia live in low- and middle-income countries, highest total and per-person costs are seen in high-income countries. HIGHLIGHTS: Global economic costs of dementia were estimated to reach US $1313.4 in 2019. Sixty-one percent of people with dementia live in low-and middle-income countries, whereas 74% of the costs occur in high-income countries. The impact of informal care accounts for about 50% of the global costs. The development of a long-term care infrastructure is a great challenge for low-and middle-income countries. There is a great need for more cost studies, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Discussions of a framework for global cost comparisons are needed.

Economic evaluations of mental health interventions in criminal justice.

BACKGROUND: Mental health interventions targeting crime perpetrators are available. An overview of the current scenario of their economic benefits will help policy decisions. AIM: To provide an update on economic evidence for mental health interventions in criminal justice, and to identify challenges and responses in using economic evidence to inform policy. METHOD: Narrative review with an analysis frame that organises evidence around four points on the criminal justice system pathway: (a) point of contact; (b) post-arrest; (c) incarceration/punishment and (d) post-incarceration. RESULTS: There is a paucity of high-quality economic evidence, especially from cost-benefit analyses. However, there is some evidence of cost-effectiveness in support of interventions at the point of incarceration, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, multisystemic therapy for juvenile delinquents, therapeutic communities, electronic monitoring and telepsychiatry in forensic psychiatry settings. There is also evidence that post-incarceration interventions such as assertive community treatment can be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: There remain large evidence gaps. There are also challenges in turning economic evidence on mental health interventions in criminal justice into policy changes and improved practice, such as hidden costs, silo budgeting and delayed pay-off. Research incorporating multi-sectoral costs and benefits recommended by health economics and health technology assessment groups should be prioritised to support difficult resource allocation decisions faced by policy makers.

What is the right level of spending needed for health and care in the UK?

The health and care sector plays a valuable role in improving population health and societal wellbeing, protecting people from the financial consequences of illness, reducing health and income inequalities, and supporting economic growth. However, there is much debate regarding the appropriate level of funding for health and care in the UK. In this Health Policy paper, we look at the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and historical spending in the UK and comparable countries, assess the role of private spending, and review spending projections to estimate future needs. Public spending on health has increased by 3·7% a year on average since the National Health Service (NHS) was founded in 1948 and, since then, has continued to assume a larger share of both the economy and government expenditure. In the decade before the ongoing pandemic started, the rate of growth of government spending for the health and care sector slowed. We argue that without average growth in public spending on health of at least 4% per year in real terms, there is a real risk of degradation of the NHS, reductions in coverage of benefits, increased inequalities, and increased reliance on private financing. A similar, if not higher, level of growth in public spending on social care is needed to provide high standards of care and decent terms and conditions for social care staff, alongside an immediate uplift in public spending to implement long-overdue reforms recommended by the Dilnot Commission to improve financial protection. COVID-19 has highlighted major issues in the capacity and resilience of the health and care system. We recommend an independent review to examine the precise amount of additional funds that are required to better equip the UK to withstand further acute shocks and major threats to health.

The changing health needs of the UK population.

The demographics of the UK population are changing and so is the need for health care. In this Health Policy, we explore the current health of the population, the changing health needs, and future threats to health. Relative to other high-income countries, the UK is lagging on many health outcomes, such as life expectancy and infant mortality, and there is a growing burden of mental illness. Successes exist, such as the striking improvements in oral health, but inequalities in health persist as well. The growth of the ageing population relative to the working-age population, the rise of multimorbidity, and persistent health inequalities, particularly for preventable illness, are all issues that the National Health Service (NHS) will face in the years to come. Meeting the challenges of the future will require an increased focus on health promotion and disease prevention, involving a more concerted effort to understand and tackle the multiple social, environmental, and economic factors that lie at the heart of health inequalities. The immediate priority of the NHS will be to mitigate the wider and long-term health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it must also strengthen its resilience to reduce the impact of other threats to health, such as the UK leaving the EU, climate change, and antimicrobial resistance.

Study of mirtazapine for agitated behaviours in dementia (SYMBAD): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Agitation is common in people with dementia and negatively affects the quality of life of both people with dementia and carers. Non-drug patient-centred care is the first-line treatment, but there is a need for other treatment when this care is not effective. Current evidence is sparse on safer and effective alternatives to antipsychotics. We assessed the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine, an antidepressant prescribed for agitation in dementia. METHODS: This parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial-the Study of Mirtazapine for Agitated Behaviours in Dementia trial (SYMBAD)-was done in 26 UK centres. Participants had probable or possible Alzheimer's disease, agitation unresponsive to non-drug treatment, and a Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score of 45 or more. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either mirtazapine (titrated to 45 mg) or placebo. The primary outcome was reduction in CMAI score at 12 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03031184, and ISRCTN17411897. FINDINGS: Between Jan 26, 2017, and March 6, 2020, 204 participants were recruited and randomised. Mean CMAI scores at 12 weeks were not significantly different between participants receiving mirtazapine and participants receiving placebo (adjusted mean difference -1·74, 95% CI -7·17 to 3·69; p=0·53). The number of controls with adverse events (65 [64%] of 102 controls) was similar to that in the mirtazapine group (67 [66%] of 102 participants receiving mirtazapine). However, there were more deaths in the mirtazapine group (n=7) by week 16 than in the control group (n=1), with post-hoc analysis suggesting this difference was of marginal statistical significance (p=0·065). INTERPRETATION: This trial found no benefit of mirtazapine compared with placebo, and we observed a potentially higher mortality with use of mirtazapine. The data from this study do not support using mirtazapine as a treatment for agitation in dementia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Cost-Effectiveness of Midazolam Versus Haloperidol Versus Olanzapine for the Management of Acute Agitation in the Accident and Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: A multicenter randomized clinical trial in Hong Kong Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments concluded that intramuscular (IM) olanzapine is noninferior to haloperidol and midazolam, in terms of efficacy and safety, for the management of acutely agitated patients in A&E setting. Determining their comparative cost-effectiveness will further provide an economic perspective to inform the choice of sedative in this setting. METHODS: This analysis used data from a randomized clinical trial conducted in Hong Kong A&E departments between December 2014 and September 2019. A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the 3 sedatives was conducted, from the A&E perspective and a within-trial time horizon, using a decision-analytic model. Sensitivity analyses were also undertaken. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, median total management costs associated with IM midazolam, haloperidol, and olanzapine were Hong Kong dollar (HKD) 1958.9 (US dollar [USD] 251.1), HKD 2504.5 (USD 321.1), and HKD 2467.6 (USD 316.4), respectively. Agitation management labor cost was the main cost driver, whereas drug costs contributed the least. Midazolam dominated over haloperidol and olanzapine. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported that midazolam remains dominant > 95% of the time and revealed no clear difference in the cost-effectiveness of IM olanzapine versus haloperidol (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 667.16; 95% confidence interval -770.89, 685.90). CONCLUSIONS: IM midazolam is the dominant cost-effective treatment for the management of acute agitation in the A&E setting. IM olanzapine could be considered as an alternative to IM haloperidol given that there is no clear difference in cost-effectiveness, and their adverse effect profile should be considered when choosing between them.