Effect of fluoridated water on invasive NHS dental treatments for adults: the LOTUS retrospective cohort study and economic evaluation.

Background: Most water fluoridation studies were conducted on children before the widespread introduction of fluoride toothpastes. There is a lack of evidence that can be applied to contemporary populations, particularly adolescents and adults. Objective: To pragmatically assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing dental treatment and improving oral health in a contemporary population of adults, using a natural experiment design. Design: Retrospective cohort study using routinely collected National Health Service dental claims (FP17) data. Setting: National Health Service primary dental care: general dental practices, prisons, community dental services, domiciliary settings, urgent/out-of-hours and specialised referral-only services. Participants: Dental patients aged 12 years and over living in England (n = 6,370,280). Intervention and comparison: Individuals exposed to drinking water with a fluoride concentration ≥ 0.7 mg F/l between 2010 and 2020 were matched to non-exposed individuals on key characteristics using propensity scores. Outcome measures: Primary: number of National Health Service invasive dental treatments (restorations/'fillings' and extractions) received per person between 2010 and 2020. Secondary: decayed, missing and filled teeth, missing teeth, inequalities, cost effectiveness and return on investment. Data sources: National Health Service Business Services Authority dental claims data. Water quality monitoring data. Primary outcome: Predicted mean number of invasive dental treatments was 3% lower in the optimally fluoridated group than in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (incidence rate ratio 0.969, 95% CI 0.967 to 0.971), a difference of -0.173 invasive dental treatments (95% CI -0.185 to -0.161). This magnitude of effect is smaller than what most stakeholders we engaged with (n = 50/54) considered meaningful. Secondary outcomes: Mean decayed, missing and filled teeth were 2% lower in the optimally fluoridated group, with a difference of -0.212 decayed, missing and filled teeth (95% CI -0.229 to -0.194). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of missing teeth per person (0.006, 95% CI -0.008 to 0.021). There was no compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in treatments received or missing teeth; however, decayed, missing and filled teeth data did not demonstrate a typical inequalities gradient. Optimal water fluoridation in England in 2010-20 was estimated to cost £10.30 per person (excluding original setup costs). Mean National Health Service treatment costs for fluoridated patients 2010-20 were 5.5% lower per person, by £22.26 (95% CI -£23.09 to -£21.43), and patients paid £7.64 less in National Health Service dental charges per person (2020 prices). Limitations: Pragmatic, observational study with potential for non-differential errors of misclassification in fluoridation assignment and outcome measurement and residual and/or unmeasured confounding. Decayed, missing and filled teeth data have not been validated. Water fluoridation cost estimates are based on existing programmes between 2010 and 2020, and therefore do not include the potentially significant capital investment required for new programmes. Conclusions: Receipt of optimal water fluoridation between 2010 and 2020 resulted in very small health effects, which may not be meaningful for individuals, and we could find no evidence of a reduction in social inequalities. Existing water fluoridation programmes in England produced a positive return on investment between 2010 and 2020 due to slightly lower National Health Service treatment costs. These relatively small savings should be evaluated against the projected costs and lifespan of any proposed capital investment in water fluoridation, including new programmes. Future work: National Health Service dental data are a valuable resource for research. Further validation and measures to improve quality and completeness are warranted. Trial registrations: This trial is registered as ISRCTN96479279, CAG: 20/CAG/0072, IRAS: 20/NE/0144. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128533) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Fluoride is a natural mineral that prevents tooth decay. It is added to some drinking water and toothpastes to improve dental health. Water with fluoride added is known as 'optimally fluoridated'. Most research on water fluoridation was carried out before fluoride was added to toothpastes in the 1970s and only included children. We wanted to know if water fluoridation still produced large reductions in tooth decay, now that decay levels are much lower because of fluoride in toothpaste. We also wanted to look at its effect on adults and teenagers. Dental patients we spoke to told us they worried about needing treatment with the 'drill', or 'injection', losing their teeth and paying for their dental care. To see if water fluoridation helped with these concerns, we compared the National Health Service dental records of 6.4 million adults and teenagers who received optimally fluoridated or non-optimally fluoridated water in England between 2010 and 2020. We found water fluoridation made a very small difference to each person. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of NHS fillings and extractions was 3% lower per person for those who received optimally fluoridated water. We found no difference in the number of teeth lost per person and no strong sign that fluoridation reduced differences in dental health between rich and poor areas. Between 2010 and 2020, the cost of optimal water fluoridation was £10.30 per person (not including setup costs). National Health Service dental patients who received optimally fluoridated water cost the National Health Service £22.26 (5.5%) less and paid £7.64 (2%) less per person in National Health Service dental charges over the 10 years. The benefits we found are much smaller than in the past, when toothpastes did not contain fluoride. The cost to set up a new water fluoridation programme can be high. Communities may need to consider if these smaller benefits would still outweigh the costs.

How effective and cost-effective is water fluoridation for adults and adolescents? The LOTUS 10-year retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To pragmatically assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing dental treatment and improving oral health in a contemporary population of adults and adolescents, using a natural experiment design. METHODS: A 10-year retrospective cohort study (2010-2020) using routinely collected NHS dental treatment claims data. Participants were patients aged 12 years and over, attending NHS primary dental care services in England (17.8 million patients). Using recorded residential locations, individuals exposed to drinking water with an optimal fluoride concentration (≥0.7 mg F/L) were matched to non-exposed individuals using propensity scores. Number of NHS invasive dental treatments, DMFT and missing teeth were compared between groups using negative binomial regression. Total NHS dental treatment costs and cost per invasive dental treatment avoided were calculated. RESULTS: Matching resulted in an analytical sample of 6.4 million patients. Predicted mean number of invasive NHS dental treatments (restorations 'fillings'/extractions) was 3% lower in the optimally fluoridated group (5.4) than the non-optimally fluoridated group (5.6) (IRR 0.969, 95% CI 0.967, 0.971). Predicted mean DMFT was 2% lower in the optimally fluoridated group (IRR 0.984, 95% CI 0.983, 0.985). There was no difference in the predicted mean number of missing teeth per person (IRR 1.001, 95% CI 0.999, 1.003) and no compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in dental health. Optimal water fluoridation in England 2010-2020 was estimated to cost £10.30 per person (excludes initial set-up costs). NHS dental treatment costs for optimally fluoridated patients 2010-2020 were 5.5% lower, by £22.26 per person (95% CI -£21.43, -£23.09). CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of optimal water fluoridation 2010-2020 resulted in very small positive health effects which may not be meaningful for individuals. Existing fluoridation programmes in England produced a positive return on investment between 2010 and 2020 due to slightly lower NHS dental care utilization. This return should be evaluated against the projected costs and lifespan of any proposed capital investment in water fluoridation, including new programmes.

Unlocking the potential of NHS primary care dental datasets.

Introduction Maximising the use of routinely collected health data for research is a key part of the UK Government's Industrial Strategy. Rich data are generated by NHS primary care dental services, but the extent of their use in research is unknown.Aims To profile the utility of the post-2006 NHS dental datasets for research, map how they have been used to date and develop recommendations to maximise their utility.Methods The content of and access to the four UK NHS dental datasets was collated using publicly available information and a free-text questionnaire, completed by the relevant data controllers. A scoping review was carried out to identify and map literature that has utilised NHS dental activity data.Results The contents of the UK NHS dental activity datasets are described, alongside how they may be accessed for research. Strengths and weaknesses of these datasets for research are highlighted. The scoping review identified 33 studies which had utilised NHS dental activity data since 2006. We classified 15 as public health practice, 11 as service evaluation and 7 as research.Conclusion In comparision to other NHS activity datasets, it appears that the UK dental datasets have been underutilised for research. We make 11 recommendations on how their utility for research may be increased.

Characterising vaping products in the United Kingdom: an analysis of Tobacco Products Directive notification data.

AIMS: To analyse content and emission data submitted by manufacturers for nicotine-containing vaping products in the United Kingdom (UK) in accordance with the European Union Tobacco Products Directive. DESIGN: Analysis of ingredient and emission data reported for all e-liquid-containing e-cigarettes, cartridges or refill containers notified to the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) from November 2016 to October 2017. SETTING: United Kingdom CASES: A total of 40 785 e-liquid containing products. MEASUREMENTS: The average number of ingredients per product, nicotine concentrations, frequency of occurrence ingredients and frequency and levels of chemical emissions. FINDINGS: Reports were not standardised in relation to units of measurement or constituent nomenclature. Products listed an average of 17 ingredients and 3.3% were reported not to contain nicotine. A total of 59% of products contained <12 mg nicotine per mL, and <1% were reported to have nicotine concentrations above the legal limit of 20 mg/mL. Over 1500 ingredients were reported, and other than nicotine the most commonly reported non-flavour ingredients were propylene glycol (97% of products) and glycerol (71%). The most common flavour ingredients were ethyl butyrate (42%), vanillin (35%) and ethyl maltol (33%). The most frequently reported chemical emissions were nicotine (65%), formaldehyde (48%) and acetaldehyde (40%). The reporting of the concentration of emissions was not standardised; emissions were reported in a format allowing analysis of median estimated concentration for between 13% and 100% of products for each reported emission. Most of the frequently reported emissions, other than nicotine, were present in median estimated concentrations below 1 µg/L of inspired air, and with the exception of nicotine, acrolein and diacetyl, at median levels below European Chemicals Agency Long Term Exposure and United States (US) Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits, where these were available. CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of reports to the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency by manufacturers of vaping products shows that (i) these products have a large range of ingredients and emissions, (ii) the reporting system is unstandardized in terms of reporting requirements, and (iii) for quantified emissions, median levels are for the most part below published safe limits for ambient air.

The effect of tobacco and alcohol consumption on poverty in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Tobacco and alcohol use are major risk factors for premature mortality and morbidity. Tobacco and alcohol expenditure may also exacerbate poverty. This study aimed to estimate the financial impact of tobacco and alcohol consumption in low income households in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: We undertook a cross-sectional study using a secondary dataset. A sample of 5031 households participated in the 2016-17 Living Costs and Food Survey. Measurements We measured the weekly household income and expenditure on tobacco and alcohol, and the proportion of households with expenditure on tobacco and alcohol overall, by income decile and in households in relative poverty (below 60% of the median household income). Estimates were extrapolated using population data to estimate the number of UK households, adults and children that would be classified as living in relative poverty on the basis of net income after subtracting tobacco or alcohol expenditure ('tobacco and alcohol expenditure-adjusted poverty'). FINDINGS: Spending on alcohol was more common in high income groups; 83% of households in the highest and 47% in the lowest income decile purchased alcohol. The reverse was true for tobacco, which was purchased by 8% and 24% of households in the highest and lowest income deciles respectively. Twenty-three percent of households in relative poverty purchased tobacco and 49% alcohol, with a median expenditure of £12.50 and £9.55 per week, respectively. A total of 320 000 households comprising 590 000 adults and 175 000 children were in alcohol expenditure-adjusted poverty, and 230 000 households, comprising 400 000 adults and 180 000 children in tobacco-expenditure adjusted poverty. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco and alcohol expenditure appear to exacerbate poverty in low income households in the United Kingdom. Hundreds of thousands of additional households would be defined as living in relative poverty based on their income after subtracting their tobacco and alcohol expenditure.

Vitamin E acetate is not present in licit e-cigarette products available on the UK market.

AIMS: To determine whether nicotine-containing vaping products submitted to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 contain tetrahydrocannabinol or vitamin E acetate. METHODS: Analysis of data on ingredients for all products submitted for notification for the UK market by October 2017 to assess whether any were reported to contain vitamin E acetate or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The analysis was not pre-registered and the results should therefore be considered exploratory. RESULTS: Vitamin E acetate and THC were not listed as an ingredient or emission in any of the 41 809 products that were submitted for notification. CONCLUSIONS: In the United Kingdom, vapers and those considering switching from tobacco to vaping can be reassured that licit products available on the UK market do not contain tetrahydrocannabinol or vitamin E acetate.

Enhanced smoking cessation support for newly abstinent smokers discharged from hospital (the Hospital to Home trial): a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance (NICE PH48) recommends that pharmacotherapy combined with behavioural support be provided for all smokers admitted to hospital; however, relapse to smoking after discharge remains common. This study aimed to assess the effect of adding home support for newly abstinent smokers to conventional NICE-recommended support in smokers discharged from hospital. DESIGN: Individually randomized parallel group trial. SETTING: One UK acute hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 404 smokers aged > 18 admitted to acute medical wards between June 2016 and July 2017 were randomized in equal numbers to each treatment group. INTERVENTIONS AND COMPARATORS: The intervention provided 12 weeks of at-home cessation support, which included help in maintaining a smoke-free home, help in accessing and using medication, further behavioural support and personalized feedback on home air quality. The comparator was NICE PH48 care as usual. MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported continuous abstinence from smoking validated by an exhaled carbon monoxide level < 6 parts per million 4 weeks after discharge from hospital. FINDINGS: In an intention-to-treat analysis at the 4-week primary end-point, 38 participants (18.8%) in the usual care group and 43 (21.3%) in the intervention group reported continuous abstinence from smoking (odds ratio = 1.17, 95% confidence interval = 0.72 to 1.90, Bayes factor = 0.33). There were no significant differences in any secondary outcomes, including self-reported cessation at 3 months, having a smoke-free home or number of cigarettes smoked per day in those who did not quit. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of a home visit and continued support to prevent relapse to smoking after hospital discharge did not appear to increase subsequent abstinence rate above usual care in accordance with UK guidance from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence.