Cost effectiveness analysis of the East of England stroke telemedicine service.

INTRODUCTION: Stroke is the fourth single leading cause of death in the UK with more than 100,000 people diagnosed with stroke annually. Timely access to urgent care and treatments, such as thrombolysis, is crucial for survival and recovery but there are national variations in care access. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We explore the cost-effectiveness of an integrated telemedicine service for rapid access to stroke Consultant support in the East of England acute stroke care pathway compared to usual care during out-of-hour periods. The Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) health economics thrombolysis tool enabled us to compare the service with usual acute stroke care pathway. The tool was used to estimate costs and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain associated with improved thrombolysis rates from a health and social care perspective. RESULTS: Based on SSNAP data, an average of 1,861 stroke patients were admitted out-of-hours in the participating centres annually between 2014 and 2019. Average thrombolysis rate was 9.7% when using a telemedicine service across the centres relative to the total stroke patients that presented out-of-hours. The total NHS cost savings compared to usual care were estimated at £482k and £471k while social care cost savings were £1.7m and £536k at the end of 1-year and 5-years respectively. CONCLUSION: Integrating a telemedicine service improves thrombolysis rates in out-of-hours acute stroke care and is associated with NHS and social care savings and QALY gains. Telemedicine is a cost-effective approach to delivering stroke care to remote communities with limited access to stroke specialists.

Prevention of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized older patients with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy: the SENATOR* randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Multi-morbidity and polypharmacy increase the risk of non-trivial adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in older people during hospitalization. Despite this, there are no established interventions for hospital-acquired ADR prevention. METHODS: We undertook a pragmatic, multi-national, parallel arm prospective randomized open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) controlled trial enrolling patients at six European medical centres. We randomized 1,537 older medical and surgical patients with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy on admission in a 1:1 ratio to SENATOR software-guided medication optimization plus standard care (intervention, n = 772, mean number of daily medications = 9.34) or standard care alone (control, n = 765, mean number of daily medications = 9.23) using block randomization stratified by site and admission type. Attending clinicians in the intervention arm received SENATOR-generated advice at a single time point with recommendations they could choose to adopt or not. The primary endpoint was occurrence of probable or certain ADRs within 14 days of randomization. Secondary endpoints were primary endpoint derivatives; tertiary endpoints included all-cause mortality, re-hospitalization, composite healthcare utilization and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: For the primary endpoint, there was no difference between the intervention and control groups (24.5 vs. 24.8%; OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.77-1.24; P = 0.88). Similarly, with secondary and tertiary endpoints, there were no significant differences. Among attending clinicians in the intervention group, implementation of SENATOR software-generated medication advice points was poor (~15%). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, uptake of software-generated medication advice to minimize ADRs was poor and did not reduce ADR incidence during index hospitalization.

Screening in the community to reduce fractures in older women (SCOOP): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite effective assessment methods and medications targeting osteoporosis and related fractures, screening for fracture risk is not currently advocated in the UK. We tested whether a community-based screening intervention could reduce fractures in older women. METHODS: We did a two-arm randomised controlled trial in women aged 70-85 years to compare a screening programme using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) with usual management. Women were recruited from 100 general practitioner (GP) practices in seven regions of the UK: Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Norwich, Sheffield, Southampton, and York. We excluded women who were currently on prescription anti-osteoporotic drugs and any individuals deemed to be unsuitable to enter a research study (eg, known dementia, terminally ill, or recently bereaved). The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals who had one or more osteoporosis-related fractures over a 5-year period. In the screening group, treatment was recommended in women identified to be at high risk of hip fracture, according to the FRAX 10-year hip fracture probability. Prespecified secondary outcomes were the proportions of participants who had at least one hip fracture, any clinical fracture, or mortality; and the effect of screening on anxiety and health-related quality of life. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN 55814835. FINDINGS: 12 483 eligible women were identified and participated in the trial, and 6233 women randomly assigned to the screening group between April 15, 2008, and July 2, 2009. Treatment was recommended in 898 (14%) of 6233 women. Use of osteoporosis medication was higher at the end of year 1 in the screening group compared with controls (15% vs 4%), with uptake particularly high (78% at 6 months) in the screening high-risk subgroup. Screening did not reduce the primary outcome of incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·85-1·03, p=0·178), nor the overall incidence of all clinical fractures (0·94, 0·86-1·03, p=0·183), but screening reduced the incidence of hip fractures (0·72, 0·59-0·89, p=0·002). There was no evidence of differences in mortality, anxiety levels, or quality of life. INTERPRETATION: Systematic, community-based screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK is feasible, and could be effective in reducing hip fractures. FUNDING: Arthritis Research UK and Medical Research Council.

The effect of SENATOR (Software ENgine for the Assessment and optimisation of drug and non-drug Therapy in Older peRsons) on incident adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in an older hospital cohort - Trial Protocol.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this trial is to evaluate the effect of SENATOR software on incident, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in older, multimorbid, hospitalized patients. The SENATOR software produces a report designed to optimize older patients' current prescriptions by applying the published STOPP and START criteria, highlighting drug-drug and drug-disease interactions and providing non-pharmacological recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of incident delirium. METHODS: We will conduct a multinational, pragmatic, parallel arm Prospective Randomized Open-label, Blinded Endpoint (PROBE) controlled trial. Patients with acute illnesses are screened for recruitment within 48 h of arrival to hospital and enrolled if they meet the relevant entry criteria. Participants' medical history, current prescriptions, select laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, cognitive status and functional status are collected and entered into a dedicated trial database. Patients are individually randomized with equal allocation ratio. Randomization is stratified by site and medical versus surgical admission, and uses random block sizes. Patients randomized to either arm receive standard routine pharmaceutical clinical care as it exists in each site. Additionally, in the intervention arm an individualized SENATOR-generated medication advice report based on the participant's clinical and medication data is placed in their medical record and a senior medical staff member is requested to review it and adopt any of its recommendations that they judge appropriate. The trial's primary outcome is the proportion of patients experiencing at least one adjudicated probable or certain, non-trivial ADR, during the index hospitalization, assessed at 14 days post-randomization or at index hospital discharge if it occurs earlier. Potential ADRs are identified retrospectively by the site researchers who complete a Potential Endpoint Form (one per type of event) that is adjudicated by a blinded, expert committee. All occurrences of 12 pre-specified events, which represent the majority of ADRs, are reported to the committee along with other suspected ADRs. Participants are followed up 12 (+/- 4) weeks post-index hospital discharge to assess medication quality and healthcare utilization. This is the first clinical trial to examine the effectiveness of a software intervention on incident ADRs and associated healthcare costs during hospitalization in older people with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02097654 , 27 March 2014.

Estimating the variation in need for community-based social care by body mass index in England and associated cost: population-based cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Adult obesity is linked to a greater need for social care because of its association with the development of long term conditions and because obese adults can have physical and social difficulties which inhibit daily living. Obesity thus has considerable social care cost implications but the magnitude of these costs is currently unknown. This paper outlines an approach to estimating obesity-related social care costs in adults aged over 65 in England. METHODS: We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression models to investigate the relation between the self-reported need for social care and potential determinants, including body mass index (BMI), using data from Health Survey for England. We combined these modelled estimates of need for social care with the mean hours of help received, conditional on receiving any help, to calculate the expected hours of social care received per adult by BMI. RESULTS: BMI is positively associated with self-reported need for social care. A one unit (ie 1 kg/m2) increase in BMI is on average associated with a 5% increase in the odds of need for help with social care (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.07) in an unadjusted model. Adjusting for long term illness and sociodemographic characteristics we estimate the annual cost of local authority funded care for those who receive it is £599 at a BMI of 23 but £1086 at a BMI of 40. CONCLUSION: BMI is positively associated with self-reported need for social care after adjustment for sociodemographic factors and limiting long term illness. The increase in need for care with BMI gives rise to additional costs in social care provision which should be borne in mind when calculating the cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing obesity.

Improving adherence to glaucoma medication: a randomised controlled trial of a patient-centred intervention (The Norwich Adherence Glaucoma Study).

BACKGROUND: Improving adherence to ocular hypertension (OH)/glaucoma therapy is highly likely to prevent or reduce progression of optic nerve damage. The present study used a behaviour change counselling intervention to determine whether education and support was beneficial and cost-effective in improving adherence with glaucoma therapy. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial with a 13-month recruitment and 8-month follow-up period was conducted. Patients with OH/glaucoma attending a glaucoma clinic and starting treatment with travoprost were approached. Participants were randomised into two groups and adherence was measured over 8 months, using an electronic monitoring device (Travalert® dosing aid, TDA). The control group received standard clinical care, and the intervention group received a novel glaucoma education and motivational support package using behaviour change counselling. Cost-effectiveness framework analysis was used to estimate any potential cost benefit of improving adherence. RESULTS: Two hundred and eight patients were recruited (102 intervention, 106 control). No significant difference in mean adherence over the monitoring period was identified with 77.2% (CI, 73.0, 81.4) for the control group and 74.8% (CI, 69.7, 79.9) for the intervention group (p = 0.47). Similarly, there was no significant difference in percentage intraocular pressure reduction; 27.6% (CI, 23.5, 31.7) for the control group and 25.3% (CI, 21.06, 29.54) for the intervention group (p = 0.45). Participants in the intervention group were more satisfied with information about glaucoma medication with a mean score of 14.47/17 (CI, 13.85, 15.0) compared with control group which was 8.51 (CI, 7.72, 9.30). The mean intervention cost per patient was GB£10.35 (

Early economic evaluation of the digital gait analysis system for fall prevention-Preliminary analysis of the GaitSmart system.

Objective: To develop an early economics evaluation (EEE) to assess the cost-effectiveness of the GS in reducing the RoF and FoF. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) with a return on investment (RoI) estimation was performed. CEA used the most relevant parameters, such as increased gait speed and decreased FoF, to estimate the reduction in the RoF, the impact on health care resources used and financial implications for the National Health System in the United Kingdom. Outcomes were measured as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained based on the reduction of the RoF and FoF. Uncertainties around the main parameters used were evaluated by probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: The CEA results showed that the GS is a dominant strategy over the standard of care to improve the movements of older persons who have suffered a fall or are afraid of falling (incremental QALYs based on FoF = 0.77 and QALYs based on RoF = 1.07, cost of FoF = -£4479.57 and cost of RoF = -£2901.79). By implementing the GS, the ROI results suggest that every pound invested in the GS could result in cost savings of £1.85/patient based on the RoF reduction and £11.16/patient based on the FoF reduction. The probability of being cost saving based on the number of iterations were 79.4 percent (based on FoF) and 100 percent (based on RoF). Conclusion: The EEE supports the main hypothesis that the GS is an effective intervention to avoid falls and is potentially cost saving.

A cost-minimisation study of 1,001 NHS Direct users.

BACKGROUND: To determine financial and quality of life impact of patients calling the '0845' NHS Direct (NHS Direct) telephone helpline from the perspective of NHS service providers. METHODS: Cost-minimisation of repeated cohort measures from a National Survey of NHS Direct's telephone service using telephone survey results. 1,001 people contacting NHS Direct's 0845 telephone service in 2009 who agreed to a 4-6 week follow-up. A cost comparison between NHS Direct recommendation and patient-stated first alternative had NHS Direct not been available. Analysis also considers impact on quality of life of NHS Direct recommendations using the Visual Analogue Scale of the EQ-5D. RESULTS: Significant referral pattern differences were observed between NHS Direct recommendation and patient-stated first alternatives (p < 0.001). Per patient cost savings resulted from NHS Direct's recommendation to attend A&E (£36.54); GP Practice (£19.41); Walk-In Centre (£49.85); Pharmacist (£25.80); Dentist (£2.35) and do nothing/treat at home (£19.77), while it was marginally more costly for 999 calls (£3.33). Overall an average per patient saving of £19.55 was found (a 36% saving compared with patient-stated first alternatives). For 5 million NHS Direct telephone calls per year, this represents an annual cost saving of £97,756,013. Significant quality of life differences were observed at baseline and follow-up between those who believed their problem was 'urgent' (p = 0.001) and those who said it was 'non-urgent' (p = 0.045). Whilst both groups improved, self-classified 'urgent' cases made greater health gains than those who said they were 'non-urgent' (urgent by 21.5 points; non-urgent by 16.1 points). CONCLUSIONS: The '0845' service of NHS Direct produced substantial cost savings in terms of referrals to the other parts of the NHS when compared with patients' own stated first alternative. Health-related quality of life also improved for users of this service demonstrating that these savings can be produced without perceived harm to patients.

The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health.

Background: Plastics have conveyed great benefits to humanity and made possible some of the most significant advances of modern civilization in fields as diverse as medicine, electronics, aerospace, construction, food packaging, and sports. It is now clear, however, that plastics are also responsible for significant harms to human health, the economy, and the earth's environment. These harms occur at every stage of the plastic life cycle, from extraction of the coal, oil, and gas that are its main feedstocks through to ultimate disposal into the environment. The extent of these harms not been systematically assessed, their magnitude not fully quantified, and their economic costs not comprehensively counted. Goals: The goals of this Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health are to comprehensively examine plastics' impacts across their life cycle on: (1) human health and well-being; (2) the global environment, especially the ocean; (3) the economy; and (4) vulnerable populations-the poor, minorities, and the world's children. On the basis of this examination, the Commission offers science-based recommendations designed to support development of a Global Plastics Treaty, protect human health, and save lives. Report Structure: This Commission report contains seven Sections. Following an Introduction, Section 2 presents a narrative review of the processes involved in plastic production, use, and disposal and notes the hazards to human health and the environment associated with each of these stages. Section 3 describes plastics' impacts on the ocean and notes the potential for plastic in the ocean to enter the marine food web and result in human exposure. Section 4 details plastics' impacts on human health. Section 5 presents a first-order estimate of plastics' health-related economic costs. Section 6 examines the intersection between plastic, social inequity, and environmental injustice. Section 7 presents the Commission's findings and recommendations. Plastics: Plastics are complex, highly heterogeneous, synthetic chemical materials. Over 98% of plastics are produced from fossil carbon- coal, oil and gas. Plastics are comprised of a carbon-based polymer backbone and thousands of additional chemicals that are incorporated into polymers to convey specific properties such as color, flexibility, stability, water repellence, flame retardation, and ultraviolet resistance. Many of these added chemicals are highly toxic. They include carcinogens, neurotoxicants and endocrine disruptors such as phthalates, bisphenols, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), brominated flame retardants, and organophosphate flame retardants. They are integral components of plastic and are responsible for many of plastics' harms to human health and the environment.Global plastic production has increased almost exponentially since World War II, and in this time more than 8,300 megatons (Mt) of plastic have been manufactured. Annual production volume has grown from under 2 Mt in 1950 to 460 Mt in 2019, a 230-fold increase, and is on track to triple by 2060. More than half of all plastic ever made has been produced since 2002. Single-use plastics account for 35-40% of current plastic production and represent the most rapidly growing segment of plastic manufacture.Explosive recent growth in plastics production reflects a deliberate pivot by the integrated multinational fossil-carbon corporations that produce coal, oil and gas and that also manufacture plastics. These corporations are reducing their production of fossil fuels and increasing plastics manufacture. The two principal factors responsible for this pivot are decreasing global demand for carbon-based fuels due to increases in 'green' energy, and massive expansion of oil and gas production due to fracking.Plastic manufacture is energy-intensive and contributes significantly to climate change. At present, plastic production is responsible for an estimated 3.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than the contribution of Brazil. This fraction is projected to increase to 4.5% by 2060 if current trends continue unchecked. Plastic Life Cycle: The plastic life cycle has three phases: production, use, and disposal. In production, carbon feedstocks-coal, gas, and oil-are transformed through energy-intensive, catalytic processes into a vast array of products. Plastic use occurs in every aspect of modern life and results in widespread human exposure to the chemicals contained in plastic. Single-use plastics constitute the largest portion of current use, followed by synthetic fibers and construction.Plastic disposal is highly inefficient, with recovery and recycling rates below 10% globally. The result is that an estimated 22 Mt of plastic waste enters the environment each year, much of it single-use plastic and are added to the more than 6 gigatons of plastic waste that have accumulated since 1950. Strategies for disposal of plastic waste include controlled and uncontrolled landfilling, open burning, thermal conversion, and export. Vast quantities of plastic waste are exported each year from high-income to low-income countries, where it accumulates in landfills, pollutes air and water, degrades vital ecosystems, befouls beaches and estuaries, and harms human health-environmental injustice on a global scale. Plastic-laden e-waste is particularly problematic. Environmental Findings: Plastics and plastic-associated chemicals are responsible for widespread pollution. They contaminate aquatic (marine and freshwater), terrestrial, and atmospheric environments globally. The ocean is the ultimate destination for much plastic, and plastics are found throughout the ocean, including coastal regions, the sea surface, the deep sea, and polar sea ice. Many plastics appear to resist breakdown in the ocean and could persist in the global environment for decades. Macro- and micro-plastic particles have been identified in hundreds of marine species in all major taxa, including species consumed by humans. Trophic transfer of microplastic particles and the chemicals within them has been demonstrated. Although microplastic particles themselves (>10 µm) appear not to undergo biomagnification, hydrophobic plastic-associated chemicals bioaccumulate in marine animals and biomagnify in marine food webs. The amounts and fates of smaller microplastic and nanoplastic particles (MNPs <10 µm) in aquatic environments are poorly understood, but the potential for harm is worrying given their mobility in biological systems. Adverse environmental impacts of plastic pollution occur at multiple levels from molecular and biochemical to population and ecosystem. MNP contamination of seafood results in direct, though not well quantified, human exposure to plastics and plastic-associated chemicals. Marine plastic pollution endangers the ocean ecosystems upon which all humanity depends for food, oxygen, livelihood, and well-being. Human Health Findings: Coal miners, oil workers and gas field workers who extract fossil carbon feedstocks for plastic production suffer increased mortality from traumatic injury, coal workers' pneumoconiosis, silicosis, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer. Plastic production workers are at increased risk of leukemia, lymphoma, hepatic angiosarcoma, brain cancer, breast cancer, mesothelioma, neurotoxic injury, and decreased fertility. Workers producing plastic textiles die of bladder cancer, lung cancer, mesothelioma, and interstitial lung disease at increased rates. Plastic recycling workers have increased rates of cardiovascular disease, toxic metal poisoning, neuropathy, and lung cancer. Residents of "fenceline" communities adjacent to plastic production and waste disposal sites experience increased risks of premature birth, low birth weight, asthma, childhood leukemia, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer.During use and also in disposal, plastics release toxic chemicals including additives and residual monomers into the environment and into people. National biomonitoring surveys in the USA document population-wide exposures to these chemicals. Plastic additives disrupt endocrine function and increase risk for premature births, neurodevelopmental disorders, male reproductive birth defects, infertility, obesity, cardiovascular disease, renal disease, and cancers. Chemical-laden MNPs formed through the environmental degradation of plastic waste can enter living organisms, including humans. Emerging, albeit still incomplete evidence indicates that MNPs may cause toxicity due to their physical and toxicological effects as well as by acting as vectors that transport toxic chemicals and bacterial pathogens into tissues and cells.Infants in the womb and young children are two populations at particularly high risk of plastic-related health effects. Because of the exquisite sensitivity of early development to hazardous chemicals and children's unique patterns of exposure, plastic-associated exposures are linked to increased risks of prematurity, stillbirth, low birth weight, birth defects of the reproductive organs, neurodevelopmental impairment, impaired lung growth, and childhood cancer. Early-life exposures to plastic-associated chemicals also increase the risk of multiple non-communicable diseases later in life. Economic Findings: Plastic's harms to human health result in significant economic costs. We estimate that in 2015 the health-related costs of plastic production exceeded $250 billion (2015 Int$) globally, and that in the USA alone the health costs of disease and disability caused by the plastic-associated chemicals PBDE, BPA and DEHP exceeded $920 billion (2015 Int$). Plastic production results in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions equivalent to 1.96 gigatons of carbon dioxide (CO2e) annually. Using the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) social cost of carbonmetric, we estimate the annual costs of these GHG emissions to be $341 billion (2015 Int$).These costs, large as they are, almost certainly underestimate the full economic losses resulting from plastics' negative impacts on human health and the global environment. All of plastics' economic costs-and also its social costs-are externalized by the petrochemical and plastic manufacturing industry and are borne by citizens, taxpayers, and governments in countries around the world without compensation. Social Justice Findings: The adverse effects of plastics and plastic pollution on human health, the economy and the environment are not evenly distributed. They disproportionately affect poor, disempowered, and marginalized populations such as workers, racial and ethnic minorities, "fenceline" communities, Indigenous groups, women, and children, all of whom had little to do with creating the current plastics crisis and lack the political influence or the resources to address it. Plastics' harmful impacts across its life cycle are most keenly felt in the Global South, in small island states, and in disenfranchised areas in the Global North. Social and environmental justice (SEJ) principles require reversal of these inequitable burdens to ensure that no group bears a disproportionate share of plastics' negative impacts and that those who benefit economically from plastic bear their fair share of its currently externalized costs. Conclusions: It is now clear that current patterns of plastic production, use, and disposal are not sustainable and are responsible for significant harms to human health, the environment, and the economy as well as for deep societal injustices.The main driver of these worsening harms is an almost exponential and still accelerating increase in global plastic production. Plastics' harms are further magnified by low rates of recovery and recycling and by the long persistence of plastic waste in the environment.The thousands of chemicals in plastics-monomers, additives, processing agents, and non-intentionally added substances-include amongst their number known human carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, neurotoxicants, and persistent organic pollutants. These chemicals are responsible for many of plastics' known harms to human and planetary health. The chemicals leach out of plastics, enter the environment, cause pollution, and result in human exposure and disease. All efforts to reduce plastics' hazards must address the hazards of plastic-associated chemicals. Recommendations: To protect human and planetary health, especially the health of vulnerable and at-risk populations, and put the world on track to end plastic pollution by 2040, this Commission supports urgent adoption by the world's nations of a strong and comprehensive Global Plastics Treaty in accord with the mandate set forth in the March 2022 resolution of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA).International measures such as a Global Plastics Treaty are needed to curb plastic production and pollution, because the harms to human health and the environment caused by plastics, plastic-associated chemicals and plastic waste transcend national boundaries, are planetary in their scale, and have disproportionate impacts on the health and well-being of people in the world's poorest nations. Effective implementation of the Global Plastics Treaty will require that international action be coordinated and complemented by interventions at the national, regional, and local levels.This Commission urges that a cap on global plastic production with targets, timetables, and national contributions be a central provision of the Global Plastics Treaty. We recommend inclusion of the following additional provisions:The Treaty needs to extend beyond microplastics and marine litter to include all of the many thousands of chemicals incorporated into plastics.The Treaty needs to include a provision banning or severely restricting manufacture and use of unnecessary, avoidable, and problematic plastic items, especially single-use items such as manufactured plastic microbeads.The Treaty needs to include requirements on extended producer responsibility (EPR) that make fossil carbon producers, plastic producers, and the manufacturers of plastic products legally and financially responsible for the safety and end-of-life management of all the materials they produce and sell.The Treaty needs to mandate reductions in the chemical complexity of plastic products; health-protective standards for plastics and plastic additives; a requirement for use of sustainable non-toxic materials; full disclosure of all components; and traceability of components. International cooperation will be essential to implementing and enforcing these standards.The Treaty needs to include SEJ remedies at each stage of the plastic life cycle designed to fill gaps in community knowledge and advance both distributional and procedural equity.This Commission encourages inclusion in the Global Plastic Treaty of a provision calling for exploration of listing at least some plastic polymers as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm Convention.This Commission encourages a strong interface between the Global Plastics Treaty and the Basel and London Conventions to enhance management of hazardous plastic waste and slow current massive exports of plastic waste into the world's least-developed countries.This Commission recommends the creation of a Permanent Science Policy Advisory Body to guide the Treaty's implementation. The main priorities of this Body would be to guide Member States and other stakeholders in evaluating which solutions are most effective in reducing plastic consumption, enhancing plastic waste recovery and recycling, and curbing the generation of plastic waste. This Body could also assess trade-offs among these solutions and evaluate safer alternatives to current plastics. It could monitor the transnational export of plastic waste. It could coordinate robust oceanic-, land-, and air-based MNP monitoring programs.This Commission recommends urgent investment by national governments in research into solutions to the global plastic crisis. This research will need to determine which solutions are most effective and cost-effective in the context of particular countries and assess the risks and benefits of proposed solutions. Oceanographic and environmental research is needed to better measure concentrations and impacts of plastics <10 µm and understand their distribution and fate in the global environment. Biomedical research is needed to elucidate the human health impacts of plastics, especially MNPs. Summary: This Commission finds that plastics are both a boon to humanity and a stealth threat to human and planetary health. Plastics convey enormous benefits, but current linear patterns of plastic production, use, and disposal that pay little attention to sustainable design or safe materials and a near absence of recovery, reuse, and recycling are responsible for grave harms to health, widespread environmental damage, great economic costs, and deep societal injustices. These harms are rapidly worsening.While there remain gaps in knowledge about plastics' harms and uncertainties about their full magnitude, the evidence available today demonstrates unequivocally that these impacts are great and that they will increase in severity in the absence of urgent and effective intervention at global scale. Manufacture and use of essential plastics may continue. However, reckless increases in plastic production, and especially increases in the manufacture of an ever-increasing array of unnecessary single-use plastic products, need to be curbed.Global intervention against the plastic crisis is needed now because the costs of failure to act will be immense.

Correction: The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.5334/aogh.4056.].

Decision-making criteria among national policymakers in five countries: a discrete choice experiment eliciting relative preferences for equity and efficiency.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, there is a need for formalization of the priority setting processes in health. Recent research has used the term multicriteria decision analysis for methods that systematically include preferences for both equity and efficiency. The present study compares decision-makers' preferences at the country level for a set of equity and efficiency criteria according to a multicriteria decision analysis framework. METHODS: Discrete choice experiments were conducted for Brazil, Cuba, Nepal, Norway, and Uganda. By using standardized methods, we elicited preferences for intervention attributes using a individual choice questionnaire. A multinomial logistic regression was applied to estimate the coefficients for all single-policy criteria, per country. Attributes were assigned to an equity group or to an efficiency group. After testing for scale variance, predicted probabilities for interventions with both types of attributes were compared across countries. RESULTS: The Norway and Nepal groups showed considerable preferences for efficiency criteria over equity criteria with percent change in respective predicted sum probabilities of [10%, -84%] and [6%, -79%]. Brazil and Uganda also showed preference for the efficiency criteria though less convincingly ([-34%, -93%], [-18%, -63%], respectively). The Cuban group showed the strongest preferences with equity attributes dominating efficiency ([-52%, 213%]). CONCLUSIONS: Group preferences of policymakers show explicit but varying trade-offs of efficiency and equity in these diverse settings. This multicriteria decision analysis approach, using discrete choice experiments, indicates that systematic setting of health priorities is possible across a variety of countries. It may be a valuable tool to guide health reform initiatives.

The indirect cost due to pulmonary Tuberculosis in patients receiving treatment in Bauchi State-Nigeria.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the time spent and income lost by patients and their households for seeking tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment in Bauchi State-Nigeria. METHOD: A cross sectional study where 242 TB patients were sampled from 27 out of 67 facilities providing TB services in a north-eastern state of Nigeria. Sampling was stratified based on facility type, patients' HIV status and gender. RESULTS: The income lost among the hospitalized group was estimated at $156/patient and about $114 in the non-hospitalized patients group. Age, gender, facility of diagnosis, level of education and occupation were significant (p-values <0.05) associated with total (both patients and their households) income lost. However, AFB sputum-smear result and HIV status had no significant effects on the income lost. Hospitalised patients spent an average time of 924.98 hours for diagnosis and treatment whereas the non-hospitalised spent an average of 141.29 hours. The estimated US dollar valued of these hours was US517.98 and US$79.13 for hospitalised and non-hospitalised patient groups respectively. Hospitalisation and the facility of diagnosis were statistically significant (p-value <0.05) predictors of the time patients and household spent on TB. CONCLUSION: Tuberculosis poses causes tremendous burden in terms of time and productivity lost to both patients and their households in Bauchi State Nigeria.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial to estimate the effects and costs of a patient centred educational intervention in glaucoma management.

BACKGROUND: Poor glaucoma education is thought to be a causative factor of non-adherence to glaucoma therapy. However, the multi-factorial nature of non-adherent behaviour may explain the failure of purely educational interventions to achieve significant improvement in adherence. Behaviour Change Counselling (BCC) allows both the imparting of information and assessment of patient ambivalence to medication use and may elicit behaviour change in order to achieve better adherence. The chronic and complex nature of glaucoma means that patient non-adherence to glaucoma therapy does not easily correlate with measureable objective clinical endpoints. However, electronic medication monitoring offers an objective method of measuring adherence without reliance on clinical endpoints. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with glaucoma (open angle) or ocular hypertension patients attending a glaucoma clinic and prescribed travoprost. The study will determine whether additional glaucoma education using BCC is beneficial and cost effective in improving adherence with glaucoma therapy. An 8-month follow-up period, using an electronic adherence monitoring device (Travalert dosing aid, TDA), will indicate if the intervention is likely to be sustained in the longer term. Additionally, a cost-effectiveness framework will be used to estimate the cost benefit of improving adherence. The development of a novel intervention to deliver glaucoma education using BCC required practitioner training and fidelity testing. Five practitioners were successfully trained to become Glaucoma Support Assistants able to deliver the BCC intervention. The research group had prior clinical and investigative experience in this setting, and used multiple strategies to design a method to address the study objectives. DISCUSSION: This RCT, using BCC to improve adherence to ocular hypotensive therapy, to our knowledge is the first within this disease area. Using a variety of adherence measures allows examination of the known inaccuracies of patient self-report with respect to glaucoma medication. The novel BCC component has undergone fidelity testing using BECCI and the BCC template will ensure conformity to a standardised intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN89683704.

Feasibility, acceptability and costs of nurse-led Alpha-Stim cranial electrostimulation to treat anxiety and depression in university students.

BACKGROUND: Only a relatively low proportion of university students seek help for anxiety and depression disorders, partly because they dislike current drug and psychological treatment options and would prefer home-based care. The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility, acceptability and cost utility of Alpha-Stim cranial electrostimulation (CES) delivered through a nurse led primary care clinic as a daily treatment for anxiety and depression symptoms by the student at home in contrast to usual primary care. METHOD: Feasibility and acceptability of a nurse led clinic offering Alpha-Stim CES in terms of the take up and completion of the six-week course of Alpha-Stim CES. Change in score on the GAD-7 and PHQ-9 as measures of anxiety and depression symptoms at baseline and at 8 weeks following a course of Alpha-Stim CES. Similar evaluation in a non-randomised control group attending a family doctor over the same period. Cost-utility analysis of the nurse led Alpha-Stim CES and family doctor pathways with participants failing to improve following further NICE Guideline clinical care (facilitated self-help and cognitive behaviour therapy). RESULTS: Of 47 students (mean age 22.1, years, 79% female opting for Alpha-Stim CES at the nurse-led clinic 46 (97.9%) completed a 6-week daily course. Forty-seven (47) students comprised a comparison group receiving usual family doctor care. Both Alpha-Stim CES and usual family doctor care were associated with large effect size reductions in GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores from baseline to 8 weeks. There were no adverse effects and only one participant showed a clinically important deterioration in the Alpha-Stim group. In the cost utility analysis, Alpha-Stim CES was a cheaper option than usual family doctor care under all deterministic or probabilistic assumptions. CONCLUSION: Nurse delivered Alpha-Stim CES may be a feasible, acceptable and cheaper way of providing greater choice and home-based care for some university students seeking help from primary care with new presentations of anxiety and depression.

Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?

BACKGROUND: Debates surrounding the use of conventional approaches in public health and the existence of perceived barriers to using the results of economic evaluations have led to questions posed as to how to establish priorities within public health schemes. The aims of this study were therefore to explore the feasibility and validity of economic evaluation techniques in developing priorities within public health programmes and consider the extent to which different presentational approaches are likely to be incorporated into decision-making, from perspectives of relevant stakeholders. METHODS: An advisory board, representative of potential users of economic evaluations, was set up to identify preferences for how findings from economic evaluations might be presented to decision makers and to test the impact of different approaches, different outputs and different presentational styles. The board was divided into two groups, each of which was given three hypothetical 'scenarios' to consider. The scenarios comprised descriptions of methods and outputs, with costs, effects, target population and context of intervention constant across all scenarios. RESULTS: The perceived validity of estimates of effectiveness was vitally important, along with sufficient information to gauge whether designs were appropriate and to assess implementation practicalities. Cost-benefit analysis and cost-utility analysis were the preferred approaches despite their complexity, although participants required benchmarks to place net-benefit estimates from cost-benefit analyses into context. CONCLUSION: Further research is required to substantiate and build on these preliminary findings and collaborations between economists and policy makers are needed to develop clear, rigorous and standard guidance relating to economic evaluation, recognizing the diversity of public health strategies.

Societal costs of chemotherapy in the UK: an incidence-based cost-of-illness model for early breast cancer.

AIM: To estimate annual societal costs associated with chemotherapy for early breast cancer in the UK. DESIGN: Mixed methods: (a) an incidence-based cost-of-illness model was developed of indirect costs in patients with breast cancer and carers, and estimated from diagnosis through active treatment until death; (b) interviews with stakeholders were also undertaken to understand actual experiences and impacts of these costs. DATA SOURCES: Model data were collated from relevant national data sources covering general population statistics, UK cancer registries, clinical guidelines and published literature, and patient survey data. Patient and staff views were collected through semistructured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Model: patients with early breast cancer receiving systemic anticancer therapy in the UK. Interviews were undertaken with women who had chemotherapy and medical practitioners involved in breast cancer care. RESULTS: Total costs of chemotherapy in the UK economy are over £248 million. Societal productivity losses amount to £141.4 million, which includes £3.2 million associated with premature mortality, short-term and long-term work absence (£28.6 million and £105 million, respectively). £3.4 million is associated with mortality losses from secondary malignancies due to adjuvant chemotherapy. A further £1.1 million in lost productivity arises from informal care provision. Out-of-pocket costs per round of chemotherapy account for £4.2 million, or an annual average of almost £1100 per patient. Interview findings support the cost burden modelled and also highlight the impact on cognitive function of patients and how this could increase the cost burden to patients, their families and wider society. In addition, estimated costs for carer emotional well-being are £82 million in lost quality of life. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy use carries significant indirect costs for society, as well as patients and their carers. These wider costs and societal perspective should be considered by commissioners to ensure chemotherapy is better targeted at those who most need it and to avoid placing unnecessary costs on patients, their caregivers and wider society.

Feasibility of investigating methylphenidate for the treatment of sarcoidosis-associated fatigue (the FaST-MP study): a double-blind, parallel-arm randomised feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: Sarcoidosis-associated fatigue (SAF) is a common clinical problem with limited treatment options. This study was undertaken to determine the feasibility of performing a definitive trial to determine the clinical efficacy methylphenidate in SAF. METHODS: This was a parallel-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled feasibility trial enrolling sarcoidosis patients reporting significant fatigue. Patients with a Fatigue Assessment Scale score of more than 21 were randomised to receive up to either 10 mg two times per day methylphenidate or identical placebo capsules two times per day, in a dose escalation fashion, for up to 24 weeks. Outcomes included number of participants eligible and willing to participate, withdrawal rates, adherence rates and ability to maintain blinding. RESULTS: Of 385 patients screened, 56 (14.5%) were eligible and 23 (41% of eligible patients) were randomised. No withdrawals occurred. One participant in the methylphenidate arm discontinued study medications due to chest pain. The side effect profile was not different between the groups. Median medication adherence rates were 98% and 99% in the methylphenidate and placebo arms, respectively. A greater proportion of participants receiving methylphenidate predicted their allocated treatment while blinded compared with those receiving placebo (93.3% vs 57.1%). The investigator could not predict the treatment allocation. Both groups showed clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue from baseline, although no between-group difference was seen. CONCLUSIONS: The data support the feasibility of performing a double-blind parallel trial powered to determine the clinical efficacy of methylphenidate for SAF, however, a multicentre study will be required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02643732.

Adrenal lesions found incidentally: how to improve clinical and cost-effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION: Adrenal incidentalomas are lesions that are incidentally identified while scanning for other conditions. While most are benign and hormonally non-functional, around 20% are malignant and/or hormonally active, requiring prompt intervention. Malignant lesions can be aggressive and life-threatening, while hormonally active tumours cause various endocrine disorders, with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite this, management of patients with adrenal incidentalomas is variable, with no robust evidence base. This project aimed to establish more effective and timely management of these patients. METHODS: We developed a web-based, electronic Adrenal Incidentaloma Management System (eAIMS), which incorporated the evidence-based and National Health Service-aligned 2016 European guidelines. The system captures key clinical, biochemical and radiological information necessary for adrenal incidentaloma patient management and generates a pre-populated outcome letter, saving clinical and administrative time while ensuring timely management plans with enhanced safety. Furthermore, we developed a prioritisation strategy, with members of the multidisciplinary team, which prioritised high-risk individuals for detailed discussion and management. Patient focus groups informed process-mapping and multidisciplinary team process re-design and patient information leaflet development. The project was partnered by University Hospital of South Manchester to maximise generalisability. RESULTS: Implementation of eAIMS, along with improvements in the prioritisation strategy, resulted in a 49% reduction in staff hands-on time, as well as a 78% reduction in the time from adrenal incidentaloma identification to multidisciplinary team decision. A health economic analysis identified a 28% reduction in costs. CONCLUSIONS: The system's in-built data validation and the automatic generation of the multidisciplinary team outcome letter improved patient safety through a reduction in transcription errors. We are currently developing the next stage of the programme to proactively identify all new adrenal incidentaloma cases.

Clinical effectiveness and cost minimisation model of Alpha-Stim cranial electrotherapy stimulation in treatment seeking patients with moderate to severe generalised anxiety disorder.

BACKGROUND: Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) is a well-tolerated neuromodulation treatment with demonstrated trial efficacy in anxiety disorders. The aim of the current study was to demonstrate its clinical and cost effectiveness during and after CES in people with generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) who had not responded to low intensity psychological treatment in a routine health service. METHODS: Consecutive sample of eligible patients with GAD waiting for individual cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) selected from two publicly funded services in England. They received 60 min per day Alpha-Stim CES for 6-12 weeks. Primary outcome was remission on the GAD-7 scale at 12 and 24 weeks. Cost effectiveness was examined using a cost minimisation model of direct health costs. RESULTS: Of 161 patients recruited, 72 (44.7%) and 77 (47.8%) achieved remission on the GAD-7 at 12 and 24 weeks respectively with 122 (75.8%) receiving at least 6 weeks CES. Mean (sd) GAD-7 score at baseline significantly improved from 15.77 (3.21) to 8.92 (5.42) and 8.99 (6.18) at 12 and 24 weeks respectively (p < 0.001). 80 (49.7%) participants required further individual CBT. CES provided a saving of £540.88 per patient (95% CI -£327.12, £648.69). LIMITATIONS: Participants were not randomised and there was no control group. Only 48 (29.9%) participants completed every assessment. CONCLUSION: In patients with generalised anxiety disorder not responding to low intensity psychological treatment, 6-12 weeks daily Alpha Stim CES may be effective after treatment and 3 months later, thereby reducing the need for individual CBT and saving health costs.