A Bayesian micro-simulation to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions for mastitis control during the dry period in UK dairy herds

Importance of the dry period with respect to mastitis control is now well established although the precise interventions that reduce the risk of acquiring intramammary infections during this time are not clearly understood. There are very few intervention studies that have measured the clinical efficacy of specific mastitis interventions within a cost-effectiveness framework so there remains a large degree of uncertainty about the impact of a specific intervention and its costeffectiveness. The aim of this study was to use a Bayesian framework to investigate the cost-effectiveness of mastitis controls during the dry period. Data were assimilated from 77 UK dairy farms that participated in a British national mastitis control programme during 2009–2012 in which the majority of intramammary infections were acquired during the dry period. The data consisted of clinical mastitis (CM) and somatic cell count (SCC) records, herd management practices and details of interventions that were implemented by the farmer as part of the control plan. The outcomes used to measure the effectiveness of the interventions were i) changes in the incidence rate of clinical mastitis during the first 30 days after calving and ii) the rate at which cows gained new infections during the dry period (measured by SCC changes across the dry period from 200,000 cells/ml). A Bayesian one-step microsimulation model was constructed such that posterior predictions from the model incorporated uncertainty in all parameters. The incremental net benefit was calculated across 10,000 Markov chain Monte Carlo iterations, to estimate the cost-benefit (and associated uncertainty) of each mastitis intervention. Interventions identified as being cost-effective in most circumstances included selecting dry-cow therapy at the cow level, dry-cow rations formulated by a qualified nutritionist, use of individual calving pens, first milking cows within 24 h of calving and spreading bedding evenly in dry-cow yards. The results of this study highlighted the efficacy of specific mastitis interventions in UK conditions which, when incorporated into a costeffectiveness framework, can be used to optimize decision making in mastitis control. This intervention study provides an example of how an intuitive and clinically useful Bayesian approach can be used to form the basis of an on-farm decision support tool

Factors affecting the cost-effectiveness of on-farm culture prior to the treatment of clinical mastitis in dairy cows

The objective of this study was to use probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using an on-farm culture (OFC) approach to the treatment of clinical mastitis in dairy cows and compare this to a ‘standard’ treatment approach. A specific aim was to identify the herd circumstances under which an OFC approach would be most likely to be cost-effective. A stochastic Monte Carlo model was developed to simulate 5000 cases of clinical mastitis at the cow level and to calculate the associated costs simultaneously when treated according to 2 different treatment protocols; i) a 'conventional' approach (3 tubes of intramammary antibiotic) and ii) an OFC programme, whereby cows are treated according to the results of OFC. Model parameters were taken from recent peer reviewed literature on the use of OFC prior to treatment of clinical mastitis. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the relationships between model input values and the estimated difference in cost between the standard and OFC treatment protocols. The simulation analyses revealed that both the difference in the bacteriological cure rate due to a delay in treatment when using OFC and the proportion of Gram-positive cases that occur on a dairy unit would have a fundamental impact on whether OFC would be cost-effective. The results of this study illustrated that an OFC approach for the treatment of clinical mastitis would probably not be cost-effective in many circumstances, in particular, not those in which Gram-positive pathogens were responsible for more than 20% of all clinical cases. The results highlight an ethical dilemma surrounding reduced use of antimicrobials for clinical mastitis since it may be associated with financial losses and poorer cow welfare in many instances

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Wickedness or folly? The ethics of NICE's decisions

A rebuttal is provided to each of the arguments adduced by John Harris, an Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, in two editorials in the journal in support of the view that National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence’s procedures and methods for making recommendations about healthcare procedures for use in the National Health Service in England and Wales are the product of "wickedness or folly or more likely both", "ethically illiterate as well as socially divisive", responsible for the "perversion of science as well as of morality" and are "contrary to basic morality and contrary to human rights"