An observational study of individual child journeys through autism diagnostic pathways, and associated costs, in the UK National Health Service

BackgroundDemand for diagnostic assessment in children with possible autism has recently increased significantly. Services are under pressure to deliver timely and high-quality diagnosis, following National Institute and Care Excellence multidisciplinary assessment guidelines. This UK National Health Service study aimed to answer: how many hours of health professional time are required to deliver autism diagnostic assessment, and how much does this cost?.MethodCase notes of 20 children (1–16 yrs.) from 27 NHS trusts, assessed through an autism diagnostic pathway in the previous year, were examined retrospectively. Data included: hours of professional time, diagnostic outcome. Assessment costs calculated using standardised NHS tariffs.Results488 children (aged 21–195 months, mean 82.9 months, SD 39.36) from 22 Child Development Services (CDS), four Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and one tertiary centre; 87% were either under 5 (36%) or 5 to 11 years (51%). Children seen by CDS were younger than CAMHS (mean (SD) 6.10 (2.72) vs. 10.39 (2.97) years, p < 0.001). Mean days to diagnosis were 375 (SD 235), with large variation (range 41–1553 days). Mean hours of professional time per child was 11.50 (SD 7.03) and varied substantially between services and individuals. Mean cost of assessment was £846.00 (SD 536.31). 339 (70.0%) children received autism diagnosis with or without comorbidity; 54 (11%) received no neurodevelopmental diagnosis; 91 (19%) received alternative neurodevelopmental diagnoses. Children with one or more coexisting conditions took longer to diagnose, and assessment was more costly, on average 117 days longer, costing £180 more than a child with no neurodevelopmental diagnosis. Age did not predict days to diagnosis or assessment costs.ConclusionTypical assessment took 11 h of professional time and over 12-months to complete, costing GB£850 per child. Variation between centres and children reflect differences in practice and complexity of diagnostic presentation. These results give information to those delivering/planning autism assessments using multi-disciplinary team approach, in publicly funded health systems. Planning of future diagnostic services needs to consider growing demand, the need for streamlining, enabling context appropriate services, and child/family complexity

Human preferences for sexually dimorphic faces may be evolutionarily novel

A large literature proposes that preferences for exaggerated sex typicality in human faces (masculinity/femininity) reflect a long evolutionary history of sexual and social selection. This proposal implies that dimorphism was important to judgments of attractiveness and personality in ancestral environments. It is difficult to evaluate, however, because most available data come from large-scale, industrialized, urban populations. Here, we report the results for 12 populations with very diverse levels of economic development. Surprisingly, preferences for exaggerated sex-specific traits are only found in the novel, highly developed environments. Similarly, perceptions that masculine males look aggressive increase strongly with development and, specifically, urbanization. These data challenge the hypothesis that facial dimorphism was an important ancestral signal of heritable mate value. One possibility is that highly developed environments provide novel opportunities to discern relationships between facial traits and behavior by exposing individuals to large numbers of unfamiliar faces, revealing patterns too subtle to detect with smaller samples

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose

What’s Next in Climate Action Planning? (Closing Plenary Session)

Expert panelists will look ahead and discuss the future opportunities and challenges for climate action planning. A thought-provoking end to the conference that you don’t want to miss

Is IORT ready for roll-out?

Two large randomised controlled trials of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) in breast-conserving surgery (TARGIT-A and ELIOT) have been published 14 years after their launch. Neither the TARGIT-A trial nor the ELIOT trial results have changed the current clinical practice for the use of IORT. The in-breast local recurrence rate (LRR) after IORT met the pre-specified non-inferiority margins in both trials and was 3.3% in TARGIT-A and 4.4% in the ELIOT trial. In both trials, the pre-specified estimates for local recurrence (LR) with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) significantly overestimated actual LRR. In the TARGIT-A trial, LR with EBRT was estimated at the outset to be 6%, and in the ELIOT trial, it was estimated to be 3%. Surprisingly, LRR in the EBRT groups has been found to be significantly lower, 1.3% in the EBRT arm of the TARGIT-A and 0.4% in the EBRT arm of the ELIOT trial, respectively. Median follow-up was 2.4 years for the TARGIT-A trial and 5.8 years for the ELIOT trial. However, the initial cohort of patients in the TARGIT-A trial (reported in 2010) now have a median follow-up of 3.8 years and data on LR were available at 5 years follow-up on 35% of patients (18% who received IORT). Although further follow-up will increase confidence with the data, it will also further delay clinical implementation. By carefully weighing the risks and benefits of a single-fraction radiation treatment with patients, IORT should be offered within agreed and strict protocols. Patients deemed at low risk of LR or those deemed suitable for partial breast irradiation, according to the GEC-ESTRO and ASTRO recommendations, could be considered as candidates for IORT. These guidelines apply to all partial breast irradiation techniques, and more specific guidelines for IORT would assist clinicians

An observational study of individual child journeys through autism diagnostic pathways, and associated costs, in the UK National Health Service.

BackgroundDemand for diagnostic assessment in children with possible autism has recently increased significantly. Services are under pressure to deliver timely and high-quality diagnosis, following National Institute and Care Excellence multidisciplinary assessment guidelines. This UK National Health Service study aimed to answer: how many hours of health professional time are required to deliver autism diagnostic assessment, and how much does this cost?.MethodCase notes of 20 children (1-16 yrs.) from 27 NHS trusts, assessed through an autism diagnostic pathway in the previous year, were examined retrospectively. Data included: hours of professional time, diagnostic outcome. Assessment costs calculated using standardised NHS tariffs.Results488 children (aged 21-195 months, mean 82.9 months, SD 39.36) from 22 Child Development Services (CDS), four Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and one tertiary centre; 87% were either under 5 (36%) or 5 to 11 years (51%). Children seen by CDS were younger than CAMHS (mean (SD) 6.10 (2.72) vs. 10.39 (2.97) years, p ConclusionTypical assessment took 11 h of professional time and over 12-months to complete, costing GB£850 per child. Variation between centres and children reflect differences in practice and complexity of diagnostic presentation. These results give information to those delivering/planning autism assessments using multi-disciplinary team approach, in publicly funded health systems. Planning of future diagnostic services needs to consider growing demand, the need for streamlining, enabling context appropriate services, and child/family complexity