Early Awareness Stalking Intervention (EASI) Evaluation Report

This project was commissioned by the Home Office UK, and West Midlands Police Crime and Commissioner’s Office to address the way in which the police identify and deal with stalking and harassment. This evaluation seeks to understand how the police are handling these offences throughout the West Midlands, given their recent piloted scheme - Early Awareness Stalking Intervention (EASI). The project is a multi-agency initiative between The Alice Ruggles Trust, Black Country Women’s Aid, HMPPS Psychology Services Group, West Midlands Police, West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office and the University of Derby. EASI introduces psychological therapy as a remedy for ex-intimate stalking perpetrators who receive their first disposal for stalking, encounter the police, admit their guilt and agree to a referral into the project

A victim-centred cost–benefit analysis of a stalking prevention programme

Research suggests that stalking inflicts great psychological and financial costs on victims. Yet costs of victimisation are notoriously difficult to estimate and include as intangible costs in cost–benefit analysis. This study reports an innovative cost–benefit analysis that used focus groups with multi-agency teams to collect detailed data on operational resources used to manage stalking cases. This method is illustrated through the presentation of one case study. Best- and worst-case counterfactual scenarios were generated using the risk assessment scores and practitioner expertise. The findings suggest that intervening in high-risk stalking cases was cost-beneficial to the state in all the case studies we analysed (even if it incurs some institutional costs borne by the criminal justice system or health) and was often cost-beneficial to the victims too. We believe that this method might be useful in other fields where a victim- or client-centred approach is fundamental

Revenue Management with Strategic Customers: Last-Minute Selling and Opaque Selling

Companies in a variety of industries (e.g., airlines, hotels, theaters) often use last-minute sales to dispose of unsold capacity. Although this may generate incremental revenues in the short term, the long-term consequences of such a strategy are not immediately obvious: More discounted last-minute tickets may lead to more consumers anticipating the discount and delaying the purchase rather than buying at the regular (higher) prices, hence potentially reducing revenues for the company. To mitigate such behavior, many service providers have turned to opaque intermediaries, such as Hotwire.com, that hide many descriptive attributes of the service (e.g., departure times for airline tickets) so that the buyer cannot fully predict the ultimate service provider. Using a stylized economic model, this paper attempts to explain and compare the benefits of last-minute sales directly to consumers versus through an opaque intermediary. We utilize the notion of rational expectations to model consumer purchasing decisions: Consumers make early purchase decisions based on expectations regarding future availability, and these expectations are correct in equilibrium. We show that direct last-minute sales are preferred over selling through an opaque intermediary when consumer valuations for travel are high or there is little service differentiation between competing service providers, or both; otherwise, opaque selling dominates. Moreover, contrary to the usual belief that such sales are purely mechanisms for disposal of unused capacity, we show that opaque selling becomes more preferred over direct last-minute selling as the probability of having high demand increases. When firms randomize between opaque selling and last-minute selling strategies, they are increasingly likely to choose the opaque selling strategy as the probability of high demand increases. When firms with unequal capacities use the opaque selling strategy, consumers know more clearly where the opaque ticket is from and the efficacy of opaque selling decreases

Pharmacokinetic modeling of tranexamic acid for patients undergoing cardiac surgery with normal renal function and model simulations for patients with renal impairment

Tranexamic acid (TXA), an effective anti-fibrinolytic agent that is cleared by glomerular filtration, is used widely for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) surgery. However, an effective dosing regimen has not been fully developed in patients with renal impairment. The aims of this study were to characterize the inter-patient variability associated with pharmacokinetic parameters and to recommend a new dosing adjustment based on the BART dosing regimen for CPB patients with chronic renal dysfunction (CRD). Recently published data on CPB patients with normal renal function (n = 15) were re-examined with a two-compartment model using the ADAPT5® and NONMEMVII® to identify covariates that explain inter-patient variability and to ascertain whether sampling strategies might affect parameter estimation. A series of simulations was performed to adjust the BART dosing regimen for CPB patients with renal impairment. Based on the two-compartmental model, the number of samples obtained after discontinuation of TXA infusion was found not to be critical in parameter estimation (p > 0.05). Both body weight and creatinine clearance were identified as significant covariates (p < 0.005). Simulations showed significantly higher than normal TXA concentrations in CRD patients who received the standard dosing regimen in the BART trial. Adjustment of the maintenance infusion rate based on the percent reduction in renal clearance resulted in predicted plasma TXA concentrations that were safe and therapeutic (~100 mg·L(-1) ). Our proposed dosing regimen, with consideration of renal function, is predicted to maintain effective target plasma concentrations below those associated with toxicity for patients with renal failure for CPB

OP0291 TOFACITINIB FOR THE TREATMENT OF POLYARTICULAR COURSE JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS: RESULTS OF A PHASE 3, RANDOMISED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED WITHDRAWAL STUDY

Background:Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor that is being investigated for JIA.Objectives:To assess tofacitinib efficacy and safety in JIA patients (pts).Methods:This was a Phase 3, randomised, double-blind (DB), placebo (PBO)-controlled withdrawal study in pts aged 2−<18 years with polyarticular course JIA (pcJIA), PsA or ERA (NCT02592434). In the 18-week open-label Part 1, pts received weight-based tofacitinib doses (5 mg BID or lower). Pts with ≥JIA ACR30 response at Week (W)18 were randomised 1:1 in the DB Part 2 (W18−44) to continue tofacitinib or switch to PBO. Primary endpoint: disease flare rate by W44. Key secondary endpoints: JIA ACR50/30/70 response rates; change from Part 2 baseline (Δ) in CHAQ-DI at W44. Other efficacy endpoints: time to disease flare in Part 2; JADAS27-CRP in Parts 1 and 2. PsA/ERA pts were excluded from these efficacy analyses. Safety was evaluated in all pts up to W44.Results:225 enrolled pts with pcJIA (n=184), PsA (n=20) or ERA (n=21) received tofacitinib in Part 1. At W18, 173/225 (76.9%) pts entered Part 2 (pcJIA n=142, PsA n=15, ERA n=16). In pcJIA pts, disease flare rate in Part 2 was significantly lower with tofacitinib vs PBO by W44 (p=0.0031; Fig 1a). JIA ACR50/30/70 response rates (Fig 1b) and ΔCHAQ-DI (Fig 1c) at W44, and time to disease flare in Part 2 (Fig 2a), were improved with tofacitinib vs PBO. Tofacitinib reduced JADAS27-CRP in Part 1; this effect was sustained in Part 2 (Fig 2b). Overall, safety was similar with tofacitinib or PBO (Table): 77.3% and 74.1% had adverse events (AEs); 1.1% and 2.4% had serious AEs. In Part 1, 2 pts had herpes zoster (non-serious) and 3 pts had serious infections (SIs). In Part 2, SIs occurred in 1 tofacitinib pt and 1 PBO pt. No pts died.Conclusion:In pcJIA pts, tofacitinib vs PBO resulted in significantly fewer disease flares, and improved time to flare, disease activity and physical functioning. Tofacitinib safety was consistent with that in RA pts.Table.Safety in all ptsPart 1Part 2TofacitinibaN=225TofacitinibaN=88PBO N=85Pts with events, n (%)AEs153 (68.0)68 (77.3)63 (74.1)SAEs7 (3.1)1 (1.1)2 (2.4)Permanent discontinuations due to AEs26 (11.6)16 (18.2)29 (34.1)AEs of special interest Death000 Gastrointestinal perforationb000 Hepatic eventb3 (1.3)00 Herpes zoster (non-serious and serious)2 (0.9)c00 Interstitial lung diseaseb000 Major adverse cardiovascular eventsb000 Malignancy (including non-melanoma skin cancer)b000 Macrophage activation syndromeb000 Opportunistic infectionb000 SI3 (1.3)1 (1.1)d1 (1.2) Thrombotic event (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolismbor arterial thromboembolism)000 Tuberculosisb000a5 mg BID or equivalent weight-based lower dose in pts <40 kgbAdjudicated eventscBoth non-seriousdOne SAE of pilonidal cyst repair was coded to surgical procedures instead of infections, and was inadvertently not identified as an SI. Following adjudication, the SAE did not meet opportunistic infection criteria; it is also included in the table as an SIAE, adverse event; BID, twice daily; PBO, placebo; pts, patients; SAE, serious AE; SI, serious infectionAcknowledgments:Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Sarah Piggott of CMC Connect and funded by Pfizer Inc.Disclosure of Interests:Nicolino Ruperto Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, F Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi (paid to institution), Consultant of: Ablynx, AbbVie, AstraZeneca-Medimmune, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Sanofi, Servier, Sinergie, Sobi, Takeda, Speakers bureau: Ablynx, AbbVie, AstraZeneca-Medimmune, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Sanofi, Servier, Sinergie, Sobi, Takeda, Olga Synoverska Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Tracy Ting: None declared, Carlos Abud-Mendoza Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Pfizer Inc, Alberto Spindler Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Yulia Vyzhga Grant/research support from: Pfizer Inc, Katherine Marzan Grant/research support from: Novartis, Vladimir Keltsev: None declared, Irit Tirosh: None declared, Lisa Imundo: None declared, Rita Jerath: None declared, Daniel Kingsbury: None declared, Betül Sözeri: None declared, Sheetal Vora: None declared, Sampath Prahalad Grant/research support from: Novartis, Elena Zholobova Grant/research support from: Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer Inc and Roche, Yonatan Butbul Aviel: None declared, Vyacheslav Chasnyk: None declared, Melissa Lerman Grant/research support from: Amgen, Kabita Nanda Grant/research support from: Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen and Roche, Heinrike Schmeling Grant/research support from: Janssen, Pfizer Inc, Roche and USB Bioscience, Heather Tory: None declared, Yosef Uziel Speakers bureau: Pfizer Inc, Diego O Viola Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen and Pfizer Inc, Speakers bureau: AbbVie and Bristol-Myers Squibb, Holly Posner Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Keith Kanik Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Ann Wouters Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Cheng Chang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Richard Zhang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Irina Lazariciu Consultant of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: IQVIA, Ming-Ann Hsu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Ricardo Suehiro Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Alberto Martini Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lily, EMD Serono, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Daniel J Lovell Consultant of: Abbott (consulting and PI), AbbVie (PI), Amgen (consultant and DSMC Chairperson), AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb (PI), Celgene, Forest Research (DSMB Chairman), GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Janssen (co-PI), Novartis (consultant and PI), Pfizer (consultant and PI), Roche (PI), Takeda, UBC (consultant and PI), Wyeth, Employee of: Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Speakers bureau: Wyeth, Hermine Brunner Consultant of: Hoffman-La Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Merck Serono, AbbVie, Amgen, Alter, AstraZeneca, Baxalta Biosimilars, Biogen Idec, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Janssen, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Biosciences, Speakers bureau: GSK, Roche, and Novarti

Mapping of variations in child stunting, wasting and underweight within the states of India: the Global Burden of Disease Study 2000–2017

Background To inform actions at the district level under the National Nutrition Mission (NNM), we assessed the prevalence trends of child growth failure (CGF) indicators for all districts in India and inequality between districts within the states. Methods We assessed the trends of CGF indicators (stunting, wasting and underweight) from 2000 to 2017 across the districts of India, aggregated from 5 × 5 km grid estimates, using all accessible data from various surveys with subnational geographical information. The states were categorised into three groups using their Socio-demographic Index (SDI) levels calculated as part of the Global Burden of Disease Study based on per capita income, mean education and fertility rate in women younger than 25 years. Inequality between districts within the states was assessed using coefficient of variation (CV). We projected the prevalence of CGF indicators for the districts up to 2030 based on the trends from 2000 to 2017 to compare with the NNM 2022 targets for stunting and underweight, and the WHO/UNICEF 2030 targets for stunting and wasting. We assessed Pearson correlation coefficient between two major national surveys for district-level estimates of CGF indicators in the states. Findings The prevalence of stunting ranged 3.8-fold from 16.4% (95% UI 15.2–17.8) to 62.8% (95% UI 61.5–64.0) among the 723 districts of India in 2017, wasting ranged 5.4-fold from 5.5% (95% UI 5.1–6.1) to 30.0% (95% UI 28.2–31.8), and underweight ranged 4.6-fold from 11.0% (95% UI 10.5–11.9) to 51.0% (95% UI 49.9–52.1). 36.1% of the districts in India had stunting prevalence 40% or more, with 67.0% districts in the low SDI states group and only 1.1% districts in the high SDI states with this level of stunting. The prevalence of stunting declined significantly from 2010 to 2017 in 98.5% of the districts with a maximum decline of 41.2% (95% UI 40.3–42.5), wasting in 61.3% with a maximum decline of 44.0% (95% UI 42.3–46.7), and underweight in 95.0% with a maximum decline of 53.9% (95% UI 52.8–55.4). The CV varied 7.4-fold for stunting, 12.2-fold for wasting, and 8.6-fold for underweight between the states in 2017; the CV increased for stunting in 28 out of 31 states, for wasting in 16 states, and for underweight in 20 states from 2000 to 2017. In order to reach the NNM 2022 targets for stunting and underweight individually, 82.6% and 98.5% of the districts in India would need a rate of improvement higher than they had up to 2017, respectively. To achieve the WHO/UNICEF 2030 target for wasting, all districts in India would need a rate of improvement higher than they had up to 2017. The correlation between the two national surveys for district-level estimates was poor, with Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.7 only in Odisha and four small north-eastern states out of the 27 states covered by these surveys. Interpretation CGF indicators have improved in India, but there are substantial variations between the districts in their magnitude and rate of decline, and the inequality between districts has increased in a large proportion of the states. The poor correlation between the national surveys for CGF estimates highlights the need to standardise collection of anthropometric data in India. The district-level trends in this report provide a useful reference for targeting the efforts under NNM to reduce CGF across India and meet the Indian and global targets. Keywords Child growth failureDistrict-levelGeospatial mappingInequalityNational Nutrition MissionPrevalenceStuntingTime trendsUnder-fiveUndernutritionUnderweightWastingWHO/UNICEF target

Identification of priority health conditions for field-based screening in urban slums in Bangalore, India

BACKGROUND: Urban slums are characterised by unique challenging living conditions, which increase their inhabitants' vulnerability to specific health conditions. The identification and prioritization of the key health issues occurring in these settings is essential for the development of programmes that aim to enhance the health of local slum communities effectively. As such, the present study sought to identify and prioritise the key health issues occurring in urban slums, with a focus on the perceptions of health professionals and community workers, in the rapidly growing city of Bangalore, India. METHODS: The study followed a two-phased mixed methods design. During Phase I of the study, a total of 60 health conditions belonging to four major categories: - 1) non-communicable diseases; 2) infectious diseases; 3) maternal and women's reproductive health; and 4) child health - were identified through a systematic literature review and semi-structured interviews conducted with health professionals and other relevant stakeholders with experience working with urban slum communities in Bangalore. In Phase II, the health issues were prioritised based on four criteria through a consensus workshop conducted in Bangalore. RESULTS: The top health issues prioritized during the workshop were: diabetes and hypertension (non-communicable diseases category), dengue fever (infectious diseases category), malnutrition and anaemia (child health, and maternal and women's reproductive health categories). Diarrhoea was also selected as a top priority in children. These health issues were in line with national and international reports that listed them as top causes of mortality and major contributors to the burden of diseases in India. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will be used to inform the development of technologies and the design of interventions to improve the health outcomes of local communities. Identification of priority health issues in the slums of other regions of India, and in other low and lower middle-income countries, is recommended