Scaling-up innovation as a means of tackling health inequalities

Issue. The introduction of inclusive healthcare innovations as a means of improving the welfare of marginalized groups is now being witnessed in developing countries as a crucial process of modernization and industrialization. Towards this end, there has been much discussion regarding the most effective strategies of scaling up innovative health interventions in these parts of the world.Evidence. The topics of discussion have included accessibility and cost-effectiveness; sustainability; infrastructure to support implementation; political will; advocacy; strong leadership; tailoring the scaled-up approach to the local context; and various potential models of funding.Implications. Because policy advocacy plays a critical role in creating a favourable environment for inclusive healthcare innovations, intensive lobbying will be necessary as a means to achieve effective scaling-up in addition to tackling the respective development challenges more efficiently. With this in mind, funders will need to mobilize substantial investment for innovations that respond to the most pressing global public health issues.

Safety of disinvestment in mid- to late-term follow-up post primary hip and knee replacement: The UK SAFE evidence synthesis and recommendations

Background: Joint replacement surgery has revolutionised the management of degenerative joint disease. Increasing demand for surgery and post-surgical reviews has overwhelmed orthopaedic services and, consequently, many centres have reduced or stopped follow-up. Such disinvestment is without an evidence base and raises questions regarding the consequences to patients.Objectives: To produce evidence- and consensus-based recommendations as to how, when and on whom follow-up should be conducted. Our research question was ‘Is it safe to disinvest in mid- to late-term follow-up of hip and knee replacement?’.MethodsThe study comprised three complementary evidence synthesis work packages to inform a final consensus process. Work package 1 was a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature. Work package 2 used routine national data sets (i.e. the Clinical Practice Research Datalink–Hospital Episode Statistics, Hospital Episode Statistics–National Joint Registry–patient-reported outcome measures) to identify pre, peri and postoperative predictors of mid- to late-term revision, and prospective data from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery. Work package 3 used a Markov model to simulate the survival, health-related quality of life and NHS costs of patients following hip or knee replacement surgery. Finally, evidence from work packages 1–3 informed a face-to-face consensus panel, which involved 32 stakeholders.Results: Our overarching statements are as follows: (1) these recommendations apply to post primary hip and knee replacement follow-up; (2) the 10-year time point in these recommendations is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond 10 years; and (3) in these recommendations, the term ‘complex cases’ refers to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk of replacement failure. Our recommendations are as follows: for Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel 10A* (ODEP-10A*) minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from 1 to 10 years post non-complex hip and knee replacement provided that there is rapid access to orthopaedic review; (2) for ODEP-10A* minimum implants in complex cases or non-ODEP-10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post hip and knee replacement may be required from 1 to 10 years; (3) at 10 years post hip and knee replacement, clinical and radiographic evaluation is recommended; and (4) after 10 years post hip and knee replacement, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the 10-year assessment (note that ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required) [Stone M, Smith L, Kingsbury S, Czoski-Murray C, Judge A, Pinedo-Villanueva R, et al. Evidence-based follow-up recommendations following primary hip and knee arthroplasty (UK SAFE). Orthop Proc 2020;102–B:13. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2020.5.013].Limitations: The current absence of data beyond 10 years restricted the evidence base.Conclusions: For ODEP-10A* prostheses, the UK SAFE programme demonstrated that it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up in the 1- to 10-year period after non-complex hip and knee replacement. At 10 years, clinical and radiographic review is recommended. Complex cases, implants not meeting the 10A* criteria and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation.Future work: The evidence base for follow-up after 10 years requires further evaluation. Further work should establish the most clinically effective and cost-effective model of delivering a rapid access service and evaluate alternative models for follow-up services, such as virtual clinics. Finally, the needs and outcomes of patients who are symptomatic but do not have appropriate follow-up should be investigated

Decreased glutathione levels and impaired antioxidant enzyme activities in drug-naive first-episode schizophrenic patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of this study was to determine glutathione levels and antioxidant enzyme activities in the drug-naive first-episode patients with schizophrenia in comparison with healthy control subjects.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>It was a case-controlled study carried on twenty-three patients (20 men and 3 women, mean age = 29.3 ± 7.5 years) recruited in their first-episode of schizophrenia and 40 healthy control subjects (36 men and 9 women, mean age = 29.6 ± 6.2 years). In patients, the blood samples were obtained prior to the initiation of neuroleptic treatments. Glutathione levels: total glutathione (GSHt), reduced glutathione (GSHr) and oxidized glutathione (GSSG) and antioxidant enzyme activities: superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), catalase (CAT) were determined by spectrophotometry.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GSHt and reduced GSHr were significantly lower in patients than in controls, whereas GSSG was significantly higher in patients. GPx activity was significantly higher in patients compared to control subjects. CAT activity was significantly lower in patients, whereas the SOD activity was comparable to that of controls.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This is a report of decreased plasma levels of GSHt and GSHr, and impaired antioxidant enzyme activities in drug-naive first-episode patients with schizophrenia. The GSH deficit seems to be implicated in psychosis, and may be an important indirect biomarker of oxidative stress in schizophrenia early in the course of illness. Finally, our results provide support for further studies of the possible role of antioxidants as neuroprotective therapeutic strategies for schizophrenia from early stages.</p