The Impact of Brexit on the UK and Devolved Energy System

This briefing paper uses the example of a changing UK/Scottish government relationship after Brexit to demonstrate how to analyse the role of politics and policymaking in the transformation of energy systems. Brexit will create a new division of policymaking responsibilities between EU, UK, and devolved governments. In this paper we divide energy policy competences according to levels of government. Initially, it suggests that we can generate a clear picture of multi-level policymaking. However, the formal allocation of competences only tells a partial story, because actual powers may operate differently from the strict legal picture. These blurry boundaries between responsibilities may be further complicated by Brexit, even if it looks like the removal of a layer of government will simplify matters. Instead of imagining clear lines of accountability, think of energy policy as part of a complex policymaking system – in which the link between powers, practices, and outcomes is unclear – and an energy system, in which government is only one of many influences on outcomes

The Potential Impacts of Brexit on Energy Efficient Scotland Funding

Brexit, regardless of its final form, will affect the access that Scotland, and the UK as a whole, will have to EU funding sources for a number of actions, including the promotion of residential energy efficiency. In this work we explore how funding restrictions may affect the potential outcomes of the Energy Efficient Scotland (EES) programme. We focus on impacts on the amounts available to be offered as government grants and the availability of private loans. Our findings indicate that in order to achieve the goals of the programme it is key to try and maintain the originally planned level of funding. However, the options used to bridge any funding gaps need to be carefully considered, otherwise the benefits from EES could be significantly eroded. We also find that it is crucial for the overall success of EES to use any options available to ensure the continued availability of private loans

English stop-smoking services: one-year outcomes

The UK is a global leader in stop-smoking support—providing free behavioral support and cessation medication via stop smoking services (SSS) without charge to smokers. This study aimed to explore the client and service characteristics associated with abstinence 52 weeks after quitting. A prospective cohort study of 3057 SSS clients in nine different areas of England who began their quit attempt between March 2012 and March 2013 was conducted. Important determinants of long-term quitting were assessed through quit rates and multivariable logistic regression. Our results showed that the overall weighted carbon monoxide validated quit rate for clients at 52 weeks was 7.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 6.6–9.0). The clients of advisors, whose main role was providing stop-smoking support, were more likely to quit long-term than advisors who had a generalist role in pharmacies or general practices (odds ratio (OR) 2.3 (95% CI 1.2–4.6)). Clients were more likely to achieve abstinence through group support than one-to-one support (OR 3.4 (95% CI 1.7–6.7)). Overall, one in thirteen people who set a quit date with the National Health Service (NHS) Stop-Smoking Service maintain abstinence for a year. Improving abstinence is likely to require a greater emphasis on providing specialist smoking cessation support. Results from this study suggest that over 18,000 premature deaths were prevented through longer-term smoking cessation achieved by smokers who accessed SSS in England from March 2012 to April 2013, but outcomes varied by client characteristic and the type of support provided

UK Breastfeeding Helpline support: An investigation of influences upon satisfaction

Background Incentive or reward schemes are becoming increasingly popular to motivate healthy lifestyle behaviours. In this paper, insights from a qualitative and descriptive study to investigate the uptake, impact and meanings of a breastfeeding incentive intervention integrated into an existing peer support programme (Star Buddies) are reported. The Star Buddies service employs breastfeeding peer supporters to support women across the ante-natal, intra-partum and post-partum period. Methods In a disadvantaged area of North West England, women initiating breastfeeding were recruited by peer supporters on the postnatal ward or soon after hospital discharge to participate in an 8 week incentive (gifts and vouchers) and breastfeeding peer supporter intervention. In-depth interviews were conducted with 26 women participants who engaged with the incentive intervention, and a focus group was held with the 4 community peer supporters who delivered the intervention. Descriptive analysis of routinely collected data for peer supporter contacts and breastfeeding outcomes before and after the incentive intervention triangulated and retrospectively provided the context for the qualitative thematic analysis. Results A global theme emerged of 'incentives as connectors', with two sub-themes of 'facilitating connections' and 'facilitating relationships and wellbeing'. The incentives were linked to discussion themes and gift giving facilitated peer supporter access for proactive weekly home visits to support women. Regular face to face contacts enabled meaningful relationships and new connections within and between the women, families, peer supporters and care providers to be formed and sustained. Participants in the incentive scheme received more home visits and total contact time with peer supporters compared to women before the incentive intervention. Full participation levels and breastfeeding rates at 6-8 weeks were similar for women before and after the incentive intervention. Conclusion The findings suggest that whilst the provision of incentives might not influence women's intentions or motivations to breastfeed, the connections forged provided psycho-social benefits for both programme users and peer supporters

Behavioural therapy for smoking cessation:the effectiveness of different interventions types for disadvantaged and affluent smokers

Background: Disadvantaged smokers are less likely to be successful when trying to stop smoking than more affluent smokers. In the UK, NHS Stop Smoking Services (SSS) provide a range of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support, delivered by advisors with a range of backgrounds. Whether the types of support provided and who provides it influence differences in quit rates amongst low SES smokers compared with high SES smokers has not previously been examined. Methods: 202,084 records of smokers in England who attended a NHS Stop Smoking Service between July 2010 and June 2011 were acquired. Smokers were followed-up by services at four weeks post quit date. Multilevel logistic regression models of CO validated quits were employed. Disadvantage was explored through the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC) and by eligibility for free prescriptions, an indicator of low income amongst adults aged between 19 and 59 in England. Results: Affluent smokers were more likely to quit than disadvantaged smokers (OR 1.38 (1.35 to 1.42) for clients who paid for prescriptions compared to those eligible for free prescriptions). 80% of service clients received one-to-one counselling but open group forms of behavioural therapy were more successful (main effect OR 1.26 (1.12 to 1.41)) except amongst some of the most disadvantaged clients (long-term unemployed and prisoners). Closed groups were little deployed and they were not significantly more successful than one-to-one behavioural therapy after controls. Who delivered treatment did make a difference for some clients, with all but the most affluent less likely to be successful if they had been treated by a nurse compared with other types of advisers, including smoking cessation specialists (main effect OR 0.73 (0.65 to 0.83)). Conclusion: This study provides further evidence that disadvantaged smokers find quitting more difficult even when they have attended a smoking cessation programme. The findings suggest that open groups should be promoted, although they may not be as effective as other forms of behavioural therapy for the long-term unemployed or prisoners. Further research is required to explore why most groups of smokers who attended services staffed by nurses were less likely to quit than those who received treatment from other types of advisors

Oral Abstracts 7: RA ClinicalO37. Long-Term Outcomes of Early RA Patients Initiated with Adalimumab Plus Methotrexate Compared with Methotrexate Alone Following a Targeted Treatment Approach

Background: This analysis assessed, on a group level, whether there is a long-term advantage for early RA patients treated with adalimumab (ADA) + MTX vs those initially treated with placebo (PBO) + MTX who either responded to therapy or added ADA following inadequate response (IR). Methods: OPTIMA was a 78- week, randomized, controlled trial of ADA + MTX vs PBO + MTX in MTX-naïve early (<1 year) RA patients. Therapy was adjusted at week 26: ADA + MTX-responders (R) who achieved DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 at weeks 22 and 26 (Period 1, P1) were re-randomized to withdraw or continue ADA and PBO + MTX-R continued randomized therapy for 52 weeks (P2); IR-patients received open-label (OL) ADA + MTX during P2. This post hoc analysis evaluated the proportion of patients at week 78 with DAS28 (CRP) <3.2, HAQ-DI <0.5, and/or ΔmTSS ≤0.5 by initial treatment. To account for patients who withdrew ADA during P2, an equivalent proportion of R was imputed from ADA + MTX-R patients. Results: At week 26, significantly more patients had low disease activity, normal function, and/or no radiographic progression with ADA + MTX vs PBO + MTX (Table 1). Differences in clinical and functional outcomes disappeared following additional treatment, when PBO + MTX-IR (n = 348/460) switched to OL ADA + MTX. Addition of OL ADA slowed radiographic progression, but more patients who received ADA + MTX from baseline had no radiographic progression at week 78 than patients who received initial PBO + MTX. Conclusions: Early RA patients treated with PBO + MTX achieved comparable long-term clinical and functional outcomes on a group level as those who began ADA + MTX, but only when therapy was optimized by the addition of ADA in PBO + MTX-IR. Still, ADA + MTX therapy conferred a radiographic benefit although the difference did not appear to translate to an additional functional benefit. Disclosures: P.E., AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, BMS—Provided Expert Advice, Undertaken Trials, AbbVie—AbbVie sponsored the study, contributed to its design, and participated in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, and in the writing, reviewing, and approval of the final version. R.F., AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, UCB, Celgene, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis—Research Grants, Consultation Fees. S.F., AbbVie—Employee, Stocks. A.K., AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB—Research Grants, Consultation Fees. H.K., AbbVie—Employee, Stocks. S.R., AbbVie—Employee, Stocks. J.S., AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer (Wyeth), MSD (Schering-Plough), Novo-Nordisk, Roche, Sandoz, UCB—Research Grants, Consultation Fees. R.V., AbbVie, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Human Genome Sciences, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma—Consultation Fees, Research Support. Table 1.Week 78 clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes in patients who received continued ADA + MTX vs those who continued PBO + MTX or added open-label ADA following an inadequate response ADA + MTX, n/N (%)a PBO + MTX, n/N (%)b Outcome Week 26 Week 52 Week 78 Week 26 Week 52 Week 78 DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 246/466 (53) 304/465 (65) 303/465 (65) 139/460 (30)*** 284/460 (62) 300/460 (65) HAQ-DI <0.5 211/466 (45) 220/466 (47) 224/466 (48) 150/460 (33)*** 203/460 (44) 208/460 (45) ΔmTSS ≤0.5 402/462 (87) 379/445 (86) 382/443 (86) 330/459 (72)*** 318/440 (72)*** 318/440 (72)*** DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 + ΔmTSS ≤0.5 216/462 (47) 260/443 (59) 266/443 (60) 112/459 (24)*** 196/440 (45) 211/440 (48)*** DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 + HAQ-DI <0.5 + ΔmTSS ≤0.5 146/462 (32) 168/443 (38) 174/443 (39) 82/459 (18)*** 120/440 (27)*** 135/440 (31)** aIncludes patients from the ADA Continuation (n = 105) and OL ADA Carry On (n = 259) arms, as well as the proportional equivalent number of responders from the ADA Withdrawal arm (n = 102). bIncludes patients from the MTX Continuation (n = 112) and Rescue ADA (n = 348) arms. Last observation carried forward: DAS28 (CRP) and HAQ-DI; Multiple imputations: ΔmTSS. ***P < 0.001 and **iP < 0.01, respectively, for differences between initial treatments from chi-squar

Procalcitonin Is Not a Reliable Biomarker of Bacterial Coinfection in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Undergoing Microbiological Investigation at the Time of Hospital Admission

Abstract Admission procalcitonin measurements and microbiology results were available for 1040 hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (from 48 902 included in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium World Health Organization Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK study). Although procalcitonin was higher in bacterial coinfection, this was neither clinically significant (median [IQR], 0.33 [0.11–1.70] ng/mL vs 0.24 [0.10–0.90] ng/mL) nor diagnostically useful (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.56 [95% confidence interval, .51–.60]).</jats:p

Implementation of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 in the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK:prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone was the first intervention proven to reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 being treated in hospital. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 in the UK after the RECOVERY trial publication on June 16, 2020, and to identify discrepancies in care. METHODS: We did an audit of clinical implementation of corticosteroids in a prospective, observational, cohort study in 237 UK acute care hospitals between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2021, restricted to patients aged 18 years or older with proven or high likelihood of COVID-19, who received supplementary oxygen. The primary outcome was administration of dexamethasone, prednisolone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN66726260. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2020, and April 14, 2021, 47 795 (75·2%) of 63 525 of patients on supplementary oxygen received corticosteroids, higher among patients requiring critical care than in those who received ward care (11 185 [86·6%] of 12 909 vs 36 415 [72·4%] of 50 278). Patients 50 years or older were significantly less likely to receive corticosteroids than those younger than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio 0·79 [95% CI 0·70–0·89], p=0·0001, for 70–79 years; 0·52 [0·46–0·58], p80 years), independent of patient demographics and illness severity. 84 (54·2%) of 155 pregnant women received corticosteroids. Rates of corticosteroid administration increased from 27·5% in the week before June 16, 2020, to 75–80% in January, 2021. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of corticosteroids into clinical practice in the UK for patients with COVID-19 has been successful, but not universal. Patients older than 70 years, independent of illness severity, chronic neurological disease, and dementia, were less likely to receive corticosteroids than those who were younger, as were pregnant women. This could reflect appropriate clinical decision making, but the possibility of inequitable access to life-saving care should be considered. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research and UK Medical Research Council