Economic impact of Elantan LA compared to Tenormin and Tildiem LA in the treatment of stable angina in the UK

Subject COVID-19 UK economic impact. Significance The UK economy is already contracting sharply as a result of the restrictions imposed by the government to contain the spread of COVID-19. In response, the UK government has announced a major programme of fiscal measures to reduce job losses and business closures. This is not designed to prevent this immediate fall but intended to reduce permanent damage to the economy. Impacts If the COVID-19 crisis persists beyond a few months, the policy response could become more complex and politically divisive. The economic and social recovery from COVID-19 will be crucial for the prime minister's survival prospects. COVID-19 has significantly increased the chances of an extension to the Brexit transition period beyond December 2020.

Download Full-text

London will diverge from the EU on foreign policy

Emerald Expert Briefings ◽

10.1108/oxan-db251059 ◽

2020 ◽

Keyword(s):

Foreign Policy ◽

United Kingdom ◽

Economic Impact ◽

The Political ◽

Donald Trump ◽

Content Type ◽

Defence Budget ◽

The Uk ◽

Uk Foreign Policy ◽

The Eu

Subject UK foreign policy. Significance Last week the EU and United Kingdom published their negotiating objectives for the future relationship. The European Commission’s negotiating mandate largely reflects the Political Declaration, including a desire for close formal cooperation in defence, security and foreign policy. The United Kingdom’s objectives indicate that it wants less formal cooperation as it seeks to de-institutionalise its relationship with the bloc. Impacts The economic impact of Brexit could cut the size of the UK defence budget, which has already fallen more than 10% in real terms since 2010. The absence of formal channels of EU-UK cooperation and coordination could result in a weakening of the EU’s sanctions regime on Russia. The re-election of US President Donald Trump would herald a further four years of transatlantic tensions.

Download Full-text

Pre-procedural fasting for coronary interventions: is it time to change practice?

Heart ◽

10.1136/heartjnl-2013-305289 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 100 (8) ◽

pp. 658-661 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Tahir Hamid ◽

Qaiser Aleem ◽

Yeecheng Lau ◽

Ravi Singh ◽

John McDonald ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stable Angina ◽

Chronic Stable Angina ◽

Coronary Intervention ◽

Coronary Syndrome ◽

Cardiac Procedures ◽

Data Registry ◽

Percutaneous Coronary ◽

Coronary Procedures ◽

Data Source ◽

The Uk

IntroductionTraditionally, patients are kept nil-per-os/nil-by-mouth (NPO/NBM) prior to invasive cardiac procedures, yet there exists neither evidence nor clear guidance about the benefits of this practice.ObjectivesTo demonstrate that percutaneous cardiac catheterisation does not require prior fasting.MethodsThe data source is a retrospective analysis of data registry of consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and stable angina at two district general hospitals in the UK with no on-site cardiac surgery services.ResultsA total of 1916 PCI procedures were performed over a 3-year period. None of the patients were kept NPO/NBM prior to their coronary procedures. The mean age was 67±16 years. 1349 (70%) were men; 38.5% (738/1916) had chronic stable angina, while the rest had ACS. 21% (398/1916) were diabetics while 53% (1017/1916) were hypertensive. PCI was technically successful in 95% (1821/1916) patients. 88.5% (1697/1916) had transradial approach. 77% (570/738) of elective PCI patients were discharged within 6 h postprocedure. No patients required emergency endotracheal intubation and there were no occurrences of intraprocedural or postprocedural aspiration pneumonia.ConclusionsOur observational study demonstrates that patients undergoing PCI do not need to be fasted prior to their procedures.

Download Full-text

Economic impact of using mirtazapine compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in the UK

European Psychiatry ◽

10.1016/s0924-9338(00)00506-x ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 15 (6) ◽

pp. 378-387 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

J. Borghi ◽

J.F. Guest

Keyword(s):

Economic Impact ◽

Resource Use ◽

Healthcare Resource ◽

Antidepressant Treatment ◽

Severe Depression ◽

Clinical Trial Data ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Decision Models ◽

Data Resource ◽

The Uk

summaryThis study modelled the economic impact of mirtazapine, compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine, in the management of moderate and severe depression in the UK, as well as the costs related to discontinuation of antidepressant treatment.Decision models of the management of moderate and severe depression were developed from clinical trial data, resource use obtained from interviews with general practitioners and psychiatrists, and published literature, and were used to estimate the expected direct National Health Service (NHS) costs of managing a patient with moderate or severe depression.The expected cost of healthcare resource use attributable to managing a patient suffering from moderate or severe depression who discontinues antidepressant treatment, irrespective of the initial treatment, was estimated to be £206 (range £50 to £504) over five months.Using mirtazapine instead of amitriptyline for seven months increases the proportion of successfully treated patients by 21% (from 19.2 to 23.2%) and reduces the expected direct NHS cost by £35 per patient (from £448 to £413). Using mirtazapine instead of fluoxetine for six months increases the proportion of successfully treated patients by 22% (from 15.6 to 19.1%), albeit for an additional cost to the NHS of £27 per patient (from £394 to £420).In conclusion, this study suggests that mirtazapine is a cost-effective antidepressant compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine in the management of moderate and severe depression in the UK.

Download Full-text