Regional Research-Practice-Policy Partnerships in Response to Climate-Related Disparities: Promoting Health Equity in the Pacific

Although climate change poses a threat to health and well-being globally, a regional approach to addressing climate-related health equity may be more suitable, appropriate, and appealing to under-resourced communities and countries. In support of this argument, this commentary describes an approach by a network of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers dedicated to promoting climate-related health equity in Small Island Developing States and low- and middle-income countries in the Pacific. We identify three primary sets of needs related to developing a regional capacity to address physical and mental health disparities through research, training, and assistance in policy and practice implementation: (1) limited healthcare facilities and qualified medical and mental health providers; (2) addressing the social impacts related to the cooccurrence of natural hazards, disease outbreaks, and complex emergencies; and (3) building the response capacity and resilience to climate-related extreme weather events and natural hazards.

Toward a more scientific science

Climb atop shoulders and wait for funerals. That, suggested Newton and then Planck, is how science advances (more or less). We've come far since then, but many notions about how people and practices, policies, and resources influence the course of science are still more rooted in traditions and intuitions than in evidence. We can and must do better, lest we resign ourselves to “intuition-based policy” when making decisions and investments aimed at driving scientific progress. Science invited experts to highlight key aspects of the scientific enterprise that are steadily yielding to empirical investigation—and to explain how Newton and Planck got it right (and Einstein got it wrong). — Brad Wible

Screening for acute HIV infection in community-based settings: Cost-effectiveness and impact on transmissions

OBJECTIVES

To determine cost-effectiveness of three community-based acute HIV infection (AHI) testing algorithms compared to HIV antibody testing alone by focusing on the potential of averting new infections occurring within a one-year time horizon among men who have sex with men (MSM).

METHODS

Data sources for model parameters included actual cost and prevalence data derived from a community-based AHI screening program in San Diego, and published studies. Main outcome measure was costs per infection averted (IA). The lower end of the cost range of discounted lifetime costs of an HIV infection (i.e. $236,948) was used for defining cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The most sensitive algorithm for AHI detection, which was based on HIV nucleic acid amplification testing, was estimated to prevent between 5 and 45 transmissions, with simulated costs per infection averted between $965 and $141,256 when compared to HIV antibody testing alone.

CONCLUSION

AHI testing was cost-effective in preventing new HIV infections among at risk MSM in San Diego, and also among other MSM populations with similar HIV prevalence but lower proportions of AHI diagnoses. These results indicate that community-based AHI testing among MSM in the United States can pay for itself over the long run.

Costs per Diagnosis of Acute HIV Infection in Community-based Screening Strategies: A Comparative Analysis of Four Screening Algorithms

BACKGROUND

In nonhealthcare settings, widespread screening for acute human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (AHI) is limited by cost and decision algorithms to better prioritize use of resources. Comparative cost analyses for available strategies are lacking.

METHODS

To determine cost-effectiveness of community-based testing strategies, we evaluated annual costs of 3 algorithms that detect AHI based on HIV nucleic acid amplification testing (EarlyTest algorithm) or on HIV p24 antigen (Ag) detection via Architect (Architect algorithm) or Determine (Determine algorithm) as well as 1 algorithm that relies on HIV antibody testing alone (Antibody algorithm). The cost model used data on men who have sex with men (MSM) undergoing community-based AHI screening in San Diego, California. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per diagnosis of AHI were calculated for programs with HIV prevalence rates between 0.1% and 2.9%.

RESULTS

Among MSM in San Diego, EarlyTest was cost-savings (ie, ICERs per AHI diagnosis less than $13.000) when compared with the 3 other algorithms. Cost analyses relative to regional HIV prevalence showed that EarlyTest was cost-effective (ie, ICERs less than $69.547) for similar populations of MSM with an HIV prevalence rate >0.4%; Architect was the second best alternative for HIV prevalence rates >0.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of AHI by the dual EarlyTest screening algorithm is likely to be cost-effective not only among at-risk MSM in San Diego but also among similar populations of MSM with HIV prevalence rates >0.4%.

A Randomized Clinical Trial of a Brief Hypnosis Intervention to Control Side Effects in Breast Surgery Patients

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer surgery is associated with side effects, including postsurgical pain, nausea, and fatigue. We carried out a randomized clinical trial to test the hypotheses that a brief presurgery hypnosis intervention would decrease intraoperative anesthesia and analgesic use and side effects associated with breast cancer surgery and that it would be cost effective.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 200 patients who were scheduled to undergo excisional breast biopsy or lumpectomy (mean age 48.5 years) to a 15-minute presurgery hypnosis session conducted by a psychologist or nondirective empathic listening (attention control). Patients were not blinded to group assignment. Intraoperative anesthesia use (i.e., of the analgesics lidocaine and fentanyl and the sedatives propofol and midazolam) was assessed. Patient-reported pain and other side effects as measured on a visual analog scale (0-100) were assessed at discharge, as was use of analgesics in the recovery room. Institutional costs and time in the operating room were assessed via chart review.

RESULTS

Patients in the hypnosis group required less propofol (means = 64.01 versus 96.64 microg; difference = 32.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.95 to 61.30) and lidocaine (means = 24.23 versus 31.09 mL; difference = 6.86; 95% CI = 3.05 to 10.68) than patients in the control group. Patients in the hypnosis group also reported less pain intensity (means = 22.43 versus 47.83; difference = 25.40; 95% CI = 17.56 to 33.25), pain unpleasantness (means = 21.19 versus 39.05; difference = 17.86; 95% CI = 9.92 to 25.80), nausea (means = 6.57 versus 25.49; difference = 18.92; 95% CI = 12.98 to 24.87), fatigue (means = 29.47 versus 54.20; difference = 24.73; 95% CI = 16.64 to 32.83), discomfort (means = 23.01 versus 43.20; difference = 20.19; 95% CI = 12.36 to 28.02), and emotional upset (means = 8.67 versus 33.46; difference = 24.79; 95% CI = 18.56 to 31.03). No statistically significant differences were seen in the use of fentanyl, midazolam, or recovery room analgesics. Institutional costs for surgical breast cancer procedures were $8561 per patient at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Patients in the hypnosis group cost the institution $772.71 less per patient than those in the control group (95% CI = 75.10 to 1469.89), mainly due to reduced surgical time.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypnosis was superior to attention control regarding propofol and lidocaine use; pain, nausea, fatigue, discomfort, and emotional upset at discharge; and institutional cost. Overall, the present data support the use of hypnosis with breast cancer surgery patients.