Science-policy in environmental and health risk assessment: if we cannot do without, can we do better?

How can empirical evidence of adverse effects from exposure to noxious agents, which is often incomplete and uncertain, be used most appropriately to protect human health? We examine several important questions on the best uses of empirical evidence in regulatory risk management decision-making raised by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s science-policy concerning uncertainty and variability in human health risk assessment. In our view, the US EPA (and other agencies that have adopted similar views of risk management) can often improve decision-making by decreasing reliance on default values and assumptions, particularly when causation is uncertain. This can be achieved by more fully exploiting decision-theoretic methods and criteria that explicitly account for uncertain, possibly conflicting scientific beliefs and that can be fully studied by advocates and adversaries of a policy choice, in administrative decision-making involving risk assessment. The substitution of decision-theoretic frameworks for default assumption-driven policies also allows stakeholder attitudes toward risk to be incorporated into policy debates, so that the public and risk managers can more explicitly identify the roles of risk-aversion or other attitudes toward risk and uncertainty in policy recommendations. Decision theory provides a sound scientific way explicitly to account for new knowledge and its effects on eventual policy choices. Although these improvements can complicate regulatory analyses, simplifying default assumptions can create substantial costs to society and can prematurely cut off consideration of new scientific insights (e.g., possible beneficial health effects from exposure to sufficiently low 'hormetic' doses of some agents). In many cases, the administrative burden of applying decision-analytic methods is likely to be more than offset by improved effectiveness of regulations in achieving desired goals. Because many foreign jurisdictions adopt US EPA reasoning and methods of risk analysis, it may be especially valuable to incorporate decision-theoretic principles that transcend local differences among jurisdictions.

Development of a prescribing indicator for objective quantification of antibiotic usage in secondary care

Objectives: To compare the recognized defined daily dose per 100 bed-days (DDD/100 bed-days) measure with the defined daily dose per finished consultant episode (DDD/FCE) in a group of hospitals with a variety of medicines management strategies. To compare antibiotic usage using the above indicators in hospitals with and without electronic prescribing systems. Methods: Twelve hospitals were used in the study. Nine hospitals were selected and split into three cohorts (three high-scoring, three medium-scoring and three low-scoring) by their 2001 medicines management self-assessment scores (MMAS). An additional cohort of three electronic prescribing hospitals was included for comparison. MMAS were compared to antibiotic management scores (AMS) developed from a questionnaire relating specifically to control of antibiotics. FCEs and occupied bed-days were obtained from published statistics and statistical analyses of the DDD/100 bed-days and DDD/FCE were carried out using SPSS. Results: The DDD/100 bed-days varied from 81.33 to 189.37 whilst the DDD/FCE varied from 2.88 to 7.43. The two indicators showed a high degree of correlation with r = 0.74. MMAS were from 9 to 22 (possible range 0-23) and the AMS from 2 to 13 (possible range 0-22). The two scores showed a high degree of correlation with r = 0.74. No correlation was established between either indicator and either score. Conclusions: The WHO indicator for medicines utilization, DDD/100 bed-days, exhibited the same level of conformity as that exhibited from the use of the DDD/FCE indicating that the DDD/FCE is a useful additional indicator for identifying hospitals which require further study. The MMAS can be assumed to be an accurate guide to antibiotic medicines management controls. No relationship has been found between a high degree of medicines management control and the quantity of antibiotic prescribed. © The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy; 2004 all rights reserved.

Adverse drug reaction teaching in UK undergraduate medical and pharmacy programmes

Objectives: To assess the extent of teaching about the Committee on Safety of Medicine's Yellow Card scheme and adverse drug reactions within UK Schools of Medicine and Pharmacy. Methods: A self-completed questionnaire sent to all heads of undergraduate schools of medicine and pharmacy within the UK. Results: The majority of undergraduate syllabuses feature the Yellow Card Scheme. Knowledge of the Yellow Card Scheme was assessed in 79% of pharmacy programmes and 57% of medical schools. Specialist speakers on the Yellow Card Scheme were infrequently used. Fewer than half of respondents provided students with a guide to reporting ADRs (43% pharmacy and 43% medical). There is some disagreement about the value of supplying students with printed material about the Yellow Card Scheme. Half of medical Schools did not think that supplying 'Current Problems In Pharmacovigilance' would be useful. Conclusions: It was found that in both medicine and pharmacy, courses differed substantially in teaching about the Yellow Card Scheme and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). There is scope for increased involvement of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in undergraduate education, in line with recommendations from the National Audit Office.

Development and validaton of an indicator to compare antibiotic usage in secondary care in England

The use of antibiotics was investigated in twelve acute hospitals in England. Data was collected electronically and by questionnaire for the financial years 2001/2, 2002/3 and 2003/4. Hospitals were selected on the basis of their Medicines Management Self-Assessment Scores (MMAS) and included a cohort of three hospitals with integrated electronic prescribing systems. The total sample size was 6.65% of English NHS activity for 2001/2 based on Finished Consultant Episode (FCE) numbers. Data collected included all antibiotics dispensed (ATC category J01), hospital activity FCE's and beddays, Medicines Management Self-assessment scores, Antibiotic Medicines Management scores (AMS), Primary Care Trust (PCT) of origin of referral populations, PCT antibiotic prescribing rates, Index of Multiple Deprivation for each PCT. The DDD/FCE (Defined Daily Dose/FCE) was found to correlate with the DDD 100beddays (r = 0.74 pindicating this is a useful additional indicator for identifying hospitals that require further study. Antibiotic use increased from a mean 4.16 DDD/FCE in 2001/2 to 4.35 DDD/FCE in 2003/4. Antibiotic use in the electronic prescribing cohort was found to be lower, than the sample mean at 3.48 DDD/FCE in 2001/2 and 3.34 DDD/FCE in 2003/4. The MMAS and AMS were found to correlate (r = 0.74 ping the use of the MMAS as an indication of control of antibiotic use. No correlation was found between the MMAS and a range of qualitative indicators of antibiotic use. A number of indicators are proposed as triggers for further investigation including a proportion of 0.24 for the ratio of third generation to first/second generation cephalosporin use, and five percent as the limit for parenteral quinolone DOD of total quinolone DOD usage. It was possible to demonstrate a correlation between the IMD 2000 and primary care antibiotic prescribing rates but not between primary and secondary care antibiotic prescribing rates for the same referral population or between the weighted mean IMD 2000 for each hospital's referral population and the hospital antibiotic prescribing rate.