Background: Asymptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasingly common in the aging population and implicated in many ischemic strokes. Earlier identification of AF with appropriate anticoagulation may decrease stroke morbidity and mortality. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of AF screening using an AliveCor Kardia monitor attached to a WiFi-enabled iPod to obtain ECGs (iECGs) in ambulatory patients. Patients ≥65 years of age with a CHADS-VASc score ≥2 free from AF were randomized to the iECG arm or routine care (RC). iECG participants acquired iECGs twice weekly over 12 months (plus additional iECGs if symptomatic) onto a secure study server with overread by an automated AF detection algorithm and by a cardiac physiologist and/or consultant cardiologist. Time to diagnosis of AF was the primary outcome measure. The overall cost of the devices, ECG interpretation, and patient management were captured and used to generate the cost per AF diagnosis in iECG patients. Clinical events and patient attitudes/experience were also evaluated. Results: We studied 1001 patients (500 iECG, 501 RC) who were 72.6±5.4 years of age; 534 were female. Mean CHADS-VASc score was 3.0 (heart failure, 1.4%; hypertension, 54%; diabetes mellitus, 30%; prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, 6.5%; arterial disease, 15.9%; all CHADS-VASc risk factors were evenly distributed between groups). Nineteen patients in the iECG group were diagnosed with AF over the 12-month study period versus 5 in the RC arm (hazard ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval=1.4–10.4; P =0.007) at a cost per AF diagnosis of $10 780 (£8255). There was a similar number of stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolic events (6 versus 10, iECG versus RC; hazard ratio=0.61; 95% confidence interval=0.22–1.69; P =0.34). The majority of iECG patients were satisfied with the device, finding it easy to use without restricting activities or causing anxiety. Conclusions: Screening with twice-weekly single-lead iECG with remote interpretation in ambulatory patients ≥65 years of age at increased risk of stroke is significantly more likely to identify incident AF than RC over a 12-month period. This approach is also highly acceptable to this group of patients, supporting further evaluation in an appropriately powered, event-driven clinical trial. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN10709813.

• There are enormous costs which society has to bear as a result of the burden of chronic pain and its suffering. • Policy makers at governmental level and commissioners, and health care decision-makers alike should adopt a broad, strategic and coherent perspective in determining issues relating to service provision and resource allocation.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to review the literature relating to the psychosocial costs associated with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: Nine online journal databases, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and PUBMED, were queried for studies between July 2010 and May 2012 pertaining to the economic burden of head injuries. Additional studies were identified through searching bibliographies of related publications and using Google internet search engine. Results: One hundred and eight potentially relevant abstracts were identified from the journal databases. Ten papers were chosen for discussion in this review. All but two of the chosen papers were US studies. The studies included a cost-benefit analysis of the implementation of treatment guidelines from the US brain trauma foundation and a cost-effectiveness analysis of post-acute traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. Conclusion: Very little research has been published on the economic burden that mild and moderate traumatic brain injury patients pose to their families, careers, and society as a whole. Further research is needed to estimate the economic burden of these patients on healthcare providers and social services and how this can impact current health policies and practices.

BACKGROUND Pulmonary rehabilitation programmes improve the health of patients disabled by lung disease but their cost effectiveness is unproved. We undertook a cost/utility analysis in conjunction with a randomised controlled clinical trial of pulmonary rehabilitation versus standard care. METHODS Two hundred patients, mainly with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were randomly assigned to either an 18 visit, 6 week rehabilitation programme or standard medical management. The difference between the mean cost of 12 months of care for patients in the rehabilitation and control groups (incremental cost) and the difference between the two groups in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained (incremental utility) were determined. The ratio between incremental cost and utility (incremental cost/utility ratio) was calculated. RESULTS Each rehabilitation programme for up to 20 patients cost £12 120. The mean incremental cost of adding rehabilitation to standard care was £ –152 (95% CI –881 to 577) per patient, p=NS. The incremental utility of adding rehabilitation was 0.030 (95% CI 0.002 to 0.058) QALYs per patient, p=0.03. The point estimate of the incremental cost/utility ratio was therefore negative. The bootstrapping technique was used to model the distribution of cost/utility estimates possible from the data. A high likelihood of generating QALYs at negative or relatively low cost was indicated. The probability of the cost per QALY generated being below £0 was 0.64. CONCLUSIONS This outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme produces cost per QALY ratios within bounds considered to be cost effective and is likely to result in financial benefits to the health service.

There are a lack of reliable data on the epidemiology and associated burden and costs of asthma. We sought to provide the first UK-wide estimates of the epidemiology, healthcare utilisation and costs of asthma. We obtained and analysed asthma-relevant data from 27 datasets: these comprised national health surveys for 2010–11, and routine administrative, health and social care datasets for 2011–12; 2011–12 costs were estimated in pounds sterling using economic modelling. The prevalence of asthma depended on the definition and data source used. The UK lifetime prevalence of patient-reported symptoms suggestive of asthma was 29.5 % (95 % CI, 27.7–31.3; n = 18.5 million (m) people) and 15.6 % (14.3–16.9, n = 9.8 m) for patient-reported clinician-diagnosed asthma. The annual prevalence of patient-reported clinician-diagnosed-and-treated asthma was 9.6 % (8.9–10.3, n = 6.0 m) and of clinician-reported, diagnosed-and-treated asthma 5.7 % (5.7–5.7; n = 3.6 m). Asthma resulted in at least 6.3 m primary care consultations, 93,000 hospital in-patient episodes, 1800 intensive-care unit episodes and 36,800 disability living allowance claims. The costs of asthma were estimated at least £1.1 billion: 74 % of these costs were for provision of primary care services (60 % prescribing, 14 % consultations), 13 % for disability claims, and 12 % for hospital care. There were 1160 asthma deaths. Asthma is very common and is responsible for considerable morbidity, healthcare utilisation and financial costs to the UK public sector. Greater policy focus on primary care provision is needed to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations, hospitalisations and deaths, and reduce costs.