Mitigation and screening for environmental assessment

This article considers how, as a matter of law and policy, mitigation measures should be taken into account in determining whether a project will have significant environmental effects and therefore be subject to assessment under the EU Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive. This is not straightforward: it is problematic to distinguish clearly between an activity and the measures proposed to minimise or mitigate for the adverse consequences of the activity. The issue is a salient one in impact assessment law, but under-explored in the literature and handled with some difficulty by the courts. I argue that there is an unnecessarily and undesirably narrow approach currently taken under the EIA Directive, which could be improved upon by taking a more adaptive approach; alternatively a heightened standard of review of ‘significance’, and within this of the scope for mitigation measures to bring projects beneath the significance threshold, may also be desirable

Observation of Stratospheric Ozone Depletion associated with Delta II Rocket Emissions

Ozone, chlorine monoxide, methane, and submicron particulate concentrations were measured in the stratospheric plume wake of a Delta II rocket powered by a combination of solid (NH4ClO4/Al) and liquid (LOX/kerosene) propulsion systems. We apply a simple kinetics model describing the main features of gas-phase chlorine reactions in solid propellant exhaust plumes to derive the abundance of total reactive chlorine in the plume and estimate the associated cumulative ozone loss. Measured ozone loss during two plume encounters (12 and 39 minutes after launch) exceeded the estimate by about a factor of about two. Insofar as only the most significant gas-phase chlorine reactions are included in the calculation, these results suggest that additional plume wake chemical processes or emissions other than reactive chlorine from the Delta II propulsion system affect ozone levels in the plume

CHOICE: Choosing Health Options In Chronic Care Emergencies

Background Over 70% of the health-care budget in England is spent on the care of people with long-term conditions (LTCs), and a major cost component is unscheduled health care. Psychological morbidity is high in people with LTCs and is associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including increased mortality, poorer physical health outcomes, increased health costs and service utilisation. Objectives The aim of this programme of research was to examine the relationship between psychological morbidity and use of unscheduled care in people with LTCs, and to develop a psychosocial intervention that would have the potential to reduce unscheduled care use. We focused largely on emergency hospital admissions (EHAs) and attendances at emergency departments (EDs). Design A three-phase mixed-methods study. Research methods included systematic reviews; a longitudinal prospective cohort study in primary care to identify people with LTCs at risk of EHA or ED admission; a replication study in primary care using routinely collected data; an exploratory and feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care; and qualitative studies to identify personal reasons for the use of unscheduled care and factors in routine consultations in primary care that may influence health-care use. People with lived experience of LTCs worked closely with the research team. Setting Primary care. Manchester and London. Participants People aged ≥ 18 years with at least one of four common LTCs: asthma, coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and diabetes. Participants also included health-care staff. Results Evidence synthesis suggested that depression, but not anxiety, is a predictor of use of unscheduled care in patients with LTCs, and low-intensity complex interventions reduce unscheduled care use in people with asthma and COPD. The results of the prospective study were that depression, not having a partner and life stressors, in addition to prior use of unscheduled care, severity of illness and multimorbidity, were independent predictors of EHA and ED admission. Approximately half of the cost of health care for people with LTCs was accounted for by use of unscheduled care. The results of the replication study, carried out in London, broadly supported our findings for risk of ED attendances, but not EHAs. This was most likely due to low rates of detection of depression in general practitioner (GP) data sets. Qualitative work showed that patients were reluctant to use unscheduled care, deciding to do so when they perceived a serious and urgent need for care, and following previous experience that unscheduled care had successfully and unquestioningly met similar needs in the past. In general, emergency and primary care doctors did not regard unscheduled care as problematic. We found there are missed opportunities to identify and discuss psychosocial issues during routine consultations in primary care due to the ‘overmechanisation’ of routine health-care reviews. The feasibility trial examined two levels of an intervention for people with COPD: we tried to improve the way in which practices manage patients with COPD and developed a targeted psychosocial treatment for patients at risk of using unscheduled care. The former had low acceptability, whereas the latter had high acceptability. Exploratory health economic analyses suggested that the practice-level intervention would be unlikely to be cost-effective, limiting the value of detailed health economic modelling. Limitations The findings of this programme may not apply to all people with LTCs. It was conducted in an area of high social deprivation, which may limit the generalisability to more affluent areas. The response rate to the prospective longitudinal study was low. The feasibility trial focused solely on people with COPD. Conclusions Prior use of unscheduled care is the most powerful predictor of unscheduled care use in people with LTCs. However, psychosocial factors, particularly depression, are important additional predictors of use of unscheduled care in patients with LTCs, independent of severity and multimorbidity. Patients and health-care practitioners are unaware that psychosocial factors influence health-care use, and such factors are rarely acknowledged or addressed in consultations or discussions about use of unscheduled care. A targeted patient intervention for people with LTCs and comorbid depression has shown high levels of acceptability when delivered in a primary care context. An intervention at the level of the GP practice showed little evidence of acceptability or cost-effectiveness. Future work The potential benefits of case-finding for depression in patients with LTCs in primary care need to be evaluated, in addition to further evaluation of the targeted patient intervention

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570