3 results on '"Anthony Park"'
Search Results
2. Risk assessment of nitrate and nitrite in feed
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM), Dieter Schrenk, Margherita Bignami, Laurent Bodin, James Kevin Chipman, Jesús del Mazo, Bettina Grasl‐Kraupp, Laurentius (Ron) Hoogenboom, Jean‐Charles Leblanc, Carlo Stefano Nebbia, Elsa Nielsen, Evangelia Ntzani, Annette Petersen, Salomon Sand, Tanja Schwerdtle, Christiane Vleminckx, Heather Wallace, Vasileios Bampidis, Bruce Cottrill, Maria Jose Frutos, Peter Furst, Anthony Parker, Marco Binaglia, Anna Christodoulidou, Petra Gergelova, Irene Munoz Guajardo, Carina Wenger, and Christer Hogstrand
- Subjects
Nitrate ,Nitrite ,methaemoglobin ,occurrence ,exposure ,feed ,Nutrition. Foods and food supply ,TX341-641 ,Chemical technology ,TP1-1185 - Abstract
Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks to animal health related to nitrite and nitrate in feed. For nitrate ion, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel) identified a BMDL10 of 64 mg nitrate/kg body weight (bw) per day for adult cattle, based on methaemoglobin (MetHb) levels in animal's blood that would not induce clinical signs of hypoxia. The BMDL10 is applicable to all bovines, except for pregnant cows in which reproductive effects were not clearly associated with MetHb formation. Since the data available suggested that ovines and caprines are not more sensitive than bovines, the BMDL10 could also be applied to these species. Highest mean exposure estimates of 53 and 60 mg nitrate/kg bw per day in grass silage‐based diets for beef cattle and fattening goats, respectively, may raise a health concern for ruminants when compared with the BMDL10 of 64 mg nitrate/kg bw per day. The concern may be higher because other forages might contain higher levels of nitrate. Highest mean exposure estimates of 2.0 mg nitrate/kg bw per day in pigs’ feeds indicate a low risk for adverse health effects, when compared with an identified no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 410 mg nitrate/kg bw per day, although the levels of exposure might be underestimated due to the absence of data on certain key ingredients in the diets of this species. Due to the limitations of the data available, the CONTAM Panel could not characterise the health risk in species other than ruminants and pigs from nitrate and in all livestock and companion animals from nitrite. Based on a limited data set, both the transfer of nitrate and nitrite from feed to food products of animal origin and the nitrate‐ and nitrite‐mediated formation of N‐nitrosamines and their transfer into these products are likely to be negligible.
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Cost-effectiveness of an intervention to reduce emergency re-admissions to hospital among older patients.
- Author
-
Nicholas Graves, Mary Courtney, Helen Edwards, Anne Chang, Anthony Parker, and Kathleen Finlayson
- Subjects
Medicine ,Science - Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of an intervention that reduces hospital re-admission among older people at high risk. A cost-effectiveness model to estimate the costs and health benefits of the intervention was implemented. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The model used data from a randomised controlled trial conducted in an Australian tertiary metropolitan hospital. Participants were acute medical admissions aged >65 years with at least one risk factor for re-admission: multiple comorbidities, impaired functionality, aged >75 years, recent multiple admissions, poor social support, history of depression. The intervention was a comprehensive nursing and physiotherapy assessment and an individually tailored program of exercise strategies and nurse home visits with telephone follow-up; commencing in hospital and continuing following discharge for 24 weeks. The change to cost outcomes, including the costs of implementing the intervention and all subsequent use of health care services, and, the change to health benefits, represented by quality adjusted life years, were estimated for the intervention as compared to existing practice. The mean change to total costs and quality adjusted life years for an average individual over 24 weeks participating in the intervention were: cost savings of $333 (95% Bayesian credible interval $ -1,932:1,282) and 0.118 extra quality adjusted life years (95% Bayesian credible interval 0.1:0.136). The mean net-monetary-benefit per individual for the intervention group compared to the usual care condition was $7,907 (95% Bayesian credible interval $5,959:$9,995) for the 24 week period. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The estimation model that describes this intervention predicts cost savings and improved health outcomes. A decision to remain with existing practices causes unnecessary costs and reduced health. Decision makers should consider adopting this program for elderly hospitalised patients.
- Published
- 2009
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.