Peter J. Neumann

Bio: Peter J. Neumann is an academic researcher from University of Bern. The author has contributed to research in topics: Honey bee & Cost effectiveness. The author has an hindex of 94, co-authored 733 publications receiving 39294 citations. Previous affiliations of Peter J. Neumann include Project HOPE & German Primate Center.

Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers.

Abstract: Pollinators are a key component of global biodiversity, providing vital ecosystem services to crops and wild plants. There is clear evidence of recent declines in both wild and domesticated pollinators, and parallel declines in the plants that rely upon them. Here we describe the nature and extent of reported declines, and review the potential drivers of pollinator loss, including habitat loss and fragmentation, agrochemicals, pathogens, alien species, climate change and the interactions between them. Pollinator declines can result in loss of pollination services which have important negative ecological and economic impacts that could significantly affect the maintenance of wild plant diversity, wider ecosystem stability, crop production, food security and human welfare.

Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine

Abstract: Importance Since publication of the report by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996, researchers have advanced the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, and policy makers have experimented with its application. The need to deliver health care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand the clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health have increased in recent years. Objective To review the state of the field and provide recommendations to improve the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses. The intended audiences include researchers, government policy makers, public health officials, health care administrators, payers, businesses, clinicians, patients, and consumers. Design In 2012, the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine was formed and included 2 co-chairs, 13 members, and 3 additional members of a leadership group. These members were selected on the basis of their experience in the field to provide broad expertise in the design, conduct, and use of cost-effectiveness analyses. Over the next 3.5 years, the panel developed recommendations by consensus. These recommendations were then reviewed by invited external reviewers and through a public posting process. Findings The concept of a “reference case” and a set of standard methodological practices that all cost-effectiveness analyses should follow to improve quality and comparability are recommended. All cost-effectiveness analyses should report 2 reference case analyses: one based on a health care sector perspective and another based on a societal perspective. The use of an “impact inventory,” which is a structured table that contains consequences (both inside and outside the formal health care sector), intended to clarify the scope and boundaries of the 2 reference case analyses is also recommended. This special communication reviews these recommendations and others concerning the estimation of the consequences of interventions, the valuation of health outcomes, and the reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. Conclusions and Relevance The Second Panel reviewed the current status of the field of cost-effectiveness analysis and developed a new set of recommendations. Major changes include the recommendation to perform analyses from 2 reference case perspectives and to provide an impact inventory to clarify included consequences.

Updating Cost-Effectiveness — The Curious Resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY Threshold

Abstract: The ratio of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by using a given health care intervention has long served as a benchmark for the value of U.S. health care. But evidence suggests that it is too low and might best be thought of as an implied lower boundary.

Long-term Persistence in Use of Statin Therapy in Elderly Patients

Abstract: ContextKnowledge of long-term persistence with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor (statin) therapy is limited because previous studies have observed patients for short periods of time, in closely monitored clinical trials, or in other unrepresentative settings.ObjectiveTo describe the patterns and predictors of long-term persistence with statin therapy in an elderly US population.Design, Setting, and PatientsRetrospective cohort study including 34 501 enrollees in the New Jersey Medicaid and Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled programs who were 65 years of age and older, initiated statin treatment between 1990 and 1998, and who were followed up until death, disenrollment, or December 31, 1999.Main Outcome MeasuresProportion of days covered (PDC) by a statin in each quarter during the first year of therapy and every 6 months thereafter; predictors of suboptimal persistence during each interval (PDC <80%) were identified using generalized linear models for repeated measures.ResultsThe mean PDC was 79% in the first 3 months of treatment, 56% in the second quarter, and 42% after 120 months. Only 1 patient in 4 maintained a PDC of at least 80% after 5 years. The proportion of patients with a PDC less than 80% increased in a log-linear manner, comprising 40%, 61%, and 68% of the cohort after 3, 12, and 120 months, respectively. Independent predictors of poor long-term persistence included nonwhite race, lower income, older age, less cardiovascular morbidity at initiation of therapy, depression, dementia, and occurrence of coronary heart disease events after starting treatment. Patients who initiated therapy between 1996-1998 were 21% to 25% more likely to have a PDC of at least 80% than those who started in 1990.ConclusionsPersistence with statin therapy in older patients declines substantially over time, with the greatest drop occurring in the first 6 months of treatment. Despite slightly better persistence among patients who began treatment in recent years, long-term use remains low. Interventions are needed early in treatment and among high-risk groups, including those who experience coronary heart disease events after initiating treatment.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

The Theory of Island Biogeography

Abstract: Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols Used xiii 1. The Importance of Islands 3 2. Area and Number of Speicies 8 3. Further Explanations of the Area-Diversity Pattern 19 4. The Strategy of Colonization 68 5. Invasibility and the Variable Niche 94 6. Stepping Stones and Biotic Exchange 123 7. Evolutionary Changes Following Colonization 145 8. Prospect 181 Glossary 185 References 193 Index 201

Human biochemical genetics

Abstract: So far in this course we have dealt entirely with the evolution of characters that are controlled by simple Mendelian inheritance at a single locus. There are notes on the course website about gametic disequilibrium and how allele frequencies change at two loci simultaneously, but we didn’t discuss them. In every example we’ve considered we’ve imagined that we could understand something about evolution by examining the evolution of a single gene. That’s the domain of classical population genetics. For the next few weeks we’re going to be exploring a field that’s actually older than classical population genetics, although the approach we’ll be taking to it involves the use of population genetic machinery. If you know a little about the history of evolutionary biology, you may know that after the rediscovery of Mendel’s work in 1900 there was a heated debate between the “biometricians” (e.g., Galton and Pearson) and the “Mendelians” (e.g., de Vries, Correns, Bateson, and Morgan). Biometricians asserted that the really important variation in evolution didn’t follow Mendelian rules. Height, weight, skin color, and similar traits seemed to