https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/preview/1797952/1-s2.0-S0140673618322797-main.pdf

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

世界経済・社会統計 = World development indicators

XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/164632/2/01_Bin%2bSayeed_Global%252C_regional%252C_and_national_2018.pdf

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, andyears lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematicanalysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/files/259213304/PIIS0140673620309259.pdf

Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Approximately 100 million people or 1.3% of the world population have a personal history of cancer and are thus considered to be cancer survivors. Around 40% of them reside in the area referred to as the IndoPacific. The term Indo-Pacific describes a geopolitical area extending from India across the interconnected space of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, with strong regional economic and political alliances and some of the world’s fastest growing economies (India, Bangladesh, and Vietnam), making it one of the most strategically important regions globally. Indo-Pacific corresponds to two WHO regions: the Western Pacific and the South East Asia. It accounts for 60% of the world population, 45% of global cancer incidence, and 53% of mortality, with projections for a 48% increase in numbers of cancers over the next 20 years, attributed to population growth and aging. Within the region, comprising some of the most populous countries (China and India) and the least populous (Tuvalu), there is great variation in the prevalence of cancer (ranging from 0.25% in Bangladesh to 3.2% in New Zealand), numbers of cancer survivors, and cancer disability burden (Table 1).

Cancer Survivorship in the Indo-Pacific: Priorities for Progress

1567 Background: Objective and complete toxicity reporting in clinical trials is critical for patient-centered shared decision-making. Conference abstracts inform initial impressions of practice-changing treatments. Methods: We performed a systematic review of all abstracts of CRC and PaC phase 3 RCTs presented at ASCO annual meetings between 2012 – 2022; long-term follow-up, supportive care, and solely non-pharmacological studies were excluded. Objective minimization of adverse event (AE) reporting was defined as absent and/or incomplete reporting of cumulative grade 3-5 CTCAE (common terminology criteria for AE). We also assessed the use of subjective minimizing language (Chin-Yee et al ASH 2022), defined as use of “acceptable,” “tolerable”, “manageable”, “favorable” (primary minimization terms), or “feasible”, “safe”, “patients did well”, “limited” (secondary minimization terms), terms that falsely imply patients deemed the therapy as such. Presence/absence of PRO or QOL data was also assessed. Results: 63 RCTs met entry criteria (42 CRC, 21 PaC), detailed in Table. Most trials studied chemotherapy +/- other drugs (52; 83%). 17% of all abstracts did not provide any information on AE. Quantitative data on AEs were reported by 38 (60%) of abstracts. However, serious AE reporting was frequently absent (Table), with some trials reporting only specific toxicities (e.g. cytopenias) instead of cumulative CTCAE. Only 7 (11%) of abstracts noted the occurrence or absence of fatal AE. Any subjective-minimizing language was used in 15 (24%) abstracts. Notably, none of the abstracts using subjective-minimizing language provided information on fatal AE rates, nor reported on the patient perspective via QOL or PRO. Average grade ≥ 3 AE in the experimental arm were similar in abstracts with vs without minimizing language (44% vs 45%). Conclusions: Our systematic review of ph 3 RCTs in GI oncology presented at ASCO annual meetings reveals that subjective minimizing language is often used to describe serious toxicities, and without formally assessing the patient voice. Serious AE reporting is frequently absent or incomplete.[Table: see text]

Toxicity reporting consistency and subjective minimizing language use in colorectal cancer (CRC) and pancreatic cancer (PaC) clinical trials: A systematic review of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented at ASCO between 2012-2022.

Common Sense Oncology: outcomes that matter.

/pdf/lessons-from-adaptive-randomization-spying-the-i-spy2-trial-37s9anm6zo.pdf

Bishal Gyawali

Papers

Cancer Survivorship in the Indo-Pacific: Priorities for Progress

Toxicity reporting consistency and subjective minimizing language use in colorectal cancer (CRC) and pancreatic cancer (PaC) clinical trials: A systematic review of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented at ASCO between 2012-2022.

Common Sense Oncology: outcomes that matter.

Lessons From Adaptive Randomization: Spying the I-SPY2 Trial in Breast Cancer.

Information Transparency in the Drug Approval Process-Reply.