Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a major public health problem. It is the fourth leading cause of chronic morbidity and mortality in the United States, and is projected to rank fifth in 2020 in burden of disease worldwide, according to a study published by the World Bank/World Health Organization. Yet, COPD remains relatively unknown or ignored by the public as well as public health and government officials. In 1998, in an effort to bring more attention to COPD, its management, and its prevention, a committed group of scientists encouraged the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the World Health Organization to form the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). Among the important objectives of GOLD are to increase awareness of COPD and to help the millions of people who suffer from this disease and die prematurely of it or its complications. The first step in the GOLD program was to prepare a consensus report, Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of COPD, published in 2001. The present, newly revised document follows the same format as the original consensus report, but has been updated to reflect the many publications on COPD that have appeared. GOLD national leaders, a network of international experts, have initiated investigations of the causes and prevalence of COPD in their countries, and developed innovative approaches for the dissemination and implementation of COPD management guidelines. We appreciate the enormous amount of work the GOLD national leaders have done on behalf of their patients with COPD. Despite the achievements in the 5 years since the GOLD report was originally published, considerable additional work is ahead of us if we are to control this major public health problem. The GOLD initiative will continue to bring COPD to the attention of governments, public health officials, health care workers, and the general public, but a concerted effort by all involved in health care will be necessary.

https://www.who.int/respiratory/copd/GOLD_WR_06.pdf

Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: GOLD executive summary.

Author(s): Writing Group Members; Mozaffarian, Dariush; Benjamin, Emelia J; Go, Alan S; Arnett, Donna K; Blaha, Michael J; Cushman, Mary; Das, Sandeep R; de Ferranti, Sarah; Despres, Jean-Pierre; Fullerton, Heather J; Howard, Virginia J; Huffman, Mark D; Isasi, Carmen R; Jimenez, Monik C; Judd, Suzanne E; Kissela, Brett M; Lichtman, Judith H; Lisabeth, Lynda D; Liu, Simin; Mackey, Rachel H; Magid, David J; McGuire, Darren K; Mohler, Emile R; Moy, Claudia S; Muntner, Paul; Mussolino, Michael E; Nasir, Khurram; Neumar, Robert W; Nichol, Graham; Palaniappan, Latha; Pandey, Dilip K; Reeves, Mathew J; Rodriguez, Carlos J; Rosamond, Wayne; Sorlie, Paul D; Stein, Joel; Towfighi, Amytis; Turan, Tanya N; Virani, Salim S; Woo, Daniel; Yeh, Robert W; Turner, Melanie B; American Heart Association Statistics Committee; Stroke Statistics Subcommittee

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2016 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/340/bmj.c869.full.pdf

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Author(s): Mozaffarian, Dariush; Benjamin, Emelia J; Go, Alan S; Arnett, Donna K; Blaha, Michael J; Cushman, Mary; de Ferranti, Sarah; Despres, Jean-Pierre; Fullerton, Heather J; Howard, Virginia J; Huffman, Mark D; Judd, Suzanne E; Kissela, Brett M; Lackland, Daniel T; Lichtman, Judith H; Lisabeth, Lynda D; Liu, Simin; Mackey, Rachel H; Matchar, David B; McGuire, Darren K; Mohler, Emile R; Moy, Claudia S; Muntner, Paul; Mussolino, Michael E; Nasir, Khurram; Neumar, Robert W; Nichol, Graham; Palaniappan, Latha; Pandey, Dilip K; Reeves, Mathew J; Rodriguez, Carlos J; Sorlie, Paul D; Stein, Joel; Towfighi, Amytis; Turan, Tanya N; Virani, Salim S; Willey, Joshua Z; Woo, Daniel; Yeh, Robert W; Turner, Melanie B; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee

/pdf/heart-disease-and-stroke-statistics-2015-update-a-report-37itwymd10.pdf

Heart disease and stroke statistics-2015 update: A report from the American Heart Association

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials

Objective. —To develop consensus-based recommendations for the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This article, the second in a 3-part series, describes the basis for recommendations constituting the reference case analysis, the set of practices developed to guide CEAs that inform societal resource allocation decisions, and the content of these recommendations. Participants. —The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, was convened by the US Public Health Service (PHS). Evidence. —The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, and alternative methods used in analyses. Recommendations were developed on the basis of theory where possible, but tempered by ethical and pragmatic considerations, as well as the needs of users. Consensus Process. —The panel developed recommendations through 21/2 years of discussions. Comments on preliminary drafts prepared by panel working groups were solicited from federal government methodologists, health agency officials, and academic methodologists. Conclusions. —The panel's methodological recommendations address (1) components belonging in the numerator and denominator of a cost-effectiveness (C/E) ratio; (2) measuring resource use in the numerator of a C/E ratio; (3) valuing health consequences in the denominator of a C/E ratio; (4) estimating effectiveness of interventions; (5) incorporating time preference and discounting; and (6) handling uncertainty. Recommendations are subject to the "rule of reason," balancing the burden engendered by a practice with its importance to a study. If researchers follow a standard set of methods in CEA, the quality and comparability of studies, and their ultimate utility, can be much improved.

https://jamanetwork.com/HttpHandlers/ArticlePdfHandler.ashx?journal=JAMA&articleId=409634&pdfFileName=jama_276_15_031.pdf

Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

We gathered information on the cost-effectiveness of life-saving interventions in the United States from publicly available economic analyses. "Life-saving interventions" were defined as any behavioral and/or technological strategy that reduces the probability of premature death among a specified target population. We defined cost-effectiveness as the net resource costs of an intervention per year of life saved. To improve the comparability of cost-effectiveness ratios arrived at with diverse methods, we established fixed definitional goals and revised published estimates, when necessary and feasible, to meet these goals. The 587 interventions identified ranged from those that save more resources than they cost, to those costing more than 10 billion dollars per year of life saved. Overall, the median intervention costs $42,000 per life-year saved. The median medical intervention cost $19,000/life-year; injury reduction $48,000/life-year; and toxin control $2,800,000/life-year. Cost/life-year ratios and bibliographic references for more than 500 life-saving interventions are provided.

Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness.

Objective. —This article, the third in a 3-part series, describes recommendations for the reporting of cost-effective analyses (CEAs) intended to improve the quality and accessibility of CEA reports. Participants. —The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, convened by the US Public Health Service. Evidence. —The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, alternative methods, published critiques of CEAs, and criticisms of general CEA methods and reporting practices. Consensus Process. —The panel developed recommendations through 21/2 years of discussions. Comments on preliminary drafts were solicited from federal government methodologists, health agency officials, and academic methodologists. Conclusion. —These recommendations are proposed to enhance the transparency of study methods, assist analysts in providing complete information, and facilitate the presentation of comparable cost-effectiveness results across studies. Adherence to reporting conventions and attention to providing information required to understand and interpret study results will improve the relevance and accessibility of CEAs.

Recommendations for Reporting Cost-effectiveness Analyses

Objective: To develop consensus-based recommendations guiding the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to improve the comparability and quality of studies. The recommendations apply to analyses intended to inform the allocation of health care resources across a broad range of conditions and interventions. This article, first in a 3-part series, discusses how this goal affects the conduct and use of analyses. The remaining articles will outline methodological and reporting recommendations, respectively. 

Participants: The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, was convened by the US Public Health Service (PHS). 

Evidence: The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, and alternative procedures for measuring and assigning values to resource use and health outcomes. 

Consensus process: The panel met 11 times during 2 1/2 years with PHS staff and methodologists from federal agencies. Working groups brought issues and preliminary recommendations to the full panel for discussion. Draft recommendations were circulated to outside experts and the federal agencies prior to finalization. 

Conclusions: The panel's recommendations define a "reference case" cost-effectiveness analysis, a standard set of methods to serve as a point of comparison across studies. The reference case analysis is conducted from the societal perspective and accounts for benefits, harms, and costs to all parties. Although CEA does not reflect every element of importance in health care decisions, the information it provides is critical to informing decisions about the allocation of health care resources.

Joanna E. Siegel

Papers

Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness.

Recommendations for Reporting Cost-effectiveness Analyses

The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine