Cancer constitutes an enormous burden on society in more and less economically developed countries alike. The occurrence of cancer is increasing because of the growth and aging of the population, as well as an increasing prevalence of established risk factors such as smoking, overweight, physical inactivity, and changing reproductive patterns associated with urbanization and economic development. Based on GLOBOCAN estimates, about 14.1 million new cancer cases and 8.2 million deaths occurred in 2012 worldwide. Over the years, the burden has shifted to less developed countries, which currently account for about 57% of cases and 65% of cancer deaths worldwide. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among males in both more and less developed countries, and has surpassed breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer death among females in more developed countries; breast cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death among females in less developed countries. Other leading causes of cancer death in more developed countries include colorectal cancer among males and females and prostate cancer among males. In less developed countries, liver and stomach cancer among males and cervical cancer among females are also leading causes of cancer death. Although incidence rates for all cancers combined are nearly twice as high in more developed than in less developed countries in both males and females, mortality rates are only 8% to 15% higher in more developed countries. This disparity reflects regional differences in the mix of cancers, which is affected by risk factors and detection practices, and/or the availability of treatment. Risk factors associated with the leading causes of cancer death include tobacco use (lung, colorectal, stomach, and liver cancer), overweight/obesity and physical inactivity (breast and colorectal cancer), and infection (liver, stomach, and cervical cancer). A substantial portion of cancer cases and deaths could be prevented by broadly applying effective prevention measures, such as tobacco control, vaccination, and the use of early detection tests.

/pdf/global-cancer-statistics-2012-18pecqxl5v.pdf

Global cancer statistics, 2012

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.

https://caltcm.memberclicks.net/assets/documents/acc_aha_chf_2013_guidelines.pdf

2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines

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

Background In patients with high cholesterol levels, lowering the cholesterol level reduces the risk of coronary events, but the effect of lowering cholesterol levels in the majority of patients with coronary disease, who have average levels, is less clear. Methods In a double-blind trial lasting five years, we administered either 40 mg of pravastatin per day or placebo to 4159 patients (3583 men and 576 women) with myocardial infarction who had plasma total cholesterol levels below 240 mg per deciliter (mean, 209) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 115 to 174 mg per deciliter (mean, 139). The primary end point was a fatal coronary event or a nonfatal myocardial infarction. Results The frequency of the primary end point was 10.2 percent in the pravastatin group and 13.2 percent in the placebo group, an absolute difference of 3 percentage points and a 24 percent reduction in risk (95 percent confidence interval, 9 to 36 percent; P = 0.003). Coronary bypass surgery was needed in 7.5 per...

The Effect of Pravastatin on Coronary Events after Myocardial Infarction in Patients with Average Cholesterol Levels

The Cambridge dictionary defines cancer as ‘a serious disease that is caused when cells in the body grow in a way that is uncontrolled and not normal, killing normal cells and often causing death’ [1]. In this issue of BJUI, Iczkowski and a group mainly of uropathologists make an argument in favour of maintaining the existing nomenclature for Gleason score 6 (GS6) disease, stating it should still be labelled ‘cancer’ based largely on histopathological features consistent with the above definition [2]. Their article rebuts a commentary by Eggener et al. [3] that argues that the histological entity termed GS6 disease (now Grade Group 1) should not be labelled ‘cancer’. Eggener et al. argue that GS6 is exceedingly prevalent, especially in aging men, and rarely leads to metastasis and death. Thus, GS6 does not meet a definition of cancer. Rather its biological behaviour is more like a precancer, rarely transforming into a more life-threatening disease. The emotional and psychosocial weight of the term ‘cancer’, they argue, represents a major barrier to deferring treatment with curative intent. Addressing this issue is complex and should include broad clinical and public stakeholder input from those experienced in disease definitions and labelling. Such efforts would substantially reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/bju.15897

Is Gleason 6 cancer? The answer is more than just a ‘name’

Rural vs. Urban Ambulatory Health Care

Definitions of Outcomes

Introduction: Nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) are observational or experimental studies of the effectiveness and/or harms of interventions, in which participants are not randomized to intervention groups. There is increasingly widespread recognition that advancements in the design and analysis of NRSIs allow NRSI evidence to have a much more prominent role in decision making, and not just as ancillary evidence to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objective: To guide decisions about inclusion of NRSIs for addressing the effects of interventions in systematic reviews (SRs), this chapter updates the 2010 guidance on inclusion of NRSIs in Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) SRs. The chapter focuses on considerations for decisions to include or exclude NRSIs in SRs. Methods: In November 2020, AHRQ convened a 20-member workgroup that comprised 13 members representing 8 of 9 AHRQ-appointed EPCs, 3 AHRQ representatives, 1 independent consultant with expertise in SRs, and 3 representatives of the AHRQ-appointed Scientific Resource Center. The workgroup received input from the full EPC Program regarding the process and specific issues through discussions at a virtual meeting and two online surveys regarding challenges with NRSI inclusion in SRs. One survey focused on current practices by EPCs regarding NRSI inclusion in ongoing and recently completed SRs. The other survey focused on the appropriateness, completeness, and usefulness of existing EPC Program methods guidance. The workgroup considered the virtual meeting and survey input when identifying aspects of the guidance that needed updating. The workgroup used an informal method for generating consensus about guidance. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Results: We outline considerations for the inclusion of NRSIs in SRs of intervention effectiveness. We describe the strengths and limitations of RCTs, study design features and types of NRSIs, and key considerations for making decisions about inclusion of NRSIs (during the stages of topic scoping and refinement, SR team formation, protocol development, SR conduct, and SR reporting). We discuss how NRSIs may be applicable for the decisional dilemma being addressed in the SR, threats to the internal validity of NRSIs, as well as various data sources and advanced analytic methods that may be used in NRSIs. Finally, we outline an approach to incorporating NRSIs within an SR and key considerations for reporting. Conclusion: The main change from the previous guidance is the overall approach to decisions about inclusion of NRSIs in EPC SRs. Instead of recommending NRSI inclusion only if RCTs are insufficient to address the Key Question, this updated guidance handles NRSI evidence as a valuable source of information and lays out important considerations for decisions about the inclusion of NRSIs in SRs of intervention effectiveness. Different topics may require different decisions regarding NRSI inclusion. This guidance is intended to improve the utility of the final product to end-users. Inclusion of NRSIs will increase the scope, time, and resources needed to complete SRs, and NRSIs pose potential threats to validity, such as selection bias, confounding, and misclassification of interventions. Careful consideration must be given to both concerns.

Timothy J Wilt

Papers

Is Gleason 6 cancer? The answer is more than just a ‘name’

Rural vs. Urban Ambulatory Health Care

Definitions of Outcomes

Inclusion of Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions in Systematic Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness: An Update

Chemotherapy for advanced prostate cancer