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

Surgical conditions span a broad spectrum of health states that result in morbidity and resource utilization. For patients and physicians, identifying the risks and benefits of interventions can be difficult. Selecting the “best treatment” for a particular clinical situation from the vast array of available options can be confusing. Health care providers, policy makers, and educators are focusing on “evidence-based health care,” the integration of the best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. Because they represent the gold standard for testing new interventions, randomized or controlled clinical trials (RCT/CCTs) are the centerpiece of research evidence. Systematic reviews and quantitative meta-analyses have been suggested as an even higher level of evidence, because they provide scientifically rigorous synthesis of all the known evidence from RCT/CCTs or other best evidence.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Discussions with patients should include the small increase in risk of falls and fractures associated with selective α antagonists

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/351/bmj.h5608.full.pdf

Balancing the benefits and harms of drug treatments for older men with lower urinary tract symptoms.

Hemoglobin A1c Targets for Glycemic Control With Pharmacologic Therapy.

Main results Analysis was by intention to treat. During follow up, fewer patients in the radical prostatectomy group than the watchful waiting group died from prostate cancer (relative hazard [RH] 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.91) (table), developed distant metastases (RH 0.63, CI 0.41 to 0.96), or had local progression (RH 0.31, CI 0.22 to 0.44). The difference between groups for all cause mortality was not statistically significant (RH 0.83, CI 0.57 to 1.2) (table). Quality of life outcomes were assessed by mailed questionnaire in 326 men (87% of the men enrolled between January 1989 and February 1996): More radical prostatectomy patients than watchful waiting patients reported erectile dysfunction (80% v 45%, relative risk [RR] 1.8, CI 1.5 to 2.2) and urinary leakage (18% v 2%, RR 9.3, CI 2.9 to 29.9); groups did not differ for bowel function, psychological wellbeing, or subjective quality of life values.

/pdf/radical-prostatectomy-reduced-death-from-prostate-cancer-but-4iyywbju51.pdf

Radical prostatectomy reduced death from prostate cancer but not all cause mortality

Decisions about cancer screening have become increasingly complex. Patients must decide whether to get screened, which screening modality to use, and how often to undergo and when to stop screening. Some cancer screening decisions are considered “preference-sensitive,” meaning that, due to closely-balanced benefits and harms, the “right” decision is in part dependent on an individual's values and preferences for particular outcomes. Most organizations publishing clinical practice guidelines for cancer screening now recommend that preference-sensitive cancer screening decisions be made individually, using a process that considers the available evidence on the benefits and harms of particular options, and incorporates patient values and preferences relevant to those options. This approach is sometimes referred to as shared decision making (SDM). The goal of SDM interventions is to facilitate this approach. Adjuncts for the usual counseling for specific decisions, SDM interventions may include: (1) tools to help patients comprehend information about the risks and benefits of options, clarify their personal values related to these options, and participate in decisions consistent with these values and preferences (sometimes referred to as “decision aids”) and (2) other interventions to prepare health care providers and/or systems to support this process. SDM interventions differ from many health-related interventions in that they primarily seek to elicit and support patient values and preferences in making health care-related decisions rather than to promote a particular health care strategy per se.In this review we examine the effects of SDM interventions for cancer screening in adults on constructs from the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, a commonly-used theoretical model of decision making. We examined the constructs of Decision Quality, Decision Impact, and, for studies reporting those outcomes, Decision Action. Decision Quality includes knowledge, values clarity (patients' clarity of their personal values regarding the risks and benefits of decision options), and the patients' participatory role in decision making. Decision Impact includes decisional conflict (personal uncertainty about which course of action to take), use of services (eg, consultation length), and satisfaction with the decision. Decision Action includes screening intention and behavior. The ideal SDM intervention would enhance Decision Quality (ie, increase knowledge and values clarity) and Impact (ie, increase satisfaction, reduce decision conflict, and have minimal impact on service utilization). The desired impact on Decision Action depends on the screening decision. For decisions about how to screen (such as colorectal cancer screening), the ideal SDM intervention would exert the desired effects on Decision Quality and Impact without reducing measures of Decision Action such as screening intention and behavior. For decisions about whether to screen (such as breast, cervical, and prostate cancer in some age groups and risk categories), the goal is to facilitate personalized decision making based on values and preferences. Hence, there are no desired effects on Decision Action per se in this context. We examine patient, provider, system, and multi-level SDM interventions, and therefore do not restrict this review to the most commonly employed SDM intervention of patient-directed decision aids.This topic was nominated by Linda Kinsinger, MD, MPH, VA Chief Consultant for Preventive Medicine at the VA National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention (NCP). The evidence review is intended to examine the effects of SDM interventions for cancer screening practices and to inform what types of interventions NCP will disseminate with their cancer screening guidelines.

Timothy J Wilt

Papers

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Balancing the benefits and harms of drug treatments for older men with lower urinary tract symptoms.

Hemoglobin A1c Targets for Glycemic Control With Pharmacologic Therapy.

Radical prostatectomy reduced death from prostate cancer but not all cause mortality

The Effects of Shared Decision Making on Cancer Screening – A Systematic Review [Internet]