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.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma represent global health problems for all age groups. Asthma and rhinitis frequently coexist in the same subjects. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) was initiated during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999 (published in 2001). ARIA has reclassified AR as mild/moderate-severe and intermittent/persistent. This classification closely reflects patients' needs and underlines the close relationship between rhinitis and asthma. Patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are confronted with various treatment choices for the management of AR. This contributes to considerable variation in clinical practice, and worldwide, patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are faced with uncertainty about the relative merits and downsides of the various treatment options. In its 2010 Revision, ARIA developed clinical practice guidelines for the management of AR and asthma comorbidities based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. ARIA is disseminated and implemented in more than 50 countries of the world. Ten years after the publication of the ARIA World Health Organization workshop report, it is important to make a summary of its achievements and identify the still unmet clinical, research, and implementation needs to strengthen the 2011 European Union Priority on allergy and asthma in children.

OBJECTIVE -To review the effects of monotherapy with ␣-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs) for patients with type 2 diabetes, with respect to mortality, morbidity, glycemic control, insulin levels, plasma lipids, body weight, and side effects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -We systematically searched the CochraneCentral register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, LILACS, databases of ongoing trials, and reference lists, and we contacted experts and manufacturers. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of at least 12 weeks' duration, AGI monotherapy compared with any intervention, and one of the following outcome measures: mortality, morbidity, GHb, blood glucose, lipids, insulin levels, body weight, or side effects. Two independent reviewers assessed all abstracts, extracted all data, and assessed quality. We contacted all authors for data clarification. Continuous data were expressed as weighted mean differences and analyzed with a random-effects model. Possible influences of study characteristics and quality were assessed in sensitivity and meta-regression analyses.RESULTS -Forty-one studies were included in the review (30 acarbose, 7 miglitol, 1 voglibose, and 3 combined), and heterogeneity was limited. We found no evidence for an effect on mortality or morbidity. Compared with placebo, AGIs had a beneficial effect on GHb (acarbose Ϫ0.77%; miglitol Ϫ0.68%), fasting and postload blood glucose and postload insulin. With acarbose dosages higher than 50 mg t.i.d., the effect on GHb was the same, but the occurrence of side effects increased. Acarbose decreased the BMI by 0.17 kg/m 2 (95% CI 0.08 -0.26). None of the AGIs had an effect on plasma lipids. Compared with sulfonylurea, AGIs seemed inferior with respect to glycemic control, but they reduced fasting and postload insulin levels. For comparisons with other agents, little data were available.CONCLUSIONS -We found no evidence for an effect on mortality or morbidity. AGIs have clear beneficial effects on glycemic control and postload insulin levels but not on plasma lipids. There is no need for dosages higher than 50 mg acarbose t.i.d. Diabetes Care 28:166 -175, 2005A lpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs; acarbose, miglitol, voglibose) are widely used in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. AGIs delay the absorption of carbohydrates from the small intestine and thus have a lowering effect on postprandial blood glucose and insulin levels.In modern medicine, the efficacy of an intervention should be investigated in well-designed randomized trials. Results from the trials should be collected in a high-quality systematic review, if possible with a meta-analysis. And finally, the evidence should have its repercussions on practice guidelines.How does this apply for AGIs? Recommendations on when to use AGIs and the evidence used for these recommendations appear to be different in various guidelines. For example, the guideline by the European Diabetes Policy Group (1) and a consensus statement by the American Diabetes Association (2)...

Covid-19 has had a complex impact on primary care, with improved access and coordination in many settings, balanced against resourcing and information flow issues, and a reduction in the comprehensiveness of services. Primary care remains the cornerstone of pandemic response and has shown itself to be highly adaptable in meeting the unique demands of the pandemic. Primary care needs to be resourced, with sufficient equipment, training, and financing.

Routinely collected primary care computer data, aggregated into large databases, is used for audit, quality improvement, health service planning, epidemiological study and research. However, gaps exist in the literature about how to find relevant data, select appropriate research methods and ensure that the correct inferences are drawn.