Preemptive local analgesia at vaginal hysterectomy: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness of local preemptive analgesia for postoperative pain control in women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched systematically to identify eligible studies published through September 25, 2019. Only randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews addressing local preemptive analgesia compared to placebo at vaginal hysterectomy were considered. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Results were compared, and disagreement was resolved by discussion. Forty-seven studies met inclusion criteria for full-text review. Four RCTs, including a total of 197 patients, and two SRs were included in the review. RESULTS: Preemptive local analgesia reduced postoperative pain scores up to 6 h and postoperative opioid requirements in the first 24 h after surgery. CONCLUSION: Preemptive local analgesia at vaginal hysterectomy results in less postoperative pain and less postoperative opioid consumption.

Long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in people with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: All major guidelines for antihypertensive therapy recommend weight loss. Dietary interventions that aim to reduce body weight might therefore be a useful intervention to reduce blood pressure and adverse cardiovascular events associated with hypertension. OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives To assess the long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in people with hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events). Secondary objectives To assess the long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in people with hypertension on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure, change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure, and body weight reduction. SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to April 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 24 weeks' duration that compared weight-reducing dietary interventions to no dietary intervention in adults with primary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. In case of moderate or larger heterogeneity as measured by Higgins I2, we used a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: This second review update did not reveal any new trials, so the number of included trials remains the same: eight RCTs involving a total of 2100 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 45 to 66 years. Mean treatment duration was 6 to 36 months. We judged the risks of bias as unclear or high for all but two trials. No study included mortality as a predefined outcome. One RCT evaluated the effects of dietary weight loss on a combined endpoint consisting of the necessity of reinstating antihypertensive therapy and severe cardiovascular complications. In this RCT, weight-reducing diet lowered the endpoint compared to no diet: hazard ratio 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.87). None of the trials evaluated adverse events as designated in our protocol. The certainty of the evidence was low for a blood pressure reduction in participants assigned to weight-loss diets as compared to controls: systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) -4.5 mm Hg (95% CI -7.2 to -1.8 mm Hg) (3 studies, 731 participants), and diastolic blood pressure: MD -3.2 mm Hg (95% CI -4.8 to -1.5 mm Hg) (3 studies, 731 participants). We judged the certainty of the evidence to be high for weight reduction in dietary weight loss groups as compared to controls: MD -4.0 kg (95% CI -4.8 to -3.2) (5 trials, 880 participants). Two trials used withdrawal of antihypertensive medication as their primary outcome. Even though we did not consider this a relevant outcome for our review, the results of these RCTs strengthen the finding of a reduction of blood pressure by dietary weight-loss interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this second update, the conclusions remain unchanged, as we found no new trials. In people with primary hypertension, weight-loss diets reduced body weight and blood pressure, but the magnitude of the effects are uncertain due to the small number of participants and studies included in the analyses. Whether weight loss reduces mortality and morbidity is unknown. No useful information on adverse effects was reported in the relevant trials.

Long-term effects of weight-reducing drugs in people with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect. OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events).. Secondary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and on body weight reduction. SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The searches had no language restrictions. We contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration in adults with hypertension that compared approved long-term weight-loss medications to placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. When heterogeneity was present, we used the random-effects method and investigated the cause of the heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: This third update of the review added one new trial, investigating the combination of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo. Two medications, which were included in the previous versions of this review (rimonabant and sibutramine) are no longer considered relevant for this update, since their marketing approval was withdrawn in 2010 and 2009, respectively. The number of included studies in this review update is therefore six (12,724 participants in total): four RCTs comparing orlistat to placebo, involving a total of 3132 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 46 to 55 years; one trial comparing phentermine/topiramate to placebo, involving 1305 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 53 years; and one trial comparing naltrexone/bupropion to placebo, involving 8283 participants with hypertension and a mean age of 62 years. We judged the risks of bias to be unclear for the trials investigating orlistat or naltrexone/bupropion. and low for the trial investigating phentermine/topiramate. Only the study of naltrexone/bupropion included cardiovascular mortality and morbidity as predefined outcomes. There were no differences in the rates of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo. The incidence of overall adverse events was significantly higher in participants treated with naltrexone/bupropion. For orlistat, the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher compared to placebo. The most frequent side effects with phentermine/topiramate were dry mouth and paraesthesia. After six to 12 months, orlistat reduced systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by mean difference (MD) -2.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to -1.4 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants) and diastolic blood pressure by MD -2.0 mm Hg (95% CI -2.7 to -1.2 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants). After 13 months of follow-up, phentermine/topiramate decreased systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by -2.0 to -4.2 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage), and diastolic blood pressure by -1.3 to -1.9 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage). There was no difference in the change in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo (1 trial, 8283 participants). We identified no relevant studies investigating liraglutide or lorcaserin in people with hypertension. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with elevated blood pressure, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate and naltrexone/bupropion reduced body weight; the magnitude of the effect was greatest with phentermine/topiramate. In the same trials, orlistat and phentermine/topiramate, but not naltrexone/bupropion, reduced blood pressure. One RCT of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo showed no differences in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality or morbidity after two years. The European Medicines Agency refused marketing authorisation for phentermine/topiramate due to safety concerns, while for lorcaserin the application for European marketing authorisation was withdrawn due to a negative overall benefit/risk balance. In 2020 lorcaserin was also withdrawn from the US market. Two other medications (rimonabant and sibutramine) had already been withdrawn from the market in 2009 and 2010, respectively.

Comprehensive catalogue of international measures aimed at preventing general practitioner shortages.

BACKGROUND: Many countries are facing a shortage and misallocation of general practitioners (GPs). The development of a policy response may benefit from the knowledge of worldwide policies that have been adopted and recommended to counteract such a development. AIM: To identify measures proposed or taken internationally to prevent GP shortages. DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature review followed by an expert assessment focussed on sources from OECD countries. METHOD: The literature search identified international policy documents and literature reviews in bibliographical databases, and examined institutional websites and references of included publications. The internet search engine Google was also used. The resulting measures were then assessed for completeness by three experts. RESULTS: Ten policy documents and 32 literature reviews provided information on 102 distinct measures aimed at preventing GP shortages. The measures attempt to influence GPs at all stages of their careers. CONCLUSIONS: This catalogue of measures to prevent GP shortages is significantly more comprehensive than any of the policy documents it is based on. It may serve as a blueprint for effective reforms aimed at preventing GP shortages internationally.

This review identified 102 distinct measures to prevent a GP shortage. These measures influence GPs at all stages of their careers. These measures may serve as a blueprint for reforms to prevent GP shortages.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found tighter glycaemic control to be positive, other studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, found the effects of an intensive therapy to lower blood glucose to near normal levels to be more harmful than beneficial. Study results also showed different effects for different antihyperglycaemic drugs, regardless of the achieved blood glucose levels. In consequence, firm conclusions on the effect of interventions on patient-relevant outcomes cannot be drawn from the effect of these interventions on blood glucose concentration alone. In theory, the use of newer insulin analogues may result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine U100 and U300, insulin detemir and insulin degludec) with NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin (human isophane insulin) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: For this Cochrane Review update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 5 November 2019, except Embase which was last searched 26 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 24 RCTs. Of these, 16 trials compared insulin glargine to NPH insulin and eight trials compared insulin detemir to NPH insulin. In these trials, 3419 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomised to insulin glargine and 1321 people to insulin detemir. The duration of the included trials ranged from 24 weeks to five years. For studies, comparing insulin glargine to NPH insulin, target values ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.8 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 140 mg/dL) for fasting blood glucose (FBG), from 4.4 mmol/L to 6.6 mmol/L (80 mg/dL to 120 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, when applicable. Blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target values for studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for FBG, less than 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) to less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and 5.8% to less than 6.4% HbA1c, when applicable. All trials had an unclear or high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Overall, insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Changes in HbA1c were comparable for long-acting insulin analogues and NPH insulin. Insulin glargine compared to NPH insulin had a risk ratio (RR) for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.06; absolute risk reduction (ARR) -1.2%, 95% CI -2.0 to 0; 14 trials, 6164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The RR for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.09; P = 0.13; ARR -0.7%, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.2; 10 trials, 4685 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with insulin glargine reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treatment with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin found an RR for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.45 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.20; P = 0.11; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4; 5 trials, 1804 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Peto odds ratio for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; P = 0.007; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4; 5 trials, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with detemir also reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Information on patient-relevant outcomes such as death from any cause, diabetes-related complications, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects was insufficient or lacking in almost all included trials. For those outcomes for which some data were available, there were no meaningful differences between treatment with glargine or detemir and treatment with NPH. There was no clear difference between insulin-analogues and NPH insulin in terms of weight gain. The incidence of adverse events was comparable for people treated with glargine or detemir, and people treated with NPH. We found no trials comparing ultra-long-acting insulin glargine U300 or insulin degludec with NPH insulin. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While the effects on HbA1c were comparable, treatment with insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Treatment with insulin detemir also reduced the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia. However, serious hypoglycaemic events were rare and the absolute risk reducing effect was low. Approximately one in 100 people treated with insulin detemir instead of NPH insulin benefited. In the studies, low blood glucose and HbA1c targets, corresponding to near normal or even non-diabetic blood glucose levels, were set. Therefore, results from the studies are only applicable to people in whom such low blood glucose concentrations are targeted. However, current guidelines recommend less-intensive blood glucose lowering for most people with type 2 diabetes in daily practice (e.g. people with cardiovascular diseases, a long history of type 2 diabetes, who are susceptible to hypoglycaemia or older people). Additionally, low-certainty evidence and trial designs that did not conform with current clinical practice meant it remains unclear if the same effects will be observed in daily clinical practice. Most trials did not report patient-relevant outcomes.

[Quality Indicators of Primary Health Care Facilities in Austria]. / Qualitätsindikatoren für Primary-Health-Care-Einrichtungen in Österreich.

BACKGROUND: The strengthening of primary health care is one major goal of the current national health reform in Austria. In this context, a new interdisciplinary concept was developed in 2014 that defines structures and requirements for future primary health care facilities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was the development of quality indicators for the evaluation of the scheduled primary health care facilities in Austria, which are in accordance with the new Austrian concept. METHODS: We used the RAND/NPCRDC method for the development and selection of the quality indicators. We conducted systematic literature searches for existing measures in international databases for quality indicators as well as in bibliographic databases. All retrieved measures were evaluated and rated by an expert panel in a 2-step process regarding relevance and feasibility. RESULTS: Overall, the literature searches yielded 281 potentially relevant quality indicators, which were summarized to 65 different quality measures for primary health care. Out of these, the panel rated and accepted 30 measures as relevant and feasible for use in Austria. Five of these indicators were structure measures, 14 were process measures and the remaining 11 were outcome measures. Based on the Austrian primary health care concept, the final set of quality indicators was grouped in the 5 following domains: Access to primary health care (5), quality of care (15), continuity of care (5), coordination of care (4), and safety (1). CONCLUSION: This set of quality measures largely covers the four defined functions of primary health care. It enables standardized evaluation of primary health care facilities in Austria regarding the implementation of the Austrian primary health care concept as well as improvement in healthcare of the population.

Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adult, non-pregnant persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The use of short-acting insulin analogues (insulin lispro, insulin aspart, insulin glulisine) for adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues compared to regular human insulin in adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the WHO ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 31 October 2018. We placed no restrictions on the language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues to regular human insulin in the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes, who were not pregnant. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We assessed dichotomous outcomes by risk ratios (RR), and Peto odds ratios (POR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed continuous outcomes by mean differences (MD) with 95% CI. We assessed trials for certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, randomising 2751 participants; 1388 participants were randomised to receive insulin analogues and 1363 participants to receive regular human insulin. The duration of the intervention ranged from 24 to 104 weeks, with a mean of about 41 weeks. The trial populations showed diversity in disease duration, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. None of the trials were blinded, so the risk of performance bias and detection bias, especially for subjective outcomes, such as hypoglycaemia, was high in nine of 10 trials from which we extracted data. Several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.None of the included trials defined all-cause mortality as a primary outcome. Six trials provided Information on the number of participants who died during the trial, with five deaths out of 1272 participants (0.4%) in the insulin analogue groups and three deaths out of 1247 participants (0.2%) in the regular human insulin groups (Peto OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.64; P = 0.48; moderate-certainty evidence). Six trials, with 2509 participants, assessed severe hypoglycaemia differently, therefore, we could not summarise the results with a meta-analysis. Overall, the incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events was low, and none of the trials showed a clear difference between the two intervention arms (low-certainty evidence).The MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) change was -0.03% (95% CI -0.16 to 0.09; P = 0.60; 9 trials, 2608 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction ranged between -0.31% and 0.25%. The MD in the overall number of non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes per participant per month was 0.08 events (95% CI 0.00 to 0.16; P = 0.05; 7 trials, 2667 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between -0.03 and 0.19 events per participant per month. The results provided for nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes were of questionable validity. Overall, there was no clear difference between the two short-acting insulin analogues and regular human insulin. Two trials assessed health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction, but we considered the results for both outcomes to be unreliable (very low-certainty evidence).No trial was designed to investigate possible long term effects (all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications of diabetes), especially in participants with diabetes-related complications. No trial reported on socioeconomic effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis found no clear benefits of short-acting insulin analogues over regular human insulin in people with type 2 diabetes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was poor and results on patient-relevant outcomes, like all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications and severe hypoglycaemic episodes were sparse. Long-term efficacy and safety data are needed to draw conclusions about the effects of short-acting insulin analogues on patient-relevant outcomes.

Long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in people with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: All major guidelines for antihypertensive therapy recommend weight loss. Thus dietary interventions that aim to reduce body weight might be a useful intervention to reduce blood pressure and adverse cardiovascular events associated with hypertension. OBJECTIVES: Primary objectivesTo assess the long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in people with hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events). Secondary objectivesTo assess the long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in people with hypertension on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure, change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure, and body weight reduction. SEARCH METHODS: We obtained studies from computerised searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid EMBASE, and from searches in reference lists, systematic reviews, and the clinical trials registry ClinicalTrials.gov (status as of 2 February 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 24 weeks' duration that compared weight-reducing dietary interventions to no dietary intervention in adults with primary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled studies using fixed-effect meta-analysis. In case of moderate or larger heterogeneity as measured by Higgins I(2), we used a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: This review update did not reveal any new studies, so the number of included studies remained the same: 8 studies involving a total of 2100 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 45 to 66 years. Mean treatment duration was 6 to 36 months. We judged the risk of bias as unclear or high for all but two trials. No study included mortality as a predefined outcome. One RCT evaluated the effects of dietary weight loss on a combined endpoint consisting of the necessity of reinstating antihypertensive therapy and severe cardiovascular complications. In this RCT, weight-reducing diet lowered the endpoint compared to no diet: hazard ratio 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57 to 0.87). None of the studies evaluated adverse events as designated in our protocol. There was low-quality evidence for a blood pressure reduction in participants assigned to weight loss diets as compared to controls: systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) -4.5 mm Hg (95% CI -7.2 to -1.8 mm Hg) (3 of 8 studies included in analysis), and diastolic blood pressure: MD -3.2 mm Hg (95% CI -4.8 to -1.5 mm Hg) (3 of  8  studies included in analysis). There was moderate-quality evidence for weight reduction in dietary weight loss groups as compared to controls: MD -4.0 kg (95% CI -4.8 to -3.2) (5 of 8 studies included in analysis). Two studies used withdrawal of antihypertensive medication as their primary outcome. Even though we did not consider this a relevant outcome for our review, the results of these studies strengthen the finding of reduction of blood pressure by dietary weight loss interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update, the conclusions remain the same, as we found no new trials. In people with primary hypertension, weight loss diets reduced body weight and blood pressure, however the magnitude of the effects are uncertain due to the small number of participants and studies included in the analyses. Whether weight loss reduces mortality and morbidity is unknown. No useful information on adverse effects was reported in the relevant trials.

Long-term effects of weight-reducing drugs in people with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: All major guidelines on antihypertensive therapy recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events). SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure, change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure, and body weight reduction. SEARCH METHODS: We obtained studies using computerised searches of the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the clinical trials registry ClinicalTrials.gov, and from handsearches in reference lists and systematic reviews (status as of 13 April 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in hypertensive adults of at least 24 weeks' duration that compared long-term pharmacologic interventions for weight loss with placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using fixed-effect meta-analysis. When heterogeneity was present, we used the random-effects method and investigated the cause of heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: After updating the literature search, which was extended to include four new weight-reducing drugs, we identified one additional study of phentermine/topiramate, bringing the total number of studies to nine that compare orlistat, sibutramine, or phentermine/topiramate to placebo and thus fulfil our inclusion criteria. We identified no relevant studies investigating rimonabant, liraglutide, lorcaserin, or naltrexone/bupropion. No study included mortality and cardiovascular morbidity as predefined outcomes. Incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher in those participants treated with orlistat versus those treated with placebo. The most frequent side effects were dry mouth, constipation, and headache with sibutramine, and dry mouth and paresthaesia with phentermine/topiramate. In participants assigned to orlistat, sibutramine, or phentermine/topiramate body weight was reduced more effectively than in participants in the usual-care/placebo groups. Orlistat reduced systolic blood pressure as compared to placebo by -2.5 mm Hg (mean difference (MD); 95% confidence interval (CI): -4.0 to -0.9 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure by -1.9 mm Hg (MD; 95% CI: -3.0 to -0.9 mm Hg). Sibutramine increased diastolic blood pressure compared to placebo by +3.2 mm Hg (MD; 95% CI: +1.4 to +4.9 mm Hg). The one trial that investigated phentermine/topiramate suggested it lowered blood pressure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with elevated blood pressure, orlistat and sibutramine reduced body weight to a similar degree, while phentermine/topiramate reduced body weight to a greater extent. In the same trials, orlistat and phentermine/topiramate reduced blood pressure, while sibutramine increased it. We could include no trials investigating rimonabant, liraglutide, lorcaserin, or naltrexone/bupropion in people with elevated blood pressure. Long-term trials assessing the effect of orlistat, liraglutide, lorcaserin, phentermine/topiramate, or naltrexone/bupropion on mortality and morbidity are unavailable and needed. Rimonabant and sibutramine have been withdrawn from the market, after long-term trials on mortality and morbidity have confirmed concerns about the potential severe side effects of these two drugs. The European Medicines Agency refused marketing authorisation for phentermine/topiramate due to safety concerns, while the application for European marketing authorisation for lorcaserin was withdrawn by the manufacturer after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use judged the overall benefit/risk balance to be negative.

Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Short-acting insulin analogue use for people with diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We carried out the electronic searches through Ovid simultaneously searching the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R) (1946 to 14 April 2015), EMBASE (1988 to 2015, week 15), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; March 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the European (EU) Clinical Trials register (both March 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues with regular human insulins in the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes who were not pregnant. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias, and resolved differences by consensus. We graded overall study quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument. We used random-effects models for the main analyses and presented the results as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria including 2693 participants. The duration of interventions ranged from 24 to 52 weeks with a mean of about 37 weeks. The participants showed some diversity, mainly with regard to diabetes duration and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The majority of the trials were carried out in the 1990s and participants were recruited from Europe, North America, Africa and Asia. None of the trials was carried out in a blinded manner so that the risk of performance bias, especially for subjective outcomes such as hypoglycaemia, was present in all of the trials. Furthermore, several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.The mean difference (MD) in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -0.15% (95% CI -0.2% to -0.1%; P value < 0.00001; 2608 participants; 9 trials; low quality evidence) in favour of insulin analogues. The comparison of the risk of severe hypoglycaemia between the two treatment groups showed an OR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.12; P value = 0.31; 2459 participants; 7 trials; very low quality evidence). For overall hypoglycaemia, also taking into account mild forms of hypoglycaemia, the data were generally of low quality, but also did not indicate substantial group differences. Regarding nocturnal severe hypoglycaemic episodes, two trials reported statistically significant effects in favour of the insulin analogue, insulin aspart. However, due to inconsistent reporting in publications and trial reports, the validity of the result remains questionable.We also found no clear evidence for a substantial effect of insulin analogues on health-related quality of life. However, there were few results only based on subgroups of the trial populations. None of the trials reported substantial effects regarding weight gain or any other adverse events. No trial was designed to investigate possible long-term effects (such as all-cause mortality, diabetic complications), in particular in people with diabetes related complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short-acting insulin analogues on blood glucose control in people with type 1 diabetes. To make conclusions about the effect of short acting insulin analogues on long-term patient-relevant outcomes, long-term efficacy and safety data are needed.

Relevance to family practice of English-language guidelines on breast, colorectal and prostate cancer: a review.

BACKGROUND: GPs regard cancer guidelines as useful yet criticise their limited applicability to the primary care setting. OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent to which English-language breast, colorectal and prostate cancer guidelines contain recommendations that are relevant to GPs and to find out which of the GPs' roles in cancer care the recommendations refer to. METHODS: Evidence- and consent-based English-language breast, colorectal and prostate cancer guidelines were searched for in guideline databases and selected guideline providers' web pages, and checked against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Relevant recommendations were identified, extracted and examined. The involvement of GPs in guideline development as well as whether they were named as a target group was further investigated. RESULTS: Of the 65 identified guidelines, 35 were eligible and contained recommendations applicable to GPs. GPs were directly involved in the development of the majority of only breast cancer guidelines and were explicitly named as a target group in fewer than 50% of guidelines. The majority of recommendations dealt with patient-physician communication, with a focus on cancer therapy. Rarer procedural recommendations predominantly concentrated on follow-up/survivorship care. Less than one-third of all relevant recommendations concerned diagnosis. Only breast cancer guidelines provided a high number of recommendations on transitions between primary and secondary care. CONCLUSION: Greater consideration of GPs would increase their acceptance of guidelines, promote delivery of high-quality cancer care and clarify responsibilities between cancer care providers. The GP's role in cancer diagnosis is not appropriately reflected in cancer guideline recommendations.

Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines differ regarding their recommended blood glucose targets for patients with type 1 diabetes and recent studies on patients with type 2 diabetes suggest that aiming at very low targets can increase the risk of mortality. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of intensive versus conventional glycaemic targets in patients with type 1 diabetes in terms of long-term complications and determine whether very low, near normoglycaemic values are of additional benefit. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the databases The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE. The date of the last search was December 2012 for all databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that had defined different glycaemic targets in the treatment arms, studied patients with type 1 diabetes, and had a follow-up duration of at least one year. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed studies for risk of bias, with differences resolved by consensus. Overall study quality was evaluated by the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation' (GRADE) system. Random-effects models were used for the main analyses and the results are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including a total of 2230 patients. The patient populations varied widely across studies with one study only including children, one study only including patients after a kidney transplant, one study with newly diagnosed adult patients, and several studies where patients had retinopathy or microalbuminuria at baseline. The mean follow-up duration across studies varied between one and 6.5 years. The majority of the studies were carried out in the 1980s and all trials took place in Europe or North America. Due to the nature of the intervention, none of the studies could be carried out in a blinded fashion so that the risk of performance bias, especially for subjective outcomes such as hypoglycaemia, was present in all of the studies. Fifty per cent of the studies were judged to have a high risk of bias in at least one other category.Under intensive glucose control, the risk of developing microvascular complications was reduced compared to conventional treatment for a) retinopathy: 23/371 (6.2%) versus 92/397 (23.2%); RR 0.27 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.42); P < 0.00001; 768 participants; 2 trials; high quality evidence; b) nephropathy: 119/732 (16.3%) versus 211/743 (28.4%); RR 0.56 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.68); P < 0.00001; 1475 participants; 3 trials; moderate quality evidence; c) neuropathy: 29/586 (4.9%) versus 86/617 (13.9%); RR 0.35 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.53); P < 0.00001; 1203 participants; 3 trials; high quality evidence. Regarding the progression of these complications after manifestation, the effect was weaker (retinopathy) or possibly not existent (nephropathy: RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.70); P = 0.55; 179 participants with microalbuminuria; 3 trials; very low quality evidence); no adequate data were available regarding the progression of neuropathy. For retinopathy, intensive glucose control reduced the risk of progression in studies with a follow-up duration of at least two years (85/366 (23.2%) versus 154/398 (38.7%); RR 0.61 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.76); P < 0.0001; 764 participants; 2 trials; moderate quality evidence), while we found evidence for an initial worsening of retinopathy after only one year of intensive glucose control (17/49 (34.7%) versus 7/47 (14.9%); RR 2.32 (95% CI 1.16 to 4.63); P = 0.02; 96 participants; 2 trials; low quality evidence).Major macrovascular outcomes (stroke and myocardial infarction) occurred very rarely, and no firm evidence could be established regarding these outcome measures (low quality evidence).We found that intensive glucose control increased the risk for severe hypoglycaemia, however the results were heterogeneous and only the 'Diabetes Complications Clinical Trial' (DCCT) showed a clear increase in severe hypoglycaemic episodes under intensive treatment. A subgroup analysis according to the baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of participants in the trials (low quality evidence) suggests that the risk of hypoglycaemia is possibly only increased for patients who started with relatively low HbA1c values (< 9.0%). Several of the included studies also showed a greater weight gain under intensive glucose control, and the risk of ketoacidosis was only increased in studies using insulin pumps in the intensive treatment group (very low quality evidence).Overall, all-cause mortality was very low in all studies (moderate quality evidence) except in one study investigating renal allograft as treatment for end-stage diabetic nephropathy. Health-related quality of life was only reported in the DCCT trial, showing no statistically significant differences between the intervention and comparator groups (moderate quality evidence). In addition, only the DCCT published data on costs, indicating that intensive glucose therapy control was highly cost-effective considering the reduction of potential diabetes complications (moderate quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tight blood sugar control reduces the risk of developing microvascular diabetes complications. The evidence of benefit is mainly from studies in younger patients at early stages of the disease. Benefits need to be weighed against risks including severe hypoglycaemia, and patient training is an important aspect in practice. The effects of tight blood sugar control seem to become weaker once complications have been manifested. However, further research is needed on this issue. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence from RCTs on the effects of tight blood sugar control in older patient populations or patients with macrovascular disease. There is no firm evidence for specific blood glucose targets and treatment goals need to be individualised taking into account age, disease progression, macrovascular risk, as well as the patient's lifestyle and disease management capabilities.

Effects of task shifting from primary care physicians to nurses: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Task-shifting from primary care physicians (PCPs) to nurses is one option to better and more efficiently meet the needs of the population in primary care and to overcome PCP shortages. This protocol outlines an overview of systematic reviews to assess the effects of delegation or substitution by nurses of PCPs' activities regarding clinical, patient-relevant, professional and health services-related outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic literature search for secondary literature in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and Health Technology Assessments in German and English comprising randomised controlled trials and prospective controlled trials will be considered for inclusion. Search terms will include Medical Subject Headings combined with free text words. At least one-third of abstracts and full-text articles are reviewed by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire. We will only consider reviews if they include controlled trials, if the profession that substituted or delegated tasks was a nurse, if the profession of the control was a PCP, if the assessed intervention was the same in the intervention and control group and if the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire score is ≥5. The corrected covered area will be calculated to describe the degree of overlap of studies in the reviews included in the study. We will report the overview according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The overview of secondary literature does not require the approval of an Ethics Committee and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020183327.

Customization options in consumer health information materials on type-2 diabetes mellitus-an analysis of modifiable features in different types of media.

Introduction: The understanding of health-related information is essential for making informed decisions. However, providing health information in an understandable format for everyone is challenging due to differences in consumers' health status, disease knowledge, skills, and preferences. Tailoring health information to individual needs can improve comprehension and increase health literacy. Objective: The aim of our research was to analyze the extent to which consumers can customize consumer health information materials (CHIMs) for type-2 diabetes mellitus through various media types. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search for various CHIMs across various media types, such as websites, apps, videos, and printed or printable forms. A representative sample of CHIMs was obtained for analysis through blocked randomization across the various media types. We conducted a quantitative content analysis to determine the frequency of user-centered customization options. Cross-comparisons were made to identify trends and variations in modifiable features among the media. Results: In our representative sample of 114 CHIMs, we identified a total of 24 modifiable features, which we grouped into five main categories: (i) language, (ii) text, (iii) audiovisual, (iv) presentation, and (v) medical content. Videos offered the most customization opportunities (95%), while 47% of websites and 26% of apps did not allow users to tailor health information. None of the printed or printable materials provided the option to customize the information. Overall, 65% of analyzed CHIMs did not allow users to tailor health information according to their needs. Conclusion: Our results show that CHIMs for type-2 diabetes mellitus could be significantly improved by providing more customization options for users. Further research is needed to investigate the effectiveness and usability of these options to enhance the development and appropriate provision of modifiable features in health information.

Long-term effects of weight-reducing drugs in hypertensive patients.

BACKGROUND: All major guidelines for antihypertensive therapy recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs might be a helpful option. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically induced reduction in body weight with orlistat, sibutramine or rimonabant on:- all cause mortality - cardiovascular morbidity - adverse events SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: - changes in systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure - body weight reduction even though sibutramine and rimonabant have been withdrawn from the market. SEARCH METHODS: Studies were obtained from computerised searches of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and from hand searches in reference lists and systematic reviews (status as of 17(th) August, 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in adult hypertensive patients with a study duration of at least 24 weeks comparing pharmacologic interventions (orlistat, sibutramine, rimonabant) for weight loss with placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Studies were pooled using fixed-effect meta-analysis in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (p>0.1). Otherwise, we used the random effects method and investigated the cause of heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: After the updated literature search, the number of studies remained the same, with eight studies comparing orlistat or sibutramine to placebo fulfilling our inclusion criteria. No relevant studies investigating rimonabant for weight loss were identified. No study included mortality and cardiovascular morbidity as a pre-defined outcome. Incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher in orlistat treated vs. placebo treated patients. Most frequent side effects with sibutramine were dry mouth, constipation and headache. Patients assigned to weight loss diets, orlistat or sibutramine reduced their body weight more effectively than patients in the usual care/placebo groups. Blood pressure reduction in patients treated with orlistat was for systolic blood pressure (SBP): weighted mean difference (WMD): -2.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, -4.0 to -0.9 mm Hg and for diastolic blood pressure (DBP): WMD -1.9 mm Hg; 95% CI, -3.0 to -0.9 mm Hg. Meta-analysis showed DBP increase under therapy with sibutramine: WMD +3.2 mm Hg; 95%CI +1.4 to +4.9 mm Hg. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with elevated blood pressure, orlistat and sibutramine reduced body weight to a similar degree. In the same trials, orlistat reduced blood pressure and sibutramine increased blood pressure. No trials investigating rimonabant in people with elevated blood pressure could be included. Long-term trials assessing the effect of orlistat, sibutramine and rimonabant on mortality and morbidity are lacking. Rimonabant and sibutramine have been withdrawn from the market for the time being.

Effectiveness of exercise interventions to improve long-term outcomes in people living with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Although exercise guidelines now recommend exercise for patients with MCI, the long-term effects of exercise in patients with MCI has not been reviewed systematically. The aim was to assess (1) the effectiveness of exercise and physical activity (EXPA) interventions in improving long-term patient-relevant cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes in people with mild cognitive impairment, (2) how well the included trials reported details of the intervention, and (3) the extent to which reported endpoints were in line with patient preferences that were assessed in patient workshops. Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials. A total of ten studies were included after searching in six electronic sources from 1995 onwards. There is a trend that 6 + -month EXPA interventions improve global cognition 12 months after initiation. Evidence on long-term effects of EXPA interventions on non-cognitive health outcomes could not be meaningfully pooled and the individual studies reported mixed results. Workshop participants considered freedom from pain and stress, mood, motivation and self-efficacy to be important, but these outcomes were rarely addressed. Too little information is available on intervention details for EXPA programs to be replicated and confidently recommended for patients with MCI. PROSPERO registration in December, 2021 (CRD42021287166).

Predictors for adherent behavior in the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional telephone survey.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, protective measures have been prescribed to prevent or slow down the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and protect the population. Individuals follow these measures to varying degrees. We aimed to identify factors influencing the extent to which protective measures are adhered to. Methods: A cross-sectional survey (telephone interviews) was undertaken between April and June 2021 to identify factors influencing the degree to which individuals adhere to protective measures. A representative sample of 1,003 people (age >16 years) in two Austrian states (Carinthia, Vorarlberg) was interviewed. The questionnaire was based on the Health Belief Model, but also included potential response-modifying factors. Predictors for adherent behavior were identified using multiple regression analysis. All predictors were standardized so that regression coefficients (ß) could be compared. Results: Overall median adherence was 0.75 (IQR: 0.5-1.0). Based on a regression model, the following variables were identified as significant in raising adherence: higher age (ß = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.33-0.54), social standards of acceptable behavior (ß = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.27-0.40), subjective/individual assessment of an increased personal health risk (ß = 0.12, 95%CI: 0.05-0.18), self-efficacy (ß = 0.06, 95%CI: 0.02-0.10), female gender (ß = 0.05, 95%CI: 0.01-0.08), and low corona fatigue (behavioral fatigue: ß = -0.11, 95%CI: -0.18 to -0.03). The model showed that such aspects as personal trust in institutions, perceived difficulties in adopting health-promoting measures, and individual assessments of the risk of infection, had no significant influence. Conclusions: This study reveals that several factors significantly influence adherence to measures aimed at controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. To enhance adherence, the government, media, and other relevant stakeholders should take the findings into consideration when formulating policy. By developing social standards and promoting self-efficacy, individuals can influence the behavior of others and contribute toward coping with the pandemic.

Effectiveness of exercise and physical activity interventions to improve long-term patient-relevant cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes in people living with mild cognitive impairment: a protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a clinical syndrome characterised by persistent cognitive deficits that do not yet fulfil the criteria of dementia. Delaying the onset of dementia using secondary preventive measures such as physical activity and exercise can be a safe way of reducing the risk of further cognitive decline and maintaining independence and improving quality of life. The aim is to systematically review the literature to assess the effectiveness of physical activity and exercise interventions to improve long-term patient-relevant cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes in people living with MCI, including meta-analyses if applicable. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search five electronic databases from 1995 onward to identify trials reporting on the effectiveness of physical activity and exercise interventions to improve long-term (12+ months) patient-relevant cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes in adults (50+ years) with MCI. Screening procedures, selection of eligible full-texts, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed in dual-review mode. Additionally, the reporting quality of the exercise interventions will be assessed using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template. A quantitative synthesis will only be conducted if studies are homogeneous enough for effect sizes to be pooled. Where quantitative analysis is not applicable, data will be represented in a tabular form and synthesised narratively. People living with MCI will be involved in defining outcome measures most relevant to them in order to assess in how far randomised controlled trials report endpoints that matter to those concerned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be disseminated to both scientific and lay audiences by creating a patient-friendly video abstract. This work will inform professionals in primary care about the effectiveness of physical activity and exercise interventions and support them to make evidence-based exercise recommendations for the secondary prevention of dementia in people living with MCI. No ethical approval required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021287166.

COVI-Prim international: Similarities and discrepancies in the way general practices from seven different countries coped with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: General practitioners (GPs) are frequently patients' first point of contact with the healthcare system and play an important role in identifying, managing and monitoring cases. This study investigated the experiences of GPs from seven different countries in the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: International cross-sectional online survey. Setting: General practitioners from Australia, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia and Switzerland. Participants: Overall, 1,642 GPs completed the survey. Main outcome measures: We focused on how well-prepared GPs were, their self-confidence and concerns, efforts to control the spread of the disease, patient contacts, information flow, testing procedures and protection of staff. Results: GPs gave high ratings to their self-confidence (7.3, 95% CI 7.1-7.5) and their efforts to control the spread of the disease (7.2, 95% CI 7.0-7.3). A decrease in the number of patient contacts (5.7, 95% CI 5.4-5.9), the perception of risk (5.3 95% CI 4.9-5.6), the provision of information to GPs (4.9, 95% CI 4.6-5.2), their testing of suspected cases (3.7, 95% CI 3.4-3.9) and their preparedness to face a pandemic (mean: 3.5; 95% CI 3.2-3.7) were rated as moderate. GPs gave low ratings to their ability to protect staff (2.2 95% CI 1.9-2.4). Differences were identified in all dimensions except protection of staff, which was consistently low in all surveyed GPs and countries. Conclusion: Although GPs in the different countries were confronted with the same pandemic, its impact on specific aspects differed. This partly reflected differences in health care systems and experience of recent pandemics. However, it also showed that the development of structured care plans in case of future infectious diseases requires the early involvement of primary care representatives.

Long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in hypertensive patients.

BACKGROUND: All major guidelines for antihypertensive therapy recommend weight loss. Thus dietary interventions that aim to reduce body weight might be a useful intervention to reduce blood pressure and adverse cardiovascular events associated with hypertension. OBJECTIVES: Primary objectivesTo assess the long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in hypertensive patients on-   all cause mortality -   cardiovascular morbidity -   adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events and total non-serious adverse events)Secondary objectivesTo assess the long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in hypertensive patients on-   change from baseline in systolic blood pressure -   change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure -   body weight reduction SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were obtained from computerised searches of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and from searches in reference lists and systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) in adult hypertensive patients were included if they had a study duration of at least 24 weeks and compared weight reducing dietary interventions to no dietary intervention in adult patients with primary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Studies were pooled using fixed-effect meta-analysis. In case of moderate or larger heterogeneity as measured by Higgins I(2), a random effects model was used. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies involving a total of 2100 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 45 to 66 years met our inclusion criteria. Mean treatment duration was 6 to 36 months. No study included mortality as a pre-defined outcome. One RCT evaluated the effects of dietary weight loss on a combined endpoint, consisting of the necessity of reinstating antihypertensive therapy and severe cardiovascular complications. In this RCT weight reducing diet lowered the endpoint, hazard ratio 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.87) compared to no diet. None of the studies evaluated adverse events as designated in our protocol. Blood pressure was reduced in patients assigned to weight loss diets as compared to controls: systolic blood pressure (SBP): weighted mean difference (WMD): -4.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, -7.2 to -1.8 mm Hg (3 of  8  studies included in analysis), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP): WMD -3.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, -4.8 to -1.5 mm Hg (3 of  8  studies included in analysis). Patients' body weight was also reduced in dietary weight loss groups as compared to controls, WMD of -4.0 kg (95% CI: -4.8 to -3.2) (5 of  8  studies included in analysis). Two studies used withdrawal of antihypertensive medication as their primary outcome. Even though this was not considered a relevant outcome for this review, the results of these studies strengthen the finding of reduction of blood pressure by dietary weight loss interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with primary hypertension, weight loss diets reduced body weight and blood pressure, however the magnitude of the effects are uncertain as a result of the small number of patients and studies that could be included in the analyses. It is not known whether weight loss reduces mortality and morbidity. No useful information on adverse effects was reported in the relevant trials.