Explore the vast range of titles available.

Despite the high global burden of diseases caused by tobacco, valid and comparable prevalence data for patterns of adult tobacco use and factors influencing use are absent for many low-income and middle-income countries. We assess these patterns through analysis of data from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS). Between Oct 1, 2008, and March 15, 2010, GATS used nationally representative household surveys with comparable methods to obtain relevant information from individuals aged 15 years or older in 14 low-income and middle-income countries (Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Mexico, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, and Vietnam). We compared weighted point estimates and 95% CIs of tobacco use between these 14 countries and with data from the 2008 UK General Lifestyle Survey and the 2006–07 US Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey. All these surveys had cross-sectional study designs. In countries participating in GATS, 48·6% (95% CI 47·6–49·6) of men and 11·3% (10·7–12·0) of women were tobacco users. 40·7% of men (ranging from 21·6% in Brazil to 60·2% in Russia) and 5·0% of women (0·5% in Egypt to 24·4% in Poland) in GATS countries smoked a tobacco product. Manufactured cigarettes were favoured by most smokers (82%) overall, but smokeless tobacco and bidis were commonly used in India and Bangladesh. For individuals who had ever smoked daily, women aged 55–64 years at the time of the survey began smoking at an older age than did equivalently aged men in most GATS countries. However, those individuals who had ever smoked daily and were aged 25–34-years when surveyed started to do so at much the same age in both sexes. Quit ratios were very low (<20% overall) in China, India, Russia, Egypt, and Bangladesh. The first wave of GATS showed high rates of smoking in men, early initiation of smoking in women, and low quit ratios, reinforcing the view that efforts to prevent initiation and promote cessation of tobacco use are needed to reduce associated morbidity and mortality. Bloomberg Philanthropies' Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Brazilian and Indian Governments.

With recent improvements in vaccines and treatments against viral hepatitis, an improved understanding of the burden of viral hepatitis is needed to inform global intervention strategies. We used data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study to estimate morbidity and mortality for acute viral hepatitis, and for cirrhosis and liver cancer caused by viral hepatitis, by age, sex, and country from 1990 to 2013. We estimated mortality using natural history models for acute hepatitis infections and GBD's cause-of-death ensemble model for cirrhosis and liver cancer. We used meta-regression to estimate total cirrhosis and total liver cancer prevalence, as well as the proportion of cirrhosis and liver cancer attributable to each cause. We then estimated cause-specific prevalence as the product of the total prevalence and the proportion attributable to a specific cause. Disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) were calculated as the sum of years of life lost (YLLs) and years lived with disability (YLDs). Between 1990 and 2013, global viral hepatitis deaths increased from 0·89 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 0·86–0·94) to 1·45 million (1·38–1·54); YLLs from 31·0 million (29·6–32·6) to 41·6 million (39·1–44·7); YLDs from 0·65 million (0·45–0·89) to 0·87 million (0·61–1·18); and DALYs from 31·7 million (30·2–33·3) to 42·5 million (39·9–45·6). In 2013, viral hepatitis was the seventh (95% UI seventh to eighth) leading cause of death worldwide, compared with tenth (tenth to 12th) in 1990. Viral hepatitis is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Unlike most communicable diseases, the absolute burden and relative rank of viral hepatitis increased between 1990 and 2013. The enormous health loss attributable to viral hepatitis, and the availability of effective vaccines and treatments, suggests an important opportunity to improve public health. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

This report contains new and follow-up metric data relating to the eight main recommendations of the Lancet Standing Commission on Liver Disease in the UK, which aim to reduce the unacceptable harmful consequences of excess alcohol consumption, obesity, and viral hepatitis. For alcohol, we provide data on alcohol dependence, damage to families, and the documented increase in alcohol consumption since removal of the above-inflation alcohol duty escalator. Alcoholic liver disease will shortly overtake ischaemic heart disease with regard to years of working life lost. The rising prevalence of overweight and obesity, affecting more than 60% of adults in the UK, is leading to an increasing liver disease burden. Favourable responses by industry to the UK Government's soft drinks industry levy have been seen, but the government cannot continue to ignore the number of adults being affected by diabetes, hypertension, and liver disease. New direct-acting antiviral drugs for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection have reduced mortality and the number of patients requiring liver transplantation, but more screening campaigns are needed for identification of infected people in high-risk migrant communities, prisons, and addiction centres. Provision of care continues to be worst in regions with the greatest socioeconomic deprivation, and deficiencies exist in training programmes in hepatology for specialist registrars. Firm guidance is needed for primary care on the use of liver blood tests in detection of early disease and the need for specialist referral. This report also brings together all the evidence on costs to the National Health Service and wider society, in addition to the loss of tax revenue, with alcohol misuse in England and Wales costing £21 billion a year (possibly up to £52 billion) and obesity costing £27 billion a year (treasury estimates are as high as £46 billion). Voluntary restraints by the food and drinks industry have had little effect on disease burden, and concerted regulatory and fiscal action by the UK Government is essential if the scale of the medical problem, with an estimated 63 000 preventable deaths over the next 5 years, is to be addressed.

The effect of smoking on the risk of developing inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) may be heterogeneous across ethnicity and geography. Although trends in smoking for the general population are well described, it is unknown whether these can be extrapolated to the IBD cohort. Smoking prevalence trends specific to the global IBD cohort over time have not been previously reported. This is a systematic review of smoking prevalence specific to the IBD cohort across geography. A systematic literature search was conducted on Medline and Embase from January 1st 1946 to April 5th 2018 to identify population-based studies assessing the prevalence of smoking at diagnosis in inception cohorts of Crohn's disease(CD) or ulcerative colitis(UC). Studies that did not report smoking data from time of diagnosis or the year of IBD diagnosis were excluded. Prevalence of smoking in IBD was stratified by geography and across time. We identified 56 studies that were eligible for inclusion. Smoking prevalence data at diagnosis of CD and UC was collected from twenty and twenty-five countries respectively. Never-smokers in the newly diagnosed CD population in the West has increased over the last two decades, especially in the United Kingdom and Sweden; +26.6% and +11.2% respectively. Never-smokers at CD diagnosis in newly industrialised nations have decreased over the 1990s and 2000s; China (-19.36%). Never-smokers at UC diagnosis also decreased in China; -15.4%. The former-smoker population at UC diagnosis in China is expanding; 11%(1990-2006) to 34%(2011-2013). There has been a reduction in the prevalence of smoking in the IBD cohort in the West. This is not consistent globally. Although, smoking prevalence has decreased in the general population of newly industrialised nations, this remains an important risk factor with longer term outcomes awaiting translation in both UC and CD.

Statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events, but uncertainty remains about potential effects on cancer. We sought to provide a detailed assessment of any effects on cancer of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with a statin using individual patient records from 175,000 patients in 27 large-scale statin trials. Individual records of 134,537 participants in 22 randomised trials of statin versus control (median duration 4.8 years) and 39,612 participants in 5 trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (median duration 5.1 years) were obtained. Reducing LDL-C with a statin for about 5 years had no effect on newly diagnosed cancer or on death from such cancers in either the trials of statin versus control (cancer incidence: 3755 [1.4% per year [py]] versus 3738 [1.4% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.96-1.05]; cancer mortality: 1365 [0.5% py] versus 1358 [0.5% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.08]) or in the trials of more versus less statin (cancer incidence: 1466 [1.6% py] vs 1472 [1.6% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.07]; cancer mortality: 447 [0.5% py] versus 481 [0.5% py], RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.06]). Moreover, there was no evidence of any effect of reducing LDL-C with statin therapy on cancer incidence or mortality at any of 23 individual categories of sites, with increasing years of treatment, for any individual statin, or in any given subgroup. In particular, among individuals with low baseline LDL-C (<2 mmol/L), there was no evidence that further LDL-C reduction (from about 1.7 to 1.3 mmol/L) increased cancer risk (381 [1.6% py] versus 408 [1.7% py]; RR 0.92 [99% CI 0.76-1.10]). In 27 randomised trials, a median of five years of statin therapy had no effect on the incidence of, or mortality from, any type of cancer (or the aggregate of all cancer).

It has been suggested that statins substantially reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events. We sought to test this hypothesis by performing a meta-analysis of both published and unpublished results from randomised trials of statins. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to March 2012 for randomised controlled trials comparing statin with no statin, or comparing high dose versus standard dose statin, with 100 or more randomised participants and at least 6 months' follow-up. Investigators were contacted for unpublished information about venous thromboembolic events during follow-up. Twenty-two trials of statin versus control (105,759 participants) and seven trials of an intensive versus a standard dose statin regimen (40,594 participants) were included. In trials of statin versus control, allocation to statin therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events (465 [0.9%] statin versus 521 [1.0%] control, odds ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.01, p = 0.08) with no evidence of heterogeneity between effects on deep vein thrombosis (266 versus 311, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.01) and effects on pulmonary embolism (205 versus 222, OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.12). Exclusion of the trial result that provided the motivation for our meta-analysis (JUPITER) had little impact on the findings for venous thromboembolic events (431 [0.9%] versus 461 [1.0%], OR = 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.07], p = 0.32 among the other 21 trials). There was no evidence that higher dose statin therapy reduced the risk of venous thromboembolic events compared with standard dose statin therapy (198 [1.0%] versus 202 [1.0%], OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.80-1.20, p = 0.87). Risk of bias overall was small but a certain degree of effect underestimation due to random error cannot be ruled out. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary. The findings from this meta-analysis do not support the previous suggestion of a large protective effect of statins (or higher dose statins) on venous thromboembolic events. However, a more moderate reduction in risk up to about one-fifth cannot be ruled out.

ObjectivesTo investigate barriers to accessing a hospital-based personal health record (PHR) system.DesignRetrospective cross-sectional study.SettingThis study was conducted in a large secondary and tertiary acute care trust in Birmingham, UK.ParticipantsData were collected from 28 637 patients who attended liver medicine, diabetes, renal medicine or endocrinology specialist outpatient clinics from 1 June 2017 to 31 May 2018.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was sign up to and activation of the PHR. The secondary outcomes were the use of the PHR, defined as the number of logons and frequency of access of specific PHR functions.Results8070 patients (28.2%) were signed up to the PHR and 4286 patients (53.1% of those signed up) went on to activate their PHR account. Patients aged 75 years and older were significantly less likely to be signed up (adjusted OR, aOR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.44) or to activate (aOR 0.39, 0.32 to 0.47) their PHR than patients aged 35–54. Patients who did not need an interpreter were more likely to be signed up (aOR 1.63, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.99) and to activate (aOR 3.16, 95% CI 1.96 to 5.09) their PHR. Patients living in the least deprived areas were more than twice as likely to be signed up (aOR 2.31, 95% CI 2.04 to 2.63), and were three times more likely to activate their PHR (aOR 2.99, 95% CI 2.40 to 3.71), than those in the most deprived.ConclusionSocioeconomic deprivation, older age and non-English language were significant barriers to accessing a hospital-based PHR. Strategies are needed to account for these factors to ensure that PHRs do not widen health inequalities.

Adults with both have higher risks of cardiovascular disease and death

Background Alcohol misuse is an important cause of premature disability and death. While clinicians are recommended to ask patients about alcohol use and provide brief interventions and specialist referral, this is poorly implemented in routine practice. We undertook a national consultation to ascertain the appropriateness of proposed standards for recording information about alcohol use in electronic health records (EHRs) in the UK and to identify potential barriers and facilitators to their implementation in practice. Methods A wide range of stakeholders in the UK were consulted about the appropriateness of proposed information standards for recording alcohol use in EHRs via a multi-disciplinary stakeholder workshop and online survey. Responses to the survey were thematically analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results Thirty-one stakeholders participated in the workshop and 100 in the online survey. This included patients and carers, healthcare professionals, researchers, public health specialists, informaticians, and clinical information system suppliers. There was broad consensus that the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questionnaires were appropriate standards for recording alcohol use in EHRs but that the standards should also address interventions for alcohol misuse. Stakeholders reported a number of factors that might influence implementation of the standards, including having clear care pathways and an implementation guide, sharing information about alcohol use between health service providers, adequately resourcing the implementation process, integrating alcohol screening with existing clinical pathways, having good clinical information systems and IT infrastructure, providing financial incentives, having sufficient training for healthcare workers, and clinical leadership and engagement. Implementation of the standards would need to ensure patients are not stigmatised and that patient confidentiality is robustly maintained. Conclusions A wide range of stakeholders agreed that use of AUDIT-C and AUDIT are appropriate standards for recording alcohol use in EHRs in addition to recording interventions for alcohol misuse. The findings of this consultation will be used to develop an appropriate information model and implementation guide. Further research is needed to pilot the standards in primary and secondary care.