Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The growing demand for LTC (Long-term care) services for disabled elderly has become a daunting task for countries worldwide, especially China, where population aging is particularly severe. According to CSY (China Statistical Yearbook,2019), the elderly aged 65 or above has reached 167 million in 2018, and the number of disabled elderly is as high as 54%. Germany and other countries have alleviated the crisis by promoting the public LTCI (Long-Term Care Insurance) system since the 1990s, while China’s public LTCI system formal pilot only started in 2016. Therefore, the development of the public LTCI system has gradually become a hot topic for scholars in various countries, including China. Methods This review has been systematically sorted the existing related literature to discuss the development of public LTCI (Long-Term Care Insurance)system form four aspects, namely, the comparison of public LTCI systems in different countries, the influence of public LTCI, challenge of public LTCI, and the relationship between public LTCI and private LTCI. We searched some databases including Web of Science Core Collection, Medline, SCOPUS, EBSCO, EMBASE, ProQuest and PubMed from January 2008 to September 2020. The quality of 38 quantitative and 21 qualitative articles was evaluated using the CASP(Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) critical evaluation checklist. Results The review systematically examines the development of public LTCI system from four aspects, namely, the comparison of public LTCI systems in different countries, the influence of public LTCI, the challenge of public LTCI, and the relationship between public LTCI and private LTCI. For example, LTCI has a positive effect on the health and life quality of the disabled elderly. However, the role of LTCI in alleviating the financial burden on families with the disabled elderly may be limited. Conclusion Some policy implications on the future development of China’s LTCI system can be obtained. For example, the government should fully consider the constraints such as price rise, the elderly disability rate, and the substantial economic burden. It also can strengthen the effective combination of public LTCI and private LTCI. It does not only help to expand the space for its theoretical research but also to learn the experiences in the practice of the LTCI system in various countries around the world. It will significantly help the smooth development and further promote the in-depth reform of the LTCI system in China.

In a phase 3a trial involving adults with type 2 diabetes who had not previously received insulin, glycemic control was better with once-weekly insulin icodec than with once-daily insulin glargine U100.

Fall-related injuries exert an enormous health burden on older adults in long-term care (LTC). Softer landing surfaces, such as those provided by low-stiffness \"compliant\" flooring, may prevent fall-related injuries by decreasing the forces applied to the body during fall impact. Our primary objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness of compliant flooring at preventing serious fall-related injuries among LTC residents. The Flooring for Injury Prevention (FLIP) Study was a 4-year, randomized superiority trial in 150 single-occupancy resident rooms at a single Canadian LTC site. In April 2013, resident rooms were block randomized (1:1) to installation of intervention compliant flooring (2.54 cm SmartCells) or rigid control flooring (2.54 cm plywood) covered with identical hospital-grade vinyl. The primary outcome was serious fall-related injury over 4 years that required an emergency department visit or hospital admission and a treatment procedure or diagnostic evaluation in hospital. Secondary outcomes included minor fall-related injury, any fall-related injury, falls, and fracture. Outcomes were ascertained by blinded assessors between September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2017 and analyzed by intention to treat. Adverse outcomes were not assessed. During follow-up, 184 residents occupied 74 intervention rooms, and 173 residents occupied 76 control rooms. Residents were 64.3% female with mean (SD) baseline age 81.7 (9.5) years (range 51.1 to 104.6 years), body mass index 25.9 (7.7) kg/m2, and follow-up 1.64 (1.39) years. 1,907 falls were reported; 23 intervention residents experienced 38 serious injuries (from 29 falls in 22 rooms), while 23 control residents experienced 47 serious injuries (from 34 falls in 23 rooms). Compliant flooring did not affect odds of ≥1 serious fall-related injury (12.5% intervention versus 13.3% control, odds ratio [OR]: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.84, p = 0.950) or ≥2 serious fall-related injuries (5.4% versus 7.5%, OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.75, p = 0.500). Compliant flooring did not affect rate of serious fall-related injuries (0.362 versus 0.422 per 1,000 bed nights, rate ratio [RR]: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.39, p = 0.925; 0.038 versus 0.053 per fall, RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.71, p = 0.560), rate of falls with ≥1 serious fall-related injury (0.276 versus 0.303 per 1,000 bed nights, RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.79, p = 0.920), or time to first serious fall-related injury (0.237 versus 0.257, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.62, p = 0.760). Compliant flooring did not affect any secondary outcome in this study. Study limitations included the following: findings were specific to 2.54 cm SmartCells compliant flooring installed in LTC resident rooms, standard fall and injury prevention interventions were in use throughout the study and may have influenced the observed effect of compliant flooring, and challenges with concussion detection in LTC residents may have prevented estimation of the effect of compliant flooring on fall-related concussions. In contrast to results from previous retrospective and nonrandomized studies, this study found that compliant flooring underneath hospital-grade vinyl was not effective at preventing serious fall-related injuries in LTC. Future studies are needed to identify effective methods for preventing fall-related injuries in LTC. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01618786.

\"Once the reserve of only the most hardcore enthusiasts, ultra running is now a thriving global industry, with hundreds of thousands of competitors each year. But is the rise of this most brutal and challenging sport--with races that extend into hundreds of miles, often in extreme environments--an antidote to modern life, or a symptom of a modern illness? [A]uthor Adharanand Finn travels to the heart of the sport to investigate the reasons behind its rise and discover what it takes to join the ranks of these ultra athletes. Through encounters with the extreme and colorful characters of the ultramarathon world, and his own experiences of running ultras everywhere from the deserts of Oman to the Rocky Mountains, Finn offers a fascinating account of people testing the boundaries of human endeavor.\"-- Provided by publisher.

Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This phase 3 study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of efsitora compared with insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes. This randomised, 52-week, parallel-design, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority study conducted at 82 global health-care centres, randomly assigned (1:1) adults (ie, those aged ≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 7·0–10·0% (53·0–85·8 mmol/mol) to efsitora (n=343) or, degludec (n=349), both in combination with insulin lispro. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week-26 (non-inferiority margin=0·4%). The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05463744) and is completed. Between Aug 12, 2022, and May 7, 2024, of 893 participants enrolled, 692 (77%) participants were randomly assigned to once-weekly efsitora or once-daily degludec, and 623 (90%) participants completed the study. Mean HbA1c decreased from 7·88% (62·66 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·41% (57·5 mmol/mol) at week 26 with efsitora and from 7·94% (63·3 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·36% (56·9 mmol/mol) at week 26 with degludec. Mean HbA1c change from baseline to week 26 was –0·51% with efsitora and –0·56% with degludec (estimated treatment difference 0·052%, 95% CI –0·077 to 0·181; p=0·43), confirming a non-inferiority margin of 0·4% for efsitora compared with degludec. Rates of combined level 2 (<54 mg/dL [3·0 mmol/L]) or level 3 severe hypoglycaemia were higher with efsitora compared with degludec (14·03 vs 11·59 events per patient year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·21, 95% CI 1·04 to 1·41; p=0·016) during weeks 0–52, with the highest rates during weeks 0–12. Severe hypoglycaemia incidence was higher with efsitora (35 [10%] of 343) versus degludec (11 [3%] of 349) during weeks 0–52. Overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar across treatment groups. One death not related to the study treatment occurred in the degludec group. In adults with type 1 diabetes, once-weekly efsitora showed non-inferior HbA1c reduction compared with daily insulin degludec. Higher rates of combined level 2 or level 3 hypoglycaemia and greater incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in participants treated with efsitora compared with participants treated with degludec might suggest the need for additional evaluation of efsitora dose initiation and optimisation in people with type 1 diabetes. Eli Lilly and Company.

Once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is in development for the treatment of people with diabetes. The aim of the current study was to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly efsitora compared with daily insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin. This randomised, 78-week, phase 3, parallel-design, open-label, treat-to-target, non-inferiority study (QWINT-3) was conducted at 127 sites across nine countries. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes currently treated with basal insulin, up to three non-insulin glucose-lowering medications without prandial insulin, and glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 6·5–10·0% (48–86 mmol/mol) were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive efsitora (n=655) or degludec (n=331). The primary endpoint was the change in least-squares mean HbA1c concentration from baseline to week 26, assessed in all randomly allocated participants who took at least one dose of study drug (excluding those who discontinued due to inadvertent enrolment), with a non-inferiority margin of 0·4% for efsitora versus degludec. The completed trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05275400). Between March 8, 2022, and May 15, 2024, 1229 participants were enrolled and 986 (80%) were randomly allocated: 655 to the efsitora group and 331 to the degludec group, all of whom received at least one dose of study treatment. 871 (88%) of those randomly allocated completed 78 weeks of treatment. The population comprised 431 (44%) female and 555 (56%) male patients, median age was 62·0 years (IQR 54·0–68·0), baseline BMI was 29·65 kg/m2 (IQR 26·32–34·12), and HbA1c concentration was 7·7% (7·1–8·4). The least-squares mean change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c concentration was –0·81 percentage points (SE 0·03; –8·85 mmol/mol [0·33]) in the efsitora group and –0·72 percentage points (0·04; –7·88 mmol/mol [0·46]) in the degludec group (estimated treatment difference –0·09 percentage points [95% CI –0·19 to 0·01]), indicating non-inferiority of efsitora to degludec. Combined level 2 hypoglycaemia (glucose concentration <54 mg/dL [<3·0 mmol/L]) or level 3 (severe) hypoglycaemia events from baseline to week 78 occurred at a similar rate for efsitora (0·84 events per patient-year of exposure; 754 events in 268 [41%] participants) and degludec (0·74 per patient-year of exposure; 346 events in 123 [37%] participants; estimated rate ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·83–1·56]; p=0·43). Serious adverse events occurred in 103 (16%; 7 [1%] related to treatment) efsitora-treated and 37 (11%; 1 [<1%] related to treatment) degludec-treated participants; the most frequent (at ∼1%) were primarily cardiovascular-related in both groups. Nine deaths (seven in the efsitora group and two in the degludec group) occurred during the trial, but none were related to study treatment. Efsitora is a well tolerated and efficacious once-weekly alternative to daily basal insulin, with a reduced injection frequency, for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes. Eli Lilly and Company.