A call for urgent action to safeguard our planet and our health in line with the helsinki declaration

In 2015, the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission launched a report introducing a novel approach called Planetary Health and proposed a concept, a strategy and a course of action. To discuss the concept of Planetary Health in the context of Europe, a conference entitled: “Europe That Protects: Safeguarding Our Planet, Safeguarding Our Health” was held in Helsinki in December 2019. The conference participants concluded with a need for action to support Planetary Health during the 2020s. The Helsinki Declaration emphasizes the urgency to act as scientific evidence shows that human activities are causing climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation, overuse of natural resources and pollution. They threaten the health and safety of human kind. Global, regional, national, local and individual initiatives are called for and multidisciplinary and multisectorial actions and measures are needed. A framework for an action plan is suggested that can be modified for local needs. Accordingly, a shift from fragmented approaches to policy and practice towards systematic actions will promote human health and health of the planet. Systems thinking will feed into conserving nature and biodiversity, and into halting climate change. The Planetary Health paradigm ‒ the health of human civilization and the state of natural systems on which it depends ‒ must become the driver for all policies.Non peer reviewe

A call for urgent action to safeguard our planet and our health in line with the helsinki declaration.

In 2015, the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission launched a report introducing a novel approach called Planetary Health and proposed a concept, a strategy and a course of action. To discuss the concept of Planetary Health in the context of Europe, a conference entitled: “Europe That Protects: Safeguarding Our Planet, Safeguarding Our Health” was held in Helsinki in December 2019. The conference participants concluded with a need for action to support Planetary Health during the 2020s. The Helsinki Declaration emphasizes the urgency to act as scientific evidence shows that human activities are causing climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation, overuse of natural resources and pollution. They threaten the health and safety of human kind. Global, regional, national, local and individual initiatives are called for and multidisciplinary and multisectorial actions and measures are needed. A framework for an action plan is suggested that can be modified for local needs. Accordingly, a shift from fragmented approaches to policy and practice towards systematic actions will promote human health and health of the planet. Systems thinking will feed into conserving nature and biodiversity, and into halting climate change. The Planetary Health paradigm ‒ the health of human civilization and the state of natural systems on which it depends ‒ must become the driver for all policies

A call for urgent action to safeguard our planet and our health in line with the helsinki declaration

In 2015, the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission launched a report introducing a novel approach called Planetary Health and proposed a concept, a strategy and a course of action. To discuss the concept of Planetary Health in the context of Europe, a conference entitled: “Europe That Protects: Safeguarding Our Planet, Safeguarding Our Health” was held in Helsinki in December 2019. The conference participants concluded with a need for action to support Planetary Health during the 2020s. The Helsinki Declaration emphasizes the urgency to act as scientific evidence shows that human activities are causing climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation, overuse of natural resources and pollution. They threaten the health and safety of human kind. Global, regional, national, local and individual initiatives are called for and multidisciplinary and multisectorial actions and measures are needed. A framework for an action plan is suggested that can be modified for local needs. Accordingly, a shift from fragmented approaches to policy and practice towards systematic actions will promote human health and health of the planet. Systems thinking will feed into conserving nature and biodiversity, and into halting climate change. The Planetary Health paradigm ‒ the health of human civilization and the state of natural systems on which it depends ‒ must become the driver for all policies

The Helsinki Declaration 2020: Europe that protects

publishedVersionNon peer reviewe

Global Asthma Network survey suggests more national asthma strategies could reduce burden of asthma

Background Several countries or regions within countries have an effective national asthma strategy resulting in a reduction of the large burden of asthma to individuals and society. There has been no systematic appraisal of the extent of national asthma strategies in the world. Methods The Global Asthma Network (GAN) undertook an email survey of 276 Principal Investigators of GAN centres in 120 countries, in 2013–2014. One of the questions was: “Has a national asthma strategy been developed in your country for the next five years? For children? For adults?”. Results Investigators in 112 (93.3%) countries answered this question. Of these, 26 (23.2%) reported having a national asthma strategy for children and 24 (21.4%) for adults; 22 (19.6%) countries had a strategy for both children and adults; 28 (25%) had a strategy for at least one age group. In countries with a high prevalence of current wheeze, strategies were significantly more common than in low prevalence countries (11/13 (85%) and 7/31 (22.6%) respectively, p < 0.001). Interpretation In 25% countries a national asthma strategy was reported. A large reduction in the global burden of asthma could be potentially achieved if more countries had an effective asthma strategy. © 2017 SEICA

Global Asthma Network survey suggests more national asthma strategies could reduce burden of asthma

Background Several countries or regions within countries have an effective national asthma strategy resulting in a reduction of the large burden of asthma to individuals and society. There has been no systematic appraisal of the extent of national asthma strategies in the world. Methods The Global Asthma Network (GAN) undertook an email survey of 276 Principal Investigators of GAN centres in 120 countries, in 2013–2014. One of the questions was: “Has a national asthma strategy been developed in your country for the next five years? For children? For adults?”. Results Investigators in 112 (93.3%) countries answered this question. Of these, 26 (23.2%) reported having a national asthma strategy for children and 24 (21.4%) for adults; 22 (19.6%) countries had a strategy for both children and adults; 28 (25%) had a strategy for at least one age group. In countries with a high prevalence of current wheeze, strategies were significantly more common than in low prevalence countries (11/13 (85%) and 7/31 (22.6%) respectively, p < 0.001). Interpretation In 25% countries a national asthma strategy was reported. A large reduction in the global burden of asthma could be potentially achieved if more countries had an effective asthma strategy. © 2017 SEICA

Safety and efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to reduce ileus after colorectal surgery

Background: Ileus is common after elective colorectal surgery, and is associated with increased adverse events and prolonged hospital stay. The aim was to assess the role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for reducing ileus after surgery. Methods: A prospective multicentre cohort study was delivered by an international, student- and trainee-led collaborative group. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The primary outcome was time to gastrointestinal recovery, measured using a composite measure of bowel function and tolerance to oral intake. The impact of NSAIDs was explored using Cox regression analyses, including the results of a centre-specific survey of compliance to enhanced recovery principles. Secondary safety outcomes included anastomotic leak rate and acute kidney injury. Results: A total of 4164 patients were included, with a median age of 68 (i.q.r. 57\u201375) years (54\ub79 per cent men). Some 1153 (27\ub77 per cent) received NSAIDs on postoperative days 1\u20133, of whom 1061 (92\ub70 per cent) received non-selective cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors. After adjustment for baseline differences, the mean time to gastrointestinal recovery did not differ significantly between patients who received NSAIDs and those who did not (4\ub76 versus 4\ub78 days; hazard ratio 1\ub704, 95 per cent c.i. 0\ub796 to 1\ub712; P = 0\ub7360). There were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rate (5\ub74 versus 4\ub76 per cent; P = 0\ub7349) or acute kidney injury (14\ub73 versus 13\ub78 per cent; P = 0\ub7666) between the groups. Significantly fewer patients receiving NSAIDs required strong opioid analgesia (35\ub73 versus 56\ub77 per cent; P &lt; 0\ub7001). Conclusion: NSAIDs did not reduce the time for gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery, but they were safe and associated with reduced postoperative opioid requirement