Outplayed: Regaining Strategic Initiative in the Gray Zone, A Report Sponsored by the Army Capabilities Integration Center in Coordination with Joint Staff J-39/Strategic Multi-Layer Assessment Branch

U.S. competitors pursuing meaningful revision or rejection of the current U.S.-led status quo are employing a host of hybrid methods to advance and secure interests contrary to those of the United States. These challengers employ unique combinations of influence, intimidation, coercion, and aggression to incrementally crowd out effective resistance, establish local or regional advantage, and manipulate risk perceptions in their favor. So far, the United States has not come up with a coherent countervailing approach. It is in this “gray zone”—the awkward and uncomfortable space between traditional conceptions of war and peace—where the United States and its defense enterprise face systemic challenges to U.S. position and authority. Gray zone competition and conflict present fundamental challenges to U.S. and partner security and, consequently, should be important pacers for U.S. defense strategy.https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1924/thumbnail.jp

Cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes mortality burden of cardiometabolic risk factors from 1980 to 2010: A comparative risk assessment

Background: High blood pressure, blood glucose, serum cholesterol, and BMI are risk factors for cardiovascular diseases and some of these factors also increase the risk of chronic kidney disease and diabetes. We estimated mortality from cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes that was attributable to these four cardiometabolic risk factors for all countries and regions from 1980 to 2010. Methods: We used data for exposure to risk factors by country, age group, and sex from pooled analyses of population-based health surveys. We obtained relative risks for the effects of risk factors on cause-specific mortality from meta-analyses of large prospective studies. We calculated the population attributable fractions for each risk factor alone, and for the combination of all risk factors, accounting for multicausality and for mediation of the effects of BMI by the other three risks. We calculated attributable deaths by multiplying the cause-specific population attributable fractions by the number of disease-specific deaths. We obtained cause-specific mortality from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors 2010 Study. We propagated the uncertainties of all the inputs to the final estimates. Findings: In 2010, high blood pressure was the leading risk factor for deaths due to cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes in every region, causing more than 40% of worldwide deaths from these diseases; high BMI and glucose were each responsible for about 15% of deaths, and high cholesterol for more than 10%. After accounting for multicausality, 63% (10·8 million deaths, 95% CI 10·1-11·5) of deaths from these diseases in 2010 were attributable to the combined effect of these four metabolic risk factors, compared with 67% (7·1 million deaths, 6·6-7·6) in 1980. The mortality burden of high BMI and glucose nearly doubled from 1980 to 2010. At the country level, age-standardised death rates from these diseases attributable to the combined effects of these four risk factors surpassed 925 deaths per 100 000 for men in Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Mongolia, but were less than 130 deaths per 100 000 for women and less than 200 for men in some high-income countries including Australia, Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, and Spain. Interpretation: The salient features of the cardiometabolic disease and risk factor epidemic at the beginning of the 21st century are high blood pressure and an increasing effect of obesity and diabetes. The mortality burden of cardiometabolic risk factors has shifted from high-income to low-income and middle-income countries. Lowering cardiometabolic risks through dietary, behavioural, and pharmacological interventions should be a part of the global response to non-communicable diseases. Funding: UK Medical Research Council, US National Institutes of Health. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd

Development of a core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma

Background: There is variation in the outcomes reported in clinical studies of basal cell carcinoma. This can prevent effective meta-analyses from answering important clinical questions. Objective: To identify a recommended minimum set of core outcomes for basal cell carcinoma clinical trials. Methods: Patient and professional Delphi process to cull a long list, culminating in a consensus meeting. To be provisionally accepted, outcomes needed to be deemed important (score, 7-9, with 9 being the maximum) by 70% of each stakeholder group. Results: Two hundred thirty-five candidate outcomes identified via a systematic literature review and survey of key stakeholders were reduced to 74 that were rated by 100 health care professionals and patients in 2 Delphi rounds. Twenty-seven outcomes were provisionally accepted. The final core set of 5 agreed-upon outcomes after the consensus meeting included complete response; persistent or serious adverse events; recurrence-free survival; quality of life; and patient satisfaction, including cosmetic outcome. Limitations: English-speaking patients and professionals rated outcomes extracted from English language studies. Conclusion: A core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma has been developed. The use of relevant measures may improve the utility of clinical research and the quality of therapeutic guidance available to clinicians. Keywords: basal cell carcinoma; core; measure; outcome; set; skin cancer

Development of a core outcome set for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma trials: identification of core domains and outcomes

International audienceBackground: The lack of uniformity in the outcomes reported in clinical studies of the treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) complicates efforts to compare treatment effectiveness across trials. Objectives: To develop a core outcome set (COS), a minimum set of agreed-upon outcomes to be measured in all clinical trials of a given disease or outcome, for the treatment of cSCC. Methods: One hundred and nine outcomes were identified via a systematic literature review and interviews with 28 stakeholders. After consolidation of this long list, 55 candidate outcomes were rated by 19 physician and 10 patient stakeholders, in two rounds of Delphi exercises. Outcomes scored ‘critically important’ (score of 7, 8 or 9) by ≥ 70% of patients and ≥ 70% of physicians were provisionally included. At the consensus meeting, after discussion and voting of 44 international experts and patients, the provisional list was reduced to a final core set, for which consensus was achieved among all meeting participants. Results: A core set of seven outcomes was finalized at the consensus meeting: (i) serious or persistent adverse events, (ii) patient-reported quality of life, (iii) complete response, (iv) partial response, (v) recurrence-free survival, (vi) progression-free survival and (vii) disease-specific survival. Conclusions: In order to increase the comparability of results across trials and to reduce selective reporting bias, cSCC researchers should consider reporting these core outcomes. Further work needs to be performed to identify the measures that should be reported for each of these outcomes

Development of a core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND: There is variation in the outcomes reported in clinical studies of basal cell carcinoma (BCC). This can prevent effective meta-analyses to answer important clinical questions. OBJECTIVE: To identify a recommended minimum set of core outcomes for BCC clinical trials. METHODS: Patient and professional Delphi process to cull a long-list, culminating in a consensus meeting. To be provisionally accepted, outcomes needed to be deemed 'important' (score: 7-9, of maximum of 9) by 70% of each stakeholder group. RESULTS: 235 candidate outcomes identified via a systematic literature review and survey of key stakeholders were reduced to 74 that were rated by 100 health care professionals and patients in two Delphi rounds. 27 outcomes were provisionally accepted. The final core set of 5 agreed-upon outcomes after the consensus meeting was: complete response; persistent or serious adverse events; recurrence-free survival; quality of life; and patient satisfaction, including with cosmetic outcome. LIMITATIONS: English-speaking patients and professionals rated outcomes extracted from English-language studies. CONCLUSIONS: A core outcome set (COS) for basal cell carcinoma has been developed. Use of relevant measures may improve the utility of clinical research and the quality of therapeutic guidance available to clinicians