Obesity in adults: a 2022 adapted clinical practice guideline for Ireland

This Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) for the management of obesity in adults in Ireland, adapted from the Canadian CPG, defines obesity as a complex chronic disease characterised by excess or dysfunctional adiposity that impairs health. The guideline reflects substantial advances in the understanding of the determinants, pathophysiology, assessment, and treatment of obesity. It shifts the focus of obesity management toward improving patient-centred health outcomes, functional outcomes, and social and economic participation, rather than weight loss alone. It gives recommendations for care that are underpinned by evidence-based principles of chronic disease management; validate patients' lived experiences; move beyond simplistic approaches of "eat less, move more" and address the root drivers of obesity. People living with obesity face substantial bias and stigma, which contribute to increased morbidity and mortality independent of body weight. Education is needed for all healthcare professionals in Ireland to address the gap in skills, increase knowledge of evidence-based practice, and eliminate bias and stigma in healthcare settings. We call for people living with obesity in Ireland to have access to evidence-informed care, including medical, medical nutrition therapy, physical activity and physical rehabilitation interventions, psychological interventions, pharmacotherapy, and bariatric surgery. This can be best achieved by resourcing and fully implementing the Model of Care for the Management of Adult Overweight and Obesity. To address health inequalities, we also call for the inclusion of obesity in the Structured Chronic Disease Management Programme and for pharmacotherapy reimbursement, to ensure equal access to treatment based on health-need rather than ability to pay

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Invited review: A 2020 perspective on pasture-based dairy systems and products

peer-reviewedGrazing pasture is the basis for dairy production systems in regions with temperate climates, such as in Ireland, New Zealand, parts of Australia, the United States, and Europe. Milk and dairy products from cows on pasture-based farms predominantly consuming fresh grazed grass (typically classified as “grass-fed” milk) have been previously shown to possess a different nutrient profile, with potential nutritional benefits, compared with conventional milk derived from total mixed ration. Moreover, pasture-based production systems are considered more environmentally and animal welfare friendly by consumers. As such, there is significant potential for market capitalization on grass-fed dairy products. As competition in this space increases, the regulations of what constitutes as grass-fed vary between different regions of the world. With this in mind, there is a need for clear and independently accredited grass-fed standards, defining the grass-fed criteria for labeling of products as such, subsequently increasing the clarity and confidence for the consumer. This review outlines the numerous effects of pasture production systems on dairy product composition, nutritional profile, and sustainability, and highlights potential future methods for authentication

Corporate accountability to the poor? Assessing the effectiveness of community-based strategies

This paper investigates how, why, and when community-based strategies are effective in promoting corporate accountability (CA) to the poor. It argues that mainstream approaches to corporate social responsibility (CSR) underestimate the importance of power in the relationship between corporations and the communities in which they invest, which limits their applicability to many developing-country contexts in particular. In addressing this neglect, the article draws on literature on power, accountability, and citizen participation in order to analyse cases where communities have attempted to hold corporations to account for their social and environmental responsibilities. The paper argues that more attention should be paid to a number of state-, corporation-, and community-related factors, which are found to be key to the effectiveness of strategies aimed at enhancing CA to the poor