Supportive care 2030 movement: towards unifying ambitions for global excellence in supportive cancer care-an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Supportive care to ensure optimal quality of life is an essential component of cancer care and symptom control across the lifespan. Ongoing advances in cancer treatment, increasing toxicity from many novel treatment regimes, and variations in access to care and cancer outcomes across the globe and resource settings present significant challenges for supportive care delivery. To date, no overarching framework has been developed to guide supportive care development worldwide. As an initial step of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Supportive Care 2030 Movement, we developed a targeted, unifying set of ambition statements to envision the future of supportive cancer care. METHODS: From September 2022 until June 2023, we used a modified Delphi methodology to develop and attain consensus about ambition statements related to supportive cancer care. Leaders of MASCC Study Groups were invited to participate in an Expert Panel for the first two Delphi rounds (and a preliminary round to suggest potential ambition statements). Patient Advocates then examined and provided input regarding the ambition statements. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven Expert Panelists and 11 Patient Advocates participated. Consensus was attained on 13 ambition statements, with two sub-statements. The ambition statements addressed global standards for guideline development and implementation, coordinated and individualized care, dedicated supportive oncology services, self-management, needs for screening and actions, patient education, behavioral support, financial impact minimization, comprehensive survivorship care, and timely palliative care, reflecting collaboration, coordination and team-based approach across all levels. INTERPRETATION: This study is the first to develop shared ambitions for the future of supportive cancer care on a global level. These ambition statements can facilitate a coordinated, resource-stratified, and person-centered approach and inform research, education, clinical services, and policy efforts. FUNDING: This project received funding support from Prof Raymond Chan's NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1194051)

Italian guidelines for primary headaches: 2012 revised version

The first edition of the Italian diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for primary headaches in adults was published in J Headache Pain 2(Suppl. 1):105–190 (2001). Ten years later, the guideline committee of the Italian Society for the Study of Headaches (SISC) decided it was time to update therapeutic guidelines. A literature search was carried out on Medline database, and all articles on primary headache treatments in English, German, French and Italian published from February 2001 to December 2011 were taken into account. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analyses were analysed for each drug. If RCT were lacking, open studies and case series were also examined. According to the previous edition, four levels of recommendation were defined on the basis of levels of evidence, scientific strength of evidence and clinical effectiveness. Recommendations for symptomatic and prophylactic treatment of migraine and cluster headache were therefore revised with respect to previous 2001 guidelines and a section was dedicated to non-pharmacological treatment. This article reports a summary of the revised version published in extenso in an Italian version

Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Reducing high blood cholesterol, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in people with and without a past history of CVD is an important goal of pharmacotherapy. Statins are the first-choice agents. Previous reviews of the effects of statins have highlighted their benefits in people with CVD. The case for primary prevention was uncertain when the last version of this review was published (2011) and in light of new data an update of this review is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects, both harms and benefits, of statins in people with no history of CVD. SEARCH METHODS: To avoid duplication of effort, we checked reference lists of previous systematic reviews. The searches conducted in 2007 were updated in January 2012. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2022, Issue 4), MEDLINE OVID (1950 to December Week 4 2011) and EMBASE OVID (1980 to 2012 Week 1).There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of statins versus placebo or usual care control with minimum treatment duration of one year and follow-up of six months, in adults with no restrictions on total, low density lipoprotein (LDL) or high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels, and where 10% or less had a history of CVD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal CHD, CVD and stroke events, combined endpoints (fatal and non-fatal CHD, CVD and stroke events), revascularisation, change in total and LDL cholesterol concentrations, adverse events, quality of life and costs. Odds ratios (OR) and risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and for continuous data, pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were calculated. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data. MAIN RESULTS: The latest search found four new trials and updated follow-up data on three trials included in the original review. Eighteen randomised control trials (19 trial arms; 56,934 participants) were included. Fourteen trials recruited patients with specific conditions (raised lipids, diabetes, hypertension, microalbuminuria). All-cause mortality was reduced by statins (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94); as was combined fatal and non-fatal CVD RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.81), combined fatal and non-fatal CHD events RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.80) and combined fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89). Reduction of revascularisation rates (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.72) was also seen. Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol were reduced in all trials but there was evidence of heterogeneity of effects. There was no evidence of any serious harm caused by statin prescription. Evidence available to date showed that primary prevention with statins is likely to be cost-effective and may improve patient quality of life. Recent findings from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists study using individual patient data meta-analysis indicate that these benefits are similar in people at lower (< 1% per year) risk of a major cardiovascular event. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in all-cause mortality, major vascular events and revascularisations were found with no excess of adverse events among people without evidence of CVD treated with statins