The expansion of primary care and community-based service delivery systems is intended to meet emerging needs, reduce the costs of hospital-based ambulatory care and prevent avoidable hospital use by the provision of more appropriate care. Great emphasis has been placed on the role of self-management in the complex process of care of patient with long-term conditions. Several studies have determined that nurses, among the health professionals, are more recommended to promote health and deliver preventive programs within the primary care context. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of the nurse-led self-management support versus usual care evaluating patient outcomes in chronic care community programs. Systematic review was carried out in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science including RCTs of nurse-led self-management support interventions performed to improve observer reported outcomes (OROs) and patients reported outcomes (PROs), with any method of communication exchange or education in a community setting on patients >18 years of age with a diagnosis of chronic diseases or multi-morbidity. Of the 7,279 papers initially retrieved, 29 met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses on systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure reduction (10 studies—3,881 patients) and HbA1c reduction (7 studies—2,669 patients) were carried-out. The pooled MD were: SBP -3.04 (95% CI -5.01—-1.06), DBP -1.42 (95% CI -1.42—-0.49) and HbA1c -0.15 (95% CI -0.32–0.01) in favor of the experimental groups. Meta-analyses of subgroups showed, among others, a statistically significant effect if the interventions were delivered to patients with diabetes (SBP) or CVD (DBP), if the nurses were specifically trained, if the studies had a sample size higher than 200 patients and if the allocation concealment was not clearly defined. Effects on other OROs and PROs as well as quality of life remain inconclusive.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy as a tool of smoking cessation of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), directly comparing users of e-cigarettes only, smokers of tobacco cigarettes only, and smokers of both.DesignProspective cohort study. Final results are expected in 2019, but given the urgency of data to support policies on electronic smoking, we report the results of the 12-month follow-up.Data SourcesDirect contact and structured questionnaires by phone or via internet.MethodsAdults (30–75 years) were included if they were smokers of ≥1 tobacco cigarette/day (tobacco smokers), users of any type of e-cigarettes, inhaling ≥50 puffs weekly (e-smokers), or smokers of both tobacco and e-cigarettes (dual smokers). Carbon monoxide levels were tested in a sample of those declaring tobacco smoking abstinence.Main Outcome MeasuresSustained smoking abstinence from tobacco smoking at 12 months, reduction in the number of tobacco cigarettes smoked daily.Data SynthesisWe used linear and logistic regression, with region as cluster unit.ResultsFollow-up data were available for 236 e-smokers, 491 tobacco smokers, and 232 dual smokers (overall response rate 70.8%). All e-smokers were tobacco ex-smokers. At 12 months, 61.9% of the e-smokers were still abstinent from tobacco smoking; 20.6% of the tobacco smokers and 22.0% of the dual smokers achieved tobacco abstinence. Adjusting for potential confounders, tobacco smoking abstinence or cessation remained significantly more likely among e-smokers (adjusted OR 5.19; 95% CI: 3.35–8.02), whereas adding e-cigarettes to tobacco smoking did not enhance the likelihood of quitting tobacco and did not reduce tobacco cigarette consumption. E-smokers showed a minimal but significantly higher increase in self-rated health than other smokers. Non significant differences were found in self-reported serious adverse events (eleven overall).ConclusionsAdding e-cigarettes to tobacco smoking did not facilitate smoking cessation or reduction. If e-cigarette safety will be confirmed, however, the use of e-cigarettes alone may facilitate quitters remaining so.Registration NumberNCT01785537.

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse events, either serious or mild/moderate, of all generic versus brand-name cardiovascular medicines. We searched randomized trials in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last update December 1, 2014). Attempts were made to contact the investigators of all potentially eligible trials. Two investigators independently extracted and analyzed soft (including systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and others) and hard efficacy outcomes (including major cardiovascular adverse events and death), minor/moderate and serious adverse events. We included 74 randomized trials; 53 reported ≥1 efficacy outcome (overall sample 3051), 32 measured mild/moderate adverse events (n = 2407), and 51 evaluated serious adverse events (n = 2892). We included trials assessing ACE inhibitors (n = 12), anticoagulants (n = 5), antiplatelet agents (n = 17), beta-blockers (n = 11), calcium channel blockers (n = 7); diuretics (n = 13); statins (n = 6); and others (n = 3). For both soft and hard efficacy outcomes, 100 % of the trials showed non-significant differences between generic and brand-name drugs. The aggregate effect size was 0.01 (95 % CI −0.05; 0.08) for soft outcomes; −0.06 (−0.71; 0.59) for hard outcomes. All but two trials showed non-significant differences in mild/moderate adverse events, and aggregate effect size was 0.07 (−0.06; 0.20). Comparable results were observed for each drug class and in each stratified meta-analysis. Overall, 8 serious possibly drug-related adverse events were reported: 5/2074 subjects on generics; 3/2076 subjects on brand-name drugs (OR 1.69; 95 % CI 0.40–7.20). This meta-analysis strengthens the evidence for clinical equivalence between brand-name and generic cardiovascular drugs. Physicians could be reassured about prescribing generic cardiovascular drugs, and health care organization about endorsing their wider use.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10654-015-0104-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Given the rapid development of genetic tests, an assessment of their benefits, risks, and limitations is crucial for public health practice. We performed a systematic review aimed at identifying and comparing the existing evaluation frameworks for genetic tests. We searched PUBMED, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, Google, and gray literature sources for any documents describing such frameworks. We identified 29 evaluation frameworks published between 2000 and 2017, mostly based on the ACCE Framework (n = 13 models), or on the HTA process (n = 6), or both (n = 2). Others refer to the Wilson and Jungner screening criteria (n = 3) or to a mixture of different criteria (n = 5). Due to the widespread use of the ACCE Framework, the most frequently used evaluation criteria are analytic and clinical validity, clinical utility and ethical, legal and social implications. Less attention is given to the context of implementation. An economic dimension is always considered, but not in great detail. Consideration of delivery models, organizational aspects, and consumer viewpoint is often lacking. A deeper analysis of such context-related evaluation dimensions may strengthen a comprehensive evaluation of genetic tests and support the decision-making process.