Data availabilitySummary statistics generated by COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative are available online (https://www.covid19hg.org/results/r6/). The analyses described here use the freeze 6 data. The COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative continues to regularly release new data freezes. Summary statistics for samples from individuals of non-European ancestry are not currently available owing to the small individual sample sizes of these groups, but the results for 23 loci lead variants are reported in Supplementary Table 3. Individual-level data can be requested directly from the authors of the contributing studies, listed in Supplementary Table 1.

SummaryBackgroundLow emission zones (LEZ) are an increasingly common, but unevaluated, intervention aimed at improving urban air quality and public health. We investigated the impact of London's LEZ on air quality and children's respiratory health.MethodsWe did a sequential annual cross-sectional study of 2164 children aged 8–9 years attending primary schools between 2009–10 and 2013–14 in central London, UK, following the introduction of London's LEZ in February, 2008. We examined the association between modelled pollutant exposures of nitrogen oxides (including nitrogen dioxide [NO2]) and particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2·5 μm (PM2·5) and less than 10 μm (PM10) and lung function: postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1, primary outcome), forced vital capacity (FVC), and respiratory or allergic symptoms. We assigned annual exposures by each child's home and school address, as well as spatially resolved estimates for the 3 h (0600–0900 h), 24 h, and 7 days before each child's assessment, to isolate long-term from short-term effects.FindingsThe percentage of children living at addresses exceeding the EU limit value for annual NO2 (40 μg/m3) fell from 99% (444/450) in 2009 to 34% (150/441) in 2013. Over this period, we identified a reduction in NO2 at both roadside (median −1·35 μg/m3 per year; 95% CI −2·09 to −0·61; p=0·0004) and background locations (−0·97; −1·56 to −0·38; p=0·0013), but not for PM10. The effect on PM2·5 was equivocal. We found no association between postbronchodilator FEV1 and annual residential pollutant attributions. By contrast, FVC was inversely correlated with annual NO2 (−0·0023 L/μg per m3; −0·0044 to −0·0002; p=0·033) and PM10 (−0·0090 L/μg per m3; −0·0175 to −0·0005; p=0·038).InterpretationWithin London's LEZ, a smaller lung volume in children was associated with higher annual air pollutant exposures. We found no evidence of a reduction in the proportion of children with small lungs over this period, despite small improvements in air quality in highly polluted urban areas during the implementation of London's LEZ. Interventions that deliver larger reductions in emissions might yield improvements in children's health.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust and King's College London, NHS Hackney, Lee Him donation, and Felicity Wilde Charitable Trust.

No abstract

Group clinics are becoming popular as a new care model in diabetes care. This evidence synthesis, using realist review methodology, examined the role of group clinics in meeting the complex needs of young people living with diabetes. Following Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis-Evolving Standards (RAMESES) quality standards, we conducted a systematic search across 10 databases. A total of 131 articles met inclusion criteria and were analyzed to develop theoretically informed explanations of how and why group clinics could work (or not) for young people with diabetes. Models of group-based care in the literature varied significantly and incorporated different degrees of clinical and educational content. Our analysis identified four overarching principles that can be applied in different contexts to drive sustained engagement of young people in group clinics: 1) emphasizing self-management as practical knowledge; 2) developing a sense of affinity between patients; 3) providing safe, developmentally appropriate care; and 4) balancing group and individual needs. Implementation of group clinics was not always straightforward; numerous adjustments to operational and clinical processes were required to establish and deliver high-quality care. Group clinics for young people with diabetes offer the potential to complement individualized care but are not a panacea and may generate as well as solve problems.The global rise in diabetes prevalence is expected to have serious consequences across health care systems. It is estimated that by 2045, health care expenditure on diabetes will reach 776 billion U.S. dollars (1). In the U.K., the cost of diabetes care is expected to account for 17% of the total health resource expenditure in 2035/2036 (2). A large proportion of these costs relates to managing diabetes complications, such as retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic foot, and cardiovascular disease, which lead to reduced quality of life and premature mortality (1). Alternative approaches to care provision are necessary to stem what has been described as a "titanic struggle" against the burgeoning personal and systemic impact of diabetes (3).Group clinics (also known as shared medical appointments) involve delivery of care provided to groups of individuals at the same time rather than one-to-one interactions with health professionals (4,5). They have been proposed as a way to address rising health care costs and diminishing resources, with the potential to improve efficiency and provide opportunities for peer support and social learning (6). Group clinics can be delivered in a variety of formats and have been targeted to different patient populations (4,5).In diabetes, experimental studies of group-based care for adults have shown improvements in glycemic control, problem-solving ability, quality of life, and reduced time commitment for clinicians, compared with standard one-to-one