Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Redditch, United Kingdom

Background: The prevalence of childhood obesity, which has seen a rapid increase over the last decade, is now considered a major public health problem. Current treatment options are based on the two important frameworks of school- and family-based interventions; however, most research has yet to compare the two frameworks in the treatment of childhood obesity.The objective of this review is to compare the effectiveness of school-based intervention with family-based intervention in the treatment of childhood obesity.Methods: Databases such as Medline, Pub med, CINAHL, and Science Direct were used to execute the search for primary research papers according to inclusion criteria. The review included a randomised controlled trial and quasi-randomised controlled trials based on family- and school-based intervention frameworks on the treatment of childhood obesity.Results: The review identified 1231 articles of which 13 met the criteria. Out of the thirteen studies, eight were family-based interventions (n = 8) and five were school-based interventions (n = 5) with total participants (n = 2067). The participants were aged between 6 and 17 with the study duration ranging between one month and three years. Family-based interventions demonstrated effectiveness for children under the age of twelve and school-based intervention was most effective for those aged between 12 and 17 with differences for both long-term and short-term results.Conclusions: The evidence shows that family- and school-based interventions have a considerable effect on treating childhood obesity. However, the effectiveness of the interventional frameworks depends on factors such as age, short- or long-term outcome, and methodological quality of the trials. Further research studies are required to determine the effectiveness of family- and school-based interventions using primary outcomes such as weight, BMI, percentage overweight and waist circumference in addition to the aforementioned factors. © 2014 Kothandan; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.


In people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the incretin effect is reduced, but the recent advent of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 agonists/analogues has enabled restoration of at least some of the function of the incretin system, with accompanying improvements in glycaemic control. Two GLP-1 receptor agonists/analogues are currently approved for the treatment of T2DM-exenatide (Byetta®, Eli Lilly & Co., Indianapolis, IN, US) and liraglutide (Victoza®, Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark); a once-weekly formulation of exenatide (Bydureon®, Eli Lilly & Co.) has also been approved by the European Medicines Agency. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recently published guidance on the use of liraglutide in T2DM, based on evidence from the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes (LEAD) Phase III trial programme, which compared liraglutide with existing glucose-lowering therapies, such as exenatide and insulin glargine. The LEAD programme reported HbA1c reductions from 0.8 to 1.5% with liraglutide (1.2 and 1.8 mg), accompanied by low rates of hypoglycaemia and some weight loss; side effects were primarily gastrointestinal in nature (e.g. nausea and diarrhoea). Based on the findings of the LEAD studies and the NICE recommendation, liraglutide now represents an important therapy widely available in the UK for certain patient groups, including those with a body mass index (BMI) ≥35.0 kg/m2, and patients with a BMI <35 kg/m2 who are considered unsuitable for insulin and are failing to meet targets for glycaemic control with oral agents. NICE guidelines still suggest that most patients without considerable obesity (BMI <35 kg/m2) are probably best managed using insulin therapy. Evidence also suggests a future role for GLP-1 mimetics in combination with basal insulin. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.


Daniels R.,NHS England
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy | Year: 2011

Severe sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, claiming between 36000 and 64000 lives annually in the UK, with a mortality rate of 35%. International guidelines for the management of severe sepsis were published in 2004 by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and condensed into two Care Bundles. In 2010, the Campaign published results from its improvement programme showing that, although an absolute mortality reduction of 5.4% was seen over a 2 year period in line with increasing compliance with the Bundles, reliability was not achieved and Bundle compliance reached only 31%. This article explores current challenges in sepsis care and opportunities for further improvements. Basic care tasks [microbiological sampling and antibiotic delivery within 1 h, fluid resuscitation, and risk stratification using serum lactate (or alternative)] are likely to benefit patients most, yet are unreliably performed. Barriers include lack of awareness and robust process, the lack of supporting controlled trials, and complex diagnostic criteria leading to recognition delays. Reliable, timely delivery of more complex life-saving tasks (such as early goal-directed therapy) demands greater awareness, faster recognition and initiation of basic care, and more effective collaboration between clinicians and nurses on the front line, in critical care and in specialist support services, such as microbiology and infectious diseases. Organizations such as Survive Sepsis, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and the Global Sepsis Alliance are working to raise awareness and promote further improvement initiatives. Future developments will focus on sepsis biomarkers and microarray techniques to rapidly screen for pathogens, risk stratification using genetic profiling, and the development of novel therapeutic agents targeting immunomodulation. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.


Skypala I.,NHS England
Journal of the American Dietetic Association | Year: 2011

Adverse reactions to foods are classified according to the presence or absence of involvement of the immune system, which may or may not include the production of immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies. This review focuses on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of adverse food reactions, primarily in adults, and excluding celiac disease and lactose intolerance. Reported reactions to foods are often believed to be manifestations of a food allergy; however, IgE-mediated food allergy only affects 1% to 4% of adults, with seafood, tree nuts, peanuts, fruits, and vegetables being the most common triggers. Diagnosis is challenging and most commonly achieved through careful evaluation of clinical history followed by elimination and reintroduction or challenge with the suspected offending food. With acute-onset allergic reactions, estimation of food-specific IgE antibodies is frequently used to confirm or refute the diagnosis. Recent developments, such as single allergen assays, enhance the diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy, but the gold standard remains oral food challenge. Despite recent advances in the management of food allergy, including the promotion of oral tolerance, the mainstay of management is still the avoidance of food triggers. Dietary management can be compromised by nutritional inadequacy, accidental exposure, food labeling, and quality of life or adherence issues. It is essential that adults with confirmed food allergy receive optimal nutrition and dietetic support to enable them to manage their condition. © 2011 American Dietetic Association.


Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes appear to be at relatively low risk of severe hypoglycaemia and hypoglycaemia unawareness in the early stages of disease. However, declining endogenous insulin secretory capacity due to β-cell dysfunction/failure eventually produces vulnerability similar to type 1 diabetes. Severe hypoglycaemia itself is associated with serious morbidity and sometimes mortality, and represents an important barrier to achieving glycaemic goals and thus may reduce the protection from diabetes-related morbidity provided by good glycaemic control. Achieving an optimal balance of good glycaemic control and low risk of hypoglycaemia is key to providing optimum care in individuals with type 2 diabetes. This article discusses the issues related specifically to hypoglycaemia associated with oral agent therapy and how these agents may be best employed to provide an optimal balance between hypoglycaemia and good glycaemic control. Methods: Embase and Medline searches from 1998 to 2009 using the search terms DPP-4 inhibitors, metformin, oral agents, sulphonylureas, thiazolidinediones AND hypoglycaemia were conducted to identify relevant articles. The limitations inherent in this retrospective, narrative review of previously published publications chosen at the authors discretion are acknowledged. Findings: Failure to address even mild hypoglycaemia and glycaemic control early in the course of the disease may compromise the success of treatment in the longer term. Metformin, thiazolidinediones and DPP-4 inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with each other, have a well-characterised low propensity to cause hypoglycaemia compared with other therapies. Conclusions: Metformin, thiazolidinediones and DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be the most appropriate oral options for minimising the risk of hypoglycaemia. Early and ongoing attention to hypoglycaemia should form an integral part of any long-term glucose control strategy. © 2010 Informa UK Ltd All rights reserved.

Discover hidden collaborations