Every nation in Asia has dealt with COVID-19 differently and with varying levels of success in the absence of clear and effective leadership from the WHO. As a result, the WHO’s role in Asia as a global health organization is coming under increasing pressure. As its credibility is slowly being eroded by public displays of incompetence and negligence, it has also become an arena of contestation. Moreover, while the pandemic continues to undermine the future of global health governance as a whole, the highly interdependent economies in Asia have exposed the speed with which pandemics can spread, as intensive regional travel and business connections have caused every area in the region to be hit hard. The migrant labor necessary to sustain globalized economies has been strained and the security of international workers is now more precarious than ever, as millions have been left stranded, seen their entry blocked, or have limited access to health services. This volume provides an accessible framework for the understanding the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in Asia, with a specific emphasis on global governance in health and labor.
Vaccines have saved millions of lives and reduced the severity of many infections, but today the reduction in vaccine coverage has been reflected in the resurgence of epidemics of mumps, whooping cough, measles and chickenpox. This has happened because many people do not recognize the effectiveness of vaccination and fear the side effects, in other words, the main concern is the safety of the vaccines. As a consequence, the greater responsibility of the individual and respect for his will can lead authorities to less vigorously promote the “duty of vaccination”, which is also a social duty. Unfortunately, however, the attitude of individuals is guided by their beliefs about health, which are often supported by an erroneous perception of risk arising from false news.
Periodontitis and diabetes are two major global health problems despite their prevalence being significantly underreported and underestimated. Both epidemiological and intervention studies show a bidirectional relationship between periodontitis and diabetes. The hypothesis of a potential causal link between the two diseases is corroborated by recent studies in experimental animals that identified mechanisms whereby periodontitis and diabetes can adversely affect each other. Herein, we will review clinical data on the existence of a two-way relationship between periodontitis and diabetes and discuss possible mechanistic interactions in both directions, focusing in particular on new data highlighting the importance of the host response. Moreover, we will address the hypothesis that trained immunity may represent the unifying mechanism explaining the intertwined association between diabetes and periodontitis. Achieving a better mechanistic insight on clustering of infectious, inflammatory, and metabolic diseases may provide new therapeutic options to reduce the risk of diabetes and diabetes-associated comorbidities.
With higher efficacy of cancer therapies, the numbers and types of side effects experienced by patients have also increased, evidencing a need for brief assessments of side effect bother. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) includes the item “I am bothered by side effects of treatment” (GP5). This study aimed to confirm GP5’s validity in a large, diverse, real-world patient sample.
Real-world data were drawn from 10 Adelphi Disease Specific Programmes (DSP™) conducted between 2015 and 2019 in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK and the USA, covering 10 cancer sites. We examined correlations between GP5 responses and varied measures of patient-reported global health and the number of side effects experienced. We explored whether more advanced patients and those with worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status Rating (ECOG PSR) reported greater side effect bother. Finally, we conducted differential item functioning (DIF) assessment using the Mantel–Haenszel approach.
The sample included 6755 advanced cancer patients. GP5 responses were distributed similarly across most cancer sites. A moderate, negative correlation (rpolyserial = − 0.43) between GP5 responses and global health evidenced convergent validity. Known groups validity was evidenced by dichotomised distributions of GP5, showing expected results between cancer stage 2 vs. 3 and 4 and with ECOG PSR (p < 0.001). Little evidence of DIF was found.
GP5 exhibited evidence of validity across cancer sites and countries and appeared to measure the same construct across these countries. GP5 has significant promise as a summary indicator of side effect bother.