Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention is defined as a coordinated set ofactions, at the population level or targeted at an individual, that are aimed ateliminating or minimizing the impact of CVDs and their relateddisabilities.¹CVD remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, despite improvements inoutcomes. Age-adjusted coronary artery disease (CAD) mortality has declinedsince the 1980s, particularly in high-income regions.² CAD rates are now less than half what theywere in the early 1980s in many countries in Europe, due to preventive measuresincluding the success of smoking legislation. However, inequalities betweencountries persist and many risk factors, particularly obesity³ and diabetes mellitus(DM),⁴ have beenincreasing substantially. If prevention was practised as instructed it wouldmarkedly reduce the prevalence of CVD. It is thus not only prevailing riskfactors that are of concern, but poor implementation of preventive measures aswell.^5,6 Prevention should bedelivered (i) at the general population level by promoting healthy lifestylebehaviour⁷ and(ii) at the individual level, i.e. in those subjects at moderate to high risk ofCVD or patients with established CVD, by tackling unhealthy lifestyles (e.g.poor-quality diet, physical inactivity, smoking) and by optimising risk factors.Prevention is effective: the elimination of health risk behaviours would make itpossible to prevent at least 80% of CVDs and even 40% of cancers.^8,9

Guidelines summarize and evaluate all available evidence on a particular issue at the time of the writing process, with the aim of assisting health professionals in selecting the best management strategies for an individual patient with a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome, as well as the risk–benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines and recommendations should help health professionals to make decisions in their daily practice. However, the final decisions concerning an individual patient must be made by the responsible health professional(s) in consultation with the patient and caregiver as appropriate.

Aim: To explore the implications for dentists and family doctors of the association between periodontal and systemic diseases and the role of dentists and family doctors in managing non‐communicable diseases (NCDs) and promoting healthy lifestyles.Materials and Methods: The consensus reports of the previous Focused Workshops on the associations between periodontitis and diabetes (2017) and periodontitis and cardiovascular diseases (2019) formed the technical reviews to underpin discussions on both topics. For the association with respiratory diseases, a systematic review was specifically commissioned for the Workshop discussions. Working groups prepared proposals independently, and then the proposals were discussed and approved at plenary meetings.Results: Periodontitis is independently associated with cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obstructive sleep apnea and COVID‐19 complications. Dentists and family doctors should collaborate in managing NCDs, implementing strategies for early detection of periodontitis in primary care centres and of cardiovascular diseases or diabetes in dental settings. Family doctors should be informed about periodontal diseases and their consequences, and oral health professionals (OHPs) should be informed about the relevance of NCDs and the associated risk factors.Conclusions: Closer collaboration between OHPs and family doctors is important in the early detection and management of NCDs and in promoting healthy lifestyles. Pathways for early case detection of periodontitis in family medicine practices and of NCDs in dental practices should be developed and evaluated.

Dietary guideline recommendations require consideration of the certainty in the evidence, the magnitude of potential benefits and harms, and explicit consideration of people's values and preferences. A set of recommendations on red meat and processed meat consumption was developed on the basis of 5 de novo systematic reviews that considered all of these issues. The recommendations were developed by using the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) guideline development process, which includes rigorous systematic review methodology, and GRADE methods to rate the certainty of evidence for each outcome and to move from evidence to recommendations. A panel of 14 members, including 3 community members, from 7 countries voted on the final recommendations. Strict criteria limited the conflicts of interest among panel members. Considerations of environmental impact or animal welfare did not bear on the recommendations. Four systematic reviews addressed the health effects associated with red meat and processed meat consumption, and 1 systematic review addressed people's health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption. The panel suggests that adults continue current unprocessed red meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). None. (PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017074074; PROSPERO 2018: CRD42018088854)

European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention in clinical practice were first published in 1994 and have been regularly updated, most recently in 2016, by the Sixth European Joint Task Force. Given the amount of new information that has become available since then, components from the task force and experts from the European Association of Preventive Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology were invited to provide a summary and critical review of the most important new studies and evidence since the latest guidelines were published. The structure of the document follows that of the previous document and has six parts: Introduction (epidemiology and cost effectiveness); Cardiovascular risk; How to intervene at the population level; How to intervene at the individual level; Disease-specific interventions; and Settings: where to intervene? In fact, in keeping with the guidelines, greater emphasis has been put on a population-based approach and on disease-specific interventions, avoiding re-interpretation of information already and previously considered. Finally, the presence of several gaps in the knowledge is highlighted.