Background: Neurological disorders are increasingly recognised as major causes of death and disability worldwide. The aim of this analysis from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 is to provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date estimates of the global, regional, and national burden from neurological disorders. Methods: We estimated prevalence, incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; the sum of years of life lost [YLLs] and years lived with disability [YLDs]) by age and sex for 15 neurological disorder categories (tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, stroke, brain and other CNS cancers, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron diseases, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine, tension-type headache, and a residual category for other less common neurological disorders) in 195 countries from 1990 to 2016. DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, was the main method of estimation of prevalence and incidence, and the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) was used for mortality estimation. We quantified the contribution of 84 risks and combinations of risk to the disease estimates for the 15 neurological disorder categories using the GBD comparative risk assessment approach. Findings: Globally, in 2016, neurological disorders were the leading cause of DALYs (276 million [95% UI 247–308]) and second leading cause of deaths (9·0 million [8·8–9·4]). The absolute number of deaths and DALYs from all neurological disorders combined increased (deaths by 39% [34–44] and DALYs by 15% [9–21]) whereas their age-standardised rates decreased (deaths by 28% [26–30] and DALYs by 27% [24–31]) between 1990 and 2016. The only neurological disorders that had a decrease in rates and absolute numbers of deaths and DALYs were tetanus, meningitis, and encephalitis. The four largest contributors of neurological DALYs were stroke (42·2% [38·6–46·1]), migraine (16·3% [11·7–20·8]), Alzheimer's and other dementias (10·4% [9·0–12·1]), and meningitis (7·9% [6·6–10·4]). For the combined neurological disorders, age-standardised DALY rates were significantly higher in males than in females (male-to-female ratio 1·12 [1·05–1·20]), but migraine, multiple sclerosis, and tension-type headache were more common and caused more burden in females, with male-to-female ratios of less than 0·7. The 84 risks quantified in GBD explain less than 10% of neurological disorder DALY burdens, except stroke, for which 88·8% (86·5–90·9) of DALYs are attributable to risk factors, and to a lesser extent Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (22·3% [11·8–35·1] of DALYs are risk attributable) and idiopathic epilepsy (14·1% [10·8–17·5] of DALYs are risk attributable). Interpretation: Globally, the burden of neurological disorders, as measured by the absolute number of DALYs, continues to increase. As populations are growing and ageing, and the prevalence of major disabling neurological disorders steeply increases with age, governments will face increasing demand for treatment, rehabilitation, and support services for neurological disorders. The scarcity of established modifiable risks for most of the neurological burden demonstrates that new knowledge is required to develop effective prevention and treatment strategies. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Background Neurological disorders are increasingly recognised as major causes of death and disability worldwide. The aim of this analysis from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 is to provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date estimates of the global, regional, and national burden from neurological disorders. Methods We estimated prevalence, incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; the sum of years of life lost [YLLs] and years lived with disability [YLDs]) by age and sex for 15 neurological disorder categories (tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, stroke, brain and other CNS cancers, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron diseases, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine, tension-type headache, and a residual category for other less common neurological disorders) in 195 countries from 1990 to 2016. DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, was the main method of estimation of prevalence and incidence, and the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) was used for mortality estimation. We quantified the contribution of 84 risks and combinations of risk to the disease estimates for the 15 neurological disorder categories using the GBD comparative risk assessment approach. Findings Globally, in 2016, neurological disorders were the leading cause of DALYs (276 million [95% UI 247-308]) and second leading cause of deaths (9.0 million [8.8-9.4]). The absolute number of deaths and DALYs from all neurological disorders combined increased (deaths by 39% [34-44] and DALYs by 15% [9-21]) whereas their age-standardised rates decreased (deaths by 28% [26-30] and DALYs by 27% [24-31]) between 1990 and 2016. The only neurological disorders that had a decrease in rates and absolute numbers of deaths and DALYs were tetanus, meningitis, and encephalitis. The four largest contributors of neurological DALYs were stroke (42.2% [38.6-46.1]), migraine (16.3% [11.7-20.8]), Alzheimer's and other dementias (10.4% [9.0-124]), and meningitis (7.9% [6.6-10.4]). For the combined neurological disorders, age-standardised DALY rates were significantly higher in males than in females (male-to-female ratio 1.12 [1.05-1.20]), but migraine, multiple sclerosis, and tension-type headache were more common and caused more burden in females, with male-to-female ratios of less than 0.7. The 84 risks quantified in GBD explain less than 10% of neurological disorder DALY burdens, except stroke, for which 88.8% (86.5-90.9) of DALYs are attributable to risk factors, and to a lesser extent Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (22.3% [11.8-35.1] of DALYs are risk attributable) and idiopathic epilepsy (14.1% [10.8-17.5] of DALYs are risk attributable). Interpretation Globally, the burden of neurological disorders, as measured by the absolute number of DALYs, continues to increase. As populations are growing and ageing, and the prevalence of major disabling neurological disorders steeply increases with age, governments will face increasing demand for treatment, rehabilitation, and support services for neurological disorders. The scarcity of established modifiable risks for most of the neurological burden demonstrates that new knowledge is required to develop effective prevention and treatment strategies. Copyright (C) The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Publisher´s version (útgefin grein). ; Background Neurological disorders are increasingly recognised as major causes of death and disability worldwide. The aim of this analysis from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 is to provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date estimates of the global, regional, and national burden from neurological disorders.Methods We estimated prevalence, incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; the sum of years of life lost [YLLs] and years lived with disability [YLDs]) by age and sex for 15 neurological disorder categories (tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, stroke, brain and other CNS cancers, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron diseases, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine, tension-type headache, and a residual category for other less common neurological disorders) in 195 countries from 1990 to 2016. DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, was the main method of estimation of prevalence and incidence, and the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) was used for mortality estimation. We quantified the contribution of 84 risks and combinations of risk to the disease estimates for the 15 neurological disorder categories using the GBD comparative risk assessment approach.Findings Globally, in 2016, neurological disorders were the leading cause of DALYs (276 million [95% UI 247–308]) and second leading cause of deaths (9·0 million [8·8–9·4]). The absolute number of deaths and DALYs from all neurological disorders combined increased (deaths by 39% [34–44] and DALYs by 15% [9–21]) whereas their age-standardised rates decreased (deaths by 28% [26–30] and DALYs by 27% [24–31]) between 1990 and 2016. The only neurological disorders that had a decrease in rates and absolute numbers of deaths and DALYs were tetanus, meningitis, and encephalitis. The four largest contributors of neurological DALYs were stroke (42·2% [38·6–46·1]), migraine (16·3% [11·7–20·8]), Alzheimer's and other dementias (10·4% [9·0–12·1]), and meningitis (7·9% [6·6–10·4]). For the combined neurological disorders, age-standardised DALY rates were significantly higher in males than in females (male-to-female ratio 1·12 [1·05–1·20]), but migraine, multiple sclerosis, and tension-type headache were more common and caused more burden in females, with male-to-female ratios of less than 0·7. The 84 risks quantified in GBD explain less than 10% of neurological disorder DALY burdens, except stroke, for which 88·8% (86·5–90·9) of DALYs are attributable to risk factors, and to a lesser extent Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (22·3% [11·8–35·1] of DALYs are risk attributable) and idiopathic epilepsy (14·1% [10·8–17·5] of DALYs are risk attributable).Interpretation Globally, the burden of neurological disorders, as measured by the absolute number of DALYs, continues to increase. As populations are growing and ageing, and the prevalence of major disabling neurological disorders steeply increases with age, governments will face increasing demand for treatment, rehabilitation, and support services for neurological disorders. The scarcity of established modifiable risks for most of the neurological burden demonstrates that new knowledge is required to develop effective prevention and treatment strategies. ; ROA is funded by the National Institutes of Health (U01HG010273). SMA acknowledges the International Centre for Casemix and Clinical Coding, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia and Department of Health Policy and Management, Faculty of Public Health, Kuwait University for the approval and support to participate in this research project. AAw acknowledges funding support from Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi, through INSPIRE Faculty scheme. TBA acknowledges partial funding from the Institute of Medical Research and Medicinal Plant Studies. ABa is supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada. TWB was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through the Alexander von Humboldt Professor Award, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. MSBS acknowledges support from the Australian Government Research and Training Program scholarship for a PhD degree at the Australian National University, Australia. JJC is supported by the Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation. FCar is supported by the European Union (FEDER funds POCI/01/0145/FEDER/007728 and POCI/01/0145/FEDER/007265) and National Funds (FCT/MEC, Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia and Ministerio da Educacao e Ciencia) under the Partnership Agreements PT2020 UID/MULTI/04378/2013 and PT2020UID/QUI/50006/2013. EC is supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT3 140100085). KD is supported by a Wellcome Trust [Grant Number 201900] as part of his International Intermediate Fellowship. EF is supported by the European Union (FEDER funds POCI/01/0145/FEDER/007728 and POCI/01/0145/FEDER/007265) and National Funds (FCT/MEC, Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia and Ministerio da Educacao e Ciencia) under the Partnership Agreements PT2020 UID/MULTI/04378/2013 and PT2020UID/QUI/50006/2013. SMSI is funded by the Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University and received funding from High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia. YKa is a DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance Fellow in Public Health. YJK is supported by the Office of Research and Innovation at Xiamen University Malaysia. BL acknowledges funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. WDL is supported in part by U10NS086484 NINDS. SLo is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (nutriCARD, grant agreement number 01EA1411A). RML is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia Senior Research Fellowship. AMa and the Imperial College London are grateful for support from the NW London NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. JJM is supported by the Danish National Research Foundation (Niels Bohr Professorship), and the John Cade Fellowship (APP1056929) from NHMRC. TMei acknowledges additional institutional support from the Competence Cluster for Nutrition and Cardiovascular Health (nutriCARD), Jena-Halle-Leipzig. IMV is supported by the Sistema Nacional de Investigacion (Panama). MOO is supported by SIREN U54 U54HG007479 and SIBS Genomics R01NS107900 grants. AMS was supported by a fellowship from the Egyptian Fulbright Mission Program. MMSM acknowledges the support from the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia (contract no 175087). AShe is supported by Health Data Research UK. MBS' work on traumatic brain injury is supported by grants NIH U01 NS086090 (PI G Manley) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and DoD W81XWH-14-2-0176 (PI G Manley) from the United States Department of Defense. RTS is supported in part by grant number PROMETEOII/2015/021 from Generalitat Valenciana and the national grant PI17/00719 from ISCIIIFEDER. AGT was supported by a Fellowship from the NHMRC (Australia; 1042600. KBT acknowledges funding supports from the Maurice Wilkins Centre for Biodiscovery, Cancer Society of New Zealand, Health Research Council, Gut Cancer Foundation, and the University of Auckland. CY acknowledges support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81773552) and the Chinese NSFC International Cooperation and Exchange Program (grant number 71661167007). ; "Peer Reviewed"
BACKGROUND: Neurological disorders are increasingly recognised as major causes of death and disability worldwide. The aim of this analysis from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 is to provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date estimates of the global, regional, and national burden from neurological disorders. METHODS: We estimated prevalence, incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; the sum of years of life lost [YLLs] and years lived with disability [YLDs]) by age and sex for 15 neurological disorder categories (tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, stroke, brain and other CNS cancers, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron diseases, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine, tension-type headache, and a residual category for other less common neurological disorders) in 195 countries from 1990 to 2016. DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, was the main method of estimation of prevalence and incidence, and the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) was used for mortality estimation. We quantified the contribution of 84 risks and combinations of risk to the disease estimates for the 15 neurological disorder categories using the GBD comparative risk assessment approach. FINDINGS: Globally, in 2016, neurological disorders were the leading cause of DALYs (276 million [95% UI 247-308]) and second leading cause of deaths (9·0 million [8·8-9·4]). The absolute number of deaths and DALYs from all neurological disorders combined increased (deaths by 39% [34-44] and DALYs by 15% [9-21]) whereas their age-standardised rates decreased (deaths by 28% [26-30] and DALYs by 27% [24-31]) between 1990 and 2016. The only neurological disorders that had a decrease in rates and absolute numbers of deaths and DALYs were tetanus, meningitis, and encephalitis. The four largest contributors of neurological DALYs were stroke (42·2% [38·6-46·1]), migraine (16·3% [11·7-20·8]), Alzheimer's and other dementias (10·4% [9·0-12·1]), and meningitis (7·9% [6·6-10·4]). For the combined neurological disorders, age-standardised DALY rates were significantly higher in males than in females (male-to-female ratio 1·12 [1·05-1·20]), but migraine, multiple sclerosis, and tension-type headache were more common and caused more burden in females, with male-to-female ratios of less than 0·7. The 84 risks quantified in GBD explain less than 10% of neurological disorder DALY burdens, except stroke, for which 88·8% (86·5-90·9) of DALYs are attributable to risk factors, and to a lesser extent Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (22·3% [11·8-35·1] of DALYs are risk attributable) and idiopathic epilepsy (14·1% [10·8-17·5] of DALYs are risk attributable). INTERPRETATION: Globally, the burden of neurological disorders, as measured by the absolute number of DALYs, continues to increase. As populations are growing and ageing, and the prevalence of major disabling neurological disorders steeply increases with age, governments will face increasing demand for treatment, rehabilitation, and support services for neurological disorders. The scarcity of established modifiable risks for most of the neurological burden demonstrates that new knowledge is required to develop effective prevention and treatment strategies. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. ; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. ; Sí
Background: Neurological disorders are increasingly recognised as major causes of death and disability worldwide. The aim of this analysis from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 is to provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date estimates of the global, regional, and national burden from neurological disorders. Methods: We estimated prevalence, incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; the sum of years of life lost [YLLs] and years lived with disability [YLDs]) by age and sex for 15 neurological disorder categories (tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, stroke, brain and other CNS cancers, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron diseases, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine, tension-type headache, and a residual category for other less common neurological disorders) in 195 countries from 1990 to 2016. DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, was the main method of estimation of prevalence and incidence, and the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) was used for mortality estimation. We quantified the contribution of 84 risks and combinations of risk to the disease estimates for the 15 neurological disorder categories using the GBD comparative risk assessment approach. Findings: Globally, in 2016, neurological disorders were the leading cause of DALYs (276 million [95% UI 247–308]) and second leading cause of deaths (9·0 million [8·8–9·4]). The absolute number of deaths and DALYs from all neurological disorders combined increased (deaths by 39% [34–44] and DALYs by 15% [9–21]) whereas their age-standardised rates decreased (deaths by 28% [26–30] and DALYs by 27% [24–31]) between 1990 and 2016. The only neurological disorders that had a decrease in rates and absolute numbers of deaths and DALYs were tetanus, meningitis, and encephalitis. The four largest contributors of neurological DALYs were stroke (42·2% [38·6–46·1]), migraine (16·3% [11·7–20·8]), Alzheimer's and other dementias (10·4% [9·0–12·1]), and meningitis (7·9% [6·6–10·4]). For the combined neurological disorders, age-standardised DALY rates were significantly higher in males than in females (male-to-female ratio 1·12 [1·05–1·20]), but migraine, multiple sclerosis, and tension-type headache were more common and caused more burden in females, with male-to-female ratios of less than 0·7. The 84 risks quantified in GBD explain less than 10% of neurological disorder DALY burdens, except stroke, for which 88·8% (86·5–90·9) of DALYs are attributable to risk factors, and to a lesser extent Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (22·3% [11·8–35·1] of DALYs are risk attributable) and idiopathic epilepsy (14·1% [10·8–17·5] of DALYs are risk attributable). Interpretation: Globally, the burden of neurological disorders, as measured by the absolute number of DALYs, continues to increase. As populations are growing and ageing, and the prevalence of major disabling neurological disorders steeply increases with age, governments will face increasing demand for treatment, rehabilitation, and support services for neurological disorders. The scarcity of established modifiable risks for most of the neurological burden demonstrates that new knowledge is required to develop effective prevention and treatment strategies. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
This book contains the abstracts of the papers/posters presented at the Tanzania Health Summit 2020 (THS-2020) Organized by the Ministry of Health Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children (MoHCDGEC); President Office Regional Administration and Local Government (PORALG); Ministry of Health, Social Welfare, Elderly, Gender, and Children Zanzibar; Association of Private Health Facilities in Tanzania (APHFTA); National Muslim Council of Tanzania (BAKWATA); Christian Social Services Commission (CSSC); & Tindwa Medical and Health Services (TMHS) held on 25–26 November 2020. The Tanzania Health Summit is the annual largest healthcare platform in Tanzania that attracts more than 1000 participants, national and international experts, from policymakers, health researchers, public health professionals, health insurers, medical doctors, nurses, pharmacists, private health investors, supply chain experts, and the civil society. During the three-day summit, stakeholders and decision-makers from every field in healthcare work together to find solutions to the country's and regional health challenges and set the agenda for a healthier future. Summit Title: Tanzania Health SummitSummit Acronym: THS-2020Summit Date: 25–26 November 2020Summit Location: St. Gasper Hotel and Conference Centre in Dodoma, TanzaniaSummit Organizers: Ministry of Health Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children (MoHCDGEC); President Office Regional Administration and Local Government (PORALG); Ministry of Health, Social Welfare, Elderly, Gender and Children Zanzibar; Association of Private Health Facilities in Tanzania (APHFTA); National Muslim Council of Tanzania (BAKWATA); Christian Social Services Commission (CSSC); & Tindwa Medical and Health Services (TMHS).
Background A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. Methods Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0-100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita. Findings In 2016, HAQ Index performance spanned from a high of 97.1 (95% UI 95.8-98.1) in Iceland, followed by 96.6 (94.9-97.9) in Norway and 96.1 (94.5-97.3) in the Netherlands, to values as low as 18.6 (13.1-24.4) in the Central African Republic, 19.0 (14.3-23.7) in Somalia, and 23.4 (20.2-26.8) in Guinea-Bissau. The pace of progress achieved between 1990 and 2016 varied, with markedly faster improvements occurring between 2000 and 2016 for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, whereas several countries in Latin America and elsewhere saw progress stagnate after experiencing considerable advances in the HAQ Index between 1990 and 2000. Striking subnational disparities emerged in personal health-care access and quality, with China and India having particularly large gaps between locations with the highest and lowest scores in 2016. In China, performance ranged from 91.5 (89.1-936) in Beijing to 48.0 (43.4-53.2) in Tibet (a 43.5-point difference), while India saw a 30.8-point disparity, from 64.8 (59.6-68.8) in Goa to 34.0 (30.3-38.1) in Assam. Japan recorded the smallest range in subnational HAQ performance in 2016 (a 4.8-point difference), whereas differences between subnational locations with the highest and lowest HAQ Index values were more than two times as high for the USA and three times as high for England. State-level gaps in the HAQ Index in Mexico somewhat narrowed from 1990 to 2016 (from a 20.9-point to 17.0-point difference), whereas in Brazil, disparities slightly increased across states during this time (a 17.2-point to 20.4-point difference). Performance on the HAQ Index showed strong linkages to overall development, with high and high-middle SDI countries generally having higher scores and faster gains for non-communicable diseases. Nonetheless, countries across the development spectrum saw substantial gains in some key health service areas from 2000 to 2016, most notably vaccine-preventable diseases. Overall, national performance on the HAQ Index was positively associated with higher levels of total health spending per capita, as well as health systems inputs, but these relationships were quite heterogeneous, particularly among low-to-middle SDI countries. Interpretation GBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle-SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals. Alongside initiatives to strengthen public health programmes, the pursuit of universal health coverage upon improving both access and quality worldwide, and thus requires adopting a more comprehensive view and subsequent provision of quality health care for all populations. ; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Barbora de Courten is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (100864). Ai Koyanagi's work is supported by the Miguel Servet contract financed by the CP13/00150 and PI15/00862 projects, integrated into the National R + D + I and funded by the ISCIII —General Branch Evaluation and Promotion of Health Research—and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF-FEDER). Alberto Ortiz was supported by Spanish Government (Instituto de Salud Carlos III RETIC REDINREN RD16/0019 FEDER funds). Ashish Awasthi acknowledges funding support from Department of Science and Technology, Government of India through INSPIRE Faculty scheme Boris Bikbov has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 703226. Boris Bikbov acknowledges that work related to this paper has been done on the behalf of the GBD Genitourinary Disease Expert Group. Panniyammakal Jeemon acknowledges support from the clinical and public health intermediate fellowship from the Wellcome Trust and Department of Biotechnology, India Alliance (2015–20). Job F M van Boven was supported by the Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacology of the University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Netherlands. Olanrewaju Oladimeji is an African Research Fellow hosted by Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), South Africa and he also has honorary affiliations with Walter Sisulu University (WSU), Eastern Cape, South Africa and School of Public Health, University of Namibia (UNAM), Namibia. He is indeed grateful for support from HSRC, WSU and UNAM. EUI is supported in part by the South African National Research Foundation (NRF UID: 86003). Ulrich Mueller acknowledges funding by the German National Cohort Study grant No 01ER1511/D, Gabrielle B Britton is supported by Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación and Sistema Nacional de Investigación de Panamá. Giuseppe Remuzzi acknowledges that the work related to this paper has been done on behalf of the GBD Genitourinary Disease Expert Group. Behzad Heibati would like to acknowledge Air pollution Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Tehran, Iran. Syed Aljunid acknowledges the National University of Malaysia for providing the approval to participate in this GBD Project. Azeem Majeed and Imperial College London are grateful for support from the Northwest London National Insititute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research & Care. Tambe Ayuk acknowledges the Institute of Medical Research and Medicinal Plant Studies for office space provided. José das Neves was supported in his contribution to this work by a Fellowship from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal (SFRH/BPD/92934/2013). João Fernandes gratefully acknowledges funding from FCT–Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (grant number UID/Multi/50016/2013). Jan-Walter De Neve was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Kebede Deribe is funded by a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine (201900). Kazem Rahimi was supported by grants from the Oxford Martin School, the NIHR Oxford BRC and the RCUK Global Challenges Research Fund. Laith J Abu-Raddad acknowledges the support of Qatar National Research Fund (NPRP 9-040-3-008) who provided the main funding for generating the data provided to the GBD-IHME effort. Liesl Zuhlke is funded by the national research foundation of South Africa and the Medical Research Council of South Africa. Monica Cortinovis acknowledges that work related to this paper has been done on the behalf of the GBD Genitourinary Disease Expert Group. Chuanhua Yu acknowleges support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81773552 and grant number 81273179) Norberto Perico acknowledges that work related to this paper has been done on behalf of the GBD Genitourinary Disease Expert Group. Charles Shey Wiysonge's work is supported by the South African Medical Research Council and the National Research Foundation of South Africa (grant numbers 106035 and 108571). John J McGrath is supported by grant APP1056929 from the John Cade Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Danish National Research Foundation (Niels Bohr Professorship). Quique Bassat is an ICREA (Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies) research professor at ISGlobal. Richard G White is funded by the UK MRC and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) under the MRC/DFID Concordat agreement that is also part of the EDCTP2 programme supported by the European Union (MR/P002404/1), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (TB Modelling and Analysis Consortium: OPP1084276/OPP1135288, CORTIS: OPP1137034/OPP1151915, Vaccines: OPP1160830), and UNITAID (4214-LSHTM-Sept15; PO 8477-0-600). Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos was supported in part by grant number PROMETEOII/2015/021 from Generalitat Valenciana and the national grant PI17/00719 from ISCIII-FEDER. Mihajlo Jakovljevic acknowleges contribution from the Serbian Ministry of Education Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (grant OI 175 014). Shariful Islam is funded by a Senior Fellowship from Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University and received career transition grants from High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia. Sonia Saxena is funded by various grants from the NIHR. Stefanos Tyrovolas was supported by the Foundation for Education and European Culture, the Sara Borrell postdoctoral program (reference number CD15/00019 from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII–Spain) and the Fondos Europeo de Desarrollo Regional. Stefanos was awarded with a 6 months visiting fellowship funding at IHME from M-AES (reference no. MV16/00035 from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III). S Vittal Katikreddi was funded by a NHS Research Scotland Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the MRC (MC_UU_12017/13 & MC_ UU_12017/15) and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13 & SPHSU15). Traolach S Brugha has received funding from NHS Digital UK to collect data used in this study. The work of Hamid Badali was financially supported by Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran. The work of Stefan Lorkowski is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (nutriCARD, Grant agreement number 01EA1411A). Mariam Molokhia's research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. We also thank the countless individuals who have contributed to GBD 2016 in various capacities. ; Peer reviewed
Importance: Cancer and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are now widely recognized as a threat to global development. The latest United Nations high-level meeting on NCDs reaffirmed this observation and also highlighted the slow progress in meeting the 2011 Political Declaration on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases and the third Sustainable Development Goal. Lack of situational analyses, priority setting, and budgeting have been identified as major obstacles in achieving these goals. All of these have in common that they require information on the local cancer epidemiology. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is uniquely poised to provide these crucial data. Objective: To describe cancer burden for 29 cancer groups in 195 countries from 1990 through 2017 to provide data needed for cancer control planning. Evidence Review: We used the GBD study estimation methods to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Results are presented at the national level as well as by Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a composite indicator of income, educational attainment, and total fertility rate. We also analyzed the influence of the epidemiological vs the demographic transition on cancer incidence. Findings: In 2017, there were 24.5 million incident cancer cases worldwide (16.8 million without nonmelanoma skin cancer [NMSC]) and 9.6 million cancer deaths. The majority of cancer DALYs came from years of life lost (97%), and only 3% came from years lived with disability. The odds of developing cancer were the lowest in the low SDI quintile (1 in 7) and the highest in the high SDI quintile (1 in 2) for both sexes. In 2017, the most common incident cancers in men were NMSC (4.3 million incident cases); tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer (1.5 million incident cases); and prostate cancer (1.3 million incident cases). The most common causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for men were TBL cancer (1.3 million deaths and 28.4 million DALYs), liver cancer (572000 deaths and 15.2 million DALYs), and stomach cancer (542000 deaths and 12.2 million DALYs). For women in 2017, the most common incident cancers were NMSC (3.3 million incident cases), breast cancer (1.9 million incident cases), and colorectal cancer (819000 incident cases). The leading causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for women were breast cancer (601000 deaths and 17.4 million DALYs), TBL cancer (596000 deaths and 12.6 million DALYs), and colorectal cancer (414000 deaths and 8.3 million DALYs). Conclusions and Relevance: The national epidemiological profiles of cancer burden in the GBD study show large heterogeneities, which are a reflection of different exposures to risk factors, economic settings, lifestyles, and access to care and screening. The GBD study can be used by policy makers and other stakeholders to develop and improve national and local cancer control in order to achieve the global targets and improve equity in cancer care.
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funders. Data for this research was provided by MEASURE Evaluation, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of USAID, the US Government, or MEASURE Evaluation. The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics granted the researchers access to relevant data in accordance with licence no. SLN2014-3-170, after subjecting data to processing aiming to preserve the confidentiality of individual data in accordance with the General Statistics Law-2000. The researchers are solely responsible for the conclusions and inferences drawn upon available data. ; Background Assessments of age-specific mortality and life expectancy have been done by the UN Population Division, Department of Economics and Social Affairs (UNPOP), the United States Census Bureau, WHO, and as part of previous iterations of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD). Previous iterations of the GBD used population estimates from UNPOP, which were not derived in a way that was internally consistent with the estimates of the numbers of deaths in the GBD. The present iteration of the GBD, GBD 2017, improves on previous assessments and provides timely estimates of the mortality experience of populations globally. Methods The GBD uses all available data to produce estimates of mortality rates between 1950 and 2017 for 23 age groups, both sexes, and 918 locations, including 195 countries and territories and subnational locations for 16 countries. Data used include vital registration systems, sample registration systems, household surveys (complete birth histories, summary birth histories, sibling histories), censuses (summary birth histories, household deaths), and Demographic Surveillance Sites. In total, this analysis used 8259 data sources. Estimates of the probability of death between birth and the age of 5 years and between ages 15 and 60 years are generated and then input into a model life table system to produce complete life tables for all locations and years. Fatal discontinuities and mortality due to HIV/AIDS are analysed separately and then incorporated into the estimation. We analyse the relationship between age-specific mortality and development status using the Socio-demographic Index, a composite measure based on fertility under the age of 25 years, education, and income. There are four main methodological improvements in GBD 2017 compared with GBD 2016: 622 additional data sources have been incorporated; new estimates of population, generated by the GBD study, are used; statistical methods used in different components of the analysis have been further standardised and improved; and the analysis has been extended backwards in time by two decades to start in 1950. Findings Globally, 18·7% (95% uncertainty interval 18·4–19·0) of deaths were registered in 1950 and that proportion has been steadily increasing since, with 58·8% (58·2–59·3) of all deaths being registered in 2015. At the global level, between 1950 and 2017, life expectancy increased from 48·1 years (46·5–49·6) to 70·5 years (70·1–70·8) for men and from 52·9 years (51·7–54·0) to 75·6 years (75·3–75·9) for women. Despite this overall progress, there remains substantial variation in life expectancy at birth in 2017, which ranges from 49·1 years (46·5–51·7) for men in the Central African Republic to 87·6 years (86·9–88·1) among women in Singapore. The greatest progress across age groups was for children younger than 5 years; under-5 mortality dropped from 216·0 deaths (196·3–238·1) per 1000 livebirths in 1950 to 38·9 deaths (35·6–42·83) per 1000 livebirths in 2017, with huge reductions across countries. Nevertheless, there were still 5·4 million (5·2–5·6) deaths among children younger than 5 years in the world in 2017. Progress has been less pronounced and more variable for adults, especially for adult males, who had stagnant or increasing mortality rates in several countries. The gap between male and female life expectancy between 1950 and 2017, while relatively stable at the global level, shows distinctive patterns across super-regions and has consistently been the largest in central Europe, eastern Europe, and central Asia, and smallest in south Asia. Performance was also variable across countries and time in observed mortality rates compared with those expected on the basis of development. Interpretation This analysis of age-sex-specific mortality shows that there are remarkably complex patterns in population mortality across countries. The findings of this study highlight global successes, such as the large decline in under-5 mortality, which reflects significant local, national, and global commitment and investment over several decades. However, they also bring attention to mortality patterns that are a cause for concern, particularly among adult men and, to a lesser extent, women, whose mortality rates have stagnated in many countries over the time period of this study, and in some cases are increasing. ; Research reported in this publication was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the University of Melbourne, Public Health England, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health (award P30AG047845), and the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health (award R01MH110163). ; Peer reviewed
Importance Cancer and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are now widely recognized as a threat to global development. The latest United Nations high-level meeting on NCDs reaffirmed this observation and also highlighted the slow progress in meeting the 2011 Political Declaration on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases and the third Sustainable Development Goal. Lack of situational analyses, priority setting, and budgeting have been identified as major obstacles in achieving these goals. All of these have in common that they require information on the local cancer epidemiology. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is uniquely poised to provide these crucial data. Objective To describe cancer burden for 29 cancer groups in 195 countries from 1990 through 2017 to provide data needed for cancer control planning. Evidence Review We used the GBD study estimation methods to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Results are presented at the national level as well as by Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a composite indicator of income, educational attainment, and total fertility rate. We also analyzed the influence of the epidemiological vs the demographic transition on cancer incidence. Findings In 2017, there were 24.5 million incident cancer cases worldwide (16.8 million without nonmelanoma skin cancer [NMSC]) and 9.6 million cancer deaths. The majority of cancer DALYs came from years of life lost (97%), and only 3% came from years lived with disability. The odds of developing cancer were the lowest in the low SDI quintile (1 in 7) and the highest in the high SDI quintile (1 in 2) for both sexes. In 2017, the most common incident cancers in men were NMSC (4.3 million incident cases); tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer (1.5 million incident cases); and prostate cancer (1.3 million incident cases). The most common causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for men were TBL cancer (1.3 million deaths and 28.4 million DALYs), liver cancer (572 000 deaths and 15.2 million DALYs), and stomach cancer (542 000 deaths and 12.2 million DALYs). For women in 2017, the most common incident cancers were NMSC (3.3 million incident cases), breast cancer (1.9 million incident cases), and colorectal cancer (819 000 incident cases). The leading causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for women were breast cancer (601 000 deaths and 17.4 million DALYs), TBL cancer (596 000 deaths and 12.6 million DALYs), and colorectal cancer (414 000 deaths and 8.3 million DALYs). Conclusions and Relevance The national epidemiological profiles of cancer burden in the GBD study show large heterogeneities, which are a reflection of different exposures to risk factors, economic settings, lifestyles, and access to care and screening. The GBD study can be used by policy makers and other stakeholders to develop and improve national and local cancer control in order to achieve the global targets and improve equity in cancer
Publisher's version (útgefin grein) ; Background In an era of shifting global agendas and expanded emphasis on non-communicable diseases and injuries along with communicable diseases, sound evidence on trends by cause at the national level is essential. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) provides a systematic scientific assessment of published, publicly available, and contributed data on incidence, prevalence, and mortality for a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of diseases and injuries. Methods GBD estimates incidence, prevalence, mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) due to 369 diseases and injuries, for two sexes, and for 204 countries and territories. Input data were extracted from censuses, household surveys, civil registration and vital statistics, disease registries, health service use, air pollution monitors, satellite imaging, disease notifications, and other sources. Cause-specific death rates and cause fractions were calculated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model and spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression. Cause-specific deaths were adjusted to match the total all-cause deaths calculated as part of the GBD population, fertility, and mortality estimates. Deaths were multiplied by standard life expectancy at each age to calculate YLLs. A Bayesian meta-regression modelling tool, DisMod-MR 2.1, was used to ensure consistency between incidence, prevalence, remission, excess mortality, and cause-specific mortality for most causes. Prevalence estimates were multiplied by disability weights for mutually exclusive sequelae of diseases and injuries to calculate YLDs. We considered results in the context of the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a composite indicator of income per capita, years of schooling, and fertility rate in females younger than 25 years. Uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated for every metric using the 25th and 975th ordered 1000 draw values of the posterior distribution. Findings Global health has steadily improved over the past 30 years as measured by age-standardised DALY rates. After taking into account population growth and ageing, the absolute number of DALYs has remained stable. Since 2010, the pace of decline in global age-standardised DALY rates has accelerated in age groups younger than 50 years compared with the 1990-2010 time period, with the greatest annualised rate of decline occurring in the 0-9-year age group. Six infectious diseases were among the top ten causes of DALYs in children younger than 10 years in 2019: lower respiratory infections (ranked second), diarrhoeal diseases (third), malaria (fifth), meningitis (sixth), whooping cough (ninth), and sexually transmitted infections (which, in this age group, is fully accounted for by congenital syphilis; ranked tenth). In adolescents aged 10-24 years, three injury causes were among the top causes of DALYs: road injuries (ranked first), self-harm (third), and interpersonal violence (fifth). Five of the causes that were in the top ten for ages 10-24 years were also in the top ten in the 25-49-year age group: road injuries (ranked first), HIV/AIDS (second), low back pain (fourth), headache disorders (fifth), and depressive disorders (sixth). In 2019, ischaemic heart disease and stroke were the top-ranked causes of DALYs in both the 50-74-year and 75-years-and-older age groups. Since 1990, there has been a marked shift towards a greater proportion of burden due to YLDs from non-communicable diseases and injuries. In 2019, there were 11 countries where non-communicable disease and injury YLDs constituted more than half of all disease burden. Decreases in age-standardised DALY rates have accelerated over the past decade in countries at the lower end of the SDI range, while improvements have started to stagnate or even reverse in countries with higher SDI. Interpretation As disability becomes an increasingly large component of disease burden and a larger component of health expenditure, greater research and development investment is needed to identify new, more effective intervention strategies. With a rapidly ageing global population, the demands on health services to deal with disabling outcomes, which increase with age, will require policy makers to anticipate these changes. The mix of universal and more geographically specific influences on health reinforces the need for regular reporting on population health in detail and by underlying cause to help decision makers to identify success stories of disease control to emulate, as well as opportunities to improve. Copyright (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. ; Research reported in this publication was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the University of Melbourne; Queensland Department of Health, Australia; the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia; Public Health England; the Norwegian Institute of Public Health; St Jude Children's Research Hospital; the Cardiovascular Medical Research and Education Fund; the National Institute on Ageing of the National Institutes of Health (award P30AG047845); and the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health (award R01MH110163). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funders. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this Article and they do not necessarily represent the views, decisions, or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated, the National Health Service (NHS), the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the UK Department of Health and Social Care, or Public Health England; the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the US Government, or MEASURE Evaluation; or the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). This research used data from the Chile National Health Survey 2003, 2009-10, and 2016-17. The authors are grateful to the Ministry of Health, the survey copyright owner, for allowing them to have the database. All results of the study are those of the authors and in no way committed to the Ministry. The Costa Rican Longevity and Healthy Aging Study project is a longitudinal study by the University of Costa Rica's Centro Centroamericano de Poblacion and Instituto de Investigaciones en Salud, in collaboration with the University of California at Berkeley. The original pre-1945 cohort was funded by the Wellcome Trust (grant 072406), and the 1945-55 Retirement Cohort was funded by the US National Institute on Aging (grant R01AG031716). The principal investigators are Luis Rosero-Bixby and William H Dow and co-principal investigators are Xinia Fernandez and Gilbert Brenes. The accuracy of the authors' statistical analysis and the findings they report are not the responsibility of ECDC. ECDC is not responsible for conclusions or opinions drawn from the data provided. ECDC is not responsible for the correctness of the data and for data management, data merging and data collation after provision of the data. ECDC shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data. The Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) study is an international study carried out in collaboration with WHO/EURO. The international coordinator of the 1997-98, 2001-02, 2005-06, and 2009-10 surveys was Candace Currie and the databank manager for the 1997-98 survey was Bente Wold, whereas for the following surveys Oddrun Samdal was the databank manager. A list of principal investigators in each country can be found on the HBSC website. Data used in this paper come from the 2009-10 Ghana Socioeconomic Panel Study Survey, which is a nationally representative survey of more than 5000 households in Ghana. The survey is a joint effort undertaken by the Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research (ISSER) at the University of Ghana and the Economic Growth Centre (EGC) at Yale University. It was funded by EGC. ISSER and the EGC are not responsible for the estimations reported by the analysts. The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics granted the researchers access to relevant data in accordance with license number SLN2014-3-170, after subjecting data to processing aiming to preserve the confidentiality of individual data in accordance with the General Statistics Law, 2000. The researchers are solely responsible for the conclusions and inferences drawn upon available data. Data for this research was provided by MEASURE Evaluation, funded by USAID. The authors thank the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey, conducted by the National Research University Higher School of Economics and ZAO Demoscope together with Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Institute of Sociology, Russia Academy of Sciences for making data available. This paper uses data from the Bhutan 2014 STEPS survey, implemented by the Ministry of Health with the support of WHO; the Kuwait 2006 and 2014 STEPS surveys, implemented by the Ministry of Health with the support of WHO; the Libya 2009 STEPS survey, implemented by the Secretariat of Health and Environment with the support of WHO; the Malawi 2009 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health with the support of WHO; and the Moldova 2013 STEPS survey, implemented by the Ministry of Health, the National Bureau of Statistics, and the National Center of Public Health with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Waves 1 (DOI:10.6103/SHARE. w1.700), 2 (10.6103/SHARE.w2.700), 3 (10.6103/SHARE.w3.700), 4 (10.6103/SHARE.w4.700), 5 (10.6103/SHARE.w5.700), 6 (10.6103/SHARE.w6.700), and 7 (10.6103/SHARE.w7.700); see Borsch-Supan and colleagues (2013) for methodological details. The SHARE data collection has been funded by the European Commission through FP5 (QLK6-CT-2001-00360), FP6 (SHARE-I3: RII-CT-2006-062193, COMPARE: CIT5-CT-2005-028857, SHARELIFE: CIT4-CT-2006-028812), FP7 (SHARE-PREP: GA N degrees 211909, SHARE-LEAP: GA N degrees 227822, SHARE M4: GA N degrees 261982) and Horizon 2020 (SHARE-DEV3: GA N degrees 676536, SERISS: GA N degrees 654221) and by DG Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion. Additional funding from the German Ministry of Education and Research, the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science, the US National Institute on Aging (U01_AG09740-13S2, P01_AG005842, P01_AG08291, P30_AG12815, R21_AG025169, Y1-AG-4553-01, IAG_BSR06-11, OGHA_04-064, HHSN271201300071C), and from various national funding sources is gratefully acknowledged. This study has been realised using the data collected by the Swiss Household Panel, which is based at the Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences. The project is financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The United States Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study is a supplement to the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), which is sponsored by the National Institute of Aging (grant number NIA U01AG009740). It was conducted jointly by Duke University and the University of Michigan. The HRS is sponsored by the National Institute on Aging (grant number NIA U01AG009740) and is conducted by the University of Michigan. This paper uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J Richard Udry, Peter S Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due to Ronald R Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Information on how to obtain the Add Health data files is available on the Add Health website. No direct support was received from grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis. The data reported here have been supplied by the United States Renal Data System. The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the authors and in no way should be seen as an official policy or interpretation of the US Government. Collection of data for the Mozambique National Survey on the Causes of Death 2007-08 was made possible by USAID under the terms of cooperative agreement GPO-A-00-08-000_D3-00. This manuscript is based on data collected and shared by the International Vaccine Institute (IVI) from an original study IVI conducted. L G Abreu acknowledges support from Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (Brazil; finance code 001) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq, a Brazilian funding agency). I N Ackerman was supported by a Victorian Health and Medical Research Fellowship awarded by the Victorian Government. O O Adetokunboh acknowledges the South African Department of Science and Innovation and the National Research Foundation. A Agrawal acknowledges the Wellcome Trust DBT India Alliance Senior Fellowship. S M Aljunid acknowledges the Department of Health Policy and Management, Faculty of Public Health, Kuwait University and International Centre for Casemix and Clinical Coding, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia for the approval and support to participate in this research project. M Ausloos, C Herteliu, and A Pana acknowledge partial support by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNDS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084. A Badawi is supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada. D A Bennett was supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. R Bourne acknowledges the Brien Holden Vision Institute, University of Heidelberg, Sightsavers, Fred Hollows Foundation, and Thea Foundation. G B Britton and I Moreno Velasquez were supported by the Sistema Nacional de Investigacion, SNI-SENACYT, Panama. R Buchbinder was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellowship. J J Carrero was supported by the Swedish Research Council (2019-01059). F Carvalho acknowledges UID/MULTI/04378/2019 and UID/QUI/50006/2019 support with funding from FCT/MCTES through national funds. A R Chang was supported by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant K23 DK106515. V M Costa acknowledges the grant SFRH/BHD/110001/2015, received by Portuguese national funds through Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia, IP, under the Norma Transitaria DL57/2016/CP1334/CT0006. A Douiri acknowledges support and funding from the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South London at King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and the Royal College of Physicians, and support from the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. B B Duncan acknowledges grants from the Foundation for the Support of Research of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (IATS and PrInt) and the Brazilian Ministry of Health. H E Erskine is the recipient of an Australian NHMRC Early Career Fellowship grant (APP1137969). A J Ferrari was supported by a NHMRC Early Career Fellowship grant (APP1121516). H E Erskine and A J Ferrari are employed by and A M Mantilla-Herrera and D F Santomauro affiliated with the Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, which receives core funding from the Queensland Department of Health. M L Ferreira holds an NHMRC Research Fellowship. C Flohr was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust. M Freitas acknowledges financial support from the EU (European Regional Development Fund [FEDER] funds through COMPETE POCI-01-0145-FEDER-029248) and National Funds (Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia) through project PTDC/NAN-MAT/29248/2017. A L S Guimaraes acknowledges support from CNPq. C Herteliu was partially supported by a grant co-funded by FEDER through Operational Competitiveness Program (project ID P_40_382). P Hoogar acknowledges Centre for Bio Cultural Studies, Directorate of Research, Manipal Academy of Higher Education and Centre for Holistic Development and Research, Kalaghatagi. F N Hugo acknowledges the Visiting Professorship, PRINT Program, CAPES Foundation, Brazil. B-F Hwang was supported by China Medical University (CMU107-Z-04), Taichung, Taiwan. S M S Islam was funded by a National Heart Foundation Senior Research Fellowship and supported by Deakin University. R Q Ivers was supported by a research fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. M Jakovljevic acknowledges the Serbian part of this GBD-related contribution was co-funded through Grant OI175014 of the Ministry of Education Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. P Jeemon was supported by a Clinical and Public Health intermediate fellowship (grant number IA/CPHI/14/1/501497) from the Wellcome Trust-Department of Biotechnology, India Alliance (2015-20). O John is a recipient of UIPA scholarship from University of New South Wales, Sydney. S V Katikireddi acknowledges funding from a NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/13, MC_UU_12017/15), and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13, SPHSU15). C Kieling is a CNPq researcher and a UK Academy of Medical Sciences Newton Advanced Fellow. Y J Kim was supported by Research Management Office, Xiamen University Malaysia (XMUMRF/2018-C2/ITCM/00010). K Krishan is supported by UGC Centre of Advanced Study awarded to the Department of Anthropology, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. M Kumar was supported by K43 TW 010716 FIC/NIMH. B Lacey acknowledges support from the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the BHF Centre of Research Excellence, Oxford. J V Lazarus was supported by a Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities Miguel Servet grant (Instituto de Salud Carlos III [ISCIII]/ESF, the EU [CP18/00074]). K J Looker thanks the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Evaluation of Interventions at the University of Bristol, in partnership with Public Health England, for research support. S Lorkowski was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (nutriCARD, grant agreement number 01EA1808A). R A Lyons is supported by Health Data Research UK (HDR-9006), which is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, NIHR (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation, and Wellcome Trust. J J McGrath is supported by the Danish National Research Foundation (Niels Bohr Professorship), and the Queensland Health Department (via West Moreton HHS). P T N Memiah acknowledges support from CODESRIA. U O Mueller gratefully acknowledges funding by the German National Cohort Study BMBF grant number 01ER1801D. S Nomura acknowledges the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (18K10082). A Ortiz was supported by ISCIII PI19/00815, DTS18/00032, ISCIII-RETIC REDinREN RD016/0009 Fondos FEDER, FRIAT, Comunidad de Madrid B2017/BMD-3686 CIFRA2-CM. These funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication. S B Patten was supported by the Cuthbertson & Fischer Chair in Pediatric Mental Health at the University of Calgary. G C Patton was supported by an aNHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship. M R Phillips was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, number 81371502 and 81761128031). A Raggi, D Sattin, and S Schiavolin were supported by grants from the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente, Fondazione Istituto Neurologico C Besta, Linea 4-Outcome Research: dagli Indicatori alle Raccomandazioni Cliniche). P Rathi and B Unnikrishnan acknowledge Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal. A L P Ribeiro was supported by Brazilian National Research Council, CNPq, and the Minas Gerais State Research Agency, FAPEMIG. D C Ribeiro was supported by The Sir Charles Hercus Health Research Fellowship (#18/111) Health Research Council of New Zealand. D Ribeiro acknowledges financial support from the EU (FEDER funds through the Operational Competitiveness Program; POCI-01-0145-FEDER-029253). P S Sachdev acknowledges funding from the NHMRC of Australia Program Grant. A M Samy was supported by a fellowship from the Egyptian Fulbright Mission Program. M M Santric-Milicevic acknowledges the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (contract number 175087). R Sarmiento-Suarez received institutional support from Applied and Environmental Sciences University (Bogota, Colombia) and ISCIII (Madrid, Spain). A E Schutte received support from the South African National Research Foundation SARChI Initiative (GUN 86895) and Medical Research Council. S T S Skou is currently funded by a grant from Region Zealand (Exercise First) and a grant from the European Research Council under the EU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement number 801790). J B Soriano is funded by Centro de Investigacion en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias, ISCIII. R Tabares-Seisdedos was supported in part by the national grant PI17/00719 from ISCIII-FEDER. N Taveira was partially supported by the European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, the EU (LIFE project, reference RIA2016MC-1615). S Tyrovolas was supported by the Foundation for Education and European Culture, the Sara Borrell postdoctoral programme (reference number CD15/00019 from ISCIII-FEDER). S B Zaman received a scholarship from the Australian Government research training programme in support of his academic career. ; "Peer Reviewed"
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
