Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

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