<p class="Pa7">Sickle cell anemia (SCA) is a common hematological disorder among individuals of African descent in the United States; the disorder results in the production of abnormal hemoglobin. It is caused by homozygosity for a genetic mutation in HBB; rs334. While the presence of a single mutation (sickle cell trait, SCT) has long been considered a benign trait, recent research suggests that SCT is associated with renal dysfunction, including a decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and increased risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in African Americans. It is currently unknown whether similar associations are observed in Hispanics. Therefore, our study aimed to determine if SCT is associated with mean eGFR and CKD in a sample of 340 Dominican Hispanics from the Northern Manhattan Study. Using regression analyses, we tested rs334 for association with eGFR and CKD, adjusting for age and sex. eGFR was estimated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation and CKD was defined as eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Within our sample, there were 16 individuals with SCT (SCT carriers). We found that SCT carriers had a mean eGFR that was 12.12 mL/min/1.73m2 lower than non-carriers (P=.002). Additionally, SCT carriers had 2.72 times higher odds of CKD compared with non-carriers (P=.09). Taken together, these novel results show that Hispanics with SCT, as found among African Americans with SCT, may also be at increased risk for kidney disease.</p><p class="Pa7"><em>Ethn Dis. </em>2017; 27(1)<strong>:</strong>11-14; doi:10.18865/ed.27.1.11.</p><p class="Pa7"> </p>
<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the association between migraine and hypertension in the Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS), a multiethnic community-based sample. <strong></strong></p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional cohort study. </p><p><strong>Participants:</strong>1338 NOMAS participants (mean age 68.1±9.6 years, 37% male, 15% non-Hispanic White, 19% non-Hispanic Black, 67% Hispanic). </p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Northern Manhattan community. <strong></strong></p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Participants were assessed for migraine symptoms using a self-report questionnaire based on criteria from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Hypertension was defined as blood pressure ≥140/90 mm Hg, the patient's self-reported hypertension, or use of anti-hypertensive medications. Duration (≤9 years vs >9 years) and control (BP<140/90) of hypertension were examined. We estimated the association between hypertension and migraine (overall and with/without aura) using logistic regression, adjusting for sociodemographic and vascular risk factors. </p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of participants (80%) had no migraine, 6% had migraine with aura, and 15% had migraine without aura. Hypertension was present in 76% of the study population (7% had controlled hypertension ≤9 years duration, 5% controlled hypertension >9 years duration, 41% uncontrolled hypertension ≤9 years duration, 23% uncontrolled hypertension >9 years duration). Hypertension was associated with migraine (OR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.21-2.54), both with and without aura. This association was particularly apparent for those with uncontrolled and long duration hypertension. </p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Hypertension, particularly uncontrolled and of long duration, is associated with migraine, both with and without aura, in a predominantly Hispanic community-based cohort. <em>Ethn Dis. </em>2016;26(3):323-330; doi:10.18865/ed.26.3.323 </p>
Each decade, the American Heart Association (AHA) develops an Impact Goal to guide its overall strategic direction and investments in its research, quality improvement, advocacy, and public health programs. Guided by the AHA's new Mission Statement, to be a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives, the 2030 Impact Goal is anchored in an understanding that to achieve cardiovascular health for all, the AHA must include a broader vision of health and well-being and emphasize health equity. In the next decade, by 2030, the AHA will strive to equitably increase healthy life expectancy beyond current projections, with global and local collaborators, from 66 years of age to at least 68 years of age across the United States and from 64 years of age to at least 67 years of age worldwide. The AHA commits to developing additional targets for equity and well-being to accompany this overarching Impact Goal. To attain the 2030 Impact Goal, we recommend a thoughtful evaluation of interventions available to the public, patients, providers, healthcare delivery systems, communities, policy makers, and legislators. This presidential advisory summarizes the task force's main considerations in determining the 2030 Impact Goal and the metrics to monitor progress. It describes the aspiration that these goals will be achieved by working with a diverse community of volunteers, patients, scientists, healthcare professionals, and partner organizations needed to ensure success.
In: Pandian , J D , William , A G , Kate , M P , Norrving , B , Mensah , G A , Davis , S , Roth , G A , Thrift , A G , Kengne , A P , Kissela , B M , Yu , C , Kim , D , Rojas-Rueda , D , Tirschwell , D L , Abd-Allah , F , Gankpé , F , deVeber , G A , Hankey , G J , Jonas , J B , Sheth , K N , Dokova , K G , Mehndiratta , M M , Geleijnse , J M , Giroud , M , Bejot , Y , Sacco , R L , Sahathevan , R , Hamadeh , R R , Gillum , R F , Westerman , R , Akinyemi , R O , Barker-Collo , S , Truelsen , T , Caso , V , Rajagopalan , V , Venketasubramanian , N , Vlassovi , V V & Feigin , V L 2017 , ' Strategies to Improve Stroke Care Services in Low- and Middle-Income Countries : A Systematic Review ' , Neuroepidemiology , vol. 49 , no. 1-2 , pp. 45-61 . https://doi.org/10.1159/000479518
Background: The burden of stroke in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is large and increasing, challenging the already stretched health-care services. Aims and Objectives: To determine the quality of existing stroke-care services in LMICs and to highlight indigenous, inexpensive, evidence-based implementable strategies being used in stroke-care. Methods: A detailed literature search was undertaken using PubMed and Google scholar from January 1966 to October 2015 using a range of search terms. Of 921 publications, 373 papers were shortlisted and 31 articles on existing stroke-services were included. Results: We identified efficient models of ambulance transport and pre-notification. Stroke Units (SU) are available in some countries, but are relatively sparse and mostly provided by the private sector. Very few patients were thrombolysed; this could be increased with telemedicine and governmental subsidies. Adherence to secondary preventive drugs is affected by limited availability and affordability, emphasizing the importance of primary prevention. Training of paramedics, care-givers and nurses in post-stroke care is feasible. Conclusion: In this systematic review, we found several reports on evidence-based implementable stroke services in LMICs. Some strategies are economic, feasible and reproducible but remain untested. Data on their outcomes and sustainability is limited. Further research on implementation of locally and regionally adapted stroke-services and cost-effective secondary prevention programs should be a priority.
Background and purposeThe aim of the Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke.MethodsPreliminary work was performed by seven working groups of stroke leaders followed by a synergium (a forum for working synergistically together) with approximately 100 additional participants. The resulting draft document had further input from contributors outside the synergium.ResultsRecommendations of the Synergium are: Basic Science, Drug Development and Technology: There is a need to develop: (1) New systems of working together to break down the prevalent 'silo' mentality; (2) New models of vertically integrated basic, clinical, and epidemiological disciplines; and (3) Efficient methods of identifying other relevant areas of science. Stroke Prevention: (1) Establish a global chronic disease prevention initiative with stroke as a major focus. (2) Recognize not only abrupt clinical stroke, but subtle subclinical stroke, the commonest type of cerebrovascular disease, leading to impairments of executive function. (3) Develop, implement and evaluate a population approach for stroke prevention. (4) Develop public health communication strategies using traditional and novel (eg, social media/marketing) techniques. Acute Stroke Management: Continue the establishment of stroke centers, stroke units, regional systems of emergency stroke care and telestroke networks. Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation: (1) Translate best neuroscience, including animal and human studies, into poststroke recovery research and clinical care. (2) Standardize poststroke rehabilitation based on best evidence. (3) Develop consensus on, then implementation of, standardized clinical and surrogate assessments. (4) Carry out rigorous clinical research to advance stroke recovery. Into the 21st Century: Web, Technology and Communications: (1) Work toward global unrestricted access to stroke-related information. (2) Build centralized electronic archives and registries. Foster Cooperation Among Stakeholders (large stroke organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, patient organizations and industry) to enhance stroke care. Educate and energize professionals, patients, the public and policy makers by using a 'Brain Health' concept that enables promotion of preventive measures.ConclusionsTo accelerate progress in stroke, we must reach beyond the current status scientifically, conceptually, and pragmatically. Advances can be made not only by doing, but ceasing to do. Significant savings in time, money, and effort could result from discontinuing practices driven by unsubstantiated opinion, unproven approaches, and financial gain. Systematic integration of knowledge into programs coupled with careful evaluation can speed the pace of progress.
The aim of the Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke.Preliminary work was performed by 7 working groups of stroke leaders followed by a synergium (a forum for working synergistically together) with approximately 100 additional participants. The resulting draft document had further input from contributors outside the synergium.Recommendations of the Synergium are: Basic Science, Drug Development and Technology: There is a need to develop: (1) New systems of working together to break down the prevalent "silo" mentality; (2) New models of vertically integrated basic, clinical, and epidemiological disciplines; and (3) Efficient methods of identifying other relevant areas of science. Stroke Prevention: (1) Establish a global chronic disease prevention initiative with stroke as a major focus. (2) Recognize not only abrupt clinical stroke, but subtle subclinical stroke, the commonest type of cerebrovascular disease, leading to impairments of executive function. (3) Develop, implement and evaluate a population approach for stroke prevention. (4) Develop public health communication strategies using traditional and novel (eg, social media/marketing) techniques. Acute Stroke Management: Continue the establishment of stroke centers, stroke units, regional systems of emergency stroke care and telestroke networks. Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation: (1) Translate best neuroscience, including animal and human studies, into poststroke recovery research and clinical care. (2) Standardize poststroke rehabilitation based on best evidence. (3) Develop consensus on, then implementation of, standardized clinical and surrogate assessments. (4) Carry out rigorous clinical research to advance stroke recovery. Into the 21st Century: Web, Technology and Communications: (1) Work toward global unrestricted access to stroke-related information. (2) Build centralized electronic archives and registries. Foster Cooperation Among Stakeholders (large stroke organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, patient organizations and industry) to enhance stroke care. Educate and energize professionals, patients, the public and policy makers by using a "Brain Health" concept that enables promotion of preventive measures.To accelerate progress in stroke, we must reach beyond the current status scientifically, conceptually, and pragmatically. Advances can be made not only by doing, but ceasing to do. Significant savings in time, money, and effort could result from discontinuing practices driven by unsubstantiated opinion, unproven approaches, and financial gain. Systematic integration of knowledge into programs coupled with careful evaluation can speed the pace of progress.
Background and purposeThe aim of the Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke.MethodsPreliminary work was performed by 7 working groups of stroke leaders followed by a synergium (a forum for working synergistically together) with approximately 100 additional participants. The resulting draft document had further input from contributors outside the synergium.ResultsRecommendations of the Synergium are: Basic Science, Drug Development and Technology: There is a need to develop: (1) New systems of working together to break down the prevalent 'silo' mentality; (2) New models of vertically integrated basic, clinical, and epidemiological disciplines; and (3) Efficient methods of identifying other relevant areas of science. Stroke Prevention: (1) Establish a global chronic disease prevention initiative with stroke as a major focus. (2) Recognize not only abrupt clinical stroke, but subtle subclinical stroke, the commonest type of cerebrovascular disease, leading to impairments of executive function. (3) Develop, implement and evaluate a population approach for stroke prevention. (4) Develop public health communication strategies using traditional and novel (e.g., social media/marketing) techniques. Acute Stroke Management: Continue the establishment of stroke centers, stroke units, regional systems of emergency stroke care and telestroke networks. Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation: (1) Translate best neuroscience, including animal and human studies, into poststroke recovery research and clinical care. (2) Standardize poststroke rehabilitation based on best evidence. (3) Develop consensus on, then implementation of, standardized clinical and surrogate assessments. (4) Carry out rigorous clinical research to advance stroke recovery. Into the 21st Century: Web, Technology and Communications: (1) Work toward global unrestricted access to stroke-related information. (2) Build centralized electronic archives and registries. Foster Cooperation Among Stakeholders (large stroke organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, patient organizations and industry) to enhance stroke care. Educate and energize professionals, patients, the public and policy makers by using a 'Brain Health' concept that enables promotion of preventive measures.ConclusionsTo accelerate progress in stroke, we must reach beyond the current status scientifically, conceptually, and pragmatically. Advances can be made not only by doing, but ceasing to do. Significant savings in time, money, and effort could result from discontinuing practices driven by unsubstantiated opinion, unproven approaches, and financial gain. Systematic integration of knowledge into programs coupled with careful evaluation can speed the pace of progress.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of the Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke. METHODS: Preliminary work was performed by 7 working groups of stroke leaders followed by a synergium (a forum for working synergistically together) with approximately 100 additional participants. The resulting draft document had further input from contributors outside the synergium. RESULTS: Recommendations of the Synergium are: Basic Science, Drug Development and Technology: There is a need to develop: (1) New systems of working together to break down the prevalent 'silo' mentality; (2) New models of vertically integrated basic, clinical, and epidemiological disciplines; and (3) Efficient methods of identifying other relevant areas of science. Stroke Prevention: (1) Establish a global chronic disease prevention initiative with stroke as a major focus. (2) Recognize not only abrupt clinical stroke, but subtle subclinical stroke, the commonest type of cerebrovascular disease, leading to impairments of executive function. (3) Develop, implement and evaluate a population approach for stroke prevention. (4) Develop public health communication strategies using traditional and novel (e.g., social media/marketing) techniques. Acute Stroke Management: Continue the establishment of stroke centers, stroke units, regional systems of emergency stroke care and telestroke networks. Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation: (1) Translate best neuroscience, including animal and human studies, into poststroke recovery research and clinical care. (2) Standardize poststroke rehabilitation based on best evidence. (3) Develop consensus on, then implementation of, standardized clinical and surrogate assessments. (4) Carry out rigorous clinical research to advance stroke recovery. Into the 21st Century: Web, Technology and Communications: (1) Work toward global unrestricted access to stroke-related information. (2) Build centralized electronic archives and registries. Foster Cooperation Among Stakeholders (large stroke organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, patient organizations and industry) to enhance stroke care. Educate and energize professionals, patients, the public and policy makers by using a 'Brain Health' concept that enables promotion of preventive measures. CONCLUSIONS: To accelerate progress in stroke, we must reach beyond the current status scientifically, conceptually, and pragmatically. Advances can be made not only by doing, but ceasing to do. Significant savings in time, money, and effort could result from discontinuing practices driven by unsubstantiated opinion, unproven approaches, and financial gain. Systematic integration of knowledge into programs coupled with careful evaluation can speed the pace of progress.
The aim of the Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke.Preliminary work was performed by seven working groups of stroke leaders followed by a synergium (a forum for working synergistically together) with approximately 100 additional participants. The resulting draft document had further input from contributors outside the synergium.Recommendations of the Synergium are: Basic Science, Drug Development and Technology: There is a need to develop: (1) New systems of working together to break down the prevalent 'silo' mentality; (2) New models of vertically integrated basic, clinical, and epidemiological disciplines; and (3) Efficient methods of identifying other relevant areas of science. Stroke Prevention: (1) Establish a global chronic disease prevention initiative with stroke as a major focus. (2) Recognize not only abrupt clinical stroke, but subtle subclinical stroke, the commonest type of cerebrovascular disease, leading to impairments of executive function. (3) Develop, implement and evaluate a population approach for stroke prevention. (4) Develop public health communication strategies using traditional and novel (eg, social media/marketing) techniques. Acute Stroke Management: Continue the establishment of stroke centers, stroke units, regional systems of emergency stroke care and telestroke networks. Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation: (1) Translate best neuroscience, including animal and human studies, into poststroke recovery research and clinical care. (2) Standardize poststroke rehabilitation based on best evidence. (3) Develop consensus on, then implementation of, standardized clinical and surrogate assessments. (4) Carry out rigorous clinical research to advance stroke recovery. Into the 21st Century: Web, Technology and Communications: (1) Work toward global unrestricted access to stroke-related information. (2) Build centralized electronic archives and registries. Foster Cooperation Among Stakeholders (large stroke organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, patient organizations and industry) to enhance stroke care. Educate and energize professionals, patients, the public and policy makers by using a 'Brain Health' concept that enables promotion of preventive measures.To accelerate progress in stroke, we must reach beyond the current status scientifically, conceptually, and pragmatically. Advances can be made not only by doing, but ceasing to do. Significant savings in time, money, and effort could result from discontinuing practices driven by unsubstantiated opinion, unproven approaches, and financial gain. Systematic integration of knowledge into programs coupled with careful evaluation can speed the pace of progress.
Background and purposeThe aim of the Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke.MethodsPreliminary work was performed by 7 working groups of stroke leaders followed by a synergium (a forum for working synergistically together) with approximately 100 additional participants. The resulting draft document had further input from contributors outside the synergium.ResultsRecommendations of the Synergium are: Basic Science, Drug Development and Technology: There is a need to develop: (1) New systems of working together to break down the prevalent "silo" mentality; (2) New models of vertically integrated basic, clinical, and epidemiological disciplines; and (3) Efficient methods of identifying other relevant areas of science. Stroke Prevention: (1) Establish a global chronic disease prevention initiative with stroke as a major focus. (2) Recognize not only abrupt clinical stroke, but subtle subclinical stroke, the commonest type of cerebrovascular disease, leading to impairments of executive function. (3) Develop, implement and evaluate a population approach for stroke prevention. (4) Develop public health communication strategies using traditional and novel (eg, social media/marketing) techniques. Acute Stroke Management: Continue the establishment of stroke centers, stroke units, regional systems of emergency stroke care and telestroke networks. Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation: (1) Translate best neuroscience, including animal and human studies, into poststroke recovery research and clinical care. (2) Standardize poststroke rehabilitation based on best evidence. (3) Develop consensus on, then implementation of, standardized clinical and surrogate assessments. (4) Carry out rigorous clinical research to advance stroke recovery. Into the 21st Century: Web, Technology and Communications: (1) Work toward global unrestricted access to stroke-related information. (2) Build centralized electronic archives and registries. Foster Cooperation Among Stakeholders (large stroke organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, patient organizations and industry) to enhance stroke care. Educate and energize professionals, patients, the public and policy makers by using a "Brain Health" concept that enables promotion of preventive measures.ConclusionsTo accelerate progress in stroke, we must reach beyond the current status scientifically, conceptually, and pragmatically. Advances can be made not only by doing, but ceasing to do. Significant savings in time, money, and effort could result from discontinuing practices driven by unsubstantiated opinion, unproven approaches, and financial gain. Systematic integration of knowledge into programs coupled with careful evaluation can speed the pace of progress.
Publisher's version (útgefin grein) ; Objective: To explore genetic and lifestyle risk factors of MRI-defined brain infarcts (BI) in large population-based cohorts. Methods We performed meta-analyses of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and examined associations of vascular risk factors and their genetic risk scores (GRS) with MRI-defined BI and a subset of BI, namely, small subcortical BI (SSBI), in 18 population-based cohorts (n=20,949) from 5 ethnicities (3,726 with BI, 2,021 with SSBI). Top loci were followed up in 7 population-based cohorts (n = 6,862; 1,483 with BI, 630 with SBBI), and we tested associations with related phenotypes including ischemic stroke and pathologically defined BI. Results: The mean prevalence was 17.7% for BI and 10.5% for SSBI, steeply rising after age 65. Two loci showed genome-wide significant association with BI: FBN2, p = 1.77 × 10-8; and LINC00539/ZDHHC20, p = 5.82 × 10-9. Both have been associated with blood pressure (BP)-related phenotypes, but did not replicate in the smaller follow-up sample or show associations with related phenotypes. Age- and sex-adjusted associations with BI and SSBI were observed for BP traits (p value for BI, p[BI] = 9.38 × 10-25; p [SSBI] = 5.23 × 10-14 for hypertension), smoking (p[BI]= 4.4 × 10-10; p [SSBI] = 1.2 × 10 -4), diabetes (p[BI] = 1.7 × 10 -8; p [SSBI] = 2.8 × 10 -3), previous cardiovascular disease (p [BI] = 1.0 × 10-18; p [SSBI] = 2.3 × 10-7), stroke (p [BI] = 3.9 × 10-69; p [SSBI] = 3.2 × 10 -24), and MRI-defined white matter hyperintensity burden (p [BI]=1.43 × 10-157; p [SSBI] = 3.16 × 10-106), but not with body mass index or cholesterol. GRS of BP traits were associated with BI and SSBI (p ≤ 0.0022), without indication of directional pleiotropy. Conclusion: In this multiethnic GWAS meta-analysis, including over 20,000 population-based participants, we identified genetic risk loci for BI requiring validation once additional large datasets become available. High BP, including genetically determined, was the most significant modifiable, causal risk factor for BI. ; CHAP: R01-AG-11101, R01-AG-030146, NIRP-14-302587. SMART: This study was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research–Medical Sciences (project no. 904-65–095). LBC: The authors thank the LBC1936 participants and the members of the LBC1936 research team who collected and collated the phenotypic and genotypic data. The LBC1936 is supported by Age UK (Disconnected Mind Programme grant). The work was undertaken by The University of Edinburgh Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, part of the cross-council Lifelong Health and Wellbeing Initiative (MR/K026992/1). The brain imaging was performed in the Brain Research Imaging Centre (https://www.ed.ac.uk/clinical-sciences/edinburgh-imaging), a center in the SINAPSE Collaboration (sinapse.ac.uk) supported by the Scottish Funding Council and Chief Scientist Office. Funding from the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and the UK Medical Research Council is acknowledged. Genotyping was supported by a grant from the BBSRC (ref. BB/F019394/1). PROSPER: The PROSPER study was supported by an investigator-initiated grant obtained from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Prof. Dr. J.W. Jukema is an Established Clinical Investigator of the Netherlands Heart Foundation (grant 2001 D 032). Support for genotyping was provided by the seventh framework program of the European commission (grant 223004) and by the Netherlands Genomics Initiative (Netherlands Consortium for Healthy Aging grant 050-060-810). SCES and SiMES: National Medical Research Council Singapore Centre Grant NMRC/CG/013/2013. C.-Y.C. is supported by the National Medical Research Council, Singapore (CSA/033/2012), Singapore Translational Research Award (STaR) 2013. Dr. Kamran Ikram received additional funding from the Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council (NMRC/CSA/038/2013). SHIP: SHIP is part of the Community Medicine Research net of the University of Greifswald, Germany, which is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grants no. 01ZZ9603, 01ZZ0103, and 01ZZ0403), the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, as well as the Social Ministry of the Federal State of Mecklenburg–West Pomerania, and the network "Greifswald Approach to Individualized Medicine (GANI_MED)" funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant 03IS2061A). Genome-wide data have been supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant no. 03ZIK012) and a joint grant from Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany, and the Federal State of Mecklenburg–West Pomerania. Whole-body MRI was supported by a joint grant from Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany, and the Federal State of Mecklenburg–West Pomerania. The University of Greifswald is a member of the Caché Campus program of the InterSystems GmbH. OATS (Older Australian Twins Study): OATS was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHRMC)/Australian Research Council (ARC) Strategic Award (ID401162) and by a NHMRC grant (ID1045325). OATS was facilitated via access to the Australian Twin Registry, which is supported by the NHMRC Enabling Grant 310667. The OATS genotyping was partly supported by a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Flagship Collaboration Fund Grant. NOMAS: The Northern Manhattan Study is funded by the NIH grant "Stroke Incidence and Risk Factors in a Tri-Ethnic Region" (NINDS R01NS 29993). TASCOG: NHMRC and Heart Foundation. AGES: The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) (N01-AG-12100), Hjartavernd (the Icelandic Heart Association), and the Althingi (the Icelandic Parliament), with contributions from the Intramural Research Programs at the NIA, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) (Z01 HL004607-08 CE). ERF: The ERF study as a part of European Special Populations Research Network (EUROSPAN) was supported by European Commission FP6 STRP grant no. 018947 (LSHG-CT-2006-01947) and also received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013)/grant agreement HEALTH-F4-2007-201413 by the European Commission under the programme "Quality of Life and Management of the Living Resources" of 5th Framework Programme (no. QLG2-CT-2002-01254). High-throughput analysis of the ERF data was supported by a joint grant from Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (NWO-RFBR 047.017.043). Exome sequencing analysis in ERF was supported by the ZonMw grant (project 91111025). Najaf Amin is supported by the Netherlands Brain Foundation (project no. F2013[1]-28). ARIC: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study was performed as a collaborative study supported by NHLBI contracts (HHSN268201100005C, HSN268201100006C, HSN268201100007C, HHSN268201100008C, HHSN268201100009C, HHSN268201100010C, HHSN268201100011C, and HHSN268201100012C), R01HL70825, R01HL087641, R01HL59367, and R01HL086694; National Human Genome Research Institute contract U01HG004402; and NIH contract HHSN268200625226C. Infrastructure was partly supported by grant no. UL1RR025005, a component of the NIH and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. This project was also supported by NIH R01 grant NS087541 to M.F. FHS: This work was supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study (contracts no. N01-HC-25195 and no. HHSN268201500001I), and its contract with Affymetrix, Inc. for genotyping services (contract no. N02-HL-6-4278). A portion of this research utilized the Linux Cluster for Genetic Analysis (LinGA-II) funded by the Robert Dawson Evans Endowment of the Department of Medicine at Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center. This study was also supported by grants from the NIA (R01s AG033040, AG033193, AG054076, AG049607, AG008122, and U01-AG049505) and the NINDS (R01-NS017950, UH2 NS100605). Dr. DeCarli is supported by the Alzheimer's Disease Center (P30 AG 010129). ASPS: The research reported in this article was funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) grant nos. P20545-P05, P13180, and P20545-B05, by the Austrian National Bank Anniversary Fund, P15435, and the Austrian Ministry of Science under the aegis of the EU Joint Programme–Neurodegenerative Disease Research (JPND) (jpnd.eu). LLS: The Leiden Longevity Study has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2011) under grant agreement no. 259679. This study was supported by a grant from the Innovation-Oriented Research Program on Genomics (SenterNovem IGE05007), the Centre for Medical Systems Biology, and the Netherlands Consortium for Healthy Ageing (grant 050-060-810), all in the framework of the Netherlands Genomics Initiative, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), UnileverColworth, and by BBMRI-NL, a Research Infrastructure financed by the Dutch government (NWO 184.021.007). CHS: This CHS research was supported by contracts HHSN268201200036C, HHSN268200800007C, N01HC55222, N01HC85079, N01HC85080, N01HC85081, N01HC85082, N01HC85083, N01HC85086, N01HC15103, and HHSN268200960009C and grants U01HL080295, R01HL087652, R01HL105756, R01HL103612, R01HL120393, R01HL085251, and R01HL130114 from the NHLBI with additional contribution from NINDS. Additional support was provided through R01AG023629 from the NIA. A full list of principal CHS investigators and institutions can be found at CHS-NHLBI.org. The provision of genotyping data was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, CTSI grant UL1TR001881, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease Diabetes Research Center grant DK063491 to the Southern California Diabetes Endocrinology Research Center. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. Rotterdam Study: The generation and management of GWAS genotype data for the Rotterdam Study is supported by the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research (NWO) Investments (no. 175.010.2005.011, 911-03-012). This study is funded by the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly (014-93-015; RIDE2), the Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI)/NWO project no. 050-060-810. The Rotterdam Study is funded by Erasmus MC Medical Center and Erasmus MC University, Rotterdam, Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly (RIDE), the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sports, the European Commission (DG XII), and the Municipality of Rotterdam. M.A.I. is supported by an NWO Veni grant (916.13.054). The 3-City Study: The 3-City Study is conducted under a partnership agreement among the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), the University of Bordeaux, and Sanofi-Aventis. The Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale funded the preparation and initiation of the study. The 3C Study is also supported by the Caisse Nationale Maladie des Travailleurs Salariés, Direction Générale de la Santé, Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), Institut de la Longévité, Conseils Régionaux of Aquitaine and Bourgogne, Fondation de France, and Ministry of Research–INSERM Programme "Cohortes et collections de données biologiques." C.T. and S.D. have received investigator-initiated research funding from the French National Research Agency (ANR) and from the Fondation Leducq. S.D. is supported by a starting grant from the European Research Council (SEGWAY), a grant from the Joint Programme of Neurodegenerative Disease research (BRIDGET), from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreements No 643417 & No 640643, and by the Initiative of Excellence of Bordeaux University. Part of the computations were performed at the Bordeaux Bioinformatics Center (CBiB), University of Bordeaux. This work was supported by the National Foundation for Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders, the Institut Pasteur de Lille, the Labex DISTALZ, and the Centre National de Génotypage. ADGC: The Alzheimer Disease Genetics Consortium is supported by NIH. NIH-NIA supported this work through the following grants: ADGC, U01 AG032984, RC2 AG036528; NACC, U01 AG016976; NCRAD, U24 AG021886; NIA LOAD, U24 AG026395, U24 AG026390; Banner Sun Health Research Institute, P30 AG019610; Boston University, P30 AG013846, U01 AG10483, R01 CA129769, R01 MH080295, R01 AG017173, R01 AG025259, R01AG33193; Columbia University, P50 AG008702, R37 AG015473; Duke University, P30 AG028377, AG05128; Emory University, AG025688; Group Health Research Institute, UO1 AG06781, UO1 HG004610; Indiana University, P30 AG10133; Johns Hopkins University, P50 AG005146, R01 AG020688; Massachusetts General Hospital, P50 AG005134; Mayo Clinic, P50 AG016574; Mount Sinai School of Medicine, P50 AG005138, P01 AG002219; New York University, P30 AG08051, MO1RR00096, UL1 RR029893, 5R01AG012101, 5R01AG022374, 5R01AG013616, 1RC2AG036502, 1R01AG035137; Northwestern University, P30 AG013854; Oregon Health & Science University, P30 AG008017, R01 AG026916; Rush University, P30 AG010161, R01 AG019085, R01 AG15819, R01 AG17917, R01 AG30146; TGen, R01 NS059873; University of Alabama at Birmingham, P50 AG016582, UL1RR02777; University of Arizona, R01 AG031581; University of California, Davis, P30 AG010129; University of California, Irvine, P50 AG016573, P50, P50 AG016575, P50 AG016576, P50 AG016577; University of California, Los Angeles, P50 AG016570; University of California, San Diego, P50 AG005131; University of California, San Francisco, P50 AG023501, P01 AG019724; University of Kentucky, P30 AG028383, AG05144; University of Michigan, P50 AG008671; University of Pennsylvania, P30 AG010124; University of Pittsburgh, P50 AG005133, AG030653; University of Southern California, P50 AG005142; University of Texas Southwestern, P30 AG012300; University of Miami, R01 AG027944, AG010491, AG027944, AG021547, AG019757; University of Washington, P50 AG005136; Vanderbilt University, R01 AG019085; and Washington University, P50 AG005681, P01 AG03991. The Kathleen Price Bryan Brain Bank at Duke University Medical Center is funded by NINDS grant NS39764, NIMH MH60451, and by GlaxoSmithKline. Genotyping of the TGEN2 cohort was supported by Kronos Science. The TGen series was also funded by NIA grant AG041232, the Banner Alzheimer's Foundation, The Johnnie B. Byrd Sr. Alzheimer's Institute, the Medical Research Council, and the state of Arizona and also includes samples from the following sites: Newcastle Brain Tissue Resource (funding via the Medical Research Council [MRC], local NHS trusts, and Newcastle University), MRC London Brain Bank for Neurodegenerative Diseases (funding via the Medical Research Council), South West Dementia Brain Bank (funding via numerous sources including the Higher Education Funding Council for England [HEFCE], Alzheimer's Research Trust [ART], BRACE, as well as North Bristol NHS Trust Research and Innovation Department and DeNDRoN), The Netherlands Brain Bank (funding via numerous sources including Stichting MS Research, Brain Net Europe, Hersenstichting Nederland Breinbrekend Werk, International Parkinson Fonds, Internationale Stiching Alzheimer Onderzoek), Institut de Neuropatologia, Servei Anatomia Patologica, and Universitat de Barcelona). ADNI: Funding for ADNI is through the Northern California Institute for Research and Education by grants from Abbott, AstraZeneca AB, Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai Global Clinical Development, Elan Corporation, Genentech, GE Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Innogenetics, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly and Co., Medpace, Inc., Merck and Co., Inc., Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Schering-Plough, Synarc, Inc., Alzheimer's Association, Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation, the Dana Foundation, and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering and NIA grants U01 AG024904, RC2 AG036535, and K01 AG030514. Support was also provided by the Alzheimer's Association (LAF, IIRG-08-89720; MAP-V, IIRG-05-14147) and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Administration, Office of Research and Development, Biomedical Laboratory Research Program. SiGN: Stroke Genetic Network (SiGN) was supported in part by award nos. U01NS069208 and R01NS100178 from NINDS. Genetics of Early-Onset Stroke (GEOS) Study was supported by the NIH Genes, Environment and Health Initiative (GEI) grant U01 HG004436, as part of the GENEVA consortium under GEI, with additional support provided by the Mid-Atlantic Nutrition and Obesity Research Center (P30 DK072488); and the Office of Research and Development, Medical Research Service, and the Baltimore Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Center of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Genotyping services were provided by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR), which is fully funded through a federal contract from the NIH to Johns Hopkins University (contract no. HHSN268200782096C). Assistance with data cleaning was provided by the GENEVA Coordinating Center (U01 HG 004446; PI Bruce S. Weir). Study recruitment and assembly of datasets were supported by a Cooperative Agreement with the Division of Adult and Community Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and by grants from NINDS and the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health (R01 NS45012, U01 NS069208-01). METASTROKE: ASGC: Australian population control data were derived from the Hunter Community Study. This research was funded by grants from the Australian National and Medical Health Research Council (NHMRC Project Grant ID: 569257), the Australian National Heart Foundation (NHF Project Grant ID: G 04S 1623), the University of Newcastle, the Gladys M Brawn Fellowship scheme, and the Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation in Australia. E.G.H. was supported by a Fellowship from the NHF and National Stroke Foundation of Australia (ID: 100071). J.M. was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award. BRAINS: Bio-Repository of DNA in Stroke (BRAINS) is partly funded by a Senior Fellowship from the Department of Health (UK) to P.S., the Henry Smith Charity, and the UK-India Education Research Institutive (UKIERI) from the British Council. GEOS: Genetics of Early Onset Stroke (GEOS) Study, Baltimore, was supported by GEI Grant U01 HG004436, as part of the GENEVA consortium under GEI, with additional support provided by the Mid-Atlantic Nutrition and Obesity Research Center (P30 DK072488), and the Office of Research and Development, Medical Research Service, and the Baltimore Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Center of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Genotyping services were provided by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR), which is fully funded through a federal contract from the NIH to the Johns Hopkins University (contract no. HHSN268200782096C). Assistance with data cleaning was provided by the GENEVA Coordinating Center (U01 HG 004446; PI Bruce S. Weir). Study recruitment and assembly of datasets were supported by a Cooperative Agreement with the Division of Adult and Community Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and by grants from NINDS and the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health (R01 NS45012, U01 NS069208-01). HPS: Heart Protection Study (HPS) (ISRCTN48489393) was supported by the UK MRC, British Heart Foundation, Merck and Co. (manufacturers of simvastatin), and Roche Vitamins Ltd. (manufacturers of vitamins). Genotyping was supported by a grant to Oxford University and CNG from Merck and Co. J.C.H. acknowledges support from the British Heart Foundation (FS/14/55/30806). ISGS: Ischemic Stroke Genetics Study (ISGS)/Siblings With Ischemic Stroke Study (SWISS) was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIA, NIH project Z01 AG-000954-06. ISGS/SWISS used samples and clinical data from the NIH-NINDS Human Genetics Resource Center DNA and Cell Line Repository (ccr.coriell.org/ninds), human subjects protocol nos. 2003-081 and 2004-147. ISGS/SWISS used stroke-free participants from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA) as controls. The inclusion of BLSA samples was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIA, NIH project Z01 AG-000015-50, human subjects protocol no. 2003-078. The ISGS study was funded by NIH-NINDS Grant R01 NS-42733 (J.F.M.). The SWISS study was funded by NIH-NINDS Grant R01 NS-39987 (J.F.M.). This study used the high-performance computational capabilities of the Biowulf Linux cluster at the NIH (biowulf.nih.gov). MGH-GASROS: MGH Genes Affecting Stroke Risk and Outcome Study (MGH-GASROS) was supported by NINDS (U01 NS069208), the American Heart Association/Bugher Foundation Centers for Stroke Prevention Research 0775010N, the NIH and NHLBI's STAMPEED genomics research program (R01 HL087676), and a grant from the National Center for Research Resources. The Broad Institute Center for Genotyping and Analysis is supported by grant U54 RR020278 from the National Center for Research resources. Milan: Milano–Besta Stroke Register Collection and genotyping of the Milan cases within CEDIR were supported by the Italian Ministry of Health (grant nos.: RC 2007/LR6, RC 2008/LR6; RC 2009/LR8; RC 2010/LR8; GR-2011-02347041), FP6 LSHM-CT-2007-037273 for the PROCARDIS control samples. WTCCC2: Wellcome Trust Case-Control Consortium 2 (WTCCC2) was principally funded by the Wellcome Trust, as part of the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 2 project (085475/B/08/Z and 085475/Z/08/Z and WT084724MA). The Stroke Association provided additional support for collection of some of the St George's, London cases. The Oxford cases were collected as part of the Oxford Vascular Study, which is funded by the MRC, Stroke Association, Dunhill Medical Trust, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford. The Edinburgh Stroke Study was supported by the Wellcome Trust (clinician scientist award to C.L.M.S.) and the Binks Trust. Sample processing occurred in the Genetics Core Laboratory of the Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh. Much of the neuroimaging occurred in the Scottish Funding Council Brain Imaging Research Centre (https://www.ed.ac.uk/clinical-sciences/edinburgh-imaging), Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, a core area of the Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, and part of the SINAPSE (Scottish Imaging Network: A Platform for Scientific Excellence) collaboration (sinapse.ac.uk), funded by the Scottish Funding Council and the Chief Scientist Office. Collection of the Munich cases and data analysis was supported by the Vascular Dementia Research Foundation. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreements no. 666881, SVDs@target (to M.D.) and no. 667375, CoSTREAM (to M.D.); the DFG as part of the Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (EXC 1010 SyNergy) and the CRC 1123 (B3) (to M.D.); the Corona Foundation (to M.D.); the Fondation Leducq (Transatlantic Network of Excellence on the Pathogenesis of Small Vessel Disease of the Brain) (to M.D.); the e:Med program (e:AtheroSysMed) (to M.D.) and the FP7/2007-2103 European Union project CVgenes@target (grant agreement no. Health-F2-2013-601456) (to M.D.). M.F. and A.H. acknowledge support from the BHF Centre of Research Excellence in Oxford and the Wellcome Trust core award (090532/Z/09/Z). VISP: The GWAS component of the Vitamin Intervention for Stroke Prevention (VISP) study was supported by the US National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), grant U01 HG005160 (PI Michèle Sale and Bradford Worrall), as part of the Genomics and Randomized Trials Network (GARNET). Genotyping services were provided by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR), which is fully funded through a federal contract from the NIH to Johns Hopkins University. Assistance with data cleaning was provided by the GARNET Coordinating Center (U01 HG005157; PI Bruce S. Weir). Study recruitment and collection of datasets for the VISP clinical trial were supported by an investigator-initiated research grant (R01 NS34447; PI James Toole) from the US Public Health Service, NINDS, Bethesda, MD. Control data obtained through the database of genotypes and phenotypes (dbGAP) maintained and supported by the United States National Center for Biotechnology Information, US National Library of Medicine. WHI: Funding support for WHI-GARNET was provided through the NHGRI GARNET (grant no. U01 HG005152). Assistance with phenotype harmonization and genotype cleaning, as well as with general study coordination, was provided by the GARNET Coordinating Center (U01 HG005157). Funding support for genotyping, which was performed at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, was provided by the GEI (U01 HG004424). R.L. is a senior clinical investigator of FWO Flanders. F.W.A. is supported by a Dekker scholarship-Junior Staff Member 2014T001–Netherlands Heart Foundation and UCL Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. ; 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% [9.0-124]), 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.