The Prevalence of Termination Variations of the Basilar Artery:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Understanding the vascular anatomical variations of the termination pattern of the basilar artery is crucial for both neurosurgical and interventional radiological procedures. Recent evidence indicates that variant bifurcation patterns of the basilar artery, differing from the classical textbook descrip- tion, are increasingly encountered. This study aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the prevalence of termination anomalies related to the basilar artery.Methods: This systematic review included human cadaveric and imaging studies on basilar artery termination patterns. PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Scopus databases were system- atically searched in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, us- ing the terms “(basilar OR vertebrobasilar OR (posterior AND circulation)) AND (anatomy OR termination OR trifurcation OR quadfurcation OR pentafurcation OR hexafurcation OR nonfurcation OR variation OR variant)”. A meta-analysis of proportions was conducted to assess the prevalence of each variation using a random intercept logistic regression model, following logit transformation of the proportions.Results: From 845 initial hits, 4 articles were eligible for the quantitative analysis. The estimated pooled proportions of bifurcation, trifurcation, quadfurcation, pentafurcation, hexa- furcation, and non-furcation in the artery, under the random effects model, were 62.22% (95%CI [34.48%; 83.75%]), 6.08% (95%CI [2.60%; 13.58%]), 5.27% (95%CI [2.17%; 12.27%]),2.06% (95%CI [0.96%; 4.35%]), 0.49% (95%CI [0.08%; 2.90%]), and 0.10% (95%CI [0.0%; 17.07%]), respectively. Heterogeneity analysis revealed significant variability among the studies (I2 up to 93.6%, p&lt;0.0001).Conclusion: More than one-third of basilar artery termi- nations exhibit anatomical variations other than bifurcation. Trifurcation and quadfurcation are the most commonly re- ported variations, each accounting for over 5% of cases. These variations might carry significant implications for regional neurosurgical and interventional radiological procedures.<br/

In Situ Monitoring of Transiently Formed Molecular Chaperone Assemblies in Bacteria, Yeast, and Human Cells.

J-domain proteins (JDPs) form the largest and the most diverse co-chaperone family in eukaryotic cells. Recent findings show that specific members of the JDP family could form transient heterocomplexes in eukaryotes to fine-tune substrate selection for the 70 kDa heat shock protein (Hsp70) chaperone-based protein disaggregases. The JDP complexes target acute/chronic stress induced aggregated proteins and presumably help assemble the disaggregases by recruiting multiple Hsp70s to the surface of protein aggregates. The extent of the protein quality control (PQC) network formed by these physically interacting JDPs remains largely uncharacterized in vivo. Here, we describe a microscopy-based in situ protein interaction assay named the proximity ligation assay (PLA), which is able to robustly capture these transiently formed chaperone complexes in distinct cellular compartments of eukaryotic cells. Our work expands the employment of PLA from human cells to yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and bacteria (Escherichia coli), thus rendering an important tool to monitor the dynamics of transiently formed protein assemblies in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells

A Rare Presentation of Infantile Mediastinal Mature Cystic Teratoma Leading to Progressive Respiratory Failure - A Case Series

Purpose: Teratoma is a congenital tumour arising from one or more of the three germ cell layers in the embryo, with an incidence of 1.2-14.2 cases per 100,000 people per year. Mature cystic teratomas contain bone, cartilage, hair, nails, and cystic fluid filled spaces. Extragonadal teratomas are uncommon, and are usually detected incidentally in adults. Here, we report three cases of infantile mediastinal mature cystic teratomas presenting with impending acute respiratory failure.Methods: Three previously healthy infants (two were boys) aged 5-6 months presented with worsening respiratory tract infection and impending respiratory failure despite medical management. A chest radiograph revealed a large anterior mediastinal mass. CECT chest demonstrated the mediasti- nal tumour suggestive of Teratoma with a mediastinal shift, cardiac and tracheal compression. None of them had features of local infiltration. It was decided to proceed with surgical excision after multidisciplinary discussions. Mediastinum was approached with muscle sparing posterolateral thoracotomy in two patients. And the other child underwent right anterolat- eral thoracotomy. Excision of the tumour relieved the airway obstruction and mediastinal shift.Results: The symptoms improved rapidly following the tumour excision, and they were gradually weaned off from respiratory support. They received ITU care and recovered un- eventfully with no surgical complications. The histology of the excised tumours confirmed mature cystic teratoma.Conclusion: Mature cystic teratoma may rarely present in infancy with progressive respiratory failure, hence clinicians should have a high degree of suspicion. Complete excision is possible in most cases where there is a clear plane of dissection with the lesion and the surrounding structures with excellent clinical outcomes. Both anterolateral and posterolateral thora- cotomy approaches could be used to access the mediastinum.<br/

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BackgroundAccurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could help manage the COVID‐19 pandemic by potentially increasing access to testing and speed detection of infection, as well as informing clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. Previous iterations of this review provided clear and conclusive evidence of superior test performance in those experiencing possible signs and symptoms of Covid‐19. However, test performance in asymptomatic individuals and sensitivity by setting and indication for testing remains unclear. This is the fourth iteration of this review, first published in 2020.ObjectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point‐of‐care antigen tests (Ag‐RDTs) for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in asymptomatic population groups.Search methodsWe searched the COVID‐19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from MEDLINE and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 17 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.Selection criteriaWe included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic people tested because of known or suspected contact with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory‐based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR)).Data collection and analysisWe used standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Two reviewers independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS‐2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random‐effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.Main resultsWe included 146 study cohorts (described in 130 study reports). The main results relate to 164 evaluations of single test applications including 144,250 unique samples (7104 with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2) obtained from asymptomatic or mainly asymptomatic populations. Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (85/146, 58%), and evaluated 41 different commercial antigen assays (test kit). Only six studies compared two or more brands of test. Nearly all studies (96%) used RT‐PCR alone to define presence or absence of infection.Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (13, 9%); interpretation of the index test (3, 2%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (3, 2%); and participant flow and timing (46, 32%). Characteristics of participants (11, 8%) and index test delivery (117, 80%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used.Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was 55.0% (95% CI 50.9%, 59.0%) and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 99.5%, 99.6%) across the 147 evaluations of Ag‐RDTs reporting both sensitivity and specificity (149,251 samples, 7636 cases). Average sensitivity was higher when epidemiological exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2 was suspected (58.6%, 95% CI 51.4% to 65.5%; 43 evaluations; 15,516 samples, 1483 cases) compared to where COVID‐19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (53.0%, 95% CI 48.4% to 57.5%; 103 evaluations; 129,032 samples, 5660 cases); however CIs overlapped, limiting the inference that can be drawn from these data. Average specificity was similarly high for both groups (99.4% and 99.6%). Sensitivity was generally lower when used in a screening context (summary values from 40.6% to 42.1% for three of four screening settings) compared to testing asymptomatic individuals at Covid‐19 test centres (56.7%) or emergency departments (54.7%). We observed a decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased.Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 36.3% to 78.8% in asymptomatic participants (14 assays with sufficient data for pooling). None of the assays met the WHO acceptable performance standard for sensitivity (of 80%) based on meta‐analysis; however, sensitivities from individual studies (where meta‐analysis was not possible) exceeded 80% for three assays. The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by all but four assays (based on individual studies or meta‐analysis) when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions.At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID‐19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 40% and 33%, meaning that 3 in 5 or 2 in 3 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 2 in 5 cases will be missed.Authors' conclusionsEvidence for antigen testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased considerably since the publication of the previous update of this review. Average sensitivities remain lower for testing of asymptomatic when compared to symptomatic individuals; however, there is an indication that sensitivities may be higher where epidemiological exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2 is suspected compared to testing any asymptomatic individual regardless of indication. Sensitivities were particularly low when antigen tests were used in screening settings. Assays from different manufacturers also vary in sensitivity, indicating the need for appropriate clinical validation of a particular antigen test in a given intended use setting prior to more widespread deployment.Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches, including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.FundingThis paper presents independent research supported by the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, and the University of Birmingham. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.RegistrationProtocol (2020) doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013596<p/

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

Background The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS‐CoV‐2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS‐CoV‐2 epidemiology. Objectives To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS‐CoV‐2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non‐SARS‐CoV‐2 cases. Search methods The COVID‐19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co‐ordinating Centre (EPPI‐Centre) ‘COVID‐19: Living map of the evidence’ and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health ’NIPH systematic and living map on COVID‐19 evidence’. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT‐PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS‐CoV‐2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT‐PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre‐pandemic samples). Data collection and analysis We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS‐2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta‐analysis, we fitted univariate random‐effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random‐effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. Main results We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre‐prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre‐pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two‐thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy‐nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre‐pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent‐phase infection) and specific (pre‐pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike‐protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent‐phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low‐prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID‐19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post‐symptom onset or post‐positive PCR) of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Authors' conclusions Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular‐ or antigen‐based tests have failed to detect the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post‐acute sequelae of COVID‐19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero‐epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination‐induced antibodies is uncertain

Global, regional, and national burden of headache disorders, 1990–2023: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023

Background: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2023 estimates health loss from migraine, tension-type headache, and medication-overuse headache. This study presents updated results on headache-attributed burden from 1990 to 2023, along with clinical and public health implications. Methods: Data on the prevalence, incidence, or remission of migraine, tension-type headache, and medication-overuse headache were extracted from published population-based studies. We used hierarchical Bayesian meta-regression modelling to estimate global, regional, and country-level prevalence of headache disorders. For the first time in GBD 2023, age-specific and sex-specific estimates of time in symptomatic state were applied by meta-analysing individual participant data from 41 653 individuals from the general populations of 18 countries from all parts of the world. Disability weights were applied to calculate years lived with disability (YLDs). Since medication-overuse headache is a sequela of a mistreated primary headache (due to medication overuse), its burden was reattributed to migraine or tension-type headache, informed by a meta-analysis of three longitudinal studies. Findings: In 2023, 2·9 billion individuals (95% uncertainty interval 2·6-3·1) were affected by headache disorders, with a global age-standardised prevalence of 34·6% (31·6-37·5) and a YLD rate of 541·9 (373·4-739·9) per 100 000 population, with 487·5 (323·0-678·8) per 100 000 population attributed to migraine. The prevalence rates of these headache disorders have remained stable over the past three decades. YLD rates due to headache disorders were more than twice as high in females (739·9 [511·2-1011·5] per 100 000) as in males (346·1 [240·4-481·8] per 100 000). Medication-overuse headache contributed 58·9% of the YLD estimates for tension-type headache in males and 56·1% in females, as well as 22·6% of the YLD estimates for migraines in males and 14·1% in females. Interpretation: Headache disorders, in particular migraine, continue to be a major global health challenge, emphasising the need for effective management and prevention strategies. Much headache-attributed burden could be averted or eliminated by avoiding overuse of medication (including over-the-counter medication), underscoring the importance of public education. Funding: Gates Foundation

Global, Regional, and National Burden of Nontraumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Importance: Nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) represents the third most common stroke type with unique etiologies, risk factors, diagnostics, and treatments. Nevertheless, epidemiological studies often cluster SAH with other stroke types leaving its distinct burden estimates obscure. Objective: To estimate the worldwide burden of SAH. Design, setting, and participants: Based on the repeated cross-sectional Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2021 study, the global burden of SAH in 1990 to 2021 was estimated. Moreover, the SAH burden was compared with other diseases, and its associations with 14 individual risk factors were investigated with available data in the GBD 2021 study. The GBD study included the burden estimates of nontraumatic SAH among all ages in 204 countries and territories between 1990 and 2021. Exposures: SAH and 14 modifiable risk factors. Main outcomes and measures: Absolute numbers and age-standardized rates with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) of SAH incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) as well as risk factor-specific population attributable fractions (PAFs). Results: In 2021, the global age-standardized SAH incidence was 8.3 (95% UI, 7.3-9.5), prevalence was 92.2 (95% UI, 84.1-100.6), mortality was 4.2 (95% UI, 3.7-4.8), and DALY rate was 125.2 (95% UI, 110.5-142.6) per 100 000 people. The highest burden estimates were found in Latin America, the Caribbean, Oceania, and high-income Asia Pacific. Although the absolute number of SAH cases increased, especially in regions with a low sociodemographic index, all age-standardized burden rates decreased between 1990 and 2021: the incidence by 28.8% (95% UI, 25.7%-31.6%), prevalence by 16.1% (95% UI, 14.8%-17.7%), mortality by 56.1% (95% UI, 40.7%-64.3%), and DALY rate by 54.6% (95% UI, 42.8%-61.9%). Of 300 diseases, SAH ranked as the 36th most common cause of death and 59th most common cause of DALY in the world. Of all worldwide SAH-related DALYs, 71.6% (95% UI, 63.8%-78.6%) were associated with the 14 modeled risk factors of which high systolic blood pressure (population attributable fraction [PAF] = 51.6%; 95% UI, 38.0%-62.6%) and smoking (PAF = 14.4%; 95% UI, 12.4%-16.5%) had the highest attribution. Conclusions and relevance: Although the global age-standardized burden rates of SAH more than halved over the last 3 decades, SAH remained one of the most common cardiovascular and neurological causes of death and disabilities in the world, with increasing absolute case numbers. These findings suggest evidence for the potential health benefits of proactive public health planning and resource allocation toward the prevention of SAH

Global, regional, and national incidence of six major immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: findings from the global burden of disease study 2019

BACKGROUND: The causes for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are diverse and the incidence trends of IMIDs from specific causes are rarely studied. The study aims to investigate the pattern and trend of IMIDs from 1990 to 2019. METHODS: We collected detailed information on six major causes of IMIDs, including asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis, between 1990 and 2019, derived from the Global Burden of Disease study in 2019. The average annual percent change (AAPC) in number of incidents and age standardized incidence rate (ASR) on IMIDs, by sex, age, region, and causes, were calculated to quantify the temporal trends. FINDINGS: In 2019, rheumatoid arthritis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease accounted 1.59%, 36.17%, 54.71%, 0.09%, 6.84%, 0.60% of overall new IMIDs cases, respectively. The ASR of IMIDs showed substantial regional and global variation with the highest in High SDI region, High-income North America, and United States of America. Throughout human lifespan, the age distribution of incident cases from six IMIDs was quite different. Globally, incident cases of IMIDs increased with an AAPC of 0.68 and the ASR decreased with an AAPC of −0.34 from 1990 to 2019. The incident cases increased across six IMIDs, the ASR of rheumatoid arthritis increased (0.21, 95% CI 0.18, 0.25), while the ASR of asthma (AAPC = −0.41), inflammatory bowel disease (AAPC = −0.72), multiple sclerosis (AAPC = −0.26), psoriasis (AAPC = −0.77), and atopic dermatitis (AAPC = −0.15) decreased. The ASR of overall and six individual IMID increased with SDI at regional and global level. Countries with higher ASR in 1990 experienced a more rapid decrease in ASR. INTERPRETATION: The incidence patterns of IMIDs varied considerably across the world. Innovative prevention and integrative management strategy are urgently needed to mitigate the increasing ASR of rheumatoid arthritis and upsurging new cases of other five IMIDs, respectively. FUNDING: The Global Burden of Disease Study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The project funded by Scientific Research Fund of Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital (2022QN38)

Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis

BACKGROUND: The global burden of sepsis, a life-threatening dysregulated host response to infection leading to organ dysfunction, remains challenging to quantify. We aimed to comprehensively estimate the global, regional, and national burden of sepsis, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and underlying causes of sepsis-related deaths with co-occurring infectious syndromes. METHODS: We used multiple cause-of-death, hospital, minimally invasive tissue sampling, and linked death certificate and hospital record data representing 149 million deaths, covering 4290 location-years with mortality estimates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 to capture explicit and implicit sepsis cases and deaths. We estimated age-location-sex-specific fractions of sepsis-related deaths from 195 underlying causes of death and 22 infectious syndromes from 1990 to 2021 using binomial logistic regression models, and estimated sepsis-related deaths using GBD cause-specific mortality estimates. Using 250 million hospital admissions and 7·82 million deaths from hospital data, representing 1310 location-years, we modelled case fatality rates by use of binomial logistic regression, applied to sepsis death estimates to estimate sepsis incidence by age, location, and year. FINDINGS: In 2021, we estimated 166 million (95% uncertainty interval 135-201) sepsis cases and 21·4 million (20·3-22·5) all-cause sepsis-related deaths globally, representing 31·5% of total global deaths. Sepsis-related deaths decreased between 1990 and 2019, followed by a surge in 2020 and 2021. As of 2021, individuals aged 15 years and older experienced increases across incidence (230%) and mortality (26·3%) since 1990. Those aged 70 years and older had the highest sepsis-related mortality in 2021 (9·28 million [8·74-9·86] deaths). Sepsis-related deaths from infectious underlying causes decreased from 11·8 million (11·1-12·5) in 1990 to 8·34 million (7·72-9·01) in 2019, then increased by 86·4% to 15·5 million (14·7-16·4) in 2021. Sepsis-related mortality due to non-infectious underlying causes of death increased from 4·69 million (4·35-5·05) in 1990 to 5·81 million (5·40-6·25) in 2021; the leading non-infectious underlying causes of death with sepsis were stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cirrhosis. In 2021, bloodstream infections inclusive of HIV and malaria (3·08 million [2·83-3·35]) and lower respiratory infections inclusive of COVID-19 (11·33 million [1·20-1·47]) were the most prominent infectious syndromes complicating sepsis-related deaths from non-infectious underlying causes, representing a consistent trend since 1990. INTERPRETATION: The global burden of sepsis increased in 2020 and 2021, reversing progress from 1990. Sepsis incidence and mortality increased in people aged 15 years and older, especially those aged 70 years and older, and as a complication of non-infectious underlying causes of death such as stroke, primarily through bloodstream infections and lower respiratory infections. The global burden of sepsis is substantial, and sepsis is increasingly a complication of non-infectious causes of death. FUNDING: Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and Department of Health and Social Care using UK aid funding managed by the Fleming Fund

Global, regional, and national burden of disorders affecting the nervous system, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND: Disorders affecting the nervous system are diverse and include neurodevelopmental disorders, late-life neurodegeneration, and newly emergent conditions, such as cognitive impairment following COVID-19. Previous publications from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factor Study estimated the burden of 15 neurological conditions in 2015 and 2016, but these analyses did not include neurodevelopmental disorders, as defined by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11, or a subset of cases of congenital, neonatal, and infectious conditions that cause neurological damage. Here, we estimate nervous system health loss caused by 37 unique conditions and their associated risk factors globally, regionally, and nationally from 1990 to 2021. METHODS: We estimated mortality, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), years of life lost (YLLs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), with corresponding 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs), by age and sex in 204 countries and territories, from 1990 to 2021. We included morbidity and deaths due to neurological conditions, for which health loss is directly due to damage to the CNS or peripheral nervous system. We also isolated neurological health loss from conditions for which nervous system morbidity is a consequence, but not the primary feature, including a subset of congenital conditions (ie, chromosomal anomalies and congenital birth defects), neonatal conditions (ie, jaundice, preterm birth, and sepsis), infectious diseases (ie, COVID-19, cystic echinococcosis, malaria, syphilis, and Zika virus disease), and diabetic neuropathy. By conducting a sequela-level analysis of the health outcomes for these conditions, only cases where nervous system damage occurred were included, and YLDs were recalculated to isolate the non-fatal burden directly attributable to nervous system health loss. A comorbidity correction was used to calculate total prevalence of all conditions that affect the nervous system combined. FINDINGS: Globally, the 37 conditions affecting the nervous system were collectively ranked as the leading group cause of DALYs in 2021 (443 million, 95% UI 378–521), affecting 3·40 billion (3·20–3·62) individuals (43·1%, 40·5–45·9 of the global population); global DALY counts attributed to these conditions increased by 18·2% (8·7–26·7) between 1990 and 2021. Age-standardised rates of deaths per 100 000 people attributed to these conditions decreased from 1990 to 2021 by 33·6% (27·6–38·8), and age-standardised rates of DALYs attributed to these conditions decreased by 27·0% (21·5–32·4). Age-standardised prevalence was almost stable, with a change of 1·5% (0·7–2·4). The ten conditions with the highest age-standardised DALYs in 2021 were stroke, neonatal encephalopathy, migraine, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, diabetic neuropathy, meningitis, epilepsy, neurological complications due to preterm birth, autism spectrum disorder, and nervous system cancer. INTERPRETATION: As the leading cause of overall disease burden in the world, with increasing global DALY counts, effective prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation strategies for disorders affecting the nervous system are needed