Integration of 3D anatomical data obtained by CT imaging and 3D optical scanning for computer aided implant surgery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A precise placement of dental implants is a crucial step to optimize both prosthetic aspects and functional constraints. In this context, the use of virtual guiding systems has been recognized as a fundamental tool to control the ideal implant position. In particular, complex periodontal surgeries can be performed using preoperative planning based on CT data. The critical point of the procedure relies on the lack of accuracy in transferring CT planning information to surgical field through custom-made stereo-lithographic surgical guides.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this work, a novel methodology is proposed for monitoring loss of accuracy in transferring CT dental information into periodontal surgical field. The methodology is based on integrating 3D data of anatomical (impression and cast) and preoperative (radiographic template) models, obtained by both CT and optical scanning processes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A clinical case, relative to a fully edentulous jaw patient, has been used as test case to assess the accuracy of the various steps concurring in manufacturing surgical guides. In particular, a surgical guide has been designed to place implants in the bone structure of the patient. The analysis of the results has allowed the clinician to monitor all the errors, which have been occurring step by step manufacturing the physical templates.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The use of an optical scanner, which has a higher resolution and accuracy than CT scanning, has demonstrated to be a valid support to control the precision of the various physical models adopted and to point out possible error sources. A case study regarding a fully edentulous patient has confirmed the feasibility of the proposed methodology.</p

Global mortality associated with 33 bacterial pathogens in 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background: Reducing the burden of death due to infection is an urgent global public health priority. Previous studies have estimated the number of deaths associated with drug-resistant infections and sepsis and found that infections remain a leading cause of death globally. Understanding the global burden of common bacterial pathogens (both susceptible and resistant to antimicrobials) is essential to identify the greatest threats to public health. To our knowledge, this is the first study to present global comprehensive estimates of deaths associated with 33 bacterial pathogens across 11 major infectious syndromes. Methods: We estimated deaths associated with 33 bacterial genera or species across 11 infectious syndromes in 2019 using methods from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, in addition to a subset of the input data described in the Global Burden of Antimicrobial Resistance 2019 study. This study included 343 million individual records or isolates covering 11 361 study-location-years. We used three modelling steps to estimate the number of deaths associated with each pathogen: deaths in which infection had a role, the fraction of deaths due to infection that are attributable to a given infectious syndrome, and the fraction of deaths due to an infectious syndrome that are attributable to a given pathogen. Estimates were produced for all ages and for males and females across 204 countries and territories in 2019. 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) were calculated for final estimates of deaths and infections associated with the 33 bacterial pathogens following standard GBD methods by taking the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles across 1000 posterior draws for each quantity of interest. Findings: From an estimated 13·7 million (95% UI 10·9–17·1) infection-related deaths in 2019, there were 7·7 million deaths (5·7–10·2) associated with the 33 bacterial pathogens (both resistant and susceptible to antimicrobials) across the 11 infectious syndromes estimated in this study. We estimated deaths associated with the 33 bacterial pathogens to comprise 13·6% (10·2–18·1) of all global deaths and 56·2% (52·1–60·1) of all sepsis-related deaths in 2019. Five leading pathogens—Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa—were responsible for 54·9% (52·9–56·9) of deaths among the investigated bacteria. The deadliest infectious syndromes and pathogens varied by location and age. The age-standardised mortality rate associated with these bacterial pathogens was highest in the sub-Saharan Africa super-region, with 230 deaths (185–285) per 100 000 population, and lowest in the high-income super-region, with 52·2 deaths (37·4–71·5) per 100 000 population. S aureus was the leading bacterial cause of death in 135 countries and was also associated with the most deaths in individuals older than 15 years, globally. Among children younger than 5 years, S pneumoniae was the pathogen associated with the most deaths. In 2019, more than 6 million deaths occurred as a result of three bacterial infectious syndromes, with lower respiratory infections and bloodstream infections each causing more than 2 million deaths and peritoneal and intra-abdominal infections causing more than 1 million deaths. Interpretation: The 33 bacterial pathogens that we investigated in this study are a substantial source of health loss globally, with considerable variation in their distribution across infectious syndromes and locations. Compared with GBD Level 3 underlying causes of death, deaths associated with these bacteria would rank as the second leading cause of death globally in 2019; hence, they should be considered an urgent priority for intervention within the global health community. Strategies to address the burden of bacterial infections include infection prevention, optimised use of antibiotics, improved capacity for microbiological analysis, vaccine development, and improved and more pervasive use of available vaccines. These estimates can be used to help set priorities for vaccine need, demand, and development. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and Department of Health and Social Care, using UK aid funding managed by the Fleming Fund

Mapping geographical inequalities in childhood diarrhoeal morbidity and mortality in low-income and middle-income countries, 2000–17: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license Background: Across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), one in ten deaths in children younger than 5 years is attributable to diarrhoea. The substantial between-country variation in both diarrhoea incidence and mortality is attributable to interventions that protect children, prevent infection, and treat disease. Identifying subnational regions with the highest burden and mapping associated risk factors can aid in reducing preventable childhood diarrhoea. Methods: We used Bayesian model-based geostatistics and a geolocated dataset comprising 15 072 746 children younger than 5 years from 466 surveys in 94 LMICs, in combination with findings of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017, to estimate posterior distributions of diarrhoea prevalence, incidence, and mortality from 2000 to 2017. From these data, we estimated the burden of diarrhoea at varying subnational levels (termed units) by spatially aggregating draws, and we investigated the drivers of subnational patterns by creating aggregated risk factor estimates. Findings: The greatest declines in diarrhoeal mortality were seen in south and southeast Asia and South America, where 54·0% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 38·1–65·8), 17·4% (7·7–28·4), and 59·5% (34·2–86·9) of units, respectively, recorded decreases in deaths from diarrhoea greater than 10%. Although children in much of Africa remain at high risk of death due to diarrhoea, regions with the most deaths were outside Africa, with the highest mortality units located in Pakistan. Indonesia showed the greatest within-country geographical inequality; some regions had mortality rates nearly four times the average country rate. Reductions in mortality were correlated to improvements in water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) or reductions in child growth failure (CGF). Similarly, most high-risk areas had poor WASH, high CGF, or low oral rehydration therapy coverage. Interpretation: By co-analysing geospatial trends in diarrhoeal burden and its key risk factors, we could assess candidate drivers of subnational death reduction. Further, by doing a counterfactual analysis of the remaining disease burden using key risk factors, we identified potential intervention strategies for vulnerable populations. In view of the demands for limited resources in LMICs, accurately quantifying the burden of diarrhoea and its drivers is important for precision public health. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Past, present, and future of global health financing: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 195 countries, 1995–2050

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license Background: Comprehensive and comparable estimates of health spending in each country are a key input for health policy and planning, and are necessary to support the achievement of national and international health goals. Previous studies have tracked past and projected future health spending until 2040 and shown that, with economic development, countries tend to spend more on health per capita, with a decreasing share of spending from development assistance and out-of-pocket sources. We aimed to characterise the past, present, and predicted future of global health spending, with an emphasis on equity in spending across countries. Methods: We estimated domestic health spending for 195 countries and territories from 1995 to 2016, split into three categories—government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending—and estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2018. We estimated future scenarios of health spending using an ensemble of linear mixed-effects models with time series specifications to project domestic health spending from 2017 through 2050 and DAH from 2019 through 2050. Data were extracted from a broad set of sources tracking health spending and revenue, and were standardised and converted to inflation-adjusted 2018 US dollars. Incomplete or low-quality data were modelled and uncertainty was estimated, leading to a complete data series of total, government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending, and DAH. Estimates are reported in 2018 US dollars, 2018 purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars, and as a percentage of gross domestic product. We used demographic decomposition methods to assess a set of factors associated with changes in government health spending between 1995 and 2016 and to examine evidence to support the theory of the health financing transition. We projected two alternative future scenarios based on higher government health spending to assess the potential ability of governments to generate more resources for health. Findings: Between 1995 and 2016, health spending grew at a rate of 4·00% (95% uncertainty interval 3·89–4·12) annually, although it grew slower in per capita terms (2·72% [2·61–2·84]) and increased by less than $1 per capita over this period in 22 of 195 countries. The highest annual growth rates in per capita health spending were observed in upper-middle-income countries (5·55$8·0 trillion (7·8–8·1) in 2016 (comprising 8·6% [8·4–8·7] of the global economy and $10·3 trillion [10·1–10·6] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), with a per capita spending of US$5252 (5184–5319) in high-income countries, $491 (461–524) in upper-middle-income countries,$81 (74–89) in lower-middle-income countries, and $40 (38–43) in low-income countries. In 2016, 0·4$9·5 billion, 24·3% of total DAH), although spending on other infectious diseases (excluding tuberculosis and malaria) grew fastest from 2010 to 2018 (6·27% per year). The leading sources of DAH were the USA and private philanthropy (excluding corporate donations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). For the first time, we included estimates of China's contribution to DAH ($644·7 million in 2018). Globally, health spending is projected to increase to$15·0 trillion (14·0–16·0) by 2050 (reaching 9·4% [7·6–11·3] of the global economy and $21·3 trillion [19·8–23·1] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), but at a lower growth rate of 1·84% (1·68–2·02) annually, and with continuing disparities in spending between countries. In 2050, we estimate that 0·6% (0·6–0·7) of health spending will occur in currently low-income countries, despite these countries comprising an estimated 15·7% of the global population by 2050. The ratio between per capita health spending in high-income and low-income countries was 130·2 (122·9–136·9) in 2016 and is projected to remain at similar levels in 2050 (125·9 [113·7–138·1]). The decomposition analysis identified governments’ increased prioritisation of the health sector and economic development as the strongest factors associated with increases in government health spending globally. Future government health spending scenarios suggest that, with greater prioritisation of the health sector and increased government spending, health spending per capita could more than double, with greater impacts in countries that currently have the lowest levels of government health spending. Interpretation: Financing for global health has increased steadily over the past two decades and is projected to continue increasing in the future, although at a slower pace of growth and with persistent disparities in per-capita health spending between countries. Out-of-pocket spending is projected to remain substantial outside of high-income countries. Many low-income countries are expected to remain dependent on development assistance, although with greater government spending, larger investments in health are feasible. In the absence of sustained new investments in health, increasing efficiency in health spending is essential to meet global health targets. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Mapping age- and sex-specific HIV prevalence in adults in sub-Saharan Africa, 2000–2018

Background: Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) is still among the leading causes of disease burden and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and the world is not on track to meet targets set for ending the epidemic by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Precise HIV burden information is critical for effective geographic and epidemiological targeting of prevention and treatment interventions. Age- and sex-specific HIV prevalence estimates are widely available at the national level, and region-wide local estimates were recently published for adults overall. We add further dimensionality to previous analyses by estimating HIV prevalence at local scales, stratified into sex-specific 5-year age groups for adults ages 15–59 years across SSA. Methods: We analyzed data from 91 seroprevalence surveys and sentinel surveillance among antenatal care clinic (ANC) attendees using model-based geostatistical methods to produce estimates of HIV prevalence across 43 countries in SSA, from years 2000 to 2018, at a 5 × 5-km resolution and presented among second administrative level (typically districts or counties) units. Results: We found substantial variation in HIV prevalence across localities, ages, and sexes that have been masked in earlier analyses. Within-country variation in prevalence in 2018 was a median 3.5 times greater across ages and sexes, compared to for all adults combined. We note large within-district prevalence differences between age groups: for men, 50% of districts displayed at least a 14-fold difference between age groups with the highest and lowest prevalence, and at least a 9-fold difference for women. Prevalence trends also varied over time; between 2000 and 2018, 70% of all districts saw a reduction in prevalence greater than five percentage points in at least one sex and age group. Meanwhile, over 30% of all districts saw at least a five percentage point prevalence increase in one or more sex and age group. Conclusions: As the HIV epidemic persists and evolves in SSA, geographic and demographic shifts in prevention and treatment efforts are necessary. These estimates offer epidemiologically informative detail to better guide more targeted interventions, vital for combating HIV in SSA. © 2022, The Author(s).Funding text 1: S Afzal acknowledges support of the Pakistan Society of Medical Infectious Diseases and King Edward Medical University to access the relevant data of HIV from various sources. T W Bärnighausen was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through the Alexander von Humboldt Professor award, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. F Carvalho and E Fernandes acknowledge support from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), I.P., in the scope of the project UIDP/04378/2020 and UIDB/04378/2020 of the Research Unit on Applied Molecular Biosciences - UCIBIO and the project LA/P/0140/2020 of the Associate Laboratory Institute for Health and Bioeconomy - i4HB; FCT/MCTES (Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior) through the project UIDB/50006/2020. K Deribe acknowledges support by the Wellcome Trust [grant number 201900/Z/16/Z] as part of his International Intermediate Fellowship. C Herteliu and A Pana are partially supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNDS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084. Claudiu Herteliu is partially supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Research Innovation and Digitalization, MCID, project number ID-585-CTR-42-PFE-2021. Y J Kim acknowledges support by the Research Management Centre, Xiamen University Malaysia [No. XMUMRF/2020-C6/ITCM/0004]. S L Koulmane Laxminarayana acknowledges institutional support by the Manipal Academy of Higher Education. K Krishan acknowledges non-financial support from UGC Centre of Advanced Study, CAS II, Department of Anthropology, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. M Kumar would like to acknowledge NIH/FIC K43 TW010716-04. I Landires is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigación (SNI), supported by the Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (SENACYT), Panama. V Nuñez-Samudio is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigación (SNI), which is supported by Panama’s Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (SENACYT). O O Odukoya was supported by the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under the Award Number K43TW010704. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Z Quazi Syed acknowledges support from JNMC, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences. A I Ribeiro was supported by National Funds through FCT, under the ‘Stimulus of Scientific Employment – Individual Support’ program within the contract CEECIND/02386/2018. A M Samy acknowledges the support from a fellowship of the Egyptian Fulbright Mission program and Ain Shams University. R Shrestha acknowledges support from NIDA K01 Award: K01DA051346. N Taveira acknowledges support from FCT and Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) - Portugal Collaborative Research Network in Portuguese speaking countries in Africa (project reference: 332821690), and by the European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), UE (project reference: RIA2016MC-1615). B Unnikrishnan acknowledges support from Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal. ; Funding text 2: LBD sub-Saharan Africa HIV Prevalence Collaborators S Afzal acknowledges support of the Pakistan Society of Medical Infectious Diseases and King Edward Medical University to access the relevant data of HIV from various sources. T W Bärnighausen was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through the Alexander von Humboldt Professor award, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. F Carvalho and E Fernandes acknowledge support from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), I.P., in the scope of the project UIDP/04378/2020 and UIDB/04378/2020 of the Research Unit on Applied Molecular Biosciences - UCIBIO and the project LA/P/0140/2020 of the Associate Laboratory Institute for Health and Bioeconomy - i4HB; FCT/MCTES (Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior) through the project UIDB/50006/2020. K Deribe acknowledges support by the Wellcome Trust [grant number 201900/Z/16/Z] as part of his International Intermediate Fellowship. C Herteliu and A Pana are partially supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNDS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084. Claudiu Herteliu is partially supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Research Innovation and Digitalization, MCID, project number ID-585-CTR-42-PFE-2021. Y J Kim acknowledges support by the Research Management Centre, Xiamen University Malaysia [No. XMUMRF/2020-C6/ITCM/0004]. S L Koulmane Laxminarayana acknowledges institutional support by the Manipal Academy of Higher Education. K Krishan acknowledges non-financial support from UGC Centre of Advanced Study, CAS II, Department of Anthropology, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. M Kumar would like to acknowledge NIH/FIC K43 TW010716-04. I Landires is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigación (SNI), supported by the Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (SENACYT), Panama. V Nuñez-Samudio is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigación (SNI), which is supported by Panama’s Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (SENACYT). O O Odukoya was supported by the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under the Award Number K43TW010704. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Z Quazi Syed acknowledges support from JNMC, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences. A I Ribeiro was supported by National Funds through FCT, under the ‘Stimulus of Scientific Employment – Individual Support’ program within the contract CEECIND/02386/2018. A M Samy acknowledges the support from a fellowship of the Egyptian Fulbright Mission program and Ain Shams University. R Shrestha acknowledges support from NIDA K01 Award: K01DA051346. N Taveira acknowledges support from FCT and Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) - Portugal Collaborative Research Network in Portuguese speaking countries in Africa (project reference: 332821690), and by the European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), UE (project reference: RIA2016MC-1615). B Unnikrishnan acknowledges support from Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal.; Funding text 3: This work was primarily supported by grant OPP1132415 from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the report, or decision to publish. The corresponding authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. ; Funding text 4: S Afzal reports leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, unpaid, with the Pakistan society of Community Medicine & Public Health, the Pakistan Association of Medical Editors, and the Pakistan Society of Medical Infectious Diseases, all outside the submitted work. R Ancuceanu reports 5 payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Avvie, Sandoz, and B Braun, all outside the submitted work. T W Bärnighausen reports research grants from the European Union (Horizon 2020 and EIT Health), German Research Foundation (DFG), US National Institutes of Health, German Ministry of Education and Research, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Else-Kröner-Fresenius-Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, KfW, UNAIDS, and WHO; consulting fees from KfW on the OSCAR initiative in Vietnam; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with the NIH-funded study “Healthy Options” (PIs: Smith Fawzi, Kaaya), Chair, Data Safety and Monitoring Board (DSMB), German National Committee on the “Future of Public Health Research and Education,” Chair of the scientific advisory board to the EDCTP Evaluation, Member of the UNAIDS Evaluation Expert Advisory Committee, National Institutes of Health Study Section Member on Population and Public Health Approaches to HIV/AIDS (PPAH), US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee for the “Evaluation of Human Resources for Health in the Republic of Rwanda under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR),” University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) Population Aging Research Center (PARC) External Advisory Board Member; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, as co-chair of the Global Health Hub Germany (which was initiated by the German Ministry of Health); all outside the submitted work. J das Neves reports grants or contracts from Ref. 13605 – Programa GÉNESE, Gilead Portugal (PGG/002/2016 – Programa GÉNESE, Gilead Portugal) outside the submitted work. L Dwyer-Lindgren reports support for the present manuscript from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through grant OPP1132415. I Filip reports other financial or non-financial interests from Avicenna Medical and Clinical Research Institute, outside the submitted work. E Haeuser reports support for the present manuscript from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through grant OPP1132415. C Herteliu reports grants from Romanian Ministry of Research Innovation and Digitalization, MCID, for project number ID-585-CTR-42-PFE-2021 (Jan 2022-Jun 2023) “Enhancing institutional performance through development of infrastructure and transdisciplinary research ecosystem within socio-economic domain – PERFECTIS,” from Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNDS-UEFISCDI, for project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084 (Oct 2018-Sep 2022) “Understanding and modelling time-space patterns of psychology-related inequalities and polarization,” and project number PN-III-P2-2.1-SOL-2020-2-0351 (Jun 2020-Oct 2020) “Approaches within public health management in the context of COVID-19 pandemic,” and from the Ministry of Labour and Social Justice, Romania for project number “Agenda for skills Romania 2020-2025”; all outside the submitted work. J J Jozwiak reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Teva, Amgen, Synexus, Boehringer Ingelheim, Zentiva, and Sanofi as personal fees, all outside the submitted work. J Khubchandani reports other financial interests from Teva Pharmaceuticals, all outside the submitted work. K Krishnan reports other non-financial support from UGC Centre of Advanced Study, CAS II, Department of Anthropology, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India, outside the submitted work. H J Larson reports grants or contracts from the MacArthur Foundation and Merck to London School of Hygeine and Tropical Medicine, and from the Vaccine Confidence Fund to the University of Washington; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Center for Strategic and International Studies as payment to LSHTM for co-chairing HighLevel Panel and from GSK as personal payment for developing training sessions and lectures; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, pair, with the ApiJect Advisory Board; all outside the submitted work. O O Odukoya reports support for the present manuscript from the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under the Award Number K43TW010704. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. A Pans reports grants from Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNDS-UEFISCDI, for project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084 (Oct 2018-Sep 2022) “Understanding and modelling time-space patterns of psychology-related inequalities and polarization,” and project number PN-III-P2-2.1-SOL-2020-2-0351 (Jun 2020-Oct 2020) “Approaches within public health management in the context of COVID-19 pandemic,” outside the submitted work. S R Pandi-Perumal reports royalties from Springer for editing services; stock or stock options in Somnogen Canada Inc as the President and Chief Executive Officer; all outside the submitted work. A Radfar reports other financial or non-financial interests from Avicenna Medical and Clinical Research Institute, outside the submitted work. A I Ribeiro reports grants or contracts from National Funds through FCT, under the ‘Stimulus of Scientific Employment – Individual Support’ program within the contract CEECIND/02386/2018, outside the submitted work. J M Ross reports support for the present manuscript from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through grant OPP1132415; grants or contracts from National Institutes of Health and Firland Foundation as payments to their institution; consulting fees from United States Agency for International Development as personal payments, and from KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation as payments to their institution; all outside the submitted work. E Rubagotti reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from the Greenwich China Office and Unviersity Prince Mohammad VI, Morocco, all outside the submitted work. B Sartorius reports grants or contracts from DHSC – GRAM Project; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, as a member of the GBD Scientific Council and a Member of WHO RGHS; all outside the submitted work. J A Singh reports consulting fees from Crealta/Horizon, Medisys, Fidia, PK Med, Two labs Inc, Adept Field Solutions, Clinical Care options, Clearview healthcare partners, Putnam associates, Focus forward, Navigant consulting, Spherix, MedIQ, Jupiter Life Science LLC, UBM LLC, Trio Health, Medscape, WebMD, and Practice Point communications, and the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Rheumatology; payment or honoraria for participating in the speakers bureau for Simply Speaking; support for attending meetings and/or travel from the steering committee of OMERACT, to attend their meeting every 2 years; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board as an unpaid member of the FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, as a member of the steering committee of OMERACT, an international organization that develops measures for clinical trials and receives arm’s length funding from 12 pharmaceutical companies, with the Veterans Affairs Rheumatology Field Advisory Committee as Chair, and with the UAB Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Satellite Center on Network Meta-analysis as a director and editor; stock or stock options in TPT Global Tech, Vaxart pharmaceuticals, Atyu Biopharma, Adaptimmune Therapeutics, GeoVax Labs, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Enzolytics Inc, Series Therapeutics, Tonix Pharmaceuticals, and Charlotte’s Web Holdings Inc. and previously owned stock options in Amarin, Viking, and Moderna pharmaceuticals; all outside the submitted work. N Taveira reports grants or contracts from FCT and Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) – Portugal Collaborative Research Network in Portuguese speaking countries in Africa (Project reference: 332821690) and from European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), UE (Project reference: RIA2016MC-1615), as payments made to their institution, all outside the submitted work

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and mortality of HIV, 1980–2017, and forecasts to 2030, for 195 countries and territories: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017

Background Understanding the patterns of HIV/AIDS epidemics is crucial to tracking and monitoring the progress of prevention and control efforts in countries. We provide a comprehensive assessment of the levels and trends of HIV/AIDS incidence, prevalence, mortality, and coverage of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for 1980–2017 and forecast these estimates to 2030 for 195 countries and territories. Methods We determined a modelling strategy for each country on the basis of the availability and quality of data. For countries and territories with data from population-based seroprevalence surveys or antenatal care clinics, we estimated prevalence and incidence using an open-source version of the Estimation and Projection Package—a natural history model originally developed by the UNAIDS Reference Group on Estimates, Modelling, and Projections. For countries with cause-specific vital registration data, we corrected data for garbage coding (ie, deaths coded to an intermediate, immediate, or poorly defined cause) and HIV misclassification. We developed a process of cohort incidence bias adjustment to use information on survival and deaths recorded in vital registration to back-calculate HIV incidence. For countries without any representative data on HIV, we produced incidence estimates by pulling information from observed bias in the geographical region. We used a re-coded version of the Spectrum model (a cohort component model that uses rates of disease progression and HIV mortality on and off ART) to produce age-sex-specific incidence, prevalence, and mortality, and treatment coverage results for all countries, and forecast these measures to 2030 using Spectrum with inputs that were extended on the basis of past trends in treatment scale-up and new infections. Findings Global HIV mortality peaked in 2006 with 1·95 million deaths (95% uncertainty interval 1·87–2·04) and has since decreased to 0·95 million deaths (0·91–1·01) in 2017. New cases of HIV globally peaked in 1999 (3·16 million, 2·79–3·67) and since then have gradually decreased to 1·94 million (1·63–2·29) in 2017. These trends, along with ART scale-up, have globally resulted in increased prevalence, with 36·8 million (34·8–39·2) people living with HIV in 2017. Prevalence of HIV was highest in southern sub-Saharan Africa in 2017, and countries in the region had ART coverage ranging from 65·7% in Lesotho to 85·7% in eSwatini. Our forecasts showed that 54 countries will meet the UNAIDS target of 81% ART coverage by 2020 and 12 countries are on track to meet 90% ART coverage by 2030. Forecasted results estimate that few countries will meet the UNAIDS 2020 and 2030 mortality and incidence targets. Interpretation Despite progress in reducing HIV-related mortality over the past decade, slow decreases in incidence, combined with the current context of stagnated funding for related interventions, mean that many countries are not on track to reach the 2020 and 2030 global targets for reduction in incidence and mortality. With a growing population of people living with HIV, it will continue to be a major threat to public health for years to come. The pace of progress needs to be hastened by continuing to expand access to ART and increasing investments in proven HIV prevention initiatives that can be scaled up to have population-level impact

Past, present, and future of global health financing : a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 195 countries, 1995-2050

Background Comprehensive and comparable estimates of health spending in each country are a key input for health policy and planning, and are necessary to support the achievement of national and international health goals. Previous studies have tracked past and projected future health spending until 2040 and shown that, with economic development, countries tend to spend more on health per capita, with a decreasing share of spending from development assistance and out-of-pocket sources. We aimed to characterise the past, present, and predicted future of global health spending, with an emphasis on equity in spending across countries. Methods We estimated domestic health spending for 195 countries and territories from 1995 to 2016, split into three categories-government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending-and estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2018. We estimated future scenarios of health spending using an ensemble of linear mixed-effects models with time series specifications to project domestic health spending from 2017 through 2050 and DAH from 2019 through 2050. Data were extracted from a broad set of sources tracking health spending and revenue, and were standardised and converted to inflation-adjusted 2018 US dollars. Incomplete or low-quality data were modelled and uncertainty was estimated, leading to a complete data series of total, government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending, and DAH. Estimates are reported in 2018 US dollars, 2018 purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars, and as a percentage of gross domestic product. We used demographic decomposition methods to assess a set of factors associated with changes in government health spending between 1995 and 2016 and to examine evidence to support the theory of the health financing transition. We projected two alternative future scenarios based on higher government health spending to assess the potential ability of governments to generate more resources for health. Findings Between 1995 and 2016, health spending grew at a rate of 4.00% (95% uncertainty interval 3.89-4.12) annually, although it grew slower in per capita terms (2.72% [2.61-2.84]) and increased by less than $1 per capita over this period in 22 of 195 countries. The highest annual growth rates in per capita health spending were observed in upper-middle-income countries (5.55$ 8.0 trillion (7.8-8.1) in 2016 (comprising 8.6% [8.4-8.7] of the global economy and $10.3 trillion [10.1-10.6] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), with a per capita spending of US$ 5252 (5184-5319) in high-income countries, $491 (461-524) in upper-middle-income countries,$ 81 (74-89) in lower-middle-income countries, and $40 (38-43) in low-income countries. In 2016, 0.4$ 9.5 billion, 24.3% of total DAH), although spending on other infectious diseases (excluding tuberculosis and malaria) grew fastest from 2010 to 2018 (6.27% per year). The leading sources of DAH were the USA and private philanthropy (excluding corporate donations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). For the first time, we included estimates of China's contribution to DAH ($644.7 million in 2018). Globally, health spending is projected to increase to$ 15.0 trillion (14.0-16.0) by 2050 (reaching 9.4% [7.6-11.3] of the global economy and $ 21.3 trillion [19.8-23.1] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), but at a lower growth rate of 1.84% (1.68-2.02) annually, and with continuing disparities in spending between countries. In 2050, we estimate that 0.6% (0.6-0.7) of health spending will occur in currently low-income countries, despite these countries comprising an estimated 15.7% of the global population by 2050. The ratio between per capita health spending in high-income and low-income countries was 130.2 (122.9-136.9) in 2016 and is projected to remain at similar levels in 2050 (125.9 [113.7-138.1]). The decomposition analysis identified governments' increased prioritisation of the health sector and economic development as the strongest factors associated with increases in government health spending globally. Future government health spending scenarios suggest that, with greater prioritisation of the health sector and increased government spending, health spending per capita could more than double, with greater impacts in countries that currently have the lowest levels of government health spending. Interpretation Financing for global health has increased steadily over the past two decades and is projected to continue increasing in the future, although at a slower pace of growth and with persistent disparities in per-capita health spending between countries. Out-of-pocket spending is projected to remain substantial outside of high-income countries. Many low-income countries are expected to remain dependent on development assistance, although with greater government spending, larger investments in health are feasible. In the absence of sustained new investments in health, increasing efficiency in health spending is essential to meet global health targets.Peer reviewe

Past, present, and future of global health financing: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 195 countries, 1995–2050

Background: Comprehensive and comparable estimates of health spending in each country are a key input for health policy and planning, and are necessary to support the achievement of national and international health goals. Previous studies have tracked past and projected future health spending until 2040 and shown that, with economic development, countries tend to spend more on health per capita, with a decreasing share of spending from development assistance and out-of-pocket sources. We aimed to characterise the past, present, and predicted future of global health spending, with an emphasis on equity in spending across countries. Methods: We estimated domestic health spending for 195 countries and territories from 1995 to 2016, split into three categories—government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending—and estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2018. We estimated future scenarios of health spending using an ensemble of linear mixed-effects models with time series specifications to project domestic health spending from 2017 through 2050 and DAH from 2019 through 2050. Data were extracted from a broad set of sources tracking health spending and revenue, and were standardised and converted to inflation-adjusted 2018 US dollars. Incomplete or low-quality data were modelled and uncertainty was estimated, leading to a complete data series of total, government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending, and DAH. Estimates are reported in 2018 US dollars, 2018 purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars, and as a percentage of gross domestic product. We used demographic decomposition methods to assess a set of factors associated with changes in government health spending between 1995 and 2016 and to examine evidence to support the theory of the health financing transition. We projected two alternative future scenarios based on higher government health spending to assess the potential ability of governments to generate more resources for health. Findings: Between 1995 and 2016, health spending grew at a rate of 4·00% (95% uncertainty interval 3·89–4·12) annually, although it grew slower in per capita terms (2·72% [2·61–2·84]) and increased by less than $1 per capita over this period in 22 of 195 countries. The highest annual growth rates in per capita health spending were observed in upper-middle-income countries (5·55 in lower-middle-income countries (3·71$8·0 trillion (7·8–8·1) in 2016 (comprising 8·6% [8·4–8·7] of the global economy and $10·3 trillion [10·1–10·6] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), with a per capita spending of US$5252 (5184–5319) in high-income countries, $491 (461–524) in upper-middle-income countries,$81 (74–89) in lower-middle-income countries, and $40 (38–43) in low-income countries. In 2016, 0·4 countries, despite these countries comprising 10·0 DAH targeted HIV/AIDS ($9·5 billion, 24·3% of total DAH), although spending on other infectious diseases (excluding tuberculosis and malaria) grew fastest from 2010 to 2018 (6·27% per year). The leading sources of DAH were the USA and private philanthropy (excluding corporate donations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). For the first time, we included estimates of China’s contribution to DAH ($644·7 million in 2018). Globally, health spending is projected to increase to$15·0 trillion (14·0–16·0) by 2050 (reaching 9·4% [7·6–11·3] of the global economy and $21·3 trillion [19·8–23·1] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), but at a lower growth rate of 1·84% (1·68–2·02) annually, and with continuing disparities in spending between countries. In 2050, we estimate that 0·6% (0·6–0·7) of health spending will occur in currently low-income countries, despite these countries comprising an estimated 15·7% of the global population by 2050. The ratio between per capita health spending in high-income and low-income countries was 130·2 (122·9–136·9) in 2016 and is projected to remain at similar levels in 2050 (125·9 [113·7–138·1]). The decomposition analysis identified governments’ increased prioritisation of the health sector and economic development as the strongest factors associated with increases in government health spending globally. Future government health spending scenarios suggest that, with greater prioritisation of the health sector and increased government spending, health spending per capita could more than double, with greater impacts in countries that currently have the lowest levels of government health spending Interpretation: Financing for global health has increased steadily over the past two decades and is projected to continue increasing in the future, although at a slower pace of growth and with persistent disparities in per-capita health spending between countries. Out-of-pocket spending is projected to remain substantial outside of high-income countries. Many low-income countries are expected to remain dependent on development assistance, although with greater government spending, larger investments in health are feasible. In the absence of sustained new investments in health, increasing efficiency in health spending is essential to meet global health targets. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundatio

Health sector spending and spending on HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and development assistance for health: progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3

Background: Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 aims to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”. While a substantial effort has been made to quantify progress towards SDG3, less research has focused on tracking spending towards this goal. We used spending estimates to measure progress in financing the priority areas of SDG3, examine the association between outcomes and financing, and identify where resource gains are most needed to achieve the SDG3 indicators for which data are available. Methods: We estimated domestic health spending, disaggregated by source (government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private) from 1995 to 2017 for 195 countries and territories. For disease-specific health spending, we estimated spending for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis for 135 low-income and middle-income countries, and malaria in 106 malaria-endemic countries, from 2000 to 2017. We also estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2019, by source, disbursing development agency, recipient, and health focus area, including DAH for pandemic preparedness. Finally, we estimated future health spending for 195 countries and territories from 2018 until 2030. We report all spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2019 US$, unless otherwise stated. Findings: Since the development and implementation of the SDGs in 2015, global health spending has increased, reaching$7·9 trillion (95% uncertainty interval 7·8–8·0) in 2017 and is expected to increase to $11·0 trillion (10·7–11·2) by 2030. In 2017, in low-income and middle-income countries spending on HIV/AIDS was$20·2 billion (17·0–25·0) and on tuberculosis it was $10·9 billion (10·3–11·8), and in malaria-endemic countries spending on malaria was$5·1 billion (4·9–5·4). Development assistance for health was $40·6 billion in 2019 and HIV/AIDS has been the health focus area to receive the highest contribution since 2004. In 2019,$374 million of DAH was provided for pandemic preparedness, less than 1% of DAH. Although spending has increased across HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria since 2015, spending has not increased in all countries, and outcomes in terms of prevalence, incidence, and per-capita spending have been mixed. The proportion of health spending from pooled sources is expected to increase from 81·6% (81·6–81·7) in 2015 to 83·1% (82·8–83·3) in 2030. Interpretation: Health spending on SDG3 priority areas has increased, but not in all countries, and progress towards meeting the SDG3 targets has been mixed and has varied by country and by target. The evidence on the scale-up of spending and improvements in health outcomes suggest a nuanced relationship, such that increases in spending do not always results in improvements in outcomes. Although countries will probably need more resources to achieve SDG3, other constraints in the broader health system such as inefficient allocation of resources across interventions and populations, weak governance systems, human resource shortages, and drug shortages, will also need to be addressed. Funding: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundatio