Five insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a rules-based synthesis of the available evidence on levels and trends in health outcomes, a diverse set of risk factors, and health system responses. GBD 2019 covered 204 countries and territories, as well as first administrative level disaggregations for 22 countries, from 1990 to 2019. Because GBD is highly standardised and comprehensive, spanning both fatal and non-fatal outcomes, and uses a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of hierarchical disease and injury causes, the study provides a powerful basis for detailed and broad insights on global health trends and emerging challenges. GBD 2019 incorporates data from 281 586 sources and provides more than 3.5 billion estimates of health outcome and health system measures of interest for global, national, and subnational policy dialogue. All GBD estimates are publicly available and adhere to the Guidelines on Accurate and Transparent Health Estimate Reporting. From this vast amount of information, five key insights that are important for health, social, and economic development strategies have been distilled. These insights are subject to the many limitations outlined in each of the component GBD capstone papers.Peer reviewe

The global, regional, and national burden of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Background Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is a common chronic ailment that causes uncomfortable symptoms and increases the risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. We aimed to report the burden of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in 195 countries and territories between 1990 and 2017, using data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017. Methods We did a systematic review to identify measurements of the prevalence of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in geographically defined populations worldwide between 1990 and 2017. These estimates were analysed with DisMod-MR, a Bayesian mixed-effects meta-regression tool that incorporates predictive covariates and adjustments for differences in study design in a geographical cascade of models. Fitted values for broader geographical units inform prior distributions for finer geographical units. Prevalence was estimated for 195 countries and territories. Reports of the frequency and severity of symptoms among individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease were used to estimate the prevalence of cases with no, mild to moderate, or severe to very severe symptoms at a given time; these estimates were multiplied by disability weights to estimate years lived with disability (YLD). Findings Data to estimate gastro-oesophageal reflux disease burden were scant, totalling 144 location-years (unique measurements from a year and location, regardless of whether a study reported them alongside measurements for other locations or years) of prevalence data. These came from six (86%) of seven GBD super-regions, 11 (52%) of 21 GBD regions, and 39 (20%) of 195 countries and territories. Mean estimates of age-standardised prevalence for all locations in 2017 ranged from 4408 cases per 100 000 population to 14 035 cases per 100 000 population. Age-standardised prevalence was highest (>11 000 cases per 100 000 population) in the USA, Italy, Greece, New Zealand, and several countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, north Africa and the Middle East, and eastern Europe; it was lowest (<7000 cases per 100 000 population) in the high-income Asia Pacific, east Asia, Iceland, France, Denmark, and Switzerland. Global prevalence peaked at ages 75–79 years, at 18 820 (95% uncertainty interval [95% UI] 13 770–24 000) cases per 100 000 population. Global age-standardised prevalence was stable between 1990 and 2017 (8791 [95% UI 7772–9834] cases per 100 000 population in 1990 and 8819 [7781–9863] cases per 100 000 population in 2017, percentage change 0·3% [–0·3 to 0·9]), but all-age prevalence increased by 18·1% (15·6–20·4) between 1990 and 2017, from 7859 (6905–8851) cases per 100  000 population in 1990 to 9283 (8189–10 400) cases per 100  000 population in 2017. YLDs increased by 67·1% (95% UI 63·5–70·3) between 1990 and 2017, from 3·60 million (1·93–6·12) in 1990 to 6·01 million (3·22–10·19) in 2017. Interpretation Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is common worldwide, although less so in much of eastern Asia. The stability of our global age-standardised prevalence estimates over time suggests that the epidemiology of the disease has not changed, but the estimates of all-age prevalence and YLDs, which increased between 1990 and 2017, suggest that the burden of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is nonetheless increasing as a result of ageing and population growth. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Measuring universal health coverage based on an index of effective coverage of health services in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) involves all people receiving the health services they need, of high quality, without experiencing financial hardship. Making progress towards UHC is a policy priority for both countries and global institutions, as highlighted by the agenda of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and WHO's Thirteenth General Programme of Work (GPW13). Measuring effective coverage at the health-system level is important for understanding whether health services are aligned with countries' health profiles and are of sufficient quality to produce health gains for populations of all ages. Methods Based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, we assessed UHC effective coverage for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Drawing from a measurement framework developed through WHO's GPW13 consultation, we mapped 23 effective coverage indicators to a matrix representing health service types (eg, promotion, prevention, and treatment) and five population-age groups spanning from reproductive and newborn to older adults (≥65 years). Effective coverage indicators were based on intervention coverage or outcome-based measures such as mortality-to-incidence ratios to approximate access to quality care; outcome-based measures were transformed to values on a scale of 0–100 based on the 2·5th and 97·5th percentile of location-year values. We constructed the UHC effective coverage index by weighting each effective coverage indicator relative to its associated potential health gains, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years for each location-year and population-age group. For three tests of validity (content, known-groups, and convergent), UHC effective coverage index performance was generally better than that of other UHC service coverage indices from WHO (ie, the current metric for SDG indicator 3.8.1 on UHC service coverage), the World Bank, and GBD 2017. We quantified frontiers of UHC effective coverage performance on the basis of pooled health spending per capita, representing UHC effective coverage index levels achieved in 2019 relative to country-level government health spending, prepaid private expenditures, and development assistance for health. To assess current trajectories towards the GPW13 UHC billion target—1 billion more people benefiting from UHC by 2023—we estimated additional population equivalents with UHC effective coverage from 2018 to 2023. Findings Globally, performance on the UHC effective coverage index improved from 45·8 (95% uncertainty interval 44·2–47·5) in 1990 to 60·3 (58·7–61·9) in 2019, yet country-level UHC effective coverage in 2019 still spanned from 95 or higher in Japan and Iceland to lower than 25 in Somalia and the Central African Republic. Since 2010, sub-Saharan Africa showed accelerated gains on the UHC effective coverage index (at an average increase of 2·6% [1·9–3·3] per year up to 2019); by contrast, most other GBD super-regions had slowed rates of progress in 2010–2019 relative to 1990–2010. Many countries showed lagging performance on effective coverage indicators for non-communicable diseases relative to those for communicable diseases and maternal and child health, despite non-communicable diseases accounting for a greater proportion of potential health gains in 2019, suggesting that many health systems are not keeping pace with the rising non-communicable disease burden and associated population health needs. In 2019, the UHC effective coverage index was associated with pooled health spending per capita (r=0·79), although countries across the development spectrum had much lower UHC effective coverage than is potentially achievable relative to their health spending. Under maximum efficiency of translating health spending into UHC effective coverage performance, countries would need to reach $1398 pooled health spending per capita (US$ adjusted for purchasing power parity) in order to achieve 80 on the UHC effective coverage index. From 2018 to 2023, an estimated 388·9 million (358·6–421·3) more population equivalents would have UHC effective coverage, falling well short of the GPW13 target of 1 billion more people benefiting from UHC during this time. Current projections point to an estimated 3·1 billion (3·0–3·2) population equivalents still lacking UHC effective coverage in 2023, with nearly a third (968·1 million [903·5–1040·3]) residing in south Asia. Interpretation The present study demonstrates the utility of measuring effective coverage and its role in supporting improved health outcomes for all people—the ultimate goal of UHC and its achievement. Global ambitions to accelerate progress on UHC service coverage are increasingly unlikely unless concerted action on non-communicable diseases occurs and countries can better translate health spending into improved performance. Focusing on effective coverage and accounting for the world's evolving health needs lays the groundwork for better understanding how close—or how far—all populations are in benefiting from UHC. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation