Extreme genomic erosion after recurrent demographic bottlenecks in the highly endangered Iberian lynx

Background: Genomic studies of endangered species provide insights into their evolution and demographic history, reveal patterns of genomic erosion that might limit their viability, and offer tools for their effective conservation. The Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) is the most endangered felid and a unique example of a species on the brink of extinction. Results: We generate the first annotated draft of the Iberian lynx genome and carry out genome-based analyses of lynx demography, evolution, and population genetics. We identify a series of severe population bottlenecks in the history of the Iberian lynx that predate its known demographic decline during the 20th century and have greatly impacted its genome evolution. We observe drastically reduced rates of weak-to-strong substitutions associated with GC-biased gene conversion and increased rates of fixation of transposable elements. We also find multiple signatures of genetic erosion in the two remnant Iberian lynx populations, including a high frequency of potentially deleterious variants and substitutions, as well as the lowest genome-wide genetic diversity reported so far in any species. Conclusions: The genomic features observed in the Iberian lynx genome may hamper short- and long-term viability through reduced fitness and adaptive potential. The knowledge and resources developed in this study will boost the research on felid evolution and conservation genomics and will benefit the ongoing conservation and management of this emblematic species

Spatial, temporal, and demographic patterns in prevalence of smoking tobacco use and attributable disease burden in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019 : a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Ending the global tobacco epidemic is a defining challenge in global health. Timely and comprehensive estimates of the prevalence of smoking tobacco use and attributable disease burden are needed to guide tobacco control efforts nationally and globally. Methods We estimated the prevalence of smoking tobacco use and attributable disease burden for 204 countries and territories, by age and sex, from 1990 to 2019 as part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study. We modelled multiple smoking-related indicators from 3625 nationally representative surveys. We completed systematic reviews and did Bayesian meta-regressions for 36 causally linked health outcomes to estimate non-linear dose-response risk curves for current and former smokers. We used a direct estimation approach to estimate attributable burden, providing more comprehensive estimates of the health effects of smoking than previously available. Findings Globally in 2019, 1.14 billion (95% uncertainty interval 1.13-1.16) individuals were current smokers, who consumed 7.41 trillion (7.11-7.74) cigarette-equivalents of tobacco in 2019. Although prevalence of smoking had decreased significantly since 1990 among both males (27.5% [26. 5-28.5] reduction) and females (37.7% [35.4-39.9] reduction) aged 15 years and older, population growth has led to a significant increase in the total number of smokers from 0.99 billion (0.98-1.00) in 1990. Globally in 2019, smoking tobacco use accounted for 7.69 million (7.16-8.20) deaths and 200 million (185-214) disability-adjusted life-years, and was the leading risk factor for death among males (20.2% [19.3-21.1] of male deaths). 6.68 million [86.9%] of 7.69 million deaths attributable to smoking tobacco use were among current smokers. Interpretation In the absence of intervention, the annual toll of 7.69 million deaths and 200 million disability-adjusted life-years attributable to smoking will increase over the coming decades. Substantial progress in reducing the prevalence of smoking tobacco use has been observed in countries from all regions and at all stages of development, but a large implementation gap remains for tobacco control. Countries have a dear and urgent opportunity to pass strong, evidence-based policies to accelerate reductions in the prevalence of smoking and reap massive health benefits for their citizens. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

Seguimiento de las guías españolas para el manejo del asma por el médico de atención primaria: un estudio observacional ambispectivo

Objetivo Evaluar el grado de seguimiento de las recomendaciones de las versiones de la Guía española para el manejo del asma (GEMA 2009 y 2015) y su repercusión en el control de la enfermedad. Material y métodos Estudio observacional y ambispectivo realizado entre septiembre del 2015 y abril del 2016, en el que participaron 314 médicos de atención primaria y 2.864 pacientes. Resultados Utilizando datos retrospectivos, 81 de los 314 médicos (25, 8% [IC del 95%, 21, 3 a 30, 9]) comunicaron seguir las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2009. Al inicio del estudio, 88 de los 314 médicos (28, 0% [IC del 95%, 23, 4 a 33, 2]) seguían las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2015. El tener un asma mal controlada (OR 0, 19, IC del 95%, 0, 13 a 0, 28) y presentar un asma persistente grave al inicio del estudio (OR 0, 20, IC del 95%, 0, 12 a 0, 34) se asociaron negativamente con tener un asma bien controlada al final del seguimiento. Por el contrario, el seguimiento de las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2015 se asoció de manera positiva con una mayor posibilidad de que el paciente tuviera un asma bien controlada al final del periodo de seguimiento (OR 1, 70, IC del 95%, 1, 40 a 2, 06). Conclusiones El escaso seguimiento de las guías clínicas para el manejo del asma constituye un problema común entre los médicos de atención primaria. Un seguimiento de estas guías se asocia con un control mejor del asma. Existe la necesidad de actuaciones que puedan mejorar el seguimiento por parte de los médicos de atención primaria de las guías para el manejo del asma. Objective: To assess the degree of compliance with the recommendations of the 2009 and 2015 versions of the Spanish guidelines for managing asthma (Guía Española para el Manejo del Asma [GEMA]) and the effect of this compliance on controlling the disease. Material and methods: We conducted an observational ambispective study between September 2015 and April 2016 in which 314 primary care physicians and 2864 patients participated. Results: Using retrospective data, we found that 81 of the 314 physicians (25.8%; 95% CI 21.3–30.9) stated that they complied with the GEMA2009 recommendations. At the start of the study, 88 of the 314 physicians (28.0%; 95% CI 23.4–33.2) complied with the GEMA2015 recommendations. Poorly controlled asthma (OR, 0.19; 95% CI 0.13–0.28) and persistent severe asthma at the start of the study (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.12–0.34) were negatively associated with having well-controlled asthma by the end of the follow-up. In contrast, compliance with the GEMA2015 recommendations was positively associated with a greater likelihood that the patient would have well-controlled asthma by the end of the follow-up (OR, 1.70; 95% CI 1.40–2.06). Conclusions: Low compliance with the clinical guidelines for managing asthma is a common problem among primary care physicians. Compliance with these guidelines is associated with better asthma control. Actions need to be taken to improve primary care physician compliance with the asthma management guidelines

Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations. METHODS The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds. FINDINGS The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles. INTERPRETATION Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Disengagement From Early Intervention Services for Psychosis: A Systematic Review

Objective: Therapeutic benefits associated with early services for psychosis are influenced by the degree to which participants engage in treatment. The main objective of this review was to analyze rates of disengagement in early psychosis services and identify predictors of disengagement in these settings.Methods: A systematic search for studies published in the 1966-2019 period was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Ovid, and Embase. The Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies scale was used to assess the methodological quality of reports identified in this search. A revised version of the behavioral model of health service use was employed to evaluate and understand predictors of disengagement (categorized as predisposing, enabling, and need factors) identified in the studies with the highest quality.Results: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Disengagement rates (12% to 53%) and definitions of disengagement varied widely across these studies. Most did not find a compelling association between predisposing factors (e.g., age) and disengagement. Enabling factors, such as Lack of family support and living alone, were consistently found to be related to increased disengagement across studies. Finally, need factors, such as lower medication adherence and higher drug misuse, were associated with higher risk for disengagement.Conclusions: Enabling and need factors seemed to be the most predictive of disengagement from early psychosis services. Substantial between-study variation in identified predictors of disengagement may be addressed by developing and applying a consensus definition of disengagement in future research

Disengagement From Early Intervention Services for Psychosis: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE: Therapeutic benefits associated with early services for psychosis are influenced by the degree to which participants engage in treatment. The main objective of this review was to analyze rates of disengagement in early psychosis services and identify predictors of disengagement in these settings. METHODS: A systematic search for studies published in the 1966-2019 period was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Ovid, and Embase. The Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies scale was used to assess the methodological quality of reports identified in this search. A revised version of the behavioral model of health service use was employed to evaluate and understand predictors of disengagement (categorized as predisposing, enabling, and need factors) identified in the studies with the highest quality. RESULTS: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Disengagement rates (12% to 53%) and definitions of disengagement varied widely across these studies. Most did not find a compelling association between predisposing factors (e.g., age) and disengagement. Enabling factors, such as lack of family support and living alone, were consistently found to be related to increased disengagement across studies. Finally, need factors, such as lower medication adherence and higher drug misuse, were associated with higher risk for disengagement. CONCLUSIONS: Enabling and need factors seemed to be the most predictive of disengagement from early psychosis services. Substantial between-study variation in identified predictors of disengagement may be addressed by developing and applying a consensus definition of disengagement in future research