Predicting the environmental suitability for onchocerciasis in Africa as an aid to elimination planning

Recent evidence suggests that, in some foci, elimination of onchocerciasis from Africa may be feasible with mass drug administration (MDA) of ivermectin. To achieve continental elimination of transmission, mapping surveys will need to be conducted across all implementation units (IUs) for which endemicity status is currently unknown. Using boosted regression tree models with optimised hyperparameter selection, we estimated environmental suitability for onchocerciasis at the 5 × 5-km resolution across Africa. In order to classify IUs that include locations that are environmentally suitable, we used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to identify an optimal threshold for suitability concordant with locations where onchocerciasis has been previously detected. This threshold value was then used to classify IUs (more suitable or less suitable) based on the location within the IU with the largest mean prediction. Mean estimates of environmental suitability suggest large areas across West and Central Africa, as well as focal areas of East Africa, are suitable for onchocerciasis transmission, consistent with the presence of current control and elimination of transmission efforts. The ROC analysis identified a mean environmental suitability index of 071 as a threshold to classify based on the location with the largest mean prediction within the IU. Of the IUs considered for mapping surveys, 502% exceed this threshold for suitability in at least one 5 × 5-km location. The formidable scale of data collection required to map onchocerciasis endemicity across the African continent presents an opportunity to use spatial data to identify areas likely to be suitable for onchocerciasis transmission. National onchocerciasis elimination programmes may wish to consider prioritising these IUs for mapping surveys as human resources, laboratory capacity, and programmatic schedules may constrain survey implementation, and possibly delaying MDA initiation in areas that would ultimately qualify.SUPPORTING INFORMATION : FIGURE S1. Data coverage by year. Here we visualise the volume of data used in the analysis by country and year. Larger circles indicate more data inputs. ‘NA’ indicates records for which no year was reported (eg, ‘pre-2000’). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s001FIGURE S2. Illustration of covariate values for year 2000. Maps were produced using ArcGIS Desktop 10.6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s002FIGURE S3. Environmental suitability of onchocerciasis including locations that have received MDA for which no pre-intervention data are available. This plot shows suitability predictions from green (low = 0%) to pink (high = 100%), representing those areas where environmental conditions are most similar to prior pathogen detections. Countries in grey with hatch marks were excluded from the analysis based on a review of national endemicity status. Areas in grey only represent locations masked due to sparse population. Maps were produced using ArcGIS Desktop 10.6 and shapefiles to visualize administrative units are available at https://espen.afro.who.int/tools-resources/cartography-database. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s003FIGURE S4. Environmental suitability prediction uncertainty including locations that have received MDA for which no pre-intervention data are available. This plot shows uncertainty associated with environmental suitability predictions colored from blue to red (least to most uncertain). Countries in grey with hatch marks were excluded from the analysis based on a review of national endemicity status. Areas in grey only represent locations masked due to sparse population. Maps were produced using ArcGIS Desktop 10.6 and shapefiles to visualize administrative units are available at https://espen.afro.who.int/tools-resources/cartography-database. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s004FIGURE S5. Environmental suitability of onchocerciasis excluding morbidity data. This plot shows suitability predictions from green (low = 0%) to pink (high = 100%), representing those areas where environmental conditions are most similar to prior pathogen detections. Countries in grey with hatch marks were excluded from the analysis based on a review of national endemicity status. Areas in grey only represent locations masked due to sparse population. Maps were produced using ArcGIS Desktop 10.6 and shapefiles to visualize administrative units are available at https://espen.afro.who.int/tools-resources/cartography-database. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s005FIGURE S6. Environmental suitability prediction uncertainty excluding morbidity data. This plot shows uncertainty associated with environmental suitability predictions colored from blue to red (least to most uncertain). Countries in grey with hatch marks were excluded from the analysis based on a review of national endemicity status. Areas in grey only represent locations masked due to sparse population. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s006FIGURE S7. Covariate Effect Curves for all onchocerciasis occurrences (measures of infection prevalence and disability). On the right set of axes we show the frequency density of the occurrences taking covariate values over 20 bins of the horizontal axis. The left set of axes shows the effect of each on the model, where the mean effect is plotted on the black line and its uncertainty is represented by the upper and lower confidence interval bounds plotted in dark grey. The figures show the fit per covariate relative to the data that correspond to specific values of the covariate. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s007FIGURE S8. Covariate Effect Curves for all onchocerciasis occurrences (measures of infection prevalence and disability). On the right set of axes we show the frequency density of the occurrences taking covariate values over 20 bins of the horizontal axis. The left set of axes shows the effect of each on the model, where the mean effect is plotted on the black line and its uncertainty is represented by the upper and lower confidence interval bounds plotted in dark grey. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s008FIGURE S9. ROC analysis for threshold. Results of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis are presented below, with false positive rate (FPR) on the x-axis and true positive rate (TPR) on the y-axis. The red dot on the curve represents the location on the curve that corresponds to a threshold that most closely agreed with the input data. For each of the 100 BRT models, we estimated the optimal threshold that maximised agreement between occurrence inputs (considered true positives) and the mean model predictions as 0·71. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s009TABLE S1. Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) checklist. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s010TABLE S2. Total number of occurrence data classified as point and polygon inputs by diagnostic. We present the total number of occurrence points extracted from the input data sources by diagnostic type. ‘Other diagnostics’ include: DEC Patch test; Knott’s Method (Mazotti Test); 2 types of LAMP; blood smears; and urine tests. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s011TABLE S3. Total number of occurrence data classified as point and polygon inputs by location. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s012TABLE S4. Covariate information. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s013TEXT S1. Details outlining construction of occurrence dataset. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s014TEXT S2. Covariate rationale. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s015TEXT S3. Boosted regression tree methodology additional details. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s016APPENDIX S1. Country-level maps and data results. Maps were produced using ArcGIS Desktop 10.6 and shapefiles to visualize administrative units are available at https://espen.afro.who.int/tools-resources/cartography-database. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008824.s017This work was primarily supported by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation OPP1132415 (SIH). Financial support from the Neglected Tropical Disease Modelling Consortium (https://www.ntdmodelling.org/), which is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (grants No. OPP1184344 and OPP1186851), and joint centre funding (grant No. MR/R015600/1) by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) under the MRC/DFID Concordat agreement which is also part of the EDCTP2 programme supported by the European Union (MGB).The Neglected Tropical Disease Modelling Consortium which is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) under the MRC/DFID Concordat agreement which is also part of the EDCTP2 programme supported by the European Union (MGB).http://www.plosNTDS.orgam2022Medical Microbiolog

Mapping local patterns of childhood overweight and wasting in low- and middle-income countries between 2000 and 2017

A double burden of malnutrition occurs when individuals, household members or communities experience both undernutrition and overweight. Here, we show geospatial estimates of overweight and wasting prevalence among children under 5 years of age in 105 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) from 2000 to 2017 and aggregate these to policy-relevant administrative units. Wasting decreased overall across LMICs between 2000 and 2017, from 8.4 (62.3 (55.1�70.8) million) to 6.4 (58.3 (47.6�70.7) million), but is predicted to remain above the World Health Organization�s Global Nutrition Target of <5 in over half of LMICs by 2025. Prevalence of overweight increased from 5.2 (30 (22.8�38.5) million) in 2000 to 6.0 (55.5 (44.8�67.9) million) children aged under 5 years in 2017. Areas most affected by double burden of malnutrition were located in Indonesia, Thailand, southeastern China, Botswana, Cameroon and central Nigeria. Our estimates provide a new perspective to researchers, policy makers and public health agencies in their efforts to address this global childhood syndemic. © 2020, The Author(s)

Mapping routine measles vaccination in low- and middle-income countries

The safe, highly effective measles vaccine has been recommended globally since 1974, yet in 2017 there were more than 17 million cases of measles and 83,400 deaths in children under 5 years old, and more than 99% of both occurred in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)(1-4). Globally comparable, annual, local estimates of routine first-dose measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) coverage are critical for understanding geographically precise immunity patterns, progress towards the targets of the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), and high-risk areas amid disruptions to vaccination programmes caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)(5-8). Here we generated annual estimates of routine childhood MCV1 coverage at 5 x 5-km(2) pixel and second administrative levels from 2000 to 2019 in 101 LMICs, quantified geographical inequality and assessed vaccination status by geographical remoteness. After widespread MCV1 gains from 2000 to 2010, coverage regressed in more than half of the districts between 2010 and 2019, leaving many LMICs far from the GVAP goal of 80% coverage in all districts by 2019. MCV1 coverage was lower in rural than in urban locations, although a larger proportion of unvaccinated children overall lived in urban locations; strategies to provide essential vaccination services should address both geographical contexts. These results provide a tool for decision-makers to strengthen routine MCV1 immunization programmes and provide equitable disease protection for all children.Peer reviewe

Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990–2050

Background The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. Methods We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. Findings In 2019, health spending globally reached$8·8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8·7–8·8) or $1132 (1119–1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total,$40·4 billion (0·5%, 95% UI 0·5–0·5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24·6% (UI 24·0–25·1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54·8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this,$13·7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12·3 billion was newly committed and$1·4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3·1 billion (22·4$2·4 billion (17·9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714·4 million (7·7$1519 (1448–1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. Interpretation Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all

Mapping routine measles vaccination in low- and middle-income countries

The safe, highly effective measles vaccine has been recommended globally since 1974, yet in 2017 there were more than 17 million cases of measles and 83,400 deaths in children under 5 years old, and more than 99% of both occurred in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)1,2,3,4. Globally comparable, annual, local estimates of routine first-dose measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) coverage are critical for understanding geographically precise immunity patterns, progress towards the targets of the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), and high-risk areas amid disruptions to vaccination programmes caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)5,6,7,8. Here we generated annual estimates of routine childhood MCV1 coverage at 5 × 5-km2 pixel and second administrative levels from 2000 to 2019 in 101 LMICs, quantified geographical inequality and assessed vaccination status by geographical remoteness. After widespread MCV1 gains from 2000 to 2010, coverage regressed in more than half of the districts between 2010 and 2019, leaving many LMICs far from the GVAP goal of 80% coverage in all districts by 2019. MCV1 coverage was lower in rural than in urban locations, although a larger proportion of unvaccinated children overall lived in urban locations; strategies to provide essential vaccination services should address both geographical contexts. These results provide a tool for decision-makers to strengthen routine MCV1 immunization programmes and provide equitable disease protection for all children

Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050

Background The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. Methods We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. Findings In 2019, health spending globally reached$8. 8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8.7-8.8) or $1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total,$40.4 billion (0.5%, 95% UI 0.5-0.5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24.6% (UI 24.0-25.1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54.8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this,$13.7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12.3 billion was newly committed and$1.4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3.1 billion (22.4$2.4 billion (17.9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714.4 million (7.7$1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. Interpretation Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd

Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-Years for 29 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2017: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study.

Importance: Cancer and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are now widely recognized as a threat to global development. The latest United Nations high-level meeting on NCDs reaffirmed this observation and also highlighted the slow progress in meeting the 2011 Political Declaration on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases and the third Sustainable Development Goal. Lack of situational analyses, priority setting, and budgeting have been identified as major obstacles in achieving these goals. All of these have in common that they require information on the local cancer epidemiology. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is uniquely poised to provide these crucial data. Objective: To describe cancer burden for 29 cancer groups in 195 countries from 1990 through 2017 to provide data needed for cancer control planning. Evidence Review: We used the GBD study estimation methods to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Results are presented at the national level as well as by Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a composite indicator of income, educational attainment, and total fertility rate. We also analyzed the influence of the epidemiological vs the demographic transition on cancer incidence. Findings: In 2017, there were 24.5 million incident cancer cases worldwide (16.8 million without nonmelanoma skin cancer [NMSC]) and 9.6 million cancer deaths. The majority of cancer DALYs came from years of life lost (97%), and only 3% came from years lived with disability. The odds of developing cancer were the lowest in the low SDI quintile (1 in 7) and the highest in the high SDI quintile (1 in 2) for both sexes. In 2017, the most common incident cancers in men were NMSC (4.3 million incident cases); tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer (1.5 million incident cases); and prostate cancer (1.3 million incident cases). The most common causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for men were TBL cancer (1.3 million deaths and 28.4 million DALYs), liver cancer (572 000 deaths and 15.2 million DALYs), and stomach cancer (542 000 deaths and 12.2 million DALYs). For women in 2017, the most common incident cancers were NMSC (3.3 million incident cases), breast cancer (1.9 million incident cases), and colorectal cancer (819 000 incident cases). The leading causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for women were breast cancer (601 000 deaths and 17.4 million DALYs), TBL cancer (596 000 deaths and 12.6 million DALYs), and colorectal cancer (414 000 deaths and 8.3 million DALYs). Conclusions and Relevance: The national epidemiological profiles of cancer burden in the GBD study show large heterogeneities, which are a reflection of different exposures to risk factors, economic settings, lifestyles, and access to care and screening. The GBD study can be used by policy makers and other stakeholders to develop and improve national and local cancer control in order to achieve the global targets and improve equity in cancer care

Estimating global injuries morbidity and mortality:methods and data used in the Global Burden of Disease 2017 study

Background: While there is a long history of measuring death and disability from injuries, modern research methods must account for the wide spectrum of disability that can occur in an injury, and must provide estimates with sufficient demographic, geographical and temporal detail to be useful for policy makers. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study used methods to provide highly detailed estimates of global injury burden that meet these criteria. Methods: In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced. Results: GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes. Conclusions: GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future. </p