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

Prevalence, years lived with disability, and trends in anaemia burden by severity and cause, 1990-2021: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background Anaemia is a major health problem worldwide. Global estimates of anaemia burden are crucial for developing appropriate interventions to meet current international targets for disease mitigation. We describe the prevalence, years lived with disability, and trends of anaemia and its underlying causes in 204 countries and territories. Methods We estimated population-level distributions of haemoglobin concentration by age and sex for each location from 1990 to 2021. We then calculated anaemia burden by severity and associated years lived with disability (YLDs). With data on prevalence of the causes of anaemia and associated cause-specific shifts in haemoglobin concentrations, we modelled the proportion of anaemia attributed to 37 underlying causes for all locations, years, and demographics in the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Findings In 2021, the global prevalence of anaemia across all ages was 24·3% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 23·9–24·7), corresponding to 1·92 billion (1·89–1·95) prevalent cases, compared with a prevalence of 28·2% (27·8–28·5) and 1·50 billion (1·48–1·52) prevalent cases in 1990. Large variations were observed in anaemia burden by age, sex, and geography, with children younger than 5 years, women, and countries in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia being particularly affected. Anaemia caused 52·0 million (35·1–75·1) YLDs in 2021, and the YLD rate due to anaemia declined with increasing Socio-demographic Index. The most common causes of anaemia YLDs in 2021 were dietary iron deficiency (cause-specific anaemia YLD rate per 100 000 population: 422·4 [95% UI 286·1–612·9]), haemoglobinopathies and haemolytic anaemias (89·0 [58·2–123·7]), and other neglected tropical diseases (36·3 [24·4–52·8]), collectively accounting for 84·7% (84·1–85·2) of anaemia YLDs. Interpretation Anaemia remains a substantial global health challenge, with persistent disparities according to age, sex, and geography. Estimates of cause-specific anaemia burden can be used to design locally relevant health interventions aimed at improving anaemia management and prevention. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Pragmatic recommendations for the use of diagnostic testing and prognostic models in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries

Management of patients with severe or critical COVID-19 is mainly based on care for patients with severe pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from other causes, although some aspects of this new disease may demand a different approach. Recommendations for treatment of severe pneumonia and ARDS management have been gathered mainly from investigations in resource-rich intensive care units (ICUs), mostly located in high-income countries (HICs). It may not be practical to apply these recommendations to resource-restricted settings, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Indeed, high dependency units and ICUs in LMICs are frequently restricted in availability of infrastructure, equipment, medications, skilled nurses, and doctors. An international task force composed of members from LMICs and HICs, all with direct experience in various LMIC settings, critically appraised a list of questions regarding laboratory tests (including microbiology), lung imaging, and the use of diagnostic and prognostic models for patients with severe COVID-19. We provide a list of recommendations and suggestions after pragmatic, experience-based appraisal. A summary of the recommendations is shown in Table 1. Note that although these recommendations are formulated specifically for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe or critical disease, as defined by the WHO,1 many are applicable to patients with lower severity of disease