Academic and clinical preparation in speech-language pathology and audiology: a global training consortium

ABSTRACT: Purpose: To describe a research-based global\ud curriculum in speech-language pathology and audiology that\ud is part of a funded cross-linguistic consortium among 2 U.S.\ud and 2 Brazilian universities.\ud Method: The need for a global curriculum in speechlanguage\ud pathology and audiology is outlined, and different\ud funding sources are identified to support development of a\ud global curriculum. The U.S. Department of Education’s Fund\ud for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE), in\ud conjunction with the Brazilian Ministry of Education (Fundacao\ud Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel\ud Superior; CAPES), funded the establishment of a shared\ud research curriculum project, “Consortium for Promoting\ud Cross-Linguistic Understanding of Communication Disabilities\ud in Children” for East Tennessee State University and the University of Northern Iowa and 2 Brazilian universities\ud (Universidade Federal de Santa Maria and Universidade de\ud São Paulo-Baurú).\ud Results: The goals and objectives of the research-based\ud global curriculum are summarized, and a description of an\ud Internet-based course, “Different Languages, One World,” is\ud provided\ud Conclusion: Partnerships such as the FIPSE–CAPES consortium\ud provide a foundation for training future generations of\ud globally and research-prepared practitioners in speechlanguage\ud pathology and audiology.U.S. Department of Education Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education P116M100014Brazilian Ministry of Education Fundacao Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior 094/1

Porous Salts Containing Cationic Al24-Hydroxide-Acetate Clusters from Scalable, Green and Aqueous Synthesis Routes

The solution chemistry of aluminum is highly complex and various polyoxocations are known. Here we report on the facile synthesis of a cationic Al24 cluster that forms porous salts of composition [Al24 (OH)56 (CH3 COO)12 ]X4 , denoted CAU-55-X, with X=Cl- , Br- , I- , HSO4 - . Three-dimensional electron diffraction was employed to determine the crystal structures. Various robust and mild synthesis routes for the chloride salt [Al24 (OH)56 (CH3 COO)12 ]Cl4 in water were established resulting in high yields (>95 %, 215 g per batch) within minutes. Specific surface areas and H2 O capacities with maximum values of up to 930 m2  g-1 and 430 mg g-1 are observed. The particle size of CAU-55-X can be tuned between 140 nm and 1250 nm, permitting its synthesis as stable dispersions or as highly crystalline powders. The positive surface charge of the particles, allow fast and effective adsorption of anionic dye molecules and adsorption of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

Metal-Dependent and Selective Crystallization of CAU-10 and MIL-53 Frameworks through Linker Nitration

The reaction of the V-shaped linker molecule 5-hydroxyisophthalic acid (H2 L0 ), with Al or Ga nitrate under almost identical reaction conditions leads to the nitration of the linker and subsequent formation of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) with CAU-10 or MIL-53 type structure of composition [Al(OH)(L)], denoted as Al-CAU-10-L0, 2, 4, 6 or [Ga(OH)(L)], denoted as Ga-MIL-53-L2 . The Al-MOF contains the original linker L0 as well as three different nitration products (L2 , L4 and L4/6 ), whereas the Ga-MOF mainly incorporates the linker L2 . The compositions were deduced by 1 H NMR spectroscopy and confirmed by Rietveld refinement. In situ and ex situ studies were carried out to follow the nitration and crystallization, as well as the composition of the MOFs. The crystal structures were refined against powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) data. As anticipated, the use of the V-shaped linker results in the formation of the CAU-10 type structure in the Al-MOF. Unexpectedly, the Ga-MOF crystallizes in a MIL-53 type structure, which is usually observed with linear or slightly bent linker molecules. To study the structure directing effect of the in situ nitrated linker, pure 2-nitrobenzene-1,3-dicarboxylic acid (m-H2 BDC-NO2 ) was employed which exclusively led to the formation of [Ga(OH)(C8 H3 NO6 )] (Ga-MIL-53-m-BDC-NO2 ), which is isoreticular to Ga-MIL-53-L2 . Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations confirmed the higher stability of Ga-MIL-53-L2 compared to Ga-CAU-10-L2 and grand canonical Monte Carlo simulations (GCMC) are in agreement with the observed water adsorption isotherms of Ga-MIL-53-L2

In situ XAS study of the local structure and oxidation state evolution of palladium in a reduced graphene oxide supported Pd(II) carbene complex during an undirected C–H acetoxylation reaction

In situ X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) investigations have been performed to provide insights into the reaction mechanism of a palladium(II) catalyzed undirected C–H acetoxylation reaction in the presence of an oxidant. A Pd(II) N-heterocyclic carbene complex π-stacked onto reduced graphene oxide (rGO) was used as the catalyst. The Pd speciation during the catalytic process was examined by XAS, which revealed a possible mechanism over the course of the reaction. Pd(II) complexes in the as-synthesized catalyst first go through a gradual ligand substitution where chloride ions bound to Pd(II) are replaced by other ligands with a mean bond distance to Pd matching Pd–C/N/O. Parallel to this the mean oxidation state of Pd increases indicating the formation of Pd(IV) species. At a later stage, a fraction of the Pd complexes start to slowly transform into Pd nanoclusters. The mean average oxidation state of Pd decreases to the initial state at the end of the experiment which means that comparable amounts of Pd(0) and Pd(IV) are present. These observations from heterogeneous catalysis are in good agreement with its homogeneous analog and they support a Pd(II)–Pd(IV)–Pd(II) reaction mechanism

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer—metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: The experts voted on controversial questions where high- level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration- resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. Results and limitations: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Conclusions: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Twitter summary: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. Take-home message: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer is summarised here

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/high-risk and locally advanced disease, biochemical relapse, and side effects of hormonal treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.11.002Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.We gratefully acknowledge the following organisations for providing financial support for the APCCC 2022: The City of Lugano and Movember Foundation. Ros Eeles is supported by a National Institute of Health Research grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. We also acknowledge sponsorship from several for-profit organisations for APCCC 2022, including Advanced Accelerator Applications, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer Health Care, Debiopharm, MSD, Janssen Oncology, Myovant Sciences, Orion Pharma, Pfizer Oncology, Roche, Telix Innovations SA, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Lantheus, and Tolmar. These for-profit organisations supported the conference financially but had no input on the scientific content or the final publication.Accepted versio

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I : Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Part I: intermediate-/high-risk and locally advanced disease, biochemical relapse, and side effects of hormonal treatment: report of the advanced prostate cancer consensus conference 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions

Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980-2015 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015

Background Improving survival and extending the longevity of life for all populations requires timely, robust evidence on local mortality levels and trends. The Global Burden of Disease 2015 Study (GBD 2015) provides a comprehensive assessment of all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1980 to 2015. These results informed an in-depth investigation of observed and expected mortality patterns based on sociodemographic measures. Methods We estimated all-cause mortality by age, sex, geography, and year using an improved analytical approach originally developed for GBD 2013 and GBD 2010. Improvements included refinements to the estimation of child and adult mortality and corresponding uncertainty, parameter selection for under-5 mortality synthesis by spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, and sibling history data processing. We also expanded the database of vital registration, survey, and census data to 14 294 geography-year datapoints. For GBD 2015, eight causes, including Ebola virus disease, were added to the previous GBD cause list for mortality. We used six modelling approaches to assess cause-specific mortality, with the Cause of Death Ensemble Model (CODEm) generating estimates for most causes. We used a series of novel analyses to systematically quantify the drivers of trends in mortality across geographies. First, we assessed observed and expected levels and trends of cause-specific mortality as they relate to the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary indicator derived from measures of income per capita, educational attainment, and fertility. Second, we examined factors affecting total mortality patterns through a series of counterfactual scenarios, testing the magnitude by which population growth, population age structures, and epidemiological changes contributed to shifts in mortality. Finally, we attributed changes in life expectancy to changes in cause of death. We documented each step of the GBD 2015 estimation processes, as well as data sources, in accordance with Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER). Findings Globally, life expectancy from birth increased from 61.7 years (95% uncertainty interval 61.4-61.9) in 1980 to 71.8 years (71.5-72.2) in 2015. Several countries in sub-Saharan Africa had very large gains in life expectancy from 2005 to 2015, rebounding from an era of exceedingly high loss of life due to HIV/AIDS. At the same time, many geographies saw life expectancy stagnate or decline, particularly for men and in countries with rising mortality from war or interpersonal violence. From 2005 to 2015, male life expectancy in Syria dropped by 11.3 years (3.7-17.4), to 62.6 years (56.5-70.2). Total deaths increased by 4.1% (2.6-5.6) from 2005 to 2015, rising to 55.8 million (54.9 million to 56.6 million) in 2015, but age-standardised death rates fell by 17.0% (15.8-18.1) during this time, underscoring changes in population growth and shifts in global age structures. The result was similar for non-communicable diseases (NCDs), with total deaths from these causes increasing by 14.1% (12.6-16.0) to 39.8 million (39.2 million to 40.5 million) in 2015, whereas age-standardised rates decreased by 13.1% (11.9-14.3). Globally, this mortality pattern emerged for several NCDs, including several types of cancer, ischaemic heart disease, cirrhosis, and Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. By contrast, both total deaths and age-standardised death rates due to communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional conditions significantly declined from 2005 to 2015, gains largely attributable to decreases in mortality rates due to HIV/AIDS (42.1%, 39.1-44.6), malaria (43.1%, 34.7-51.8), neonatal preterm birth complications (29.8%, 24.8-34.9), and maternal disorders (29.1%, 19.3-37.1). Progress was slower for several causes, such as lower respiratory infections and nutritional deficiencies, whereas deaths increased for others, including dengue and drug use disorders. Age-standardised death rates due to injuries significantly declined from 2005 to 2015, yet interpersonal violence and war claimed increasingly more lives in some regions, particularly in the Middle East. In 2015, rotaviral enteritis (rotavirus) was the leading cause of under-5 deaths due to diarrhoea (146 000 deaths, 118 000-183 000) and pneumococcal pneumonia was the leading cause of under-5 deaths due to lower respiratory infections (393 000 deaths, 228 000-532 000), although pathogen-specific mortality varied by region. Globally, the effects of population growth, ageing, and changes in age-standardised death rates substantially differed by cause. Our analyses on the expected associations between cause-specific mortality and SDI show the regular shifts in cause of death composition and population age structure with rising SDI. Country patterns of premature mortality (measured as years of life lost [YLLs]) and how they differ from the level expected on the basis of SDI alone revealed distinct but highly heterogeneous patterns by region and country or territory. Ischaemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes were among the leading causes of YLLs in most regions, but in many cases, intraregional results sharply diverged for ratios of observed and expected YLLs based on SDI. Communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases caused the most YLLs throughout sub-Saharan Africa, with observed YLLs far exceeding expected YLLs for countries in which malaria or HIV/AIDS remained the leading causes of early death. Interpretation At the global scale, age-specific mortality has steadily improved over the past 35 years; this pattern of general progress continued in the past decade. Progress has been faster in most countries than expected on the basis of development measured by the SDI. Against this background of progress, some countries have seen falls in life expectancy, and age-standardised death rates for some causes are increasing. Despite progress in reducing age-standardised death rates, population growth and ageing mean that the number of deaths from most non-communicable causes are increasing in most countries, putting increased demands on health systems. Copyright (C) The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015

Forouzanfar MH, Afshin A, Alexander LT, et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. LANCET. 2016;388(10053):1659-1724.Background The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2015 provides an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence for risk factor exposure and the attributable burden of disease. By providing national and subnational assessments spanning the past 25 years, this study can inform debates on the importance of addressing risks in context. Methods We used the comparative risk assessment framework developed for previous iterations of the Global Burden of Disease Study to estimate attributable deaths, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and trends in exposure by age group, sex, year, and geography for 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks from 1990 to 2015. This study included 388 risk-outcome pairs that met World Cancer Research Fund-defined criteria for convincing or probable evidence. We extracted relative risk and exposure estimates from randomised controlled trials, cohorts, pooled cohorts, household surveys, census data, satellite data, and other sources. We used statistical models to pool data, adjust for bias, and incorporate covariates. We developed a metric that allows comparisons of exposure across risk factors-the summary exposure value. Using the counterfactual scenario of theoretical minimum risk level, we estimated the portion of deaths and DALYs that could be attributed to a given risk. We decomposed trends in attributable burden into contributions from population growth, population age structure, risk exposure, and risk-deleted cause-specific DALY rates. We characterised risk exposure in relation to a Socio-demographic Index (SDI). Findings Between 1990 and 2015, global exposure to unsafe sanitation, household air pollution, childhood underweight, childhood stunting, and smoking each decreased by more than 25%. Global exposure for several occupational risks, high body-mass index (BMI), and drug use increased by more than 25% over the same period. All risks jointly evaluated in 2015 accounted for 57.8% (95% CI 56.6-58.8) of global deaths and 41.2% (39.8-42.8) of DALYs. In 2015, the ten largest contributors to global DALYs among Level 3 risks were high systolic blood pressure (211.8 million [192.7 million to 231.1 million] global DALYs), smoking (148.6 million [134.2 million to 163.1 million]), high fasting plasma glucose (143.1 million [125.1 million to 163.5 million]), high BMI (120.1 million [83.8 million to 158.4 million]), childhood undernutrition (113.3 million [103.9 million to 123.4 million]), ambient particulate matter (103.1 million [90.8 million to 115.1 million]), high total cholesterol (88.7 million [74.6 million to 105.7 million]), household air pollution (85.6 million [66.7 million to 106.1 million]), alcohol use (85.0 million [77.2 million to 93.0 million]), and diets high in sodium (83.0 million [49.3 million to 127.5 million]). From 1990 to 2015, attributable DALYs declined for micronutrient deficiencies, childhood undernutrition, unsafe sanitation and water, and household air pollution; reductions in risk-deleted DALY rates rather than reductions in exposure drove these declines. Rising exposure contributed to notable increases in attributable DALYs from high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, occupational carcinogens, and drug use. Environmental risks and childhood undernutrition declined steadily with SDI; low physical activity, high BMI, and high fasting plasma glucose increased with SDI. In 119 countries, metabolic risks, such as high BMI and fasting plasma glucose, contributed the most attributable DALYs in 2015. Regionally, smoking still ranked among the leading five risk factors for attributable DALYs in 109 countries; childhood underweight and unsafe sex remained primary drivers of early death and disability in much of sub-Saharan Africa. Interpretation Declines in some key environmental risks have contributed to declines in critical infectious diseases. Some risks appear to be invariant to SDI. Increasing risks, including high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, drug use, and some occupational exposures, contribute to rising burden from some conditions, but also provide opportunities for intervention. Some highly preventable risks, such as smoking, remain major causes of attributable DALYs, even as exposure is declining. Public policy makers need to pay attention to the risks that are increasingly major contributors to global burden. Copyright (C) The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd