Supplier development practices and their challenges: a roadmap proposal / Práticas de desenvolvimento de fornecedores e seus desafios: proposta de um roadmap

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), when focusing on their core business, outsource non-essential processes to their supplier base, a strategy that makes them dependent on their suppliers’ performance. The purpose of this paper is to propose a practical roadmap based on the post-relevant supplier development practices, barriers to be avoided by the managers, and critical success factors identified by the literature reviewed and in five Brazilian companies in the automotive segment. Although supplier development (SD) is widely acknowledged, there is no roadmap to guide the organizational managers when applying it. The roadmap aims to direct managers' activities when developing their suppliers to obtain better results. The method used was a qualitative research and its strategy was a multiple case study with an exploratory character. Data collection was obtained through a semi-structured interview. The research identified 17 relevant practices of supplier development. These practices of supplier development identified by the literature reviewed, coupled with the manager's speech, have enabled the researcher to figure out an empirical roadmap to assist organizational managers in planning and conducting development actions on their supplier base in a structured manner. The results obtained by the managers' speech indicated that OEMs want creative and innovative solutions from their suppliers to be applied to the new generations of their vehicles, far beyond the products or services usually delivered until now. Another important result for the successful supplier development was the top team’s commitment to implement the changes resulting from development practices combined with a preventive rather than corrective posture

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. METHODS: We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30-79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. FINDINGS: The number of people aged 30-79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306-359) million women and 317 (292-344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584-668) million women and 652 (604-698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55-62) of women and 49% (46-52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43-51) of women and 38% (35-41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20-27) for women and 18% (16-21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. INTERPRETATION: Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings. FUNDING: WHO

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants

Background Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. Methods We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30–79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. Findings The number of people aged 30–79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306–359) million women and 317 (292–344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584–668) million women and 652 (604–698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55–62) of women and 49% (46–52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43–51) of women and 38% (35–41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20–27) for women and 18% (16–21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. Interpretation Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings

Combined oral contraceptive in female mice causes hyperinsulinemia due to beta-cell hypersecretion and reduction in insulin clearance

Oral contraception is the most commonly used interventional method in the world. However, several women employ the continuous use of these hormones to avoid pre- and menstruation discomforts. Some studies indicate that oral contraceptives are associated with disturbances in glycemia and the effects of the use of a continuous regime are poorly elucidated. Herein, we evaluated the effects of the continuous administration of a combined oral contraceptive (COC) composed by ethinyl estradiol (EE) and drospirenone (DRSP) on glucose homeostasis in female mice. Adult Swiss mice received 0.6 mu g EE and 60 mu g DRSP (COC group) or vehicle [control (CTL)] daily by gavage for 35 days. COC treatment had no effect on body weight or adiposity, but increased uterus weight and induced hepatomegaly. Importantly, COC females displayed normal glycemia and glucose tolerance, but hyperinsulinemia and lower plasma C-peptide/insulin ratio, indicating reduced insulin clearance. Furthermore, COC mice displayed reduced protein content of the beta subunit of the insulin receptor (IR beta) in the liver. Additionally, pancreatic islets isolated from COC mice secreted more insulin in response to increasing glucose concentrations. This effect was associated with the activity of steroid hormones, since INS-1E cells incubated with EE plus DRSP also secreted more insulin. Therefore, we provide the first evidence that the continuous administration of EE and DRSP lead to hyperinsulinemia, due to enhancement of insulin secretion and the reduction of insulin degradation, which possibly lead to the down-regulation of hepatic IR beta. These findings suggest that the continuous administration of COC could cause insulin resistance with the prolongation of treatment1905463CONSELHO NACIONAL DE DESENVOLVIMENTO CIENTÍFICO E TECNOLÓGICO - CNPQCOORDENAÇÃO DE APERFEIÇOAMENTO DE PESSOAL DE NÍVEL SUPERIOR - CAPESFUNDAÇÃO CARLOS CHAGAS FILHO DE AMPARO À PESQUISA DO ESTADO DO RIO DE JANEIRO - FAPERJFUNDAÇÃO DE AMPARO À PESQUISA DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO - FAPESPsem informaçãosem informaçãoE-26/203.249/2017sem informaçã

Risk of Zika microcephaly correlates with features of maternal antibodies

Submitted by Ana Maria Fiscina Sampaio ([email protected]) on 2019-10-10T12:26:15Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Robbiani F D ...Risk.pdf: 2296966 bytes, checksum: 5e47aca9208f3f35c969fd82960279f4 (MD5)Approved for entry into archive by Ana Maria Fiscina Sampaio ([email protected]) on 2019-10-10T13:32:42Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Robbiani F D ...Risk.pdf: 2296966 bytes, checksum: 5e47aca9208f3f35c969fd82960279f4 (MD5)Made available in DSpace on 2019-10-10T13:32:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Robbiani F D ...Risk.pdf: 2296966 bytes, checksum: 5e47aca9208f3f35c969fd82960279f4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019-01-07National Institutes of Health grants 5R01AI121207, R01TW009504, and R25TW009338 to A.I. Ko; National Institutes of Health pilot awards U19AI111825 and UL1TR001866 to D.F. Robbiani; National Institutes of Health grants R01AI037526, UM1AI100663, U19AI111825, UL1TR001866, and P01AI138938 to M.C. Nussenzweig; National Institutes of Health grants R01AI124690 and U19AI057229 (Cooperative Center for Human Immunology pilot project); The Rockefeller University Development Office and anonymous donors (to C.M. Rice); Fundação de Amparo `a Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia grant PET0021/2016 (to M.G. Reis); National Institutes of Health grant R21AI129479-Supplement (to K.K.A. Van Rompay) and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research Infrastructure Programs/OD (P51OD011107 to the CNPRC); the United States Food and Drug Administration contract HHSF223201610542P (to L.L. Coffey); National Institutes of Health grants R01AI100989 and R01AI133976 (to L. Rajagopal and K.M. Adams Waldorf); and National Institutes of Health grants AI083019 and AI104002 (to M. Gale Jr.) and grant P51OD010425 to the WaNPRC (to K.M. Adams Waldorf, J. Tisoncik-Go, and M. Gale Jr.). Studies at WNPRC were supported by DHHS/PHS/National Institutes of Health grant R01Al116382-01A1 (to D.H. O’Connor), in part by the National Institutes of Health Office of Research Infrastructure Programs/OD (grant P51OD011106) awarded toWNPRC, at a facility constructed in part with support from Research Facilities Improvement Programgrants RR15459-01 and RR020141-01; and National Institutes of Health core and pilot grant P51 OD011092 and grants R21-HD091032 and R01-HD08633 (to ONPRC). P.F.C. Vasconcelos was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnológico (projects 303999/2016-0, 439971/20016-0, and 440405/2016-5) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Zika fast-track).The Rockefeller University. Laboratory of Molecular Immunology. New York, NY, USA.The Rockefeller University. Laboratory of Molecular Immunology. New York, NY, USA / Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Faculdade de Farmácia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.Yale School of Public Health. Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases. New Haven / Universidade Federal da Bahia. Faculdade de Medicina. Instituto da Saúde Coletiva. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Fudan University. School of Basic Medical Sciences. Shanghai Medical College. Key Laboratory of Medical Molecular Virology. Shanghai, China.The Rockefeller University. Laboratory of Molecular Immunology. New York, NY, USA.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Yale School of Public Health. Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases. New Haven.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Hospital Geral Roberto Santos. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Yale School of Public Health. Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases. New Haven.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Hospital Geral Roberto Santos. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Hospital Geral Roberto Santos. Salvador, BA, Brasil / Universidade Federal de São Paulo. São Paulo, SP, Brasil.Universidade Federal da Bahia. Faculdade de Medicina. Instituto da Saúde Coletiva. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Hospital Geral Roberto Santos. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Hospital Geral Roberto Santos. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Hospital Geral Roberto Santos. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Hospital Geral Roberto Santos. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Universidade Federal da Bahia. Faculdade de Medicina. Instituto da Saúde Coletiva. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.The Rockefeller University. Laboratory of Molecular Immunology. New York, NY.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Faculdade de Farmácia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Faculdade de Farmácia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.The Rockefeller University. Laboratory of Molecular Immunology. New York, NY, USA.Universidade Federal de São Paulo. São Paulo, SP, Brasil.Hospital Santo Amaro. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Hospital Santo Amaro. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Hospital Santo Amaro. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Hospital Aliança. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil / Yale School of Public Health. Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases. New Haven / Universidade Federal da Bahia. Faculdade de Medicina. Instituto da Saúde Coletiva. Salvador, BA, Brasil.University of California. California National Primate Research Center. Davis, Davis, CA, USA.University of California. School of Veterinary Medicine. Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology. Davis, Davis, CA, USA.Washington National Primate Research Center. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Center for Innate Immunity and Immune Disease. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Department of Immunology. Seattle, WA, USA.Washington National Primate Research Center. Seattle, WA / University of Washington. Center for Innate Immunity and Immune Disease. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Department of Immunology. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Department of Global Health. Seattle, WA, USA.University of Washington. Department of Global Health. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Department of Pediatrics. Seattle, WA, USA / Seattle Children’s Research Institute. Center for Global Infectious Disease Research. Seattle, WA, USA.Washington National Primate Research Center. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Center for Innate Immunity and Immune Disease. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Department of Global Health. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Seattle, WA, USA.University of Wisconsin-Madison. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. Madison, WI, USA.University of Wisconsin-Madison. Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. Madison, WI, USA.University of Wisconsin-Madison. Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. Madison, WI, USA.University of Wisconsin-Madison. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. Madison, WI, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences. Beaverton, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Pathobiology and Immunology. Beaverton, OR, USA / Oregon Health and Science University. Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute. Portland, OR, USA.Oregon Health and Science University. Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute. Portland, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Pathology Services Unit, Division of Comparative Medicine. Beaverton, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Pathobiology and Immunology. Beaverton, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences. Beaverton, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences. Beaverton, OR, USA / Oregon Health and Science University. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Portland, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences. Beaverton, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Pathobiology and Immunology. Beaverton, OR, USA / Oregon Health and Science University. Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute. Portland, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Pathobiology and Immunology. Beaverton, OR, USA / Oregon Health and Science University. Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute. Portland, OR, USA.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Faculdade de Farmácia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Faculdade de Farmácia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.Universidade Federal da Bahia. Faculdade de Medicina. Instituto da Saúde Coletiva. Salvador, BA, Brasil.University of California. California National Primate Research Center. Davis, Davis, CA, USA / University of California. School of Veterinary Medicine. Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology. Davis, Davis, CA, USA.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil / Yale School of Public Health. Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases. New Haven, USA.The Rockefeller University. Laboratory of Molecular Immunology. New York, NY, USA / The Rockefeller University. Howard Hughes Medical Institute. New York, NY, USA.Zika virus (ZIKV) infection during pregnancy causes congenital abnormalities, including microcephaly. However, rates vary widely, and the contributing risk factors remain unclear. We examined the serum antibody response to ZIKV and other flaviviruses in Brazilian women giving birth during the 2015-2016 outbreak. Infected pregnancies with intermediate or higher ZIKV antibody enhancement titers were at increased risk to give birth to microcephalic infants compared with those with lower titers (P < 0.0001). Similarly, analysis of ZIKV-infected pregnant macaques revealed that fetal brain damage was more frequent in mothers with higher enhancement titers. Thus, features of the maternal antibodies are associated with and may contribute to the genesis of ZIKV-associated microcephaly

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants

International audienceBACKGROUND - Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. METHODS - We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30–79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. FINDINGS - The number of people aged 30–79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306–359) million women and 317 (292–344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584–668) million women and 652 (604–698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55–62) of women and 49% (46–52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43–51) of women and 38% (35–41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20–27) for women and 18% (16–21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. INTERPRETATION - Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants

International audienceBACKGROUND - Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. METHODS - We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30–79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. FINDINGS - The number of people aged 30–79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306–359) million women and 317 (292–344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584–668) million women and 652 (604–698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55–62) of women and 49% (46–52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43–51) of women and 38% (35–41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20–27) for women and 18% (16–21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. INTERPRETATION - Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings

Brazilian Flora 2020: Leveraging the power of a collaborative scientific network

International audienceThe shortage of reliable primary taxonomic data limits the description of biological taxa and the understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes, complicating biogeographical, ecological, and evolutionary studies. This deficit creates a significant taxonomic impediment to biodiversity research and conservation planning. The taxonomic impediment and the biodiversity crisis are widely recognized, highlighting the urgent need for reliable taxonomic data. Over the past decade, numerous countries worldwide have devoted considerable effort to Target 1 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC), which called for the preparation of a working list of all known plant species by 2010 and an online world Flora by 2020. Brazil is a megadiverse country, home to more of the world's known plant species than any other country. Despite that, Flora Brasiliensis, concluded in 1906, was the last comprehensive treatment of the Brazilian flora. The lack of accurate estimates of the number of species of algae, fungi, and plants occurring in Brazil contributes to the prevailing taxonomic impediment and delays progress towards the GSPC targets. Over the past 12 years, a legion of taxonomists motivated to meet Target 1 of the GSPC, worked together to gather and integrate knowledge on the algal, plant, and fungal diversity of Brazil. Overall, a team of about 980 taxonomists joined efforts in a highly collaborative project that used cybertaxonomy to prepare an updated Flora of Brazil, showing the power of scientific collaboration to reach ambitious goals. This paper presents an overview of the Brazilian Flora 2020 and provides taxonomic and spatial updates on the algae, fungi, and plants found in one of the world's most biodiverse countries. We further identify collection gaps and summarize future goals that extend beyond 2020. Our results show that Brazil is home to 46,975 native species of algae, fungi, and plants, of which 19,669 are endemic to the country. The data compiled to date suggests that the Atlantic Rainforest might be the most diverse Brazilian domain for all plant groups except gymnosperms, which are most diverse in the Amazon. However, scientific knowledge of Brazilian diversity is still unequally distributed, with the Atlantic Rainforest and the Cerrado being the most intensively sampled and studied biomes in the country. In times of “scientific reductionism”, with botanical and mycological sciences suffering pervasive depreciation in recent decades, the first online Flora of Brazil 2020 significantly enhanced the quality and quantity of taxonomic data available for algae, fungi, and plants from Brazil. This project also made all the information freely available online, providing a firm foundation for future research and for the management, conservation, and sustainable use of the Brazilian funga and flora