Transport Policy as a Way to Strengthen Geostrategic Position – A Review of Vienna as a Centre of Air and High-Speed Rail Transport in Central Europe

Vienna’s geostrategic importance fluctuated through the ages because of the power clashes and subsequent political and socio-economic impacts on the population. This paper assesses its current position in a historical context and then focuses more on the socio-economic dimensions such as interconnectedness and other transport aspects of the geostrategic position. Air and environmentally friendlier modes of passenger transport like high-speed rail are considered and analysed in the European context. This paper also reviews the results and issues dealing with the development of the Vienna Airport and the progress of high-speed railway projects in the Central European Economies (CEEs) after the European Union’s enlargement in 2004. The results suggest that after a restoration period of Vienna’s geostrategic position between 1995–2005, there is currently only a moderate and slowly growing exercise of power, control or influence over the CEEs. The results suggest that there is competition from busier German hub airports as well as the growing importance of CEE airports in transit and growing passenger transport performance figures. The lack of environmentally friendly high-speed infrastructure as a viable option instead of the fastest air travel is preventing Vienna to strengthen its strategic position. Its strategic importance is highly affected by the underdeveloped transport networks in CEEs and the future development of the Vienna Airport as a major transport hub

Trends in prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment over 30 years: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study

Background: To contribute to the WHO initiative, VISION 2020: The Right to Sight, an assessment of global vision impairment in 2020 and temporal change is needed. We aimed to extensively update estimates of global vision loss burden, presenting estimates for 2020, temporal change over three decades between 1990–2020, and forecasts for 2050. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys of eye disease from January, 1980, to October, 2018. Only studies with samples representative of the population and with clearly defined visual acuity testing protocols were included. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate 2020 prevalence (with 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) of mild vision impairment (presenting visual acuity ≥6/18 and <6/12), moderate and severe vision impairment (<6/18 to 3/60), and blindness (<3/60 or less than 10° visual field around central fixation); and vision impairment from uncorrected presbyopia (presenting near vision <N6 or <N8 at 40 cm where best-corrected distance visual acuity is ≥6/12). We forecast estimates of vision loss up to 2050. Findings: In 2020, an estimated 43·3 million (95% UI 37·6–48·4) people were blind, of whom 23·9 million (55%; 20·8–26·8) were estimated to be female. We estimated 295 million (267–325) people to have moderate and severe vision impairment, of whom 163 million (55%; 147–179) were female; 258 million (233–285) to have mild vision impairment, of whom 142 million (55%; 128–157) were female; and 510 million (371–667) to have visual impairment from uncorrected presbyopia, of whom 280 million (55%; 205–365) were female. Globally, between 1990 and 2020, among adults aged 50 years or older, age-standardised prevalence of blindness decreased by 28·5% (–29·4 to −27·7) and prevalence of mild vision impairment decreased slightly (–0·3%, −0·8 to −0·2), whereas prevalence of moderate and severe vision impairment increased slightly (2·5%, 1·9 to 3·2; insufficient data were available to calculate this statistic for vision impairment from uncorrected presbyopia). In this period, the number of people who were blind increased by 50·6% (47·8 to 53·4) and the number with moderate and severe vision impairment increased by 91·7% (87·6 to 95·8). By 2050, we predict 61·0 million (52·9 to 69·3) people will be blind, 474 million (428 to 518) will have moderate and severe vision impairment, 360 million (322 to 400) will have mild vision impairment, and 866 million (629 to 1150) will have uncorrected presbyopia. Interpretation: Age-adjusted prevalence of blindness has reduced over the past three decades, yet due to population growth, progress is not keeping pace with needs. We face enormous challenges in avoiding vision impairment as the global population grows and ages

Comparative effectiveness of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant vs fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab in highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

Importance Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) is available for treatment of highly active multiple sclerosis (MS).Objective To compare the effectiveness of AHSCT vs fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting MS by emulating pairwise trials.Design, Setting, and Participants This comparative treatment effectiveness study included 6 specialist MS centers with AHSCT programs and international MSBase registry between 2006 and 2021. The study included patients with relapsing-remitting MS treated with AHSCT, fingolimod, natalizumab, or ocrelizumab with 2 or more years study follow-up including 2 or more disability assessments. Patients were matched on a propensity score derived from clinical and demographic characteristics.Exposure AHSCT vs fingolimod, natalizumab, or ocrelizumab.Main outcomes Pairwise-censored groups were compared on annualized relapse rates (ARR) and freedom from relapses and 6-month confirmed Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score worsening and improvement.Results Of 4915 individuals, 167 were treated with AHSCT; 2558, fingolimod; 1490, natalizumab; and 700, ocrelizumab. The prematch AHSCT cohort was younger and with greater disability than the fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab cohorts; the matched groups were closely aligned. The proportion of women ranged from 65% to 70%, and the mean (SD) age ranged from 35.3 (9.4) to 37.1 (10.6) years. The mean (SD) disease duration ranged from 7.9 (5.6) to 8.7 (5.4) years, EDSS score ranged from 3.5 (1.6) to 3.9 (1.9), and frequency of relapses ranged from 0.77 (0.94) to 0.86 (0.89) in the preceding year. Compared with the fingolimod group (769 [30.0%]), AHSCT (144 [86.2%]) was associated with fewer relapses (ARR: mean [SD], 0.09 [0.30] vs 0.20 [0.44]), similar risk of disability worsening (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 0.91-3.17), and higher chance of disability improvement (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.71-4.26) over 5 years. Compared with natalizumab (730 [49.0%]), AHSCT (146 [87.4%]) was associated with marginally lower ARR (mean [SD], 0.08 [0.31] vs 0.10 [0.34]), similar risk of disability worsening (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.54-2.09), and higher chance of disability improvement (HR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.72-4.18) over 5 years. AHSCT (110 [65.9%]) and ocrelizumab (343 [49.0%]) were associated with similar ARR (mean [SD], 0.09 [0.34] vs 0.06 [0.32]), disability worsening (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.61-5.08), and disability improvement (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.66-2.82) over 3 years. AHSCT-related mortality occurred in 1 of 159 patients (0.6%).Conclusion In this study, the association of AHSCT with preventing relapses and facilitating recovery from disability was considerably superior to fingolimod and marginally superior to natalizumab. This study did not find evidence for difference in the effectiveness of AHSCT and ocrelizumab over a shorter available follow-up time