Travel burden and clinical presentation of retinoblastoma: analysis of 1024 patients from 43 African countries and 518 patients from 40 European countries

BACKGROUND: The travel distance from home to a treatment centre, which may impact the stage at diagnosis, has not been investigated for retinoblastoma, the most common childhood eye cancer. We aimed to investigate the travel burden and its impact on clinical presentation in a large sample of patients with retinoblastoma from Africa and Europe. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis including 518 treatment-naïve patients with retinoblastoma residing in 40 European countries and 1024 treatment-naïve patients with retinoblastoma residing in 43 African countries. RESULTS: Capture rate was 42.2% of expected patients from Africa and 108.8% from Europe. African patients were older (95% CI -12.4 to -5.4, p<0.001), had fewer cases of familial retinoblastoma (95% CI 2.0 to 5.3, p<0.001) and presented with more advanced disease (95% CI 6.0 to 9.8, p<0.001); 43.4% and 15.4% of Africans had extraocular retinoblastoma and distant metastasis at the time of diagnosis, respectively, compared to 2.9% and 1.0% of the Europeans. To reach a retinoblastoma centre, European patients travelled 421.8 km compared to Africans who travelled 185.7 km (p<0.001). On regression analysis, lower-national income level, African residence and older age (p<0.001), but not travel distance (p=0.19), were risk factors for advanced disease. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than half the expected number of patients with retinoblastoma presented to African referral centres in 2017, suggesting poor awareness or other barriers to access. Despite the relatively shorter distance travelled by African patients, they presented with later-stage disease. Health education about retinoblastoma is needed for carers and health workers in Africa in order to increase capture rate and promote early referral

Health sector spending and spending on HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and development assistance for health: progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3

Background: Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 aims to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”. While a substantial effort has been made to quantify progress towards SDG3, less research has focused on tracking spending towards this goal. We used spending estimates to measure progress in financing the priority areas of SDG3, examine the association between outcomes and financing, and identify where resource gains are most needed to achieve the SDG3 indicators for which data are available. Methods: We estimated domestic health spending, disaggregated by source (government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private) from 1995 to 2017 for 195 countries and territories. For disease-specific health spending, we estimated spending for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis for 135 low-income and middle-income countries, and malaria in 106 malaria-endemic countries, from 2000 to 2017. We also estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2019, by source, disbursing development agency, recipient, and health focus area, including DAH for pandemic preparedness. Finally, we estimated future health spending for 195 countries and territories from 2018 until 2030. We report all spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2019 US$, unless otherwise stated. Findings: Since the development and implementation of the SDGs in 2015, global health spending has increased, reaching$7·9 trillion (95% uncertainty interval 7·8–8·0) in 2017 and is expected to increase to $11·0 trillion (10·7–11·2) by 2030. In 2017, in low-income and middle-income countries spending on HIV/AIDS was$20·2 billion (17·0–25·0) and on tuberculosis it was $10·9 billion (10·3–11·8), and in malaria-endemic countries spending on malaria was$5·1 billion (4·9–5·4). Development assistance for health was $40·6 billion in 2019 and HIV/AIDS has been the health focus area to receive the highest contribution since 2004. In 2019,$374 million of DAH was provided for pandemic preparedness, less than 1% of DAH. Although spending has increased across HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria since 2015, spending has not increased in all countries, and outcomes in terms of prevalence, incidence, and per-capita spending have been mixed. The proportion of health spending from pooled sources is expected to increase from 81·6% (81·6–81·7) in 2015 to 83·1% (82·8–83·3) in 2030. Interpretation: Health spending on SDG3 priority areas has increased, but not in all countries, and progress towards meeting the SDG3 targets has been mixed and has varied by country and by target. The evidence on the scale-up of spending and improvements in health outcomes suggest a nuanced relationship, such that increases in spending do not always results in improvements in outcomes. Although countries will probably need more resources to achieve SDG3, other constraints in the broader health system such as inefficient allocation of resources across interventions and populations, weak governance systems, human resource shortages, and drug shortages, will also need to be addressed. Funding: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundatio

Global age-sex-specific fertility, mortality, healthy life expectancy (HALE), and population estimates in 204 countries and territories, 1950-2019 : a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Accurate and up-to-date assessment of demographic metrics is crucial for understanding a wide range of social, economic, and public health issues that affect populations worldwide. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 produced updated and comprehensive demographic assessments of the key indicators of fertility, mortality, migration, and population for 204 countries and territories and selected subnational locations from 1950 to 2019. Methods 8078 country-years of vital registration and sample registration data, 938 surveys, 349 censuses, and 238 other sources were identified and used to estimate age-specific fertility. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression (ST-GPR) was used to generate age-specific fertility rates for 5-year age groups between ages 15 and 49 years. With extensions to age groups 10-14 and 50-54 years, the total fertility rate (TFR) was then aggregated using the estimated age-specific fertility between ages 10 and 54 years. 7417 sources were used for under-5 mortality estimation and 7355 for adult mortality. ST-GPR was used to synthesise data sources after correction for known biases. Adult mortality was measured as the probability of death between ages 15 and 60 years based on vital registration, sample registration, and sibling histories, and was also estimated using ST-GPR. HIV-free life tables were then estimated using estimates of under-5 and adult mortality rates using a relational model life table system created for GBD, which closely tracks observed age-specific mortality rates from complete vital registration when available. Independent estimates of HIV-specific mortality generated by an epidemiological analysis of HIV prevalence surveys and antenatal clinic serosurveillance and other sources were incorporated into the estimates in countries with large epidemics. Annual and single-year age estimates of net migration and population for each country and territory were generated using a Bayesian hierarchical cohort component model that analysed estimated age-specific fertility and mortality rates along with 1250 censuses and 747 population registry years. We classified location-years into seven categories on the basis of the natural rate of increase in population (calculated by subtracting the crude death rate from the crude birth rate) and the net migration rate. We computed healthy life expectancy (HALE) using years lived with disability (YLDs) per capita, life tables, and standard demographic methods. Uncertainty was propagated throughout the demographic estimation process, including fertility, mortality, and population, with 1000 draw-level estimates produced for each metric. Findings The global TFR decreased from 2.72 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 2.66-2.79) in 2000 to 2.31 (2.17-2.46) in 2019. Global annual livebirths increased from 134.5 million (131.5-137.8) in 2000 to a peak of 139.6 million (133.0-146.9) in 2016. Global livebirths then declined to 135.3 million (127.2-144.1) in 2019. Of the 204 countries and territories included in this study, in 2019, 102 had a TFR lower than 2.1, which is considered a good approximation of replacement-level fertility. All countries in sub-Saharan Africa had TFRs above replacement level in 2019 and accounted for 27.1% (95% UI 26.4-27.8) of global livebirths. Global life expectancy at birth increased from 67.2 years (95% UI 66.8-67.6) in 2000 to 73.5 years (72.8-74.3) in 2019. The total number of deaths increased from 50.7 million (49.5-51.9) in 2000 to 56.5 million (53.7-59.2) in 2019. Under-5 deaths declined from 9.6 million (9.1-10.3) in 2000 to 5.0 million (4.3-6.0) in 2019. Global population increased by 25.7%, from 6.2 billion (6.0-6.3) in 2000 to 7.7 billion (7.5-8.0) in 2019. In 2019, 34 countries had negative natural rates of increase; in 17 of these, the population declined because immigration was not sufficient to counteract the negative rate of decline. Globally, HALE increased from 58.6 years (56.1-60.8) in 2000 to 63.5 years (60.8-66.1) in 2019. HALE increased in 202 of 204 countries and territories between 2000 and 2019. Interpretation Over the past 20 years, fertility rates have been dropping steadily and life expectancy has been increasing, with few exceptions. Much of this change follows historical patterns linking social and economic determinants, such as those captured by the GBD Socio-demographic Index, with demographic outcomes. More recently, several countries have experienced a combination of low fertility and stagnating improvement in mortality rates, pushing more populations into the late stages of the demographic transition. Tracking demographic change and the emergence of new patterns will be essential for global health monitoring. Copyright (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

Five insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a rules-based synthesis of the available evidence on levels and trends in health outcomes, a diverse set of risk factors, and health system responses. GBD 2019 covered 204 countries and territories, as well as first administrative level disaggregations for 22 countries, from 1990 to 2019. Because GBD is highly standardised and comprehensive, spanning both fatal and non-fatal outcomes, and uses a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of hierarchical disease and injury causes, the study provides a powerful basis for detailed and broad insights on global health trends and emerging challenges. GBD 2019 incorporates data from 281 586 sources and provides more than 3.5 billion estimates of health outcome and health system measures of interest for global, national, and subnational policy dialogue. All GBD estimates are publicly available and adhere to the Guidelines on Accurate and Transparent Health Estimate Reporting. From this vast amount of information, five key insights that are important for health, social, and economic development strategies have been distilled. These insights are subject to the many limitations outlined in each of the component GBD capstone papers.Peer reviewe

Effect of ivabradine on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable angina: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Although there are established drugs for treatment of cardiovascular diseases, due to adverse effects these drugs may not be clinically applicable to all patients. Recent trends have seen the emergence of drugs which act on funny current channels to induce selective heart rate reduction. Ivabradine is one such drug developed for coronary artery disease and heart failure. There is inconsistent evidence about the effect of this selective inhibitor in reduction of cardiovascular related mortality and morbidity. Such an inconsistency warrants the need for a meta-analysis to consider the effectiveness and efficacy of Ivabradine in the treatment of coronary artery disease and heart failure. Methods Randomized controlled trials with a minimum follow-up period of one year were searched in Pub Med/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published between 1980 and 2016.Each eligible study was assessed for risk of bias by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment tool. The outcomes assessed in this study included: all cause mortality, cardiovascular-related mortality, hospitalization for new or worsening heart failure, and adverse events. Subgroup analysis and publication bias were assessed. We used Mantel-Haenszel method for random-effects. Analysis was done using RevMan5.1™.This study was registered in PROSPERO as [PROSPERO 2016:CRD42016035597]. Result Three trials with a total of 36,577 participants met the meta-analysis criteria. Pooled analysis showed that ivabradine is not effective in reducing cardiovascular deaths (OR: 1.02; CI:0.91–1.15,P = 0.74), all-cause mortality (OR:1.00; CI:0.91–1.10,P = 0.98), coronary revascularization (OR: 0.93, CI: 0.77–1.11, P = 0.41) and hospital admission for worsening of heart failure (OR: 0.94, CI: 0.71–1.25, P = 0.69). However, the drug was found to significantly increase adverse events: phosphenes (OR:7.77, CI: 4.4–14.6,P < 0.00001), blurred vision (OR:3.07,CI:2.18–4.32,P < 0.00001), symptomatic bradycardia (OR: 6.23, CI: 4.2–9.26, P < 0.00001), and atrial fibrillation (OR: 1.35, CI: 1.19–1.53, P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis by duration of follow up on cardiovascular outcomes found that there is no difference in effect of ivabradine depending on the duration of follow up. There was no publication bias in reporting of included studies. Conclusion This meta-analysis suggests that ivabradine is not effective in reducing cardiovascular-related morbidity and mortality unless used for specific conditions. On the contrary, the use of this drug was strongly associated with the onset of untoward and new adverse events. This finding strongly supports previous findings and further informs the rational and evidence-informed clinical use of ivabradine