Assessment of physical fitness during pregnancy: validity and reliability of fitness tests, and relationship with maternal and neonatal health - a systematic review.

Objectives: To systematically review studies evaluating one or more components of physical fitness (PF) in pregnant women, to answer two research questions: (1) What tests have been employed to assess PF in pregnant women? and (2) What is the validity and reliability of these tests and their relationship with maternal and neonatal health? Design: A systematic review. Data sources: PubMed and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria: Original English or Spanish full-text articles in a group of healthy pregnant women which at least one component of PF was assessed (field based or laboratory tests). Results: A total of 149 articles containing a sum of 191 fitness tests were included. Among the 191 fitness tests, 99 (ie, 52%) assessed cardiorespiratory fitness through 75 different protocols, 28 (15%) assessed muscular fitness through 16 different protocols, 14 (7%) assessed flexibility through 13 different protocols, 45 (24%) assessed balance through 40 different protocols, 2 assessed speed with the same protocol and 3 were multidimensional tests using one protocol. A total of 19 articles with 23 tests (13%) assessed either validity (n=4), reliability (n=6) or the relationship of PF with maternal and neonatal health (n=16). Conclusion: Physical fitness has been assessed through a wide variety of protocols, mostly lacking validity and reliability data, and no consensus exists on the most suitable fitness tests to be performed during pregnancy. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018117554

Empiric Antibiotic Therapy for Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia May Not Reduce In-Hospital Mortality: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Appropriate empiric therapy, antibiotic therapy with in vitro activity to the infecting organism given prior to confirmed culture results, may improve Staphylococcus aureus outcomes. We aimed to measure the clinical impact of appropriate empiric antibiotic therapy on mortality, while statistically adjusting for comorbidities, severity of illness and presence of virulence factors in the infecting strain.We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to a tertiary-care facility from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2007, who had S. aureus bacteremia. Time to appropriate therapy was measured from blood culture collection to the receipt of antibiotics with in vitro activity to the infecting organism. Cox proportional hazard models were used to measure the association between receipt of appropriate empiric therapy and in-hospital mortality, statistically adjusting for patient and pathogen characteristics.Among 814 admissions, 537 (66%) received appropriate empiric therapy. Those who received appropriate empiric therapy had a higher hazard of 30-day in-hospital mortality (Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.52; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99, 2.34). A longer time to appropriate therapy was protective against mortality (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.60, 1.03) except among the healthiest quartile of patients (HR: 1.44; 95% CI: 0.66, 3.15).Appropriate empiric therapy was not associated with decreased mortality in patients with S. aureus bacteremia except in the least ill patients. Initial broad antibiotic selection may not be widely beneficial

First Latin American clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: Latin American Group for the Study of Lupus (GLADEL, Grupo Latino Americano de Estudio del Lupus)-Pan-American League of Associations of Rheumatology (PANLAR)

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a complex and heterogeneous autoimmune disease, represents a significant challenge for both diagnosis and treatment. Patients with SLE in Latin America face special problems that should be considered when therapeutic guidelines are developed. The objective of the study is to develop clinical practice guidelines for Latin American patients with lupus. Two independent teams (rheumatologists with experience in lupus management and methodologists) had an initial meeting in Panama City, Panama, in April 2016. They selected a list of questions for the clinical problems most commonly seen in Latin American patients with SLE. These were addressed with the best available evidence and summarised in a standardised format following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. All preliminary findings were discussed in a second face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC, in November 2016. As a result, nine organ/system sections are presented with the main findings; an 'overarching' treatment approach was added. Special emphasis was made on regional implementation issues. Best pharmacologic options were examined for musculoskeletal, mucocutaneous, kidney, cardiac, pulmonary, neuropsychiatric, haematological manifestations and the antiphospholipid syndrome. The roles of main therapeutic options (ie, glucocorticoids, antimalarials, immunosuppressant agents, therapeutic plasma exchange, belimumab, rituximab, abatacept, low-dose aspirin and anticoagulants) were summarised in each section. In all cases, benefits and harms, certainty of the evidence, values and preferences, feasibility, acceptability and equity issues were considered to produce a recommendation with special focus on ethnic and socioeconomic aspects. Guidelines for Latin American patients with lupus have been developed and could be used in similar settings.Fil: Pons Estel, Bernardo A.. Centro Regional de Enfermedades Autoinmunes y Reumáticas; ArgentinaFil: Bonfa, Eloisa. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Soriano, Enrique R.. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Rectorado.; ArgentinaFil: Cardiel, Mario H.. Centro de Investigación Clínica de Morelia; MéxicoFil: Izcovich, Ariel. Hospital Alemán; ArgentinaFil: Popoff, Federico. Hospital Aleman; ArgentinaFil: Criniti, Juan M.. Hospital Alemán; ArgentinaFil: Vásquez, Gloria. Universidad de Antioquia; ColombiaFil: Massardo, Loreto. Universidad San Sebastián; ChileFil: Duarte, Margarita. Hospital de Clínicas; ParaguayFil: Barile Fabris, Leonor A.. Hospital Angeles del Pedregal; MéxicoFil: García, Mercedes A.. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Hospital de Clínicas General San Martín; ArgentinaFil: Amigo, Mary Carmen. Centro Médico Abc; MéxicoFil: Espada, Graciela. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital General de Niños "Ricardo Gutiérrez"; ArgentinaFil: Catoggio, Luis J.. Hospital Italiano. Instituto Universitario. Escuela de Medicina; ArgentinaFil: Sato, Emilia Inoue. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Levy, Roger A.. Universidade do Estado de Rio do Janeiro; BrasilFil: Acevedo Vásquez, Eduardo M.. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos; PerúFil: Chacón Díaz, Rosa. Policlínica Méndez Gimón; VenezuelaFil: Galarza Maldonado, Claudio M.. Corporación Médica Monte Sinaí; EcuadorFil: Iglesias Gamarra, Antonio J.. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Molina, José Fernando. Centro Integral de Reumatología; ColombiaFil: Neira, Oscar. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Silva, Clóvis A.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Vargas Peña, Andrea. Hospital Pasteur Montevideo; UruguayFil: Gómez Puerta, José A.. Hospital Clinic Barcelona; EspañaFil: Scolnik, Marina. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Rectorado.; ArgentinaFil: Pons Estel, Guillermo J.. Centro Regional de Enfermedades Autoinmunes y Reumáticas; Argentina. Hospital Provincial de Rosario; ArgentinaFil: Ugolini Lopes, Michelle R.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Savio, Verónica. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Rectorado.; ArgentinaFil: Drenkard, Cristina. University of Emory; Estados UnidosFil: Alvarellos, Alejandro J.. Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Ugarte Gil, Manuel F.. Universidad Cientifica del Sur; Perú. Hospital Nacional Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen; PerúFil: Babini, Alejandra. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Rectorado.; ArgentinaFil: Cavalcanti, André. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Cardoso Linhares, Fernanda Athayde. Hospital Pasteur Montevideo; UruguayFil: Haye Salinas, Maria Jezabel. Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Fuentes Silva, Yurilis J.. Universidad de Oriente - Núcleo Bolívar; VenezuelaFil: Montandon De Oliveira E Silva, Ana Carolina. Universidade Federal de Goiás; BrasilFil: Eraso Garnica, Ruth M.. Universidad de Antioquia; ColombiaFil: Herrera Uribe, Sebastián. Hospital General de Medellin Luz Castro de Gutiérrez; ColombiaFil: Gómez Martín, DIana. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrición Salvador Zubiran; MéxicoFil: Robaina Sevrini, Ricardo. Universidad de la República; UruguayFil: Quintana, Rosana M.. Hospital Provincial de Rosario; Argentina. Centro Regional de Enfermedades Autoinmunes y Reumáticas; ArgentinaFil: Gordon, Sergio. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos Dr Oscar Alende. Unidad de Reumatología y Enfermedades Autoinmunes Sistémicas; ArgentinaFil: Fragoso Loyo, Hilda. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrición Salvador Zubiran; MéxicoFil: Rosario, Violeta. Hospital Docente Padre Billini; República DominicanaFil: Saurit, Verónica. Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Appenzeller, Simone. Universidade Estadual de Campinas; BrasilFil: Dos Reis Neto, Edgard Torres. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Cieza, Jorge. Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins; PerúFil: González Naranjo, Luis A.. Universidad de Antioquia; ColombiaFil: González Bello, Yelitza C.. Ceibac; MéxicoFil: Collado, María Victoria. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Médicas; ArgentinaFil: Sarano, Judith. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Médicas; ArgentinaFil: Retamozo, Maria Soledad. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud; ArgentinaFil: Sattler, María E.. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio de Salud. Hospital Interzonal de Agudos "Eva Perón"; ArgentinaFil: Gamboa Cárdenas, Rocio V.. Hospital Nacional Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen; PerúFil: Cairoli, Ernesto. Universidad de la República; UruguayFil: Conti, Silvana M.. Hospital Provincial de Rosario; ArgentinaFil: Amezcua Guerra, Luis M.. Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia Ignacio Chavez; MéxicoFil: Silveira, Luis H.. Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia Ignacio Chavez; MéxicoFil: Borba, Eduardo F.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Pera, Mariana A.. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos General San Martín; ArgentinaFil: Alba Moreyra, Paula B.. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Medicina; ArgentinaFil: Arturi, Valeria. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos General San Martín; ArgentinaFil: Berbotto, Guillermo A.. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio de Salud. Hospital Interzonal de Agudos "Eva Perón"; ArgentinaFil: Gerling, Cristian. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos Dr Oscar Alende. Unidad de Reumatología y Enfermedades Autoinmunes Sistémicas; ArgentinaFil: Gobbi, Carla Andrea. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Medicina; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Gervasoni, Viviana L.. Hospital Provincial de Rosario; ArgentinaFil: Scherbarth, Hugo R.. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos Dr Oscar Alende. Unidad de Reumatología y Enfermedades Autoinmunes Sistémicas; ArgentinaFil: Brenol, João C. Tavares. Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre; BrasilFil: Cavalcanti, Fernando. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Costallat, Lilian T. Lavras. Universidade Estadual de Campinas; BrasilFil: Da Silva, Nilzio A.. Universidade Federal de Goiás; BrasilFil: Monticielo, Odirlei A.. Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre; BrasilFil: Seguro, Luciana Parente Costa. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Xavier, Ricardo M.. Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre; BrasilFil: Llanos, Carolina. Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Montúfar Guardado, Rubén A.. Instituto Salvadoreño de la Seguridad Social; El SalvadorFil: Garcia De La Torre, Ignacio. Hospital General de Occidente; MéxicoFil: Pineda, Carlos. Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación; MéxicoFil: Portela Hernández, Margarita. Umae Hospital de Especialidades Centro Medico Nacional Siglo Xxi; MéxicoFil: Danza, Alvaro. Hospital Pasteur Montevideo; UruguayFil: Guibert Toledano, Marlene. Medical-surgical Research Center; CubaFil: Reyes, Gil Llerena. Medical-surgical Research Center; CubaFil: Acosta Colman, Maria Isabel. Hospital de Clínicas; ParaguayFil: Aquino, Alicia M.. Hospital de Clínicas; ParaguayFil: Mora Trujillo, Claudia S.. Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins; PerúFil: Muñoz Louis, Roberto. Hospital Docente Padre Billini; República DominicanaFil: García Valladares, Ignacio. Centro de Estudios de Investigación Básica y Clínica; MéxicoFil: Orozco, María Celeste. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Burgos, Paula I.. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Betancur, Graciela V.. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Alarcón, Graciela S.. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; Perú. University of Alabama at Birmingahm; Estados Unido

Human subcortical brain asymmetries in 15,847 people worldwide reveal effects of age and sex

The two hemispheres of the human brain differ functionally and structurally. Despite over a century of research, the extent to which brain asymmetry is influenced by sex, handedness, age, and genetic factors is still controversial. Here we present the largest ever analysis of subcortical brain asymmetries, in a harmonized multi-site study using meta-analysis methods. Volumetric asymmetry of seven subcortical structures was assessed in 15,847 MRI scans from 52 datasets worldwide. There were sex differences in the asymmetry of the globus pallidus and putamen. Heritability estimates, derived from 1170 subjects belonging to 71 extended pedigrees, revealed that additive genetic factors influenced the asymmetry of these two structures and that of the hippocampus and thalamus. Handedness had no detectable effect on subcortical asymmetries, even in this unprecedented sample size, but the asymmetry of the putamen varied with age. Genetic drivers of asymmetry in the hippocampus, thalamus and basal ganglia may affect variability in human cognition, including susceptibility to psychiatric disorders

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors 2017 includes a comprehensive assessment of incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 354 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017. Previous GBD studies have shown how the decline of mortality rates from 1990 to 2016 has led to an increase in life expectancy, an ageing global population, and an expansion of the non-fatal burden of disease and injury. These studies have also shown how a substantial portion of the world's population experiences non-fatal health loss with considerable heterogeneity among different causes, locations, ages, and sexes. Ongoing objectives of the GBD study include increasing the level of estimation detail, improving analytical strategies, and increasing the amount of high-quality data. METHODS: We estimated incidence and prevalence for 354 diseases and injuries and 3484 sequelae. We used an updated and extensive body of literature studies, survey data, surveillance data, inpatient admission records, outpatient visit records, and health insurance claims, and additionally used results from cause of death models to inform estimates using a total of 68 781 data sources. Newly available clinical data from India, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Nepal, China, Brazil, Norway, and Italy were incorporated, as well as updated claims data from the USA and new claims data from Taiwan (province of China) and Singapore. We used DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, as the main method of estimation, ensuring consistency between rates of incidence, prevalence, remission, and cause of death for each condition. YLDs were estimated as the product of a prevalence estimate and a disability weight for health states of each mutually exclusive sequela, adjusted for comorbidity. We updated the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary development indicator of income per capita, years of schooling, and total fertility rate. Additionally, we calculated differences between male and female YLDs to identify divergent trends across sexes. GBD 2017 complies with the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting

Mapping 123 million neonatal, infant and child deaths between 2000 and 2017

Since 2000, many countries have achieved considerable success in improving child survival, but localized progress remains unclear. To inform efforts towards United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3.2—to end preventable child deaths by 2030—we need consistently estimated data at the subnational level regarding child mortality rates and trends. Here we quantified, for the period 2000–2017, the subnational variation in mortality rates and number of deaths of neonates, infants and children under 5 years of age within 99 low- and middle-income countries using a geostatistical survival model. We estimated that 32% of children under 5 in these countries lived in districts that had attained rates of 25 or fewer child deaths per 1,000 live births by 2017, and that 58% of child deaths between 2000 and 2017 in these countries could have been averted in the absence of geographical inequality. This study enables the identification of high-mortality clusters, patterns of progress and geographical inequalities to inform appropriate investments and implementations that will help to improve the health of all populations

Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: A systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Background: A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. Methods Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0-100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita. Findings In 2016, HAQ Index performance spanned from a high of 97\ub71 (95% UI 95\ub78-98\ub71) in Iceland, followed by 96\ub76 (94\ub79-97\ub79) in Norway and 96\ub71 (94\ub75-97\ub73) in the Netherlands, to values as low as 18\ub76 (13\ub71-24\ub74) in the Central African Republic, 19\ub70 (14\ub73-23\ub77) in Somalia, and 23\ub74 (20\ub72-26\ub78) in Guinea-Bissau. The pace of progress achieved between 1990 and 2016 varied, with markedly faster improvements occurring between 2000 and 2016 for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, whereas several countries in Latin America and elsewhere saw progress stagnate after experiencing considerable advances in the HAQ Index between 1990 and 2000. Striking subnational disparities emerged in personal health-care access and quality, with China and India having particularly large gaps between locations with the highest and lowest scores in 2016. In China, performance ranged from 91\ub75 (89\ub71-93\ub76) in Beijing to 48\ub70 (43\ub74-53\ub72) in Tibet (a 43\ub75-point difference), while India saw a 30\ub78-point disparity, from 64\ub78 (59\ub76-68\ub78) in Goa to 34\ub70 (30\ub73-38\ub71) in Assam. Japan recorded the smallest range in subnational HAQ performance in 2016 (a 4\ub78-point difference), whereas differences between subnational locations with the highest and lowest HAQ Index values were more than two times as high for the USA and three times as high for England. State-level gaps in the HAQ Index in Mexico somewhat narrowed from 1990 to 2016 (from a 20\ub79-point to 17\ub70-point difference), whereas in Brazil, disparities slightly increased across states during this time (a 17\ub72-point to 20\ub74-point difference). Performance on the HAQ Index showed strong linkages to overall development, with high and high-middle SDI countries generally having higher scores and faster gains for non-communicable diseases. Nonetheless, countries across the development spectrum saw substantial gains in some key health service areas from 2000 to 2016, most notably vaccine-preventable diseases. Overall, national performance on the HAQ Index was positively associated with higher levels of total health spending per capita, as well as health systems inputs, but these relationships were quite heterogeneous, particularly among low-to-middle SDI countries. Interpretation GBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle- SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals. Alongside initiatives to strengthen public health programmes, the pursuit of universal health coverage hinges upon improving both access and quality worldwide, and thus requires adopting a more comprehensive view-and subsequent provision-of quality health care for all populations

Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: A systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. Background A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. Methods Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0-100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita. Findings In 2016, HAQ Index performance spanned from a high of 97·1 (95% UI 95·8-98·1) in Iceland, followed by 96·6 (94·9-97·9) in Norway and 96·1 (94·5-97·3) in the Netherlands, to values as low as 18·6 (13·1-24·4) in the Central African Republic, 19·0 (14·3-23·7) in Somalia, and 23·4 (20·2-26·8) in Guinea-Bissau. The pace of progress achieved between 1990 and 2016 varied, with markedly faster improvements occurring between 2000 and 2016 for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, whereas several countries in Latin America and elsewhere saw progress stagnate after experiencing considerable advances in the HAQ Index between 1990 and 2000. Striking subnational disparities emerged in personal health-care access and quality, with China and India having particularly large gaps between locations with the highest and lowest scores in 2016. In China, performance ranged from 91·5 (89·1-93·6) in Beijing to 48·0 (43·4-53·2) in Tibet (a 43·5-point difference), while India saw a 30·8-point disparity, from 64·8 (59·6-68·8) in Goa to 34·0 (30·3-38·1) in Assam. Japan recorded the smallest range in subnational HAQ performance in 2016 (a 4·8-point difference), whereas differences between subnational locations with the highest and lowest HAQ Index values were more than two times as high for the USA and three times as high for England. State-level gaps in the HAQ Index in Mexico somewhat narrowed from 1990 to 2016 (from a 20·9-point to 17·0-point difference), whereas in Brazil, disparities slightly increased across states during this time (a 17·2-point to 20·4-point difference). Performance on the HAQ Index showed strong linkages to overall development, with high and high-middle SDI countries generally having higher scores and faster gains for non-communicable diseases. Nonetheless, countries across the development spectrum saw substantial gains in some key health service areas from 2000 to 2016, most notably vaccine-preventable diseases. Overall, national performance on the HAQ Index was positively associated with higher levels of total health spending per capita, as well as health systems inputs, but these relationships were quite heterogeneous, particularly among low-to-middle SDI countries. Interpretation GBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle- SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals. Alongside initiatives to strengthen public health programmes, the pursuit of universal health coverage hinges upon improving both access and quality worldwide, and thus requires adopting a more comprehensive view - and subsequent provision - of quality health care for all populations

Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Background The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017 comparative risk assessment (CRA) is a comprehensive approach to risk factor quantification that offers a useful tool for synthesising evidence on risks and risk–outcome associations. With each annual GBD study, we update the GBD CRA to incorporate improved methods, new risks and risk–outcome pairs, and new data on risk exposure levels and risk–outcome associations. Methods We used the CRA framework developed for previous iterations of GBD to estimate levels and trends in exposure, attributable deaths, and attributable disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), by age group, sex, year, and location for 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or groups of risks from 1990 to 2017. This study included 476 risk–outcome pairs that met the GBD study criteria for convincing or probable evidence of causation. We extracted relative risk and exposure estimates from 46 749 randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, household surveys, census data, satellite data, and other sources. We used statistical models to pool data, adjust for bias, and incorporate covariates. Using the counterfactual scenario of theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL), we estimated the portion of deaths and DALYs that could be attributed to a given risk. We explored the relationship between development and risk exposure by modelling the relationship between the Socio-demographic Index (SDI) and risk-weighted exposure prevalence and estimated expected levels of exposure and risk-attributable burden by SDI. Finally, we explored temporal changes in risk-attributable DALYs by decomposing those changes into six main component drivers of change as follows: (1) population growth; (2) changes in population age structures; (3) changes in exposure to environmental and occupational risks; (4) changes in exposure to behavioural risks; (5) changes in exposure to metabolic risks; and (6) changes due to all other factors, approximated as the risk-deleted death and DALY rates, where the risk-deleted rate is the rate that would be observed had we reduced the exposure levels to the TMREL for all risk factors included in GBD 2017. Findings In 2017, 34·1 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 33·3–35·0) deaths and 1·21 billion (1·14–1·28) DALYs were attributable to GBD risk factors. Globally, 61·0% (59·6–62·4) of deaths and 48·3% (46·3–50·2) of DALYs were attributed to the GBD 2017 risk factors. When ranked by risk-attributable DALYs, high systolic blood pressure (SBP) was the leading risk factor, accounting for 10·4 million (9·39–11·5) deaths and 218 million (198–237) DALYs, followed by smoking (7·10 million [6·83–7·37] deaths and 182 million [173–193] DALYs), high fasting plasma glucose (6·53 million [5·23–8·23] deaths and 171 million [144–201] DALYs), high body-mass index (BMI; 4·72 million [2·99–6·70] deaths and 148 million [98·6–202] DALYs), and short gestation for birthweight (1·43 million [1·36–1·51] deaths and 139 million [131–147] DALYs). In total, risk-attributable DALYs declined by 4·9% (3·3–6·5) between 2007 and 2017. In the absence of demographic changes (ie, population growth and ageing), changes in risk exposure and risk-deleted DALYs would have led to a 23·5% decline in DALYs during that period. Conversely, in the absence of changes in risk exposure and risk-deleted DALYs, demographic changes would have led to an 18·6% increase in DALYs during that period. The ratios of observed risk exposure levels to exposure levels expected based on SDI (O/E ratios) increased globally for unsafe drinking water and household air pollution between 1990 and 2017. This result suggests that development is occurring more rapidly than are changes in the underlying risk structure in a population. Conversely, nearly universal declines in O/E ratios for smoking and alcohol use indicate that, for a given SDI, exposure to these risks is declining. In 2017, the leading Level 4 risk factor for age-standardised DALY rates was high SBP in four super-regions: central Europe, eastern Europe, and central Asia; north Africa and Middle East; south Asia; and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania. The leading risk factor in the high-income super-region was smoking, in Latin America and Caribbean was high BMI, and in sub-Saharan Africa was unsafe sex. O/E ratios for unsafe sex in sub-Saharan Africa were notably high, and those for alcohol use in north Africa and the Middle East were notably low. Interpretation By quantifying levels and trends in exposures to risk factors and the resulting disease burden, this assessment offers insight into where past policy and programme efforts might have been successful and highlights current priorities for public health action. Decreases in behavioural, environmental, and occupational risks have largely offset the effects of population growth and ageing, in relation to trends in absolute burden. Conversely, the combination of increasing metabolic risks and population ageing will probably continue to drive the increasing trends in non-communicable diseases at the global level, which presents both a public health challenge and opportunity. We see considerable spatiotemporal heterogeneity in levels of risk exposure and risk-attributable burden. Although levels of development underlie some of this heterogeneity, O/E ratios show risks for which countries are overperforming or underperforming relative to their level of development. As such, these ratios provide a benchmarking tool to help to focus local decision making. Our findings reinforce the importance of both risk exposure monitoring and epidemiological research to assess causal connections between risks and health outcomes, and they highlight the usefulness of the GBD study in synthesising data to draw comprehensive and robust conclusions that help to inform good policy and strategic health planning

Erratum: Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Interpretation: By quantifying levels and trends in exposures to risk factors and the resulting disease burden, this assessment offers insight into where past policy and programme efforts might have been successful and highlights current priorities for public health action. Decreases in behavioural, environmental, and occupational risks have largely offset the effects of population growth and ageing, in relation to trends in absolute burden. Conversely, the combination of increasing metabolic risks and population ageing will probably continue to drive the increasing trends in non-communicable diseases at the global level, which presents both a public health challenge and opportunity. We see considerable spatiotemporal heterogeneity in levels of risk exposure and risk-attributable burden. Although levels of development underlie some of this heterogeneity, O/E ratios show risks for which countries are overperforming or underperforming relative to their level of development. As such, these ratios provide a benchmarking tool to help to focus local decision making. Our findings reinforce the importance of both risk exposure monitoring and epidemiological research to assess causal connections between risks and health outcomes, and they highlight the usefulness of the GBD study in synthesising data to draw comprehensive and robust conclusions that help to inform good policy and strategic health planning