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

Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study

Background: Many causes of vision impairment can be prevented or treated. With an ageing global population, the demands for eye health services are increasing. We estimated the prevalence and relative contribution of avoidable causes of blindness and vision impairment globally from 1990 to 2020. We aimed to compare the results with the World Health Assembly Global Action Plan (WHA GAP) target of a 25% global reduction from 2010 to 2019 in avoidable vision impairment, defined as cataract and undercorrected refractive error. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys of eye disease from January, 1980, to October, 2018. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate prevalence (with 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) of moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI; presenting visual acuity from <6/18 to 3/60) and blindness (<3/60 or less than 10° visual field around central fixation) by cause, age, region, and year. Because of data sparsity at younger ages, our analysis focused on adults aged 50 years and older. Findings: Global crude prevalence of avoidable vision impairment and blindness in adults aged 50 years and older did not change between 2010 and 2019 (percentage change −0·2% [95% UI −1·5 to 1·0]; 2019 prevalence 9·58 cases per 1000 people [95% IU 8·51 to 10·8], 2010 prevalence 96·0 cases per 1000 people [86·0 to 107·0]). Age-standardised prevalence of avoidable blindness decreased by −15·4% [–16·8 to −14·3], while avoidable MSVI showed no change (0·5% [–0·8 to 1·6]). However, the number of cases increased for both avoidable blindness (10·8% [8·9 to 12·4]) and MSVI (31·5% [30·0 to 33·1]). The leading global causes of blindness in those aged 50 years and older in 2020 were cataract (15·2 million cases [9% IU 12·7–18·0]), followed by glaucoma (3·6 million cases [2·8–4·4]), undercorrected refractive error (2·3 million cases [1·8–2·8]), age-related macular degeneration (1·8 million cases [1·3–2·4]), and diabetic retinopathy (0·86 million cases [0·59–1·23]). Leading causes of MSVI were undercorrected refractive error (86·1 million cases [74·2–101·0]) and cataract (78·8 million cases [67·2–91·4]). Interpretation: Results suggest eye care services contributed to the observed reduction of age-standardised rates of avoidable blindness but not of MSVI, and that the target in an ageing global population was not reached. Funding: Brien Holden Vision Institute, Fondation Théa, The Fred Hollows Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lions Clubs International Foundation, Sightsavers International, and University of Heidelberg

Stool-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Test Performance Characteristics in Those With and Without Hemorrhoids

Objective: To evaluate the effect of hemorrhoids on noninvasive stool test performance for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of test characteristics for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and the multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, on the basis of hemorrhoid status, recorded at the time of colonoscopy, among patients enrolled in the pivotal prospective study for mt-sDNA that was conducted from June 2011, to May 2013. Test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values) for FIT and mt-sDNA (performed < 90 days before colonoscopy) were stratified by the presence of hemorrhoids and compared. Results: Hemorrhoids were found in 51.7% (5163 of 9989) of the study cohort. Across all test characteristics, there were no statistically significant differences for FIT or mt-sDNA when stratified by hemorrhoid status. Analysis revealed mt-sDNA sensitivity of 44% and 41% for advanced precancerous lesions in nonhemorrhoidal and hemorrhoid patients, respectively (P=.41). The FIT sensitivity among the same lesion category was 24.9% in patients without hemorrhoids and 22.8% in those with hemorrhoids (P=.48). The mt-sDNA specificity was 86.4% in patients without hemorrhoids vs 87.7% in those with hemorrhoids (P=.67), although FIT specificity was 95.0% among patients without hemorrhoids vs 94.7% in those with hemorrhoids (P=.44). Conclusion: The presence of asymptomatic hemorrhoids did not adversely affect test performance in this large clinical study. These findings suggest that in the absence of overt gastrointestinal bleeding, FIT and mt-sDNA are options for CRC screening, irrespective of hemorrhoid status. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT0139774

Well-Being Champion Impact on Employee Engagement, Staff Satisfaction, and Employee Well-Being

Objective: To evaluate the potential impact of a workplace well-being champion on employee and organizational measures of well-being. Patients and Methods: Baseline well-being measures were collected in October 2-20, 2017 and analyzed from January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2018 by incorporating a focused question set (addressing meaning in work, work-life integration, and physical, social, financial, emotional, and general well-being) into the biennial Mayo Clinic All-Staff Survey. Results: The survey was distributed to 64,059 employees, with a response rate of 73%. Employees with a work unit well-being champion had more favorable responses overall than did employees reporting no well-being champion. The percentage responding “favorably” to each well-being measure differed from 2 to 12 percentage points and were all highly statistically significant (P<.001). Measures with the greatest difference included questions associated with the well-being domains of physical (85% vs 73%), social (84% vs 72%), and financial (72% vs 63%), as well as general well-being (69% vs 60%). Those reporting having a well-being champion had more favorable responses to several questions regarding the immediate supervisor and the work environment being conducive to carry out organizational values, trust within the work unit, ability to speak freely, efforts to make everyone feel a part of the team, and accountability within the work unit. Conclusion: Having a work unit well-being champion, coupled with an organizational commitment to employee well-being, is associated with better employee engagement, satisfaction, and perception of personal well-being, as well as a more favorable perception of the organization, strongly supporting the multilevel benefits of a robust well-being champion program

A Worksite Wellness Intervention: Improving Happiness, Life Satisfaction, and Gratitude in Health Care Workers

Objective: To assess the effect of a 12-week Stress Management and Resilience Training (SMART) program on happiness, life satisfaction, gratitude, mindfulness, spirituality, and stress in health care workers. Participants and Methods: Participants were members of an employee wellness center at an academic health care center. Participants were enrolled as cohorts of 12 to 18 individuals and received the intervention at an employee wellness center from February 19, 2013, to February 27, 2017. The study was designed as a prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm clinical trial that included a 3-month in-person SMART program (defined as the intervention), with an additional 3-month postintervention follow-up period (6 months total). Outcomes were assessed at baseline (T0), end of intervention (T3), and after the postintervention follow-up period (T6) and included Subjective Happiness Survey, Satisfaction with Life Scale, Gratitude Scale, Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Spiritual Well-Being, and Perceived Stress Scale. Results: Of the 110 participants who enrolled and provided consent, 98 participants (89%) completed the T0 and T3 assessments and 85 participants (77%) completed the T0, T3, and T6 assessments. On comparing the T0 and T6 responses, we observed statistically significant improvements (P<.001) in all the domains studied: subjective happiness (baseline average, 4.6; T6 average, 5.5; average difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.0), life satisfaction (baseline average, 22.8; T6 average, 27.5; average difference, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.6-5.9); gratitude (baseline average, 35.8; T6 average, 39.3; average difference, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.6-4.5), mindfulness (baseline average, 3.5; T6 average, 4.2; average difference, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Spiritual Well-Being (baseline average, 29.9; T6 average, 37.4; average difference, 7.5; 95% CI, 6.0-9.2), and percentage of people reporting high stress (baseline, 97.6%; T6, 67.1%). Similar results were observed when comparing the T0 and T3 responses. Conclusion: In health care workers, training in the SMART program was associated with statistically significant improvements in happiness, satisfaction with life, gratitude, mindfulness, spirituality, and stress (P<.001). Given the importance of stress in the workplace, larger randomized trials and broader dissemination of the program in health care workers is warranted

Alcohol consumption and colon cancer prognosis among participants in North Central Cancer Treatment Group phase III trial N0147.

Alcohol consumption is associated with a modest increased risk of colon cancer, but its relationship with colon cancer survival has not been elucidated. Using data from a phase III randomized adjuvant trial, we assessed the association of alcohol consumption with colon cancer outcomes. Patients completed a risk factor questionnaire before randomization to FOLFOX or FOLFOX+cetuximab (N=1984). Information was collected on lifestyle factors, including smoking, physical activity, and consumption of different types of alcohol. Cox models assessed the association between alcohol consumption and outcomes of disease-free survival (DFS), time-to-recurrence (TTR) and overall survival (OS), adjusting for age, sex, study arm, body mass, smoking, physical activity, and performance status. No statistically significant difference in outcomes between ever and never drinkers were noted [hazard ratio (HR)DFS =0.86, HRTTR =0.87, HROS =0.86, p-values=0.11 to 0.17]. However, when considering alcohol type, ever consumers of red wine (n=628) had significantly better outcomes than never consumers (HRDFS =0.80, HRTTR =0.81, HROS =0.78, p-values=0.01 to 0.02). Favorable outcomes were confirmed in patients who consumed 1-30 glasses/month of red wine (n=601, HR=0.80 to 0.83, p-values=0.03 to 0.049); there was a suggestion of more favorable outcomes in patients who consumed \u3e30 glasses/month of red wine (n=27, HR=0.33 to 0.38, p-values=0.05 to 0.06). Beer and liquor consumption were not associated with outcomes. Although alcohol consumption was not associated with colon cancer outcomes overall, mild to moderate red wine consumption was suggestively associated with longer OS, DFS, and TTR in stage III colon cancer patients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Patient and Tumor Characteristics and BRAF and KRAS Mutations in ColonCancer, NCCTG/Alliance N0147.

BACKGROUND: KRAS and BRAF (V600E) mutations are important predictive and prognostic markers, respectively, in colon cancer, but little is known about patient and clinical factors associated with them. METHODS: Two thousand three hundred twenty-six of 3397 patients in the N0147 phase III adjuvant trial for stage III colon cancer completed a patient questionnaire. Primary tumors were assessed for KRAS and BRAF (V600E) mutations and defective mismatch repair (dMMR) status. Logistic regression models and categorical data analysis were used to identify associations of patient and tumor characteristics with mutation status. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: KRAS (35%) and BRAF (V600E) (14%) mutations were nearly mutually exclusive. KRAS mutations were more likely to be present in patients without a family history of colon cancer and never smokers. Tumors with KRAS mutations were less likely to have dMMR (odds ratio [OR] = 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.15 to 0.31; P \u3c .001) and high-grade histology (OR = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.92; P \u3c .001) but were more often right-sided. Among KRAS-mutated tumors, those with a Gly13Asp mutation tended to have dMMR and high-grade histology. Tumors with BRAF (V600E) mutations were more likely to be seen in patients who were aged 70 years or older (OR = 3.33; 95% CI = 2.50 to 4.42; P \u3c .001) and current or former smokers (OR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.26 to 2.14; P \u3c .001) but less likely in non-whites and men. Tumors with BRAF (V600E) mutations were more likely to be right-sided and to have four or more positive lymph nodes, high-grade histology, and dMMR. CONCLUSIONS: Specific patient and tumor characteristics are associated with KRAS and BRAF (V600E) mutations