Repositioning of the global epicentre of non-optimal cholesterol

High blood cholesterol is typically considered a feature of wealthy western countries(1,2). However, dietary and behavioural determinants of blood cholesterol are changing rapidly throughout the world(3) and countries are using lipid-lowering medications at varying rates. These changes can have distinct effects on the levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol, which have different effects on human health(4,5). However, the trends of HDL and non-HDL cholesterol levels over time have not been previously reported in a global analysis. Here we pooled 1,127 population-based studies that measured blood lipids in 102.6 million individuals aged 18 years and older to estimate trends from 1980 to 2018 in mean total, non-HDL and HDL cholesterol levels for 200 countries. Globally, there was little change in total or non-HDL cholesterol from 1980 to 2018. This was a net effect of increases in low- and middle-income countries, especially in east and southeast Asia, and decreases in high-income western countries, especially those in northwestern Europe, and in central and eastern Europe. As a result, countries with the highest level of non-HDL cholesterol-which is a marker of cardiovascular riskchanged from those in western Europe such as Belgium, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Malta in 1980 to those in Asia and the Pacific, such as Tokelau, Malaysia, The Philippines and Thailand. In 2017, high non-HDL cholesterol was responsible for an estimated 3.9 million (95% credible interval 3.7 million-4.2 million) worldwide deaths, half of which occurred in east, southeast and south Asia. The global repositioning of lipid-related risk, with non-optimal cholesterol shifting from a distinct feature of high-income countries in northwestern Europe, north America and Australasia to one that affects countries in east and southeast Asia and Oceania should motivate the use of population-based policies and personal interventions to improve nutrition and enhance access to treatment throughout the world.Peer reviewe

Height and body-mass index trajectories of school-aged children and adolescents from 1985 to 2019 in 200 countries and territories: a pooled analysis of 2181 population-based studies with 65 million participants

Summary Background Comparable global data on health and nutrition of school-aged children and adolescents are scarce. We aimed to estimate age trajectories and time trends in mean height and mean body-mass index (BMI), which measures weight gain beyond what is expected from height gain, for school-aged children and adolescents. Methods For this pooled analysis, we used a database of cardiometabolic risk factors collated by the Non-Communicable Disease Risk Factor Collaboration. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate trends from 1985 to 2019 in mean height and mean BMI in 1-year age groups for ages 5–19 years. The model allowed for non-linear changes over time in mean height and mean BMI and for non-linear changes with age of children and adolescents, including periods of rapid growth during adolescence. Findings We pooled data from 2181 population-based studies, with measurements of height and weight in 65 million participants in 200 countries and territories. In 2019, we estimated a difference of 20 cm or higher in mean height of 19-year-old adolescents between countries with the tallest populations (the Netherlands, Montenegro, Estonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina for boys; and the Netherlands, Montenegro, Denmark, and Iceland for girls) and those with the shortest populations (Timor-Leste, Laos, Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea for boys; and Guatemala, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Timor-Leste for girls). In the same year, the difference between the highest mean BMI (in Pacific island countries, Kuwait, Bahrain, The Bahamas, Chile, the USA, and New Zealand for both boys and girls and in South Africa for girls) and lowest mean BMI (in India, Bangladesh, Timor-Leste, Ethiopia, and Chad for boys and girls; and in Japan and Romania for girls) was approximately 9–10 kg/m2. In some countries, children aged 5 years started with healthier height or BMI than the global median and, in some cases, as healthy as the best performing countries, but they became progressively less healthy compared with their comparators as they grew older by not growing as tall (eg, boys in Austria and Barbados, and girls in Belgium and Puerto Rico) or gaining too much weight for their height (eg, girls and boys in Kuwait, Bahrain, Fiji, Jamaica, and Mexico; and girls in South Africa and New Zealand). In other countries, growing children overtook the height of their comparators (eg, Latvia, Czech Republic, Morocco, and Iran) or curbed their weight gain (eg, Italy, France, and Croatia) in late childhood and adolescence. When changes in both height and BMI were considered, girls in South Korea, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and some central Asian countries (eg, Armenia and Azerbaijan), and boys in central and western Europe (eg, Portugal, Denmark, Poland, and Montenegro) had the healthiest changes in anthropometric status over the past 3·5 decades because, compared with children and adolescents in other countries, they had a much larger gain in height than they did in BMI. The unhealthiest changes—gaining too little height, too much weight for their height compared with children in other countries, or both—occurred in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, New Zealand, and the USA for boys and girls; in Malaysia and some Pacific island nations for boys; and in Mexico for girls. Interpretation The height and BMI trajectories over age and time of school-aged children and adolescents are highly variable across countries, which indicates heterogeneous nutritional quality and lifelong health advantages and risks

Rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with high in-hospital mortality. Alveolar recruitment followed by ventilation at optimal titrated PEEP may reduce ventilator-induced lung injury and improve oxygenation in patients with ARDS, but the effects on mortality and other clinical outcomes remain unknown. This article reports the rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART). Methods/Design: ART is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized (concealed), controlled trial, which aims to determine if maximum stepwise alveolar recruitment associated with PEEP titration is able to increase 28-day survival in patients with ARDS compared to conventional treatment (ARDSNet strategy). We will enroll adult patients with ARDS of less than 72 h duration. The intervention group will receive an alveolar recruitment maneuver, with stepwise increases of PEEP achieving 45 cmH(2)O and peak pressure of 60 cmH2O, followed by ventilation with optimal PEEP titrated according to the static compliance of the respiratory system. In the control group, mechanical ventilation will follow a conventional protocol (ARDSNet). In both groups, we will use controlled volume mode with low tidal volumes (4 to 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight) and targeting plateau pressure <= 30 cmH2O. The primary outcome is 28-day survival, and the secondary outcomes are: length of ICU stay; length of hospital stay; pneumothorax requiring chest tube during first 7 days; barotrauma during first 7 days; mechanical ventilation-free days from days 1 to 28; ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month survival. ART is an event-guided trial planned to last until 520 events (deaths within 28 days) are observed. These events allow detection of a hazard ratio of 0.75, with 90% power and two-tailed type I error of 5%. All analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion: If the ART strategy with maximum recruitment and PEEP titration improves 28-day survival, this will represent a notable advance to the care of ARDS patients. Conversely, if the ART strategy is similar or inferior to the current evidence-based strategy (ARDSNet), this should also change current practice as many institutions routinely employ recruitment maneuvers and set PEEP levels according to some titration method.Hospital do Coracao (HCor) as part of the Program 'Hospitais de Excelencia a Servico do SUS (PROADI-SUS)'Brazilian Ministry of Healt

XLVIII Coloquio Argentino de Estadística. VI Jornada de Educación Estadística Martha Aliaga Modalidad virtual

Esta publicación es una compilación de las actividades realizadas en el marco del XLVIII Coloquio Argentino de Estadística y la VI Jornada de Educación Estadística Martha Aliaga organizada por la Sociedad Argentina de Estadística y la Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Se presenta un resumen para cada uno de los talleres, cursos realizados, ponencias y poster presentados. Para los dos últimos se dispone de un hipervínculo que direcciona a la presentación del trabajo. Ellos obedecen a distintas temáticas de la estadística con una sesión especial destinada a la aplicación de modelos y análisis de datos sobre COVID-19.Fil: Saino, Martín. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Stimolo, María Inés. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Ortiz, Pablo. Universidad Nacional de córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Guardiola, Mariana. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Aguirre, Alberto Frank Lázaro. Universidade Federal de Alfenas. Departamento de Estatística. Instituto de Ciências Exatas; Brasil.Fil: Alves Nogueira, Denismar. Universidade Federal de Alfenas. Departamento de Estatística. Instituto de Ciências Exatas; Brasil.Fil: Beijo, Luiz Alberto. Universidade Federal de Alfenas. Departamento de Estatística. Instituto de Ciências Exatas; Brasil.Fil: Solis, Juan Manuel. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. Centro de Estudios en Bioestadística, Bioinformática y Agromática; Argentina.Fil: Alabar, Fabio. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. Centro de Estudios en Bioestadística, Bioinformática y Agromática; Argentina.Fil: Ruiz, Sebastián León. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. Centro de Estudios en Bioestadística, Bioinformática y Agromática; Argentina.Fil: Hurtado, Rafael. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy; Argentina.Fil: Alegría Jiménez, Alfredo. Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María. Departamento de Matemática; Chile.Fil: Emery, Xavier. Universidad de Chile. Departamento de Ingeniería en Minas; Chile.Fil: Emery, Xavier. Universidad de Chile. Advanced Mining Technology Center; Chile.Fil: Álvarez-Vaz, Ramón. Universidad de la República. Instituto de Estadística. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos; Uruguay.Fil: Massa, Fernando. Universidad de la República. Instituto de Estadística. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos; Uruguay.Fil: Vernazza, Elena. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Estadística; Uruguay.Fil: Lezcano, Mikaela. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Estadística; Uruguay.Fil: Urruticoechea, Alar. Universidad Católica del Uruguay. Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud. Departamento de Neurocognición; Uruguay.Fil: del Callejo Canal, Diana. Universidad Veracruzana. Instituto de Investigación de Estudios Superiores, Económicos y Sociales; México.Fil: Canal Martínez, Margarita. Universidad Veracruzana. Instituto de Investigación de Estudios Superiores, Económicos y Sociales; México.Fil: Ruggia, Ornela. CONICET; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias. Departamento de desarrollo rural; Argentina.Fil: Tolosa, Leticia Eva. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina. Universidad Católica de Córdoba; Argentina.Fil: Rojo, María Paula. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina.Fil: Nicolas, María Claudia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina. Universidad Católica de Córdoba; Argentina.Fil: Barbaroy, Tomás. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina.Fil: Villarreal, Fernanda. CONICET, Universidad Nacional del Sur. Instituto de Matemática de Bahía Blanca (INMABB); Argentina.Fil: Pisani, María Virginia. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Quintana, Alicia. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Elorza, María Eugenia. CONICET. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; Argentina.Fil: Peretti, Gianluca. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Buzzi, Sergio Martín. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Estadística y Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Settecase, Eugenia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadísticas. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas en Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Settecase, Eugenia. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Leslie Research Facility; Australia.Fil: Paccapelo, María Valeria. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Leslie Research Facility; Australia.Fil: Cuesta, Cristina. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadísticas. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas en Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Saenz, José Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Luna, Silvia. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Paredes, Paula. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Maglione, Dora. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Rosas, Juan E. Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA); Uruguay.Fil: Pérez de Vida, Fernando. Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA); Uruguay.Fil: Marella, Muzio. Sociedad Anónima Molinos Arroceros Nacionales (SAMAN); Uruguay.Fil: Berberian, Natalia. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Agronomía; Uruguay.Fil: Ponce, Daniela. Universidad Estadual Paulista. Facultad de Medicina; Brasil.Fil: Silveira, Liciana Vaz de A. Universidad Estadual Paulista; Brasil.Fil: Freitas Galletti, Agda Jessica de. Universidad Estadual Paulista; Brasil.Fil: Bellassai, Juan Carlos. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Centro de Investigación y Estudios de Matemáticas (CIEM-Conicet); Argentina.Fil: Pappaterra, María Lucía. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Centro de Investigación y Estudios de Matemáticas (CIEM-Conicet); Argentina.Fil: Ojeda, Silvia María. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Matemática, Astronomía, Física y Computación; Argentina.Fil: Ascua, Melina Belén. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Roldán, Dana Agustina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Rodi, Ayrton Luis. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Ventre, Giuliana. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: González, Agustina. Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físico-Químicas y Naturales. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Palacio, Gabriela. Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físico-Químicas y Naturales. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Bigolin, Sabina. Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físico-Químicas y Naturales. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Ferrero, Susana. Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físico-Químicas y Naturales. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Del Medico, Ana Paula. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Agrarias de Rosario (IICAR); Argentina.Fil: Pratta, Guillermo. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Agrarias de Rosario (IICAR); Argentina.Fil: Tenaglia, Gerardo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Instituto de Investigación y Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Agricultura Familiar; Argentina.Fil: Lavalle, Andrea. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Departamento de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Demaio, Alejo. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Hernández, Paz. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Di Palma, Fabricio. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Calizaya, Pablo. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Avalis, Francisca. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Caro, Norma Patricia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Caro, Norma Patricia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Fernícola, Marcela. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Nuñez, Myriam. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Dundray, , Fabián. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Calviño, Amalia. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Química y Metabolismo del Fármaco. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Farfán Machaca, Yheni. Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco. Departamento Académico de Matemáticas y Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Paucar, Guillermo. Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco. Departamento Académico de Matemáticas y Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Coaquira, Frida. Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco. Escuela de posgrado UNSAAC; Argentina.Fil: Ferreri, Noemí M. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Pascaner, Melina. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Martinez, Facundo. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Bossolasco, María Luisa. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina.Fil: Bortolotto, Eugenia B. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro de Estudios Fotosintéticos y Bioquímicos (CEFOBI); Argentina.Fil: Bortolotto, Eugenia B. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Faviere, Gabriela S. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro de Estudios Fotosintéticos y Bioquímicos (CEFOBI); Argentina.Fil: Faviere, Gabriela S. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Angelini, Julia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro de Estudios Fotosintéticos y Bioquímicos (CEFOBI); Argentina.Fil: Angelini, Julia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Cervigni, Gerardo. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro de Estudios Fotosintéticos y Bioquímicos (CEFOBI); Argentina.Fil: Cervigni, Gerardo. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Valentini, Gabriel. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria INTA San Pedro; Argentina.Fil: Chiapella, Luciana C.. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Bioquímicas y Farmacéuticas; Argentina.Fil: Chiapella, Luciana C. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET); Argentina.Fil: Grendas, Leandro. Universidad Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Farmacología; Argentina.Fil: Daray, Federico. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET); Argentina.Fil: Daray, Federico. Universidad Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Farmacología; Argentina.Fil: Leal, Danilo. Universidad Andrés Bello. Facultad de Ingeniería; Chile.Fil: Nicolis, Orietta. Universidad Andrés Bello. Facultad de Ingeniería; Chile.Fil: Bonadies, María Eugenia. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Ponteville, Christiane. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Catalano, Mara. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Catalano, Mara. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Dillon, Justina. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Carnevali, Graciela H. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Justo, Claudio Eduardo. Universidad Nacional de la Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Agrimensura. Grupo de Aplicaciones Matemáticas y Estadísticas (UIDET); Argentina.Fil: Iglesias, Maximiliano. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Estadística y Demografía; Argentina.Fil: Gómez, Pablo Sebastián. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Real, Ariel Hernán. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Vargas, Silvia Lorena. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: López Calcagno, Yanil. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Batto, Mabel. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Sampaolesi, Edgardo. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Tealdi, Juan Manuel. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Buzzi, Sergio Martín. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Estadística y Matemática; Argentina.Fil: García Bazán, Gaspar. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Monroy Caicedo, Xiomara Alejandra. Universidad Nacional de Rosario; Argentina.Fil: Bermúdez Rubio, Dagoberto. Universidad Santo Tomás. Facultad de Estadística; Colombia.Fil: Ricci, Lila. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Centro Marplatense de Investigaciones Matemáticas; Argentina.Fil: Kelmansky, Diana Mabel. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Cálculo; Argentina.Fil: Rapelli, Cecilia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Escuela de Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: García, María del Carmen. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Escuela de Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Bussi, Javier. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Méndez, Fernanda. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística (IITAE); Argentina.Fil: García Mata, Luis Ángel. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán; México.Fil: Ramírez González, Marco Antonio. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán; México.Fil: Rossi, Laura. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Vicente, Gonzalo. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina. Universidad Pública de Navarra. Departamento de Estadística, Informática y Matemáticas; España.Fil: Scavino, Marco. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Estadística; Uruguay.Fil: Estragó, Virginia. Presidencia de la República. Comisión Honoraria para la Salud Cardiovascular; Uruguay.Fil: Muñoz, Matías. Presidencia de la República. Comisión Honoraria para la Salud Cardiovascular; Uruguay.Fil: Castrillejo, Andrés. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Estadística; Uruguay.Fil: Da Rocha, Naila Camila. Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho- UNESP. Departamento de Bioestadística; BrasilFil: Macola Pacheco Barbosa, Abner. Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho- UNESP; Brasil.Fil: Corrente, José Eduardo. Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho – UNESP. Instituto de Biociencias. Departamento de Bioestadística; Brasil.Fil: Spataro, Javier. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Economía; Argentina.Fil: Salvatierra, Luca Mauricio. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Nahas, Estefanía. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Márquez, Viviana. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Boggio, Gabriela. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Arnesi, Nora. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Harvey, Guillermina. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Settecase, Eugenia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Wojdyla, Daniel. Duke University. Duke Clinical Research Institute; Estados Unidos.Fil: Blasco, Manuel. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Economía y Finanzas; Argentina.Fil: Stanecka, Nancy. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Estadística y Demografía; Argentina.Fil: Caro, Valentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Estadística y Demografía; Argentina.Fil: Sigal, Facundo. Universidad Austral. Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales. Departamento de Economía; Argentina.Fil: Blacona, María Teresa. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Rodriguez, Norberto Vicente. Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero; Argentina.Fil: Loiacono, Karina Valeria. Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero; Argentina.Fil: García, Gregorio. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. Dirección Nacional de Metodología Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Ciardullo, Emanuel. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. Dirección Nacional de Metodología Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Ciardullo, Emanuel. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. Dirección Nacional de Metodología Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Funkner, Sofía. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina.Fil: Dieser, María Paula. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina.Fil: Martín, María Cristina. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina.Fil: Martín, María Cristina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Peitton, Lucas. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística; Argentina. Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries; Australia.Fil: Borgognone, María Gabriela. Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries; Australia.Fil: Terreno, Dante D. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Contabilidad; Argentina.Fil: Castro González, Enrique L. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Contabilidad; Argentina.Fil: Roldán, Janina Micaela. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina.Fil: González, Gisela Paula. CONICET. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; Argentina.Fil: De Santis, Mariana. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Geri, Milva. CONICET. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; Argentina.Fil: Geri, Milva. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Economía; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Marfia, Martín. Universidad Nacional de la Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Kudraszow, Nadia L. Universidad Nacional de la Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas. Centro de Matemática de La Plata; Argentina.Fil: Closas, Humberto. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional; Argentina.Fil: Amarilla, Mariela. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional; Argentina.Fil: Jovanovich, Carina. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional; Argentina.Fil: de Castro, Idalia. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste; Argentina.Fil: Franchini, Noelia. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste; Argentina.Fil: Cruz, Rosa. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste; Argentina.Fil: Dusicka, Alicia. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste; Argentina.Fil: Quaglino, Marta. Universidad Nacional de Rosario; Argentina.Fil: Kalauz, Roberto José Andrés. Investigador Independiente; Argentina.Fil: González, Mariana Verónica. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Estadística y Matemáticas; Argentina.Fil: Lescano, Maira Celeste.

Defining the causes of sporadic Parkinson's disease in the global Parkinson's genetics program (GP2)

The Global Parkinson’s Genetics Program (GP2) will genotype over 150,000 participants from around the world, and integrate genetic and clinical data for use in large-scale analyses to dramatically expand our understanding of the genetic architecture of PD. This report details the workflow for cohort integration into the complex arm of GP2, and together with our outline of the monogenic hub in a companion paper, provides a generalizable blueprint for establishing large scale collaborative research consortia

Multi-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of Parkinson?s disease

Although over 90 independent risk variants have been identified for Parkinson’s disease using genome-wide association studies, most studies have been performed in just one population at a time. Here we performed a large-scale multi-ancestry meta-analysis of Parkinson’s disease with 49,049 cases, 18,785 proxy cases and 2,458,063 controls including individuals of European, East Asian, Latin American and African ancestry. In a meta-analysis, we identified 78 independent genome-wide significant loci, including 12 potentially novel loci (MTF2, PIK3CA, ADD1, SYBU, IRS2, USP8, PIGL, FASN, MYLK2, USP25, EP300 and PPP6R2) and fine-mapped 6 putative causal variants at 6 known PD loci. By combining our results with publicly available eQTL data, we identified 25 putative risk genes in these novel loci whose expression is associated with PD risk. This work lays the groundwork for future efforts aimed at identifying PD loci in non-European populations

Global variations in diabetes mellitus based on fasting glucose and haemogloblin A1c

Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) are both used to diagnose diabetes, but may identify different people as having diabetes. We used data from 117 population-based studies and quantified, in different world regions, the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes, and whether those who were previously undiagnosed and detected as having diabetes in survey screening had elevated FPG, HbA1c, or both. We developed prediction equations for estimating the probability that a person without previously diagnosed diabetes, and at a specific level of FPG, had elevated HbA1c, and vice versa. The age-standardised proportion of diabetes that was previously undiagnosed, and detected in survey screening, ranged from 30% in the high-income western region to 66% in south Asia. Among those with screen-detected diabetes with either test, the agestandardised proportion who had elevated levels of both FPG and HbA1c was 29-39% across regions; the remainder had discordant elevation of FPG or HbA1c. In most low- and middle-income regions, isolated elevated HbA1c more common than isolated elevated FPG. In these regions, the use of FPG alone may delay diabetes diagnosis and underestimate diabetes prevalence. Our prediction equations help allocate finite resources for measuring HbA1c to reduce the global gap in diabetes diagnosis and surveillance.peer-reviewe

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. Copyright (C) 2021 World Health Organization; licensee Elsevier