Signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1) gain-of-function mutations and disseminated coccidioidomycosis and histoplasmosis

Background: Impaired signaling in the IFN-g/IL-12 pathway causes susceptibility to severe disseminated infections with mycobacteria and dimorphic yeasts. Dominant gain-of-function mutations in signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1) have been associated with chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis. Objective: We sought to identify the molecular defect in patients with disseminated dimorphic yeast infections. Methods: PBMCs, EBV-transformed B cells, and transfected U3A cell lines were studied for IFN-g/IL-12 pathway function. STAT1 was sequenced in probands and available relatives. Interferon-induced STAT1 phosphorylation, transcriptional responses, protein-protein interactions, target gene activation, and function were investigated. Results: We identified 5 patients with disseminated Coccidioides immitis or Histoplasma capsulatum with heterozygous missense mutations in the STAT1 coiled-coil or DNA-binding domains. These are dominant gain-of-function mutations causing enhanced STAT1 phosphorylation, delayed dephosphorylation, enhanced DNA binding and transactivation, and enhanced interaction with protein inhibitor of activated STAT1. The mutations caused enhanced IFN-g–induced gene expression, but we found impaired responses to IFN-g restimulation. Conclusion: Gain-of-function mutations in STAT1 predispose to invasive, severe, disseminated dimorphic yeast infections, likely through aberrant regulation of IFN-g–mediated inflammationFil: Sampaio, Elizabeth P.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados Unidos. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratorio de Leprologia; BrasilFil: Hsu, Amy P.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Pechacek, Joseph. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Hannelore I.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados Unidos. Erasmus Medical Center. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease; Países BajosFil: Dias, Dalton L.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Paulson, Michelle L.. Clinical Research Directorate/CMRP; Estados UnidosFil: Chandrasekaran, Prabha. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Rosen, Lindsey B.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Carvalho, Daniel S.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados Unidos. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Laboratorio de Leprologia; BrasilFil: Ding, Li. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Vinh, Donald C.. McGill University Health Centre. Division of Infectious Diseases; CanadáFil: Browne, Sarah K.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Datta, Shrimati. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Allergic Diseases. Allergic Inflammation Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Milner, Joshua D.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Allergic Diseases. Allergic Inflammation Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Kuhns, Douglas B.. Clinical Services Program; Estados UnidosFil: Long Priel, Debra A.. Clinical Services Program; Estados UnidosFil: Sadat, Mohammed A.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Host Defenses. Infectious Diseases Susceptibility Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Shiloh, Michael. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: De Marco, Brendan. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: Alvares, Michael. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Allergy and Immunology; Estados UnidosFil: Gillman, Jason W.. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: Ramarathnam, Vivek. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: de la Morena, Maite. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Allergy and Immunology; Estados UnidosFil: Bezrodnik, Liliana. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital General de Niños "Ricardo Gutierrez"; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Moreira, Ileana. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital General de Niños "Ricardo Gutierrez"; ArgentinaFil: Uzel, Gulbu. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Johnson, Daniel. University of Chicago. Comer Children; Estados UnidosFil: Spalding, Christine. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Zerbe, Christa S.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Wiley, Henry. National Eye Institute. Clinical Trials Branch; Estados UnidosFil: Greenberg, David E.. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: Hoover, Susan E.. University of Arizona. College of Medicine. Valley Fever Center for Excellence; Estados UnidosFil: Rosenzweig, Sergio D.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Host Defenses Infectious Diseases Susceptibility Unit; Estados Unidos. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Primary Immunodeficiency Clinic; Estados UnidosFil: Galgiani, John N.. University of Arizona. College of Medicine. Valley Fever Center for Excellence; Estados UnidosFil: Holland, Steven M.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados Unido

Vaccination following the expanded programme on immunization schedule could help to reduce deaths in children under five hospitalized for pneumonia and severe pneumonia in a developing country

BackgroundWorldwide, pneumonia is the leading cause of mortality in children under the age of five. An expanded program on immunization (EPI) is one kind of evidence-based tool for controlling and even eradicating infectious diseases.ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore the impact of EPI vaccination, including BCG, DPT-Hib-Hep B, OPV, IPV, and PCV-10, among children from the age of 4 to 59 months hospitalized for pneumonia and severe pneumonia. Additionally, we evaluated the role of 10 valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines alone on clinical outcomes in such children.MethodsIn this retrospective chart review, children from the age of 4 to 59 months with WHO-defined pneumonia and severe pneumonia admitted to the Dhaka Hospital of the International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) between August 2013 and December 2017 who had the information on immunization as per EPI schedule by 4 months of age were included in the analysis. A comparison was made between the children who were fully immunized (immunization with BCG, DPT-Hib-Hep B, OPV, and IPV from 2013 to 2015 and PCV-10 from 2015 to 2017) and who were not immunized (consisting of partial immunization and no immunization) during the study period.ResultsA total of 4,625 children had pneumonia and severe pneumonia during the study period. Among them, 2,605 (56.3%) had received the information on immunization; 2,195 (84.3%) were fully immunized by 4 months of age according to the EPI schedule and 410 were not immunized. In the log-linear binomial regression analysis, immunization of children from 4 to 59 months of age was found to be associated with a lower risk of diarrhea (p = 0.033), severe pneumonia (p = 0.001), anemia (p = 0.026), and deaths (p = 0.035). Importantly, the risk of developing severe pneumonia (1054/1,570 [67%] vs. 202/257 [79%], p < 0.001) and case-fatality rate (57/1,570 [3.6%] vs. 19/257 [7.4%], p = 0.005) was still significantly lower among those who were immunized with PCV-10 than those who were not.ConclusionChildren immunized as per the EPI schedule were at a lower risk of diarrhea, severe pneumonia, anemia, and death, compared to unvaccinated children. In addition, PCV-10 was found to be protective against severe pneumonia and deaths in vaccinated children. The overall results underscored the importance of the continuation of immunization, scrupulously adhering to the EPI schedule to reduce the risk of morbidities and mortalities in children, especially in resource-limited settings

Future and potential spending on health 2015-40: Development assistance for health, and government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending in 184 countries

Background: The amount of resources, particularly prepaid resources, available for health can affect access to health care and health outcomes. Although health spending tends to increase with economic development, tremendous variation exists among health financing systems. Estimates of future spending can be beneficial for policy makers and planners, and can identify financing gaps. In this study, we estimate future gross domestic product (GDP), all-sector government spending, and health spending disaggregated by source, and we compare expected future spending to potential future spending. Methods: We extracted GDP, government spending in 184 countries from 1980-2015, and health spend data from 1995-2014. We used a series of ensemble models to estimate future GDP, all-sector government spending, development assistance for health, and government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending through 2040. We used frontier analyses to identify patterns exhibited by the countries that dedicate the most funding to health, and used these frontiers to estimate potential health spending for each low-income or middle-income country. All estimates are inflation and purchasing power adjusted. Findings: We estimated that global spending on health will increase from US$9.21 trillion in 2014 to$24.24 trillion (uncertainty interval [UI] 20.47-29.72) in 2040. We expect per capita health spending to increase fastest in upper-middle-income countries, at 5.3% (UI 4.1-6.8) per year. This growth is driven by continued growth in GDP, government spending, and government health spending. Lower-middle income countries are expected to grow at 4.2% (3.8-4.9). High-income countries are expected to grow at 2.1% (UI 1.8-2.4) and low-income countries are expected to grow at 1.8% (1.0-2.8). Despite this growth, health spending per capita in low-income countries is expected to remain low, at $154 (UI 133-181) per capita in 2030 and$195 (157-258) per capita in 2040. Increases in national health spending to reach the level of the countries who spend the most on health, relative to their level of economic development, would mean $321 (157-258) per capita was available for health in 2040 in low-income countries. Interpretation: Health spending is associated with economic development but past trends and relationships suggest that spending will remain variable, and low in some low-resource settings. Policy change could lead to increased health spending, although for the poorest countries external support might remain essential

Future and potential spending on health 2015-40 : development assistance for health, and government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending in 184 countries

Background The amount of resources, particularly prepaid resources, available for health can affect access to health care and health outcomes. Although health spending tends to increase with economic development, tremendous variation exists among health financing systems. Estimates of future spending can be beneficial for policy makers and planners, and can identify financing gaps. In this study, we estimate future gross domestic product (GDP), all-sector government spending, and health spending disaggregated by source, and we compare expected future spending to potential future spending. Methods We extracted GDP, government spending in 184 countries from 1980-2015, and health spend data from 1995-2014. We used a series of ensemble models to estimate future GDP, all-sector government spending, development assistance for health, and government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending through 2040. We used frontier analyses to identify patterns exhibited by the countries that dedicate the most funding to health, and used these frontiers to estimate potential health spending for each low-income or middle-income country. All estimates are inflation and purchasing power adjusted. Findings We estimated that global spending on health will increase from US$9.21 trillion in 2014 to$24.24 trillion (uncertainty interval [UI] 20.47-29.72) in 2040. We expect per capita health spending to increase fastest in upper-middle-income countries, at 5.3% (UI 4.1-6.8) per year. This growth is driven by continued growth in GDP, government spending, and government health spending. Lower-middle income countries are expected to grow at 4.2% (3.8-4.9). High-income countries are expected to grow at 2.1% (UI 1.8-2.4) and low-income countries are expected to grow at 1.8% (1.0-2.8). Despite this growth, health spending per capita in low-income countries is expected to remain low, at $154 (UI 133-181) per capita in 2030 and$195 (157-258) per capita in 2040. Increases in national health spending to reach the level of the countries who spend the most on health, relative to their level of economic development, would mean $321 (157-258) per capita was available for health in 2040 in low-income countries. Interpretation Health spending is associated with economic development but past trends and relationships suggest that spending will remain variable, and low in some low-resource settings. Policy change could lead to increased health spending, although for the poorest countries external support might remain essential.Peer reviewe

Trends in future health financing and coverage: future health spending and universal health coverage in 188 countries, 2016–40

Background: Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) requires health financing systems that provide prepaid pooled resources for key health services without placing undue financial stress on households. Understanding current and future trajectories of health financing is vital for progress towards UHC. We used historical health financing data for 188 countries from 1995 to 2015 to estimate future scenarios of health spending and pooled health spending through to 2040. Methods: We extracted historical data on gross domestic product (GDP) and health spending for 188 countries from 1995 to 2015, and projected annual GDP, development assistance for health, and government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending from 2015 through to 2040 as a reference scenario. These estimates were generated using an ensemble of models that varied key demographic and socioeconomic determinants. We generated better and worse alternative future scenarios based on the global distribution of historic health spending growth rates. Last, we used stochastic frontier analysis to investigate the association between pooled health resources and UHC index, a measure of a country's UHC service coverage. Finally, we estimated future UHC performance and the number of people covered under the three future scenarios. Findings: In the reference scenario, global health spending was projected to increase from US$10 trillion (95$20 trillion (18 trillion to 22 trillion) in 2040. Per capita health spending was projected to increase fastest in upper-middle-income countries, at 4·2% (3·4–5·1) per year, followed by lower-middle-income countries (4·0%, 3·6–4·5) and low-income countries (2·2%, 1·7–2·8). Despite global growth, per capita health spending was projected to range from only $40 (24–65) to$413 (263–668) in 2040 in low-income countries, and from $140 (90–200) to$1699 (711–3423) in lower-middle-income countries. Globally, the share of health spending covered by pooled resources would range widely, from 19·8% (10·3–38·6) in Nigeria to 97·9% (96·4–98·5) in Seychelles. Historical performance on the UHC index was significantly associated with pooled resources per capita. Across the alternative scenarios, we estimate UHC reaching between 5·1 billion (4·9 billion to 5·3 billion) and 5·6 billion (5·3 billion to 5·8 billion) lives in 2030. Interpretation: We chart future scenarios for health spending and its relationship with UHC. Ensuring that all countries have sustainable pooled health resources is crucial to the achievement of UHC. Funding: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Past, present, and future of global health financing : a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 195 countries, 1995-2050

Background Comprehensive and comparable estimates of health spending in each country are a key input for health policy and planning, and are necessary to support the achievement of national and international health goals. Previous studies have tracked past and projected future health spending until 2040 and shown that, with economic development, countries tend to spend more on health per capita, with a decreasing share of spending from development assistance and out-of-pocket sources. We aimed to characterise the past, present, and predicted future of global health spending, with an emphasis on equity in spending across countries. Methods We estimated domestic health spending for 195 countries and territories from 1995 to 2016, split into three categories-government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending-and estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2018. We estimated future scenarios of health spending using an ensemble of linear mixed-effects models with time series specifications to project domestic health spending from 2017 through 2050 and DAH from 2019 through 2050. Data were extracted from a broad set of sources tracking health spending and revenue, and were standardised and converted to inflation-adjusted 2018 US dollars. Incomplete or low-quality data were modelled and uncertainty was estimated, leading to a complete data series of total, government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending, and DAH. Estimates are reported in 2018 US dollars, 2018 purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars, and as a percentage of gross domestic product. We used demographic decomposition methods to assess a set of factors associated with changes in government health spending between 1995 and 2016 and to examine evidence to support the theory of the health financing transition. We projected two alternative future scenarios based on higher government health spending to assess the potential ability of governments to generate more resources for health. Findings Between 1995 and 2016, health spending grew at a rate of 4.00% (95% uncertainty interval 3.89-4.12) annually, although it grew slower in per capita terms (2.72% [2.61-2.84]) and increased by less than $1 per capita over this period in 22 of 195 countries. The highest annual growth rates in per capita health spending were observed in upper-middle-income countries (5.55$ 8.0 trillion (7.8-8.1) in 2016 (comprising 8.6% [8.4-8.7] of the global economy and $10.3 trillion [10.1-10.6] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), with a per capita spending of US$ 5252 (5184-5319) in high-income countries, $491 (461-524) in upper-middle-income countries,$ 81 (74-89) in lower-middle-income countries, and $40 (38-43) in low-income countries. In 2016, 0.4$ 9.5 billion, 24.3% of total DAH), although spending on other infectious diseases (excluding tuberculosis and malaria) grew fastest from 2010 to 2018 (6.27% per year). The leading sources of DAH were the USA and private philanthropy (excluding corporate donations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). For the first time, we included estimates of China's contribution to DAH ($644.7 million in 2018). Globally, health spending is projected to increase to$ 15.0 trillion (14.0-16.0) by 2050 (reaching 9.4% [7.6-11.3] of the global economy and $ 21.3 trillion [19.8-23.1] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), but at a lower growth rate of 1.84% (1.68-2.02) annually, and with continuing disparities in spending between countries. In 2050, we estimate that 0.6% (0.6-0.7) of health spending will occur in currently low-income countries, despite these countries comprising an estimated 15.7% of the global population by 2050. The ratio between per capita health spending in high-income and low-income countries was 130.2 (122.9-136.9) in 2016 and is projected to remain at similar levels in 2050 (125.9 [113.7-138.1]). The decomposition analysis identified governments' increased prioritisation of the health sector and economic development as the strongest factors associated with increases in government health spending globally. Future government health spending scenarios suggest that, with greater prioritisation of the health sector and increased government spending, health spending per capita could more than double, with greater impacts in countries that currently have the lowest levels of government health spending. Interpretation Financing for global health has increased steadily over the past two decades and is projected to continue increasing in the future, although at a slower pace of growth and with persistent disparities in per-capita health spending between countries. Out-of-pocket spending is projected to remain substantial outside of high-income countries. Many low-income countries are expected to remain dependent on development assistance, although with greater government spending, larger investments in health are feasible. In the absence of sustained new investments in health, increasing efficiency in health spending is essential to meet global health targets.Peer reviewe

Evolution and patterns of global health financing 1995-2014 : development assistance for health, and government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending in 184 countries

Background An adequate amount of prepaid resources for health is important to ensure access to health services and for the pursuit of universal health coverage. Previous studies on global health financing have described the relationship between economic development and health financing. In this study, we further explore global health financing trends and examine how the sources of funds used, types of services purchased, and development assistance for health disbursed change with economic development. We also identify countries that deviate from the trends. Methods We estimated national health spending by type of care and by source, including development assistance for health, based on a diverse set of data including programme reports, budget data, national estimates, and 964 National Health Accounts. These data represent health spending for 184 countries from 1995 through 2014. We converted these data into a common inflation-adjusted and purchasing power-adjusted currency, and used non-linear regression methods to model the relationship between health financing, time, and economic development. Findings Between 1995 and 2014, economic development was positively associated with total health spending and a shift away from a reliance on development assistance and out-of-pocket (OOP) towards government spending. The largest absolute increase in spending was in high-income countries, which increased to purchasing power-adjusted $5221 per capita based on an annual growth rate of 3.0$914 and $267 per capita in 2014, respectively. Spending in low-income countries grew nearly as fast, at 4.6$51 to $120 per capita. In 2014, 59.2$37.6 billion in 2016. Nonetheless, there is a great deal of variation revolving around these averages. 29 countries spend at least 50% more than expected per capita, based on their level of economic development alone, whereas 11 countries spend less than 50% their expected amount. Interpretation Health spending remains disparate, with low-income and lower-middle-income countries increasing spending in absolute terms the least, and relying heavily on OOP spending and development assistance. Moreover, tremendous variation shows that neither time nor economic development guarantee adequate prepaid health resources, which are vital for the pursuit of universal health coverage.Peer reviewe

Past, present, and future of global health financing: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 195 countries, 1995–2050

Background: Comprehensive and comparable estimates of health spending in each country are a key input for health policy and planning, and are necessary to support the achievement of national and international health goals. Previous studies have tracked past and projected future health spending until 2040 and shown that, with economic development, countries tend to spend more on health per capita, with a decreasing share of spending from development assistance and out-of-pocket sources. We aimed to characterise the past, present, and predicted future of global health spending, with an emphasis on equity in spending across countries. Methods: We estimated domestic health spending for 195 countries and territories from 1995 to 2016, split into three categories—government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending—and estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2018. We estimated future scenarios of health spending using an ensemble of linear mixed-effects models with time series specifications to project domestic health spending from 2017 through 2050 and DAH from 2019 through 2050. Data were extracted from a broad set of sources tracking health spending and revenue, and were standardised and converted to inflation-adjusted 2018 US dollars. Incomplete or low-quality data were modelled and uncertainty was estimated, leading to a complete data series of total, government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending, and DAH. Estimates are reported in 2018 US dollars, 2018 purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars, and as a percentage of gross domestic product. We used demographic decomposition methods to assess a set of factors associated with changes in government health spending between 1995 and 2016 and to examine evidence to support the theory of the health financing transition. We projected two alternative future scenarios based on higher government health spending to assess the potential ability of governments to generate more resources for health. Findings: Between 1995 and 2016, health spending grew at a rate of 4·00% (95% uncertainty interval 3·89–4·12) annually, although it grew slower in per capita terms (2·72% [2·61–2·84]) and increased by less than $1 per capita over this period in 22 of 195 countries. The highest annual growth rates in per capita health spending were observed in upper-middle-income countries (5·55 in lower-middle-income countries (3·71$8·0 trillion (7·8–8·1) in 2016 (comprising 8·6% [8·4–8·7] of the global economy and $10·3 trillion [10·1–10·6] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), with a per capita spending of US$5252 (5184–5319) in high-income countries, $491 (461–524) in upper-middle-income countries,$81 (74–89) in lower-middle-income countries, and $40 (38–43) in low-income countries. In 2016, 0·4 countries, despite these countries comprising 10·0 DAH targeted HIV/AIDS ($9·5 billion, 24·3% of total DAH), although spending on other infectious diseases (excluding tuberculosis and malaria) grew fastest from 2010 to 2018 (6·27% per year). The leading sources of DAH were the USA and private philanthropy (excluding corporate donations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). For the first time, we included estimates of China’s contribution to DAH ($644·7 million in 2018). Globally, health spending is projected to increase to$15·0 trillion (14·0–16·0) by 2050 (reaching 9·4% [7·6–11·3] of the global economy and $21·3 trillion [19·8–23·1] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), but at a lower growth rate of 1·84% (1·68–2·02) annually, and with continuing disparities in spending between countries. In 2050, we estimate that 0·6% (0·6–0·7) of health spending will occur in currently low-income countries, despite these countries comprising an estimated 15·7% of the global population by 2050. The ratio between per capita health spending in high-income and low-income countries was 130·2 (122·9–136·9) in 2016 and is projected to remain at similar levels in 2050 (125·9 [113·7–138·1]). The decomposition analysis identified governments’ increased prioritisation of the health sector and economic development as the strongest factors associated with increases in government health spending globally. Future government health spending scenarios suggest that, with greater prioritisation of the health sector and increased government spending, health spending per capita could more than double, with greater impacts in countries that currently have the lowest levels of government health spending Interpretation: Financing for global health has increased steadily over the past two decades and is projected to continue increasing in the future, although at a slower pace of growth and with persistent disparities in per-capita health spending between countries. Out-of-pocket spending is projected to remain substantial outside of high-income countries. Many low-income countries are expected to remain dependent on development assistance, although with greater government spending, larger investments in health are feasible. In the absence of sustained new investments in health, increasing efficiency in health spending is essential to meet global health targets. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundatio

Mapping child growth failure across low- and middle-income countries

Childhood malnutrition is associated with high morbidity and mortality globally1. Undernourished children are more likely to experience cognitive, physical, and metabolic developmental impairments that can lead to later cardiovascular disease, reduced intellectual ability and school attainment, and reduced economic productivity in adulthood2. Child growth failure (CGF), expressed as stunting, wasting, and underweight in children under five years of age (0�59 months), is a specific subset of undernutrition characterized by insufficient height or weight against age-specific growth reference standards3�5. The prevalence of stunting, wasting, or underweight in children under five is the proportion of children with a height-for-age, weight-for-height, or weight-for-age z-score, respectively, that is more than two standard deviations below the World Health Organization�s median growth reference standards for a healthy population6. Subnational estimates of CGF report substantial heterogeneity within countries, but are available primarily at the first administrative level (for example, states or provinces)7; the uneven geographical distribution of CGF has motivated further calls for assessments that can match the local scale of many public health programmes8. Building from our previous work mapping CGF in Africa9, here we provide the first, to our knowledge, mapped high-spatial-resolution estimates of CGF indicators from 2000 to 2017 across 105 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where 99 of affected children live1, aggregated to policy-relevant first and second (for example, districts or counties) administrative-level units and national levels. Despite remarkable declines over the study period, many LMICs remain far from the ambitious World Health Organization Global Nutrition Targets to reduce stunting by 40 and wasting to less than 5 by 2025. Large disparities in prevalence and progress exist across and within countries; our maps identify high-prevalence areas even within nations otherwise succeeding in reducing overall CGF prevalence. By highlighting where the highest-need populations reside, these geospatial estimates can support policy-makers in planning interventions that are adapted locally and in efficiently directing resources towards reducing CGF and its health implications. © 2020, The Author(s)