Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and mortality of HIV, 1980–2017, and forecasts to 2030, for 195 countries and territories: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017

Background Understanding the patterns of HIV/AIDS epidemics is crucial to tracking and monitoring the progress of prevention and control efforts in countries. We provide a comprehensive assessment of the levels and trends of HIV/AIDS incidence, prevalence, mortality, and coverage of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for 1980–2017 and forecast these estimates to 2030 for 195 countries and territories. Methods We determined a modelling strategy for each country on the basis of the availability and quality of data. For countries and territories with data from population-based seroprevalence surveys or antenatal care clinics, we estimated prevalence and incidence using an open-source version of the Estimation and Projection Package—a natural history model originally developed by the UNAIDS Reference Group on Estimates, Modelling, and Projections. For countries with cause-specific vital registration data, we corrected data for garbage coding (ie, deaths coded to an intermediate, immediate, or poorly defined cause) and HIV misclassification. We developed a process of cohort incidence bias adjustment to use information on survival and deaths recorded in vital registration to back-calculate HIV incidence. For countries without any representative data on HIV, we produced incidence estimates by pulling information from observed bias in the geographical region. We used a re-coded version of the Spectrum model (a cohort component model that uses rates of disease progression and HIV mortality on and off ART) to produce age-sex-specific incidence, prevalence, and mortality, and treatment coverage results for all countries, and forecast these measures to 2030 using Spectrum with inputs that were extended on the basis of past trends in treatment scale-up and new infections. Findings Global HIV mortality peaked in 2006 with 1·95 million deaths (95% uncertainty interval 1·87–2·04) and has since decreased to 0·95 million deaths (0·91–1·01) in 2017. New cases of HIV globally peaked in 1999 (3·16 million, 2·79–3·67) and since then have gradually decreased to 1·94 million (1·63–2·29) in 2017. These trends, along with ART scale-up, have globally resulted in increased prevalence, with 36·8 million (34·8–39·2) people living with HIV in 2017. Prevalence of HIV was highest in southern sub-Saharan Africa in 2017, and countries in the region had ART coverage ranging from 65·7% in Lesotho to 85·7% in eSwatini. Our forecasts showed that 54 countries will meet the UNAIDS target of 81% ART coverage by 2020 and 12 countries are on track to meet 90% ART coverage by 2030. Forecasted results estimate that few countries will meet the UNAIDS 2020 and 2030 mortality and incidence targets. Interpretation Despite progress in reducing HIV-related mortality over the past decade, slow decreases in incidence, combined with the current context of stagnated funding for related interventions, mean that many countries are not on track to reach the 2020 and 2030 global targets for reduction in incidence and mortality. With a growing population of people living with HIV, it will continue to be a major threat to public health for years to come. The pace of progress needs to be hastened by continuing to expand access to ART and increasing investments in proven HIV prevention initiatives that can be scaled up to have population-level impact

Estimating global injuries morbidity and mortality: methods and data used in the Global Burden of Disease 2017 study

BACKGROUND: While there is a long history of measuring death and disability from injuries, modern research methods must account for the wide spectrum of disability that can occur in an injury, and must provide estimates with sufficient demographic, geographical and temporal detail to be useful for policy makers. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study used methods to provide highly detailed estimates of global injury burden that meet these criteria. METHODS: In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced. RESULTS: GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes. CONCLUSIONS: GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future

Prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial of electrophysiologically guided femoral nerve block in total knee arthroplasty

Yoon Seok Youm,1 Sung Do Cho,1 Chang Ho Hwang21Department of Orthopedic Surgery, 2Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Republic of KoreaBackground: The purpose of this study was to compare electrophysiologically guided and traditional nerve stimulator analgesia femoral nerve block after total knee arthroplasty.Methods: Patients scheduled for unilateral total knee arthroplasty were randomized to electrophysiologically guided or traditional nerve stimulator analgesia by pre-emptive single injection femoral nerve block with corresponding assistance. We assessed pain scores using a visual analog scale (VAS, 0 = no pain, 100 = the worst pain) and the volumes of morphine consumed at 4, 24, 48, and 72 hours after total knee arthroplasty.Results: Of the 60 patients enrolled, eight withdrew from the study. The remaining 52 patients were randomized to the electrophysiologically guided group (n = 27) or traditional nerve stimulator analgesia (n = 25) group. Four hours after total knee arthroplasty, VAS scores were significantly lower in the electrophysiologically guided group than in the traditional nerve stimulator group at rest (4.8 ± 1.4 versus 5.9 ± 0.8, P < 0.01) and while moving (6.2 ± 1.1 versus 6.9 ± 0.9, P < 0.01). The total volumes of morphine injected at 24, 48, and 72 hours were significantly decreased in the electrophysiologically guided group (P < 0.05 each). Variable × time interaction of VAS was significant in the electrophysiologically guided group (P < 0.05), with each VAS score at 24, 48, and 72 hours being significantly lower than the baseline score (P < 0.05). VAS scores at every time point were significantly lower in the electrophysiologically group guided than in the traditional nerve stimulator group (P < 0.05).Conclusion: Electrophysiologically guided single injection femoral nerve block may provide better postoperative analgesia and a greater reduction in the demand for pain killers than femoral nerve block using traditional nerve stimulator analgesia.Keywords: femoral nerve, nerve block, electrophysiologic concepts, arthroplasty, knee, ropivacain