| 1. |
- Fitzmauric, C., et al.
(författare)
-
Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived with Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-Years for 29 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2017 : A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: JAMA Oncology. - : American Medical Association. - 2374-2437 .- 2374-2445. ; 5:12, s. 1749-1768
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Importance: Cancer and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are now widely recognized as a threat to global development. The latest United Nations high-level meeting on NCDs reaffirmed this observation and also highlighted the slow progress in meeting the 2011 Political Declaration on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases and the third Sustainable Development Goal. Lack of situational analyses, priority setting, and budgeting have been identified as major obstacles in achieving these goals. All of these have in common that they require information on the local cancer epidemiology. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is uniquely poised to provide these crucial data.Objective: To describe cancer burden for 29 cancer groups in 195 countries from 1990 through 2017 to provide data needed for cancer control planning.Evidence Review: We used the GBD study estimation methods to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Results are presented at the national level as well as by Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a composite indicator of income, educational attainment, and total fertility rate. We also analyzed the influence of the epidemiological vs the demographic transition on cancer incidence.Findings: In 2017, there were 24.5 million incident cancer cases worldwide (16.8 million without nonmelanoma skin cancer [NMSC]) and 9.6 million cancer deaths. The majority of cancer DALYs came from years of life lost (97%), and only 3% came from years lived with disability. The odds of developing cancer were the lowest in the low SDI quintile (1 in 7) and the highest in the high SDI quintile (1 in 2) for both sexes. In 2017, the most common incident cancers in men were NMSC (4.3 million incident cases); tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer (1.5 million incident cases); and prostate cancer (1.3 million incident cases). The most common causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for men were TBL cancer (1.3 million deaths and 28.4 million DALYs), liver cancer (572000 deaths and 15.2 million DALYs), and stomach cancer (542000 deaths and 12.2 million DALYs). For women in 2017, the most common incident cancers were NMSC (3.3 million incident cases), breast cancer (1.9 million incident cases), and colorectal cancer (819000 incident cases). The leading causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for women were breast cancer (601000 deaths and 17.4 million DALYs), TBL cancer (596000 deaths and 12.6 million DALYs), and colorectal cancer (414000 deaths and 8.3 million DALYs).Conclusions and Relevance: The national epidemiological profiles of cancer burden in the GBD study show large heterogeneities, which are a reflection of different exposures to risk factors, economic settings, lifestyles, and access to care and screening. The GBD study can be used by policy makers and other stakeholders to develop and improve national and local cancer control in order to achieve the global targets and improve equity in cancer care.
|
|
| 2. |
- Taddei, C, et al.
(författare)
-
Repositioning of the global epicentre of non-optimal cholesterol
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 582:7810, s. 73-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- High blood cholesterol is typically considered a feature of wealthy western countries1,2. However, dietary and behavioural determinants of blood cholesterol are changing rapidly throughout the world3 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 health4,5. 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 risk—changed 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Blach, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Global change in hepatitis C virus prevalence and cascade of care between 2015 and 2020: a modelling study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology. - : Elsevier BV. - 2468-1253. ; 7:5, s. 396-415
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Since the release of the first global hepatitis elimination targets in 2016, and until the COVID-19 pandemic started in early 2020, many countries and territories were making progress toward hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination. This study aims to evaluate HCV burden in 2020, and forecast HCV burden by 2030 given current trends. Methods This analysis includes a literature review, Delphi process, and mathematical modelling to estimate HCV prevalence (viraemic infection, defined as HCV RNA-positive cases) and the cascade of care among people of all ages (age =0 years from birth) for the period between Jan 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2030. Epidemiological data were collected from published sources and grey literature (including government reports and personal communications) and were validated among country and territory experts. A Markov model was used to forecast disease burden and cascade of care from 1950 to 2050 for countries and territories with data. Model outcomes were extracted from 2015 to 2030 to calculate population-weighted regional averages, which were used for countries or territories without data. Regional and global estimates of HCV prevalence, cascade of care, and disease burden were calculated based on 235 countries and territories. Findings Models were built for 110 countries or territories: 83 were approved by local experts and 27 were based on published data alone. Using data from these models, plus population-weighted regional averages for countries and territories without models (n=125), we estimated a global prevalence of viraemic HCV infection of 0.7% (95% UI 0.7-0.9), corresponding to 56.8 million (95% UI 55.2-67.8) infections, on Jan 1, 2020. This number represents a decrease of 6.8 million viraemic infections from a 2015 (beginning of year) prevalence estimate of 63.6 million (61.8-75.8) infections (0.9% [0.8-1.0] prevalence). By the end of 2020, an estimated 12.9 million (12.5-15.4) people were living with a diagnosed viraemic infection. In 2020, an estimated 641 000 (623 000-765 000) patients initiated treatment. Interpretation At the beginning of 2020, there were an estimated 56.8 million viraemic HCV infections globally. Although this number represents a decrease from 2015, our forecasts suggest we are not currently on track to achieve global elimination targets by 2030. As countries recover from COVID-19, these findings can help refocus efforts aimed at HCV elimination. Copyright (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Danaei, Goodarz, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of diabetes definition on global surveillance of diabetes prevalence and diagnosis: a pooled analysis of 96 population-based studies with 331288 participants
- 2015
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. - 2213-8595 .- 2213-8587. ; 3:8, s. 624-637
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Diabetes has been defined on the basis of different biomarkers, including fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h plasma glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test (2hOGTT), and HbA(1c). We assessed the effect of different diagnostic definitions on both the population prevalence of diabetes and the classification of previously undiagnosed individuals as having diabetes versus not having diabetes in a pooled analysis of data from population-based health examination surveys in different regions. Methods We used data from 96 population-based health examination surveys that had measured at least two of the biomarkers used for defining diabetes. Diabetes was defined using HbA(1c) (HbA(1c) >= 6 . 5% or history of diabetes diagnosis or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs) compared with either FPG only or FPG-or-2hOGTT definitions (FPG >= 7 . 0 mmol/L or 2hOGTT >= 11 . 1 mmol/L or history of diabetes or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs). We calculated diabetes prevalence, taking into account complex survey design and survey sample weights. We compared the prevalences of diabetes using different definitions graphically and by regression analyses. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of diabetes diagnosis based on HbA1c compared with diagnosis based on glucose among previously undiagnosed individuals (ie, excluding those with history of diabetes or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs). We calculated sensitivity and specificity in each survey, and then pooled results using a random-effects model. We assessed the sources of heterogeneity of sensitivity by meta-regressions for study characteristics selected a priori. Findings Population prevalence of diabetes based on FPG- or-2hOGTT was correlated with prevalence based on FPG alone (r= 0 . 98), but was higher by 2-6 percentage points at different prevalence levels. Prevalence based on HbA(1c) was lower than prevalence based on FPG in 42 . 8% of age-sex-survey groups and higher in another 41 . 6%; in the other 15 . 6%, the two definitions provided similar prevalence estimates. The variation across studies in the relation between glucose-based and HbA(1c)-based prevalences was partly related to participants' age, followed by natural logarithm of per person gross domestic product, the year of survey, mean BMI, and whether the survey population was national, subnational, or from specific communities. Diabetes defined as HbA(1c) 6 . 5% or more had a pooled sensitivity of 52 . 8% (95% CI 51 . 3-54 . 3%) and a pooled specificity of 99 . 74% (99 . 71-99 . 78%) compared with FPG 7 . 0 mmol/L or more for diagnosing previously undiagnosed participants; sensitivity compared with diabetes defined based on FPG-or-2hOGTT was 30 . 5% (28 . 7-32 . 3%). None of the preselected study-level characteristics explained the heterogeneity in the sensitivity of HbA(1c) versus FPG. Interpretation Different biomarkers and definitions for diabetes can provide different estimates of population prevalence of diabetes, and differentially identify people without previous diagnosis as having diabetes. Using an HbA(1c)-based definition alone in health surveys will not identify a substantial proportion of previously undiagnosed people who would be considered as having diabetes using a glucose-based test.
|
|
