| 1. |
- Frostad, J. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Mapping development and health effects of cooking with solid fuels in low-income and middle-income countries, 2000-18: a geospatial modelling study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Lancet Global Health. - 2214-109X. ; 10:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background More than 3 billion people do not have access to clean energy and primarily use solid fuels to cook. Use of solid fuels generates household air pollution, which was associated with more than 2 million deaths in 2019. Although local patterns in cooking vary systematically, subnational trends in use of solid fuels have yet to be comprehensively analysed. We estimated the prevalence of solid-fuel use with high spatial resolution to explore subnational inequalities, assess local progress, and assess the effects on health in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) without universal access to clean fuels. Methods We did a geospatial modelling study to map the prevalence of solid-fuel use for cooking at a 5 km x 5 km resolution in 98 LMICs based on 2.1 million household observations of the primary cooking fuel used from 663 population-based household surveys over the years 2000 to 2018. We use observed temporal patterns to forecast household air pollution in 2030 and to assess the probability of attaining the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target indicator for clean cooking. We aligned our estimates of household air pollution to geospatial estimates of ambient air pollution to establish the risk transition occurring in LMICs. Finally, we quantified the effect of residual primary solid-fuel use for cooking on child health by doing a counterfactual risk assessment to estimate the proportion of deaths from lower respiratory tract infections in children younger than 5 years that could be associated with household air pollution. Findings Although primary reliance on solid-fuel use for cooking has declined globally, it remains widespread. 593 million people live in districts where the prevalence of solid-fuel use for cooking exceeds 95%. 66% of people in LMICs live in districts that are not on track to meet the SDG target for universal access to clean energy by 2030. Household air pollution continues to be a major contributor to particulate exposure in LMICs, and rising ambient air pollution is undermining potential gains from reductions in the prevalence of solid-fuel use for cooking in many countries. We estimated that, in 2018, 205000 (95% uncertainty interval 147000-257000) children younger than 5 years died from lower respiratory tract infections that could be attributed to household air pollution. Interpretation Efforts to accelerate the adoption of clean cooking fuels need to be substantially increased and recalibrated to account for subnational inequalities, because there are substantial opportunities to improve air quality and avert child mortality associated with household air pollution. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Sbarra, AN, et al.
(författare)
-
Mapping routine measles vaccination in low- and middle-income countries
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 589:7842, s. 415-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The safe, highly effective measles vaccine has been recommended globally since 1974, yet in 2017 there were more than 17 million cases of measles and 83,400 deaths in children under 5 years old, and more than 99% of both occurred in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)1–4. Globally comparable, annual, local estimates of routine first-dose measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) coverage are critical for understanding geographically precise immunity patterns, progress towards the targets of the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), and high-risk areas amid disruptions to vaccination programmes caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)5–8. Here we generated annual estimates of routine childhood MCV1 coverage at 5 × 5-km2pixel and second administrative levels from 2000 to 2019 in 101 LMICs, quantified geographical inequality and assessed vaccination status by geographical remoteness. After widespread MCV1 gains from 2000 to 2010, coverage regressed in more than half of the districts between 2010 and 2019, leaving many LMICs far from the GVAP goal of 80% coverage in all districts by 2019. MCV1 coverage was lower in rural than in urban locations, although a larger proportion of unvaccinated children overall lived in urban locations; strategies to provide essential vaccination services should address both geographical contexts. These results provide a tool for decision-makers to strengthen routine MCV1 immunization programmes and provide equitable disease protection for all children.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Micah, Angela E., et al.
(författare)
-
Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19 : a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050
- 2021
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - : Elsevier. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 398:10308, s. 1317-1343
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. Methods We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$ per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. Findings In 2019, health spending globally reached $8. 8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8.7-8.8) or $1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total, $40.4 billion (0.5%, 95% UI 0.5-0.5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24.6% (UI 24.0-25.1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54.8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this, $13.7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12.3 billion was newly committed and $1.4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3.1 billion (22.4%) of the funds focused on country-level coordination and $2.4 billion (17.9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714.4 million (7.7%) of COVID-19 development assistance for health went to Latin America, despite this region reporting 34.3% of total recorded COVID-19 deaths in low-income or middle-income countries in 2020. Spending on health is expected to rise to $1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. Interpretation Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
| 7. |
- Pfeifer, H., et al.
(författare)
-
Standardisation and consensus guidelines for minimal residual disease assessment in Philadelphia-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph plus ALL) by real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR of e1a2 BCR-ABL1
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Leukemia. - : NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP. - 0887-6924 .- 1476-5551. ; 33:8, s. 1910-1922
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a powerful prognostic factor in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and is used for patient stratification and treatment decisions, but its precise role in Philadelphia chromosome positive ALL is less clear. This uncertainty results largely from methodological differences relating to the use of real-time quantitative PCR (qRT-PCR) to measure BCR-ABL1 transcript levels for MRD analysis. We here describe the first results by the EURO-MRD consortium on standardization of qRT-PCR for the e1a2 BCR-ABL1 transcript in Ph + ALL, designed to overcome the lack of standardisation of laboratory procedures and data interpretation. Standardised use of EAC primer/probe sets and of centrally prepared plasmid standards had the greatest impact on reducing interlaboratory variability. In QC1 the proportion of analyses with BCR-ABL1/ABL1 ratios within half a log difference were 40/67 (60%) and 52/67 (78%) at 10(-3) and 36/67 (53%) and 53/67 (79%) at 10(-4)BCR-ABL1/ABL1. Standardized RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis and cycler platforms did not improve results further, whereas stringent application of technical criteria for assay quality and uniform criteria for data interpretation and reporting were essential. We provide detailed laboratory recommendations for the standardized MRD analysis in routine diagnostic settings and in multicenter clinical trials for Ph + ALL.
|
|
