Global age-sex-specific mortality, life expectancy, and population estimates in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1950-2021, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND

Estimates of demographic metrics are crucial to assess levels and trends of population health outcomes. The profound impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on populations worldwide has underscored the need for timely estimates to understand this unprecedented event within the context of long-term population health trends. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 provides new demographic estimates for 204 countries and territories and 811 additional subnational locations from 1950 to 2021, with a particular emphasis on changes in mortality and life expectancy that occurred during the 2020-21 COVID-19 pandemic period.

METHODS

22 223 data sources from vital registration, sample registration, surveys, censuses, and other sources were used to estimate mortality, with a subset of these sources used exclusively to estimate excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 2026 data sources were used for population estimation. Additional sources were used to estimate migration; the effects of the HIV epidemic; and demographic discontinuities due to conflicts, famines, natural disasters, and pandemics, which are used as inputs for estimating mortality and population. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression (ST-GPR) was used to generate under-5 mortality rates, which synthesised 30 763 location-years of vital registration and sample registration data, 1365 surveys and censuses, and 80 other sources. ST-GPR was also used to estimate adult mortality (between ages 15 and 59 years) based on information from 31 642 location-years of vital registration and sample registration data, 355 surveys and censuses, and 24 other sources. Estimates of child and adult mortality rates were then used to generate life tables with a relational model life table system. For countries with large HIV epidemics, life tables were adjusted using independent estimates of HIV-specific mortality generated via an epidemiological analysis of HIV prevalence surveys, antenatal clinic serosurveillance, and other data sources. Excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 was determined by subtracting observed all-cause mortality (adjusted for late registration and mortality anomalies) from the mortality expected in the absence of the pandemic. Expected mortality was calculated based on historical trends using an ensemble of models. In location-years where all-cause mortality data were unavailable, we estimated excess mortality rates using a regression model with covariates pertaining to the pandemic. Population size was computed using a Bayesian hierarchical cohort component model. Life expectancy was calculated using age-specific mortality rates and standard demographic methods. Uncertainty intervals (UIs) were calculated for every metric using the 25th and 975th ordered values from a 1000-draw posterior distribution.

FINDINGS

Global all-cause mortality followed two distinct patterns over the study period: age-standardised mortality rates declined between 1950 and 2019 (a 62·8% [95% UI 60·5-65·1] decline), and increased during the COVID-19 pandemic period (2020-21; 5·1% [0·9-9·6] increase). In contrast with the overall reverse in mortality trends during the pandemic period, child mortality continued to decline, with 4·66 million (3·98-5·50) global deaths in children younger than 5 years in 2021 compared with 5·21 million (4·50-6·01) in 2019. An estimated 131 million (126-137) people died globally from all causes in 2020 and 2021 combined, of which 15·9 million (14·7-17·2) were due to the COVID-19 pandemic (measured by excess mortality, which includes deaths directly due to SARS-CoV-2 infection and those indirectly due to other social, economic, or behavioural changes associated with the pandemic). Excess mortality rates exceeded 150 deaths per 100 000 population during at least one year of the pandemic in 80 countries and territories, whereas 20 nations had a negative excess mortality rate in 2020 or 2021, indicating that all-cause mortality in these countries was lower during the pandemic than expected based on historical trends. Between 1950 and 2021, global life expectancy at birth increased by 22·7 years (20·8-24·8), from 49·0 years (46·7-51·3) to 71·7 years (70·9-72·5). Global life expectancy at birth declined by 1·6 years (1·0-2·2) between 2019 and 2021, reversing historical trends. An increase in life expectancy was only observed in 32 (15·7%) of 204 countries and territories between 2019 and 2021. The global population reached 7·89 billion (7·67-8·13) people in 2021, by which time 56 of 204 countries and territories had peaked and subsequently populations have declined. The largest proportion of population growth between 2020 and 2021 was in sub-Saharan Africa (39·5% [28·4-52·7]) and south Asia (26·3% [9·0-44·7]). From 2000 to 2021, the ratio of the population aged 65 years and older to the population aged younger than 15 years increased in 188 (92·2%) of 204 nations.

INTERPRETATION

Global adult mortality rates markedly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, reversing past decreasing trends, while child mortality rates continued to decline, albeit more slowly than in earlier years. Although COVID-19 had a substantial impact on many demographic indicators during the first 2 years of the pandemic, overall global health progress over the 72 years evaluated has been profound, with considerable improvements in mortality and life expectancy. Additionally, we observed a deceleration of global population growth since 2017, despite steady or increasing growth in lower-income countries, combined with a continued global shift of population age structures towards older ages. These demographic changes will likely present future challenges to health systems, economies, and societies. The comprehensive demographic estimates reported here will enable researchers, policy makers, health practitioners, and other key stakeholders to better understand and address the profound changes that have occurred in the global health landscape following the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, and longer-term trends beyond the pandemic.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Hydrogel dressings for donor sites of split-thickness skin grafts

BACKGROUND

Donor site wounds of split-thickness skin grafts can be a major cause of morbidity. Choosing the appropriate dressing for these wounds is crucial to successful healing. Various types of dressing are available, including hydrogel dressings. A review of current evidence is required to guide clinical decision-making on the choice of dressing for the treatment of donor sites of split-thickness skin grafts.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of hydrogel dressings on donor site wounds following split-thickness skin grafts for wound healing.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2022 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL EBSCO Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hydrogel dressings with other types of dressing, topical treatments or no dressing, or with different types of hydrogel dressings in managing donor site wounds irrespective of language and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently carried out data extraction, risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, RoB 1, and quality assessment according to GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies (162 participants) in this review. One study with three arms and 101 participants (15 months' duration) was conducted in a children's hospital, and compared hydrogel dressings in the form of Sorbact with Algisite, an alginate dressing and Cuticerin, a smooth acetate gauze impregnated with water-repellent ointment. Another study with two arms and 61 participants (19 months' duration) was conducted in three surgery departments and compared an octenidine-containing hydrogel dressing with an identical non-antimicrobial hydrogel dressing. We identified no studies that compared hydrogel dressings with another therapy such as a topical agent (a topical agent is a cream, an ointment or a solution that is applied directly to the wound), or no dressing, or a combination of hydrogel dressings and another therapy versus another therapy alone. Both studies were at high risk of attrition bias and the second study was also at unclear risk of selection bias. Amorphous hydrogel dressings versus other types of dressings Amorphous hydrogel dressings may increase time to wound healing when compared with alginate (mean difference (MD) 1.67 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 2.78; 1 study, 69 participants; low-certainty evidence) or Cuticerin dressings (MD 1.67 days, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.79; 1 study, 68 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect of amorphous hydrogel dressings compared with other types of dressings is uncertain for pain at the donor site and wound complications, including scarring and itching (very low-certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in any of the groups. The study did not report health-related quality of life or wound infection. Octenidine-based hydrogel dressing versus octenidine-free hydrogel dressing The effect of octenidine-based hydrogel dressings versus octenidine-free hydrogel dressings is uncertain for time to wound healing (MD 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.52; 1 study, 41 participants) and wound infection, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. The certainty of the evidence is also very low for adverse events, with two participants in the intervention group and one participant in the comparison group reporting adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.89; 1 study, 41 participants). The study did not report donor site pain, health-related quality of life, or wound complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of hydrogel dressings on donor site wounds of split thickness skin grafts compared with other types of dressings. There is a need for adequately powered and well-designed RCTs, with adequate sample sizes, types of populations and subgroups, types of interventions, and outcomes, that compare hydrogel dressings with other treatment options in the treatment of donor site wounds of split-thickness skin grafts.

The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

BACKGROUND

Understanding the magnitude of cancer burden attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors is crucial for development of effective prevention and mitigation strategies. We analysed results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 to inform cancer control planning efforts globally.

METHODS

The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate cancer burden attributable to behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risk factors. A total of 82 risk-outcome pairs were included on the basis of the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Estimated cancer deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019 and change in these measures between 2010 and 2019 are presented.

FINDINGS

Globally, in 2019, the risk factors included in this analysis accounted for 4·45 million (95% uncertainty interval 4·01-4·94) deaths and 105 million (95·0-116) DALYs for both sexes combined, representing 44·4% (41·3-48·4) of all cancer deaths and 42·0% (39·1-45·6) of all DALYs. There were 2·88 million (2·60-3·18) risk-attributable cancer deaths in males (50·6% [47·8-54·1] of all male cancer deaths) and 1·58 million (1·36-1·84) risk-attributable cancer deaths in females (36·3% [32·5-41·3] of all female cancer deaths). The leading risk factors at the most detailed level globally for risk-attributable cancer deaths and DALYs in 2019 for both sexes combined were smoking, followed by alcohol use and high BMI. Risk-attributable cancer burden varied by world region and Socio-demographic Index (SDI), with smoking, unsafe sex, and alcohol use being the three leading risk factors for risk-attributable cancer DALYs in low SDI locations in 2019, whereas DALYs in high SDI locations mirrored the top three global risk factor rankings. From 2010 to 2019, global risk-attributable cancer deaths increased by 20·4% (12·6-28·4) and DALYs by 16·8% (8·8-25·0), with the greatest percentage increase in metabolic risks (34·7% [27·9-42·8] and 33·3% [25·8-42·0]).

INTERPRETATION

The leading risk factors contributing to global cancer burden in 2019 were behavioural, whereas metabolic risk factors saw the largest increases between 2010 and 2019. Reducing exposure to these modifiable risk factors would decrease cancer mortality and DALY rates worldwide, and policies should be tailored appropriately to local cancer risk factor burden.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The global burden of adolescent and young adult cancer in 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

BACKGROUND

In estimating the global burden of cancer, adolescents and young adults with cancer are often overlooked, despite being a distinct subgroup with unique epidemiology, clinical care needs, and societal impact. Comprehensive estimates of the global cancer burden in adolescents and young adults (aged 15-39 years) are lacking. To address this gap, we analysed results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, with a focus on the outcome of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), to inform global cancer control measures in adolescents and young adults.

METHODS

Using the GBD 2019 methodology, international mortality data were collected from vital registration systems, verbal autopsies, and population-based cancer registry inputs modelled with mortality-to-incidence ratios (MIRs). Incidence was computed with mortality estimates and corresponding MIRs. Prevalence estimates were calculated using modelled survival and multiplied by disability weights to obtain years lived with disability (YLDs). Years of life lost (YLLs) were calculated as age-specific cancer deaths multiplied by the standard life expectancy at the age of death. The main outcome was DALYs (the sum of YLLs and YLDs). Estimates were presented globally and by Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintiles (countries ranked and divided into five equal SDI groups), and all estimates were presented with corresponding 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). For this analysis, we used the age range of 15-39 years to define adolescents and young adults.

FINDINGS

There were 1·19 million (95% UI 1·11-1·28) incident cancer cases and 396 000 (370 000-425 000) deaths due to cancer among people aged 15-39 years worldwide in 2019. The highest age-standardised incidence rates occurred in high SDI (59·6 [54·5-65·7] per 100 000 person-years) and high-middle SDI countries (53·2 [48·8-57·9] per 100 000 person-years), while the highest age-standardised mortality rates were in low-middle SDI (14·2 [12·9-15·6] per 100 000 person-years) and middle SDI (13·6 [12·6-14·8] per 100 000 person-years) countries. In 2019, adolescent and young adult cancers contributed 23·5 million (21·9-25·2) DALYs to the global burden of disease, of which 2·7% (1·9-3·6) came from YLDs and 97·3% (96·4-98·1) from YLLs. Cancer was the fourth leading cause of death and tenth leading cause of DALYs in adolescents and young adults globally.

INTERPRETATION

Adolescent and young adult cancers contributed substantially to the overall adolescent and young adult disease burden globally in 2019. These results provide new insights into the distribution and magnitude of the adolescent and young adult cancer burden around the world. With notable differences observed across SDI settings, these estimates can inform global and country-level cancer control efforts.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, St Baldrick's Foundation, and the National Cancer Institute.

OUP accepted manuscript

STUDY QUESTION

What is the scope of literature regarding women’s reproductive span in terms of definitions, trends and determinants?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The scoping review found a wide variation in definitions, trends and determinants of biological, social and effective women’s reproductive span.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A woman’s reproductive span refers to her childbearing years. Its span influences a woman’s reproductive decisions.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A systematic scoping review was conducted. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, JSTOR, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases from inception to January 2021 without imposing language or date restrictions. We searched unpublished sources including the Global Burden of Disease, Demographic and Health Surveys, and National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. The list of relevant references was searched by hand. Sixty-seven reports on women’s reproductive span were included in this review.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

This scoping systematic review followed an established framework. The reporting of this scoping review followed the reporting requirements provided in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Extension for Scoping Reviews. Identified records were independently screened and data were extracted. We performed conceptual synthesis by grouping the studies by available concepts of reproductive span and then summarized definitions, measures used, temporal trends, determinants, and broad findings of implications on population demographics and assisted reproduction. Structured tabulation and graphical synthesis were used to show patterns in the data and convey detailed information efficiently, along with a narrative commentary.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 67 relevant reports on women’s reproductive span were published between 1980 and 2020 from 74 countries. Most reports (42/67) were cross-sectional in design. Literature on reproductive span was conceptually grouped as biological (the interval between age at menarche and age at menopause), effective (when a woman is both fertile and engaging in sexual activity) and social (period of exposure to sexual activity). We summarized the working definitions, trends and determinants of each concept. Few articles addressed implications on demographics and assisted reproduction.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

A formal assessment of methodological quality of the included studies was not performed because the aim of this review was to provide an overview of the existing evidence base regardless of quality.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The review produced a comprehensive set of possible definitions of women’s reproductive span, trends, and potential determinants. Further advancement of these findings will involve collaboration with relevant stakeholders to rate the importance of each definition in relation to demography and fertility care, outline a set of core definitions, identify implications for policy, practice or research and define future research opportunities to explore linkages between reproductive spans, their determinants, and the need for assisted reproduction.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work received funding from the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The authors had no competing interests.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Measuring universal health coverage based on an index of effective coverage of health services in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

BACKGROUND

Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) involves all people receiving the health services they need, of high quality, without experiencing financial hardship. Making progress towards UHC is a policy priority for both countries and global institutions, as highlighted by the agenda of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and WHO's Thirteenth General Programme of Work (GPW13). Measuring effective coverage at the health-system level is important for understanding whether health services are aligned with countries' health profiles and are of sufficient quality to produce health gains for populations of all ages.

METHODS

Based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, we assessed UHC effective coverage for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Drawing from a measurement framework developed through WHO's GPW13 consultation, we mapped 23 effective coverage indicators to a matrix representing health service types (eg, promotion, prevention, and treatment) and five population-age groups spanning from reproductive and newborn to older adults (≥65 years). Effective coverage indicators were based on intervention coverage or outcome-based measures such as mortality-to-incidence ratios to approximate access to quality care; outcome-based measures were transformed to values on a scale of 0-100 based on the 2·5th and 97·5th percentile of location-year values. We constructed the UHC effective coverage index by weighting each effective coverage indicator relative to its associated potential health gains, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years for each location-year and population-age group. For three tests of validity (content, known-groups, and convergent), UHC effective coverage index performance was generally better than that of other UHC service coverage indices from WHO (ie, the current metric for SDG indicator 3.8.1 on UHC service coverage), the World Bank, and GBD 2017. We quantified frontiers of UHC effective coverage performance on the basis of pooled health spending per capita, representing UHC effective coverage index levels achieved in 2019 relative to country-level government health spending, prepaid private expenditures, and development assistance for health. To assess current trajectories towards the GPW13 UHC billion target-1 billion more people benefiting from UHC by 2023-we estimated additional population equivalents with UHC effective coverage from 2018 to 2023.

FINDINGS

Globally, performance on the UHC effective coverage index improved from 45·8 (95% uncertainty interval 44·2-47·5) in 1990 to 60·3 (58·7-61·9) in 2019, yet country-level UHC effective coverage in 2019 still spanned from 95 or higher in Japan and Iceland to lower than 25 in Somalia and the Central African Republic. Since 2010, sub-Saharan Africa showed accelerated gains on the UHC effective coverage index (at an average increase of 2·6% [1·9-3·3] per year up to 2019); by contrast, most other GBD super-regions had slowed rates of progress in 2010-2019 relative to 1990-2010. Many countries showed lagging performance on effective coverage indicators for non-communicable diseases relative to those for communicable diseases and maternal and child health, despite non-communicable diseases accounting for a greater proportion of potential health gains in 2019, suggesting that many health systems are not keeping pace with the rising non-communicable disease burden and associated population health needs. In 2019, the UHC effective coverage index was associated with pooled health spending per capita (r=0·79), although countries across the development spectrum had much lower UHC effective coverage than is potentially achievable relative to their health spending. Under maximum efficiency of translating health spending into UHC effective coverage performance, countries would need to reach $1398 pooled health spending per capita (US$ adjusted for purchasing power parity) in order to achieve 80 on the UHC effective coverage index. From 2018 to 2023, an estimated 388·9 million (358·6-421·3) more population equivalents would have UHC effective coverage, falling well short of the GPW13 target of 1 billion more people benefiting from UHC during this time. Current projections point to an estimated 3·1 billion (3·0-3·2) population equivalents still lacking UHC effective coverage in 2023, with nearly a third (968·1 million [903·5-1040·3]) residing in south Asia.

INTERPRETATION

The present study demonstrates the utility of measuring effective coverage and its role in supporting improved health outcomes for all people-the ultimate goal of UHC and its achievement. Global ambitions to accelerate progress on UHC service coverage are increasingly unlikely unless concerted action on non-communicable diseases occurs and countries can better translate health spending into improved performance. Focusing on effective coverage and accounting for the world's evolving health needs lays the groundwork for better understanding how close-or how far-all populations are in benefiting from UHC.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

BACKGROUND

Rigorous analysis of levels and trends in exposure to leading risk factors and quantification of their effect on human health are important to identify where public health is making progress and in which cases current efforts are inadequate. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a standardised and comprehensive assessment of the magnitude of risk factor exposure, relative risk, and attributable burden of disease.

METHODS

GBD 2019 estimated attributable mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years of life lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 87 risk factors and combinations of risk factors, at the global level, regionally, and for 204 countries and territories. GBD uses a hierarchical list of risk factors so that specific risk factors (eg, sodium intake), and related aggregates (eg, diet quality), are both evaluated. This method has six analytical steps. (1) We included 560 risk-outcome pairs that met criteria for convincing or probable evidence on the basis of research studies. 12 risk-outcome pairs included in GBD 2017 no longer met inclusion criteria and 47 risk-outcome pairs for risks already included in GBD 2017 were added based on new evidence. (2) Relative risks were estimated as a function of exposure based on published systematic reviews, 81 systematic reviews done for GBD 2019, and meta-regression. (3) Levels of exposure in each age-sex-location-year included in the study were estimated based on all available data sources using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression method, or alternative methods. (4) We determined, from published trials or cohort studies, the level of exposure associated with minimum risk, called the theoretical minimum risk exposure level. (5) Attributable deaths, YLLs, YLDs, and DALYs were computed by multiplying population attributable fractions (PAFs) by the relevant outcome quantity for each age-sex-location-year. (6) PAFs and attributable burden for combinations of risk factors were estimated taking into account mediation of different risk factors through other risk factors. Across all six analytical steps, 30 652 distinct data sources were used in the analysis. Uncertainty in each step of the analysis was propagated into the final estimates of attributable burden. Exposure levels for dichotomous, polytomous, and continuous risk factors were summarised with use of the summary exposure value to facilitate comparisons over time, across location, and across risks. Because the entire time series from 1990 to 2019 has been re-estimated with use of consistent data and methods, these results supersede previously published GBD estimates of attributable burden.

FINDINGS

The largest declines in risk exposure from 2010 to 2019 were among a set of risks that are strongly linked to social and economic development, including household air pollution; unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing; and child growth failure. Global declines also occurred for tobacco smoking and lead exposure. The largest increases in risk exposure were for ambient particulate matter pollution, drug use, high fasting plasma glucose, and high body-mass index. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor globally for attributable deaths was high systolic blood pressure, which accounted for 10·8 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 9·51-12·1) deaths (19·2% [16·9-21·3] of all deaths in 2019), followed by tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 8·71 million (8·12-9·31) deaths (15·4% [14·6-16·2] of all deaths in 2019). The leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable DALYs globally in 2019 was child and maternal malnutrition, which largely affects health in the youngest age groups and accounted for 295 million (253-350) DALYs (11·6% [10·3-13·1] of all global DALYs that year). The risk factor burden varied considerably in 2019 between age groups and locations. Among children aged 0-9 years, the three leading detailed risk factors for attributable DALYs were all related to malnutrition. Iron deficiency was the leading risk factor for those aged 10-24 years, alcohol use for those aged 25-49 years, and high systolic blood pressure for those aged 50-74 years and 75 years and older.

INTERPRETATION

Overall, the record for reducing exposure to harmful risks over the past three decades is poor. Success with reducing smoking and lead exposure through regulatory policy might point the way for a stronger role for public policy on other risks in addition to continued efforts to provide information on risk factor harm to the general public.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Global injury morbidity and mortality from 1990 to 2017: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

BACKGROUND

Past research in population health trends has shown that injuries form a substantial burden of population health loss. Regular updates to injury burden assessments are critical. We report Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 Study estimates on morbidity and mortality for all injuries.

METHODS

We reviewed results for injuries from the GBD 2017 study. GBD 2017 measured injury-specific mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) using the Cause of Death Ensemble model. To measure non-fatal injuries, GBD 2017 modelled injury-specific incidence and converted this to prevalence and years lived with disability (YLDs). YLLs and YLDs were summed to calculate disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

FINDINGS

In 1990, there were 4 260 493 (4 085 700 to 4 396 138) injury deaths, which increased to 4 484 722 (4 332 010 to 4 585 554) deaths in 2017, while age-standardised mortality decreased from 1079 (1073 to 1086) to 738 (730 to 745) per 100 000. In 1990, there were 354 064 302 (95% uncertainty interval: 338 174 876 to 371 610 802) new cases of injury globally, which increased to 520 710 288 (493 430 247 to 547 988 635) new cases in 2017. During this time, age-standardised incidence decreased non-significantly from 6824 (6534 to 7147) to 6763 (6412 to 7118) per 100 000. Between 1990 and 2017, age-standardised DALYs decreased from 4947 (4655 to 5233) per 100 000 to 3267 (3058 to 3505).

INTERPRETATION

Injuries are an important cause of health loss globally, though mortality has declined between 1990 and 2017. Future research in injury burden should focus on prevention in high-burden populations, improving data collection and ensuring access to medical care.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in people with low surgical risk

BACKGROUND

Severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The definitive management for severe AS is aortic valve replacement (AVR). The choice of transcatheter approach versus open-heart surgery for AVR in people with severe AS and low surgical risk remains a matter of debate.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in people with severe AS and low surgical risk.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on 29 April 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We searched all databases from inception to present and imposed no restriction on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared TAVI and SAVR in adults (18 years of age or older) with severe AS and low surgical risk.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts for inclusion, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias in the studies included. We analysed dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using the mean difference (MD), with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Our outcomes of interest were assessed in the short term (i.e. during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, and rehospitalisation. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, length of hospital stay (LOS), permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, new-onset atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury (AKI), and any bleeding.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four studies (13 reports), with 2818 participants, and one ongoing study. Overall certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. There is probably little or no difference between TAVI and SAVR for the following short-term outcomes: all-cause mortality (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.44; SAVR 11 deaths per 1000, TAVI 8 deaths per 1000 (95% CI 4 to 16); 2818 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); stroke (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.25; SAVR 21 strokes per 1000, TAVI 16 strokes per 1000 (95% CI 9 to 27); 2818 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); MI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.58; SAVR 14 MI per 1000, TAVI 11 MI per 1000 (95% CI 6 to 21); 2748 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); and cardiac death (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.56; SAVR 10 cardiac deaths per 1000, TAVI 7 cardiac deaths per 1000 (95% CI 3 to 16); 2818 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). TAVI may reduce the risk of short-term rehospitalisation, although the confidence interval also includes the possibility of no difference in risk between groups (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06; SAVR 30 cases per 1000, TAVI 19 cases per 1000 (95% CI 12 to 32); 2468 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). TAVI, compared with SAVR, probably increases the risk of PPM implantation (RR 3.65, 95% CI 1.50 to 8.87; SAVR 47 per 1000, TAVI 170 cases per 1000 (95% CI 70 to 413); number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 7; 2683 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether TAVI, compared with SAVR, affects the LOS in days, although it appears to be associated with shorter LOS. TAVI, compared with SAVR, reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.30; 2683 participants; 3 studies), AKI (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.58; 2753 participants; 4 studies), and bleeding (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.62; 2753 participants; 4 studies) (all high-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis indicates that, in the short term, TAVI probably has little or no mortality difference compared to SAVR for severe AS in individuals with low surgical risk. Similarly, there is probably little or no difference in risk of stroke, MI, and cardiac death between the two approaches. TAVI may reduce the risk of rehospitalisation, but we are uncertain about the effects on LOS. TAVI reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation, AKI, and bleeding. However, this benefit is offset by the increased risk of PPM implantation. Long-term follow-up data are needed to further assess and validate these outcomes, especially durability, in the low surgical risk population.

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

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 (572 000 deaths and 15.2 million DALYs), and stomach cancer (542 000 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 (819 000 incident cases). The leading causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for women were breast cancer (601 000 deaths and 17.4 million DALYs), TBL cancer (596 000 deaths and 12.6 million DALYs), and colorectal cancer (414 000 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.

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

BACKGROUND

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017) includes a comprehensive assessment of incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 354 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017. Previous GBD studies have shown how the decline of mortality rates from 1990 to 2016 has led to an increase in life expectancy, an ageing global population, and an expansion of the non-fatal burden of disease and injury. These studies have also shown how a substantial portion of the world's population experiences non-fatal health loss with considerable heterogeneity among different causes, locations, ages, and sexes. Ongoing objectives of the GBD study include increasing the level of estimation detail, improving analytical strategies, and increasing the amount of high-quality data.

METHODS

We estimated incidence and prevalence for 354 diseases and injuries and 3484 sequelae. We used an updated and extensive body of literature studies, survey data, surveillance data, inpatient admission records, outpatient visit records, and health insurance claims, and additionally used results from cause of death models to inform estimates using a total of 68 781 data sources. Newly available clinical data from India, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Nepal, China, Brazil, Norway, and Italy were incorporated, as well as updated claims data from the USA and new claims data from Taiwan (province of China) and Singapore. We used DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, as the main method of estimation, ensuring consistency between rates of incidence, prevalence, remission, and cause of death for each condition. YLDs were estimated as the product of a prevalence estimate and a disability weight for health states of each mutually exclusive sequela, adjusted for comorbidity. We updated the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary development indicator of income per capita, years of schooling, and total fertility rate. Additionally, we calculated differences between male and female YLDs to identify divergent trends across sexes. GBD 2017 complies with the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting.

FINDINGS

Globally, for females, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and haemoglobinopathies and haemolytic anaemias in both 1990 and 2017. For males, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and tuberculosis including latent tuberculosis infection in both 1990 and 2017. In terms of YLDs, low back pain, headache disorders, and dietary iron deficiency were the leading Level 3 causes of YLD counts in 1990, whereas low back pain, headache disorders, and depressive disorders were the leading causes in 2017 for both sexes combined. All-cause age-standardised YLD rates decreased by 3·9% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·1-4·6) from 1990 to 2017; however, the all-age YLD rate increased by 7·2% (6·0-8·4) while the total sum of global YLDs increased from 562 million (421-723) to 853 million (642-1100). The increases for males and females were similar, with increases in all-age YLD rates of 7·9% (6·6-9·2) for males and 6·5% (5·4-7·7) for females. We found significant differences between males and females in terms of age-standardised prevalence estimates for multiple causes. The causes with the greatest relative differences between sexes in 2017 included substance use disorders (3018 cases [95% UI 2782-3252] per 100 000 in males vs s1400 [1279-1524] per 100 000 in females), transport injuries (3322 [3082-3583] vs 2336 [2154-2535]), and self-harm and interpersonal violence (3265 [2943-3630] vs 5643 [5057-6302]).

INTERPRETATION

Global all-cause age-standardised YLD rates have improved only slightly over a period spanning nearly three decades. However, the magnitude of the non-fatal disease burden has expanded globally, with increasing numbers of people who have a wide spectrum of conditions. A subset of conditions has remained globally pervasive since 1990, whereas other conditions have displayed more dynamic trends, with different ages, sexes, and geographies across the globe experiencing varying burdens and trends of health loss. This study emphasises how global improvements in premature mortality for select conditions have led to older populations with complex and potentially expensive diseases, yet also highlights global achievements in certain domains of disease and injury.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Measuring progress from 1990 to 2017 and projecting attainment to 2030 of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals for 195 countries and territories: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

BACKGROUND

Efforts to establish the 2015 baseline and monitor early implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) highlight both great potential for and threats to improving health by 2030. To fully deliver on the SDG aim of "leaving no one behind", it is increasingly important to examine the health-related SDGs beyond national-level estimates. As part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017), we measured progress on 41 of 52 health-related SDG indicators and estimated the health-related SDG index for 195 countries and territories for the period 1990-2017, projected indicators to 2030, and analysed global attainment.

METHODS

We measured progress on 41 health-related SDG indicators from 1990 to 2017, an increase of four indicators since GBD 2016 (new indicators were health worker density, sexual violence by non-intimate partners, population census status, and prevalence of physical and sexual violence [reported separately]). We also improved the measurement of several previously reported indicators. We constructed national-level estimates and, for a subset of health-related SDGs, examined indicator-level differences by sex and Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintile. We also did subnational assessments of performance for selected countries. To construct the health-related SDG index, we transformed the value for each indicator on a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the 2·5th percentile and 100 as the 97·5th percentile of 1000 draws calculated from 1990 to 2030, and took the geometric mean of the scaled indicators by target. To generate projections through 2030, we used a forecasting framework that drew estimates from the broader GBD study and used weighted averages of indicator-specific and country-specific annualised rates of change from 1990 to 2017 to inform future estimates. We assessed attainment of indicators with defined targets in two ways: first, using mean values projected for 2030, and then using the probability of attainment in 2030 calculated from 1000 draws. We also did a global attainment analysis of the feasibility of attaining SDG targets on the basis of past trends. Using 2015 global averages of indicators with defined SDG targets, we calculated the global annualised rates of change required from 2015 to 2030 to meet these targets, and then identified in what percentiles the required global annualised rates of change fell in the distribution of country-level rates of change from 1990 to 2015. We took the mean of these global percentile values across indicators and applied the past rate of change at this mean global percentile to all health-related SDG indicators, irrespective of target definition, to estimate the equivalent 2030 global average value and percentage change from 2015 to 2030 for each indicator.

FINDINGS

The global median health-related SDG index in 2017 was 59·4 (IQR 35·4-67·3), ranging from a low of 11·6 (95% uncertainty interval 9·6-14·0) to a high of 84·9 (83·1-86·7). SDG index values in countries assessed at the subnational level varied substantially, particularly in China and India, although scores in Japan and the UK were more homogeneous. Indicators also varied by SDI quintile and sex, with males having worse outcomes than females for non-communicable disease (NCD) mortality, alcohol use, and smoking, among others. Most countries were projected to have a higher health-related SDG index in 2030 than in 2017, while country-level probabilities of attainment by 2030 varied widely by indicator. Under-5 mortality, neonatal mortality, maternal mortality ratio, and malaria indicators had the most countries with at least 95% probability of target attainment. Other indicators, including NCD mortality and suicide mortality, had no countries projected to meet corresponding SDG targets on the basis of projected mean values for 2030 but showed some probability of attainment by 2030. For some indicators, including child malnutrition, several infectious diseases, and most violence measures, the annualised rates of change required to meet SDG targets far exceeded the pace of progress achieved by any country in the recent past. We found that applying the mean global annualised rate of change to indicators without defined targets would equate to about 19% and 22% reductions in global smoking and alcohol consumption, respectively; a 47% decline in adolescent birth rates; and a more than 85% increase in health worker density per 1000 population by 2030.

INTERPRETATION

The GBD study offers a unique, robust platform for monitoring the health-related SDGs across demographic and geographic dimensions. Our findings underscore the importance of increased collection and analysis of disaggregated data and highlight where more deliberate design or targeting of interventions could accelerate progress in attaining the SDGs. Current projections show that many health-related SDG indicators, NCDs, NCD-related risks, and violence-related indicators will require a concerted shift away from what might have driven past gains-curative interventions in the case of NCDs-towards multisectoral, prevention-oriented policy action and investments to achieve SDG aims. Notably, several targets, if they are to be met by 2030, demand a pace of progress that no country has achieved in the recent past. The future is fundamentally uncertain, and no model can fully predict what breakthroughs or events might alter the course of the SDGs. What is clear is that our actions-or inaction-today will ultimately dictate how close the world, collectively, can get to leaving no one behind by 2030.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

BACKGROUND

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017 comparative risk assessment (CRA) is a comprehensive approach to risk factor quantification that offers a useful tool for synthesising evidence on risks and risk-outcome associations. With each annual GBD study, we update the GBD CRA to incorporate improved methods, new risks and risk-outcome pairs, and new data on risk exposure levels and risk-outcome associations.

METHODS

We used the CRA framework developed for previous iterations of GBD to estimate levels and trends in exposure, attributable deaths, and attributable disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), by age group, sex, year, and location for 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or groups of risks from 1990 to 2017. This study included 476 risk-outcome pairs that met the GBD study criteria for convincing or probable evidence of causation. We extracted relative risk and exposure estimates from 46 749 randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, household surveys, census data, satellite data, and other sources. We used statistical models to pool data, adjust for bias, and incorporate covariates. Using the counterfactual scenario of theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL), we estimated the portion of deaths and DALYs that could be attributed to a given risk. We explored the relationship between development and risk exposure by modelling the relationship between the Socio-demographic Index (SDI) and risk-weighted exposure prevalence and estimated expected levels of exposure and risk-attributable burden by SDI. Finally, we explored temporal changes in risk-attributable DALYs by decomposing those changes into six main component drivers of change as follows: (1) population growth; (2) changes in population age structures; (3) changes in exposure to environmental and occupational risks; (4) changes in exposure to behavioural risks; (5) changes in exposure to metabolic risks; and (6) changes due to all other factors, approximated as the risk-deleted death and DALY rates, where the risk-deleted rate is the rate that would be observed had we reduced the exposure levels to the TMREL for all risk factors included in GBD 2017.

FINDINGS

In 2017, 34·1 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 33·3-35·0) deaths and 1·21 billion (1·14-1·28) DALYs were attributable to GBD risk factors. Globally, 61·0% (59·6-62·4) of deaths and 48·3% (46·3-50·2) of DALYs were attributed to the GBD 2017 risk factors. When ranked by risk-attributable DALYs, high systolic blood pressure (SBP) was the leading risk factor, accounting for 10·4 million (9·39-11·5) deaths and 218 million (198-237) DALYs, followed by smoking (7·10 million [6·83-7·37] deaths and 182 million [173-193] DALYs), high fasting plasma glucose (6·53 million [5·23-8·23] deaths and 171 million [144-201] DALYs), high body-mass index (BMI; 4·72 million [2·99-6·70] deaths and 148 million [98·6-202] DALYs), and short gestation for birthweight (1·43 million [1·36-1·51] deaths and 139 million [131-147] DALYs). In total, risk-attributable DALYs declined by 4·9% (3·3-6·5) between 2007 and 2017. In the absence of demographic changes (ie, population growth and ageing), changes in risk exposure and risk-deleted DALYs would have led to a 23·5% decline in DALYs during that period. Conversely, in the absence of changes in risk exposure and risk-deleted DALYs, demographic changes would have led to an 18·6% increase in DALYs during that period. The ratios of observed risk exposure levels to exposure levels expected based on SDI (O/E ratios) increased globally for unsafe drinking water and household air pollution between 1990 and 2017. This result suggests that development is occurring more rapidly than are changes in the underlying risk structure in a population. Conversely, nearly universal declines in O/E ratios for smoking and alcohol use indicate that, for a given SDI, exposure to these risks is declining. In 2017, the leading Level 4 risk factor for age-standardised DALY rates was high SBP in four super-regions: central Europe, eastern Europe, and central Asia; north Africa and Middle East; south Asia; and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania. The leading risk factor in the high-income super-region was smoking, in Latin America and Caribbean was high BMI, and in sub-Saharan Africa was unsafe sex. O/E ratios for unsafe sex in sub-Saharan Africa were notably high, and those for alcohol use in north Africa and the Middle East were notably low.

INTERPRETATION

By quantifying levels and trends in exposures to risk factors and the resulting disease burden, this assessment offers insight into where past policy and programme efforts might have been successful and highlights current priorities for public health action. Decreases in behavioural, environmental, and occupational risks have largely offset the effects of population growth and ageing, in relation to trends in absolute burden. Conversely, the combination of increasing metabolic risks and population ageing will probably continue to drive the increasing trends in non-communicable diseases at the global level, which presents both a public health challenge and opportunity. We see considerable spatiotemporal heterogeneity in levels of risk exposure and risk-attributable burden. Although levels of development underlie some of this heterogeneity, O/E ratios show risks for which countries are overperforming or underperforming relative to their level of development. As such, these ratios provide a benchmarking tool to help to focus local decision making. Our findings reinforce the importance of both risk exposure monitoring and epidemiological research to assess causal connections between risks and health outcomes, and they highlight the usefulness of the GBD study in synthesising data to draw comprehensive and robust conclusions that help to inform good policy and strategic health planning.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

BACKGROUND

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017) includes a comprehensive assessment of incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 354 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017. Previous GBD studies have shown how the decline of mortality rates from 1990 to 2016 has led to an increase in life expectancy, an ageing global population, and an expansion of the non-fatal burden of disease and injury. These studies have also shown how a substantial portion of the world's population experiences non-fatal health loss with considerable heterogeneity among different causes, locations, ages, and sexes. Ongoing objectives of the GBD study include increasing the level of estimation detail, improving analytical strategies, and increasing the amount of high-quality data.

METHODS

We estimated incidence and prevalence for 354 diseases and injuries and 3484 sequelae. We used an updated and extensive body of literature studies, survey data, surveillance data, inpatient admission records, outpatient visit records, and health insurance claims, and additionally used results from cause of death models to inform estimates using a total of 68 781 data sources. Newly available clinical data from India, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Nepal, China, Brazil, Norway, and Italy were incorporated, as well as updated claims data from the USA and new claims data from Taiwan (province of China) and Singapore. We used DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, as the main method of estimation, ensuring consistency between rates of incidence, prevalence, remission, and cause of death for each condition. YLDs were estimated as the product of a prevalence estimate and a disability weight for health states of each mutually exclusive sequela, adjusted for comorbidity. We updated the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary development indicator of income per capita, years of schooling, and total fertility rate. Additionally, we calculated differences between male and female YLDs to identify divergent trends across sexes. GBD 2017 complies with the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting.

FINDINGS

Globally, for females, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and haemoglobinopathies and haemolytic anaemias in both 1990 and 2017. For males, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and tuberculosis including latent tuberculosis infection in both 1990 and 2017. In terms of YLDs, low back pain, headache disorders, and dietary iron deficiency were the leading Level 3 causes of YLD counts in 1990, whereas low back pain, headache disorders, and depressive disorders were the leading causes in 2017 for both sexes combined. All-cause age-standardised YLD rates decreased by 3·9% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·1-4·6) from 1990 to 2017; however, the all-age YLD rate increased by 7·2% (6·0-8·4) while the total sum of global YLDs increased from 562 million (421-723) to 853 million (642-1100). The increases for males and females were similar, with increases in all-age YLD rates of 7·9% (6·6-9·2) for males and 6·5% (5·4-7·7) for females. We found significant differences between males and females in terms of age-standardised prevalence estimates for multiple causes. The causes with the greatest relative differences between sexes in 2017 included substance use disorders (3018 cases [95% UI 2782-3252] per 100 000 in males vs s1400 [1279-1524] per 100 000 in females), transport injuries (3322 [3082-3583] vs 2336 [2154-2535]), and self-harm and interpersonal violence (3265 [2943-3630] vs 5643 [5057-6302]).

INTERPRETATION

Global all-cause age-standardised YLD rates have improved only slightly over a period spanning nearly three decades. However, the magnitude of the non-fatal disease burden has expanded globally, with increasing numbers of people who have a wide spectrum of conditions. A subset of conditions has remained globally pervasive since 1990, whereas other conditions have displayed more dynamic trends, with different ages, sexes, and geographies across the globe experiencing varying burdens and trends of health loss. This study emphasises how global improvements in premature mortality for select conditions have led to older populations with complex and potentially expensive diseases, yet also highlights global achievements in certain domains of disease and injury.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of mortality worldwide. Coronary artery disease (CAD) contributes to half of mortalities caused by CVD. The mainstay of management of CAD is medical therapy and revascularisation. Revascularisation can be achieved via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Peripheral arteries, such as the femoral or radial artery, provide the access to the coronary arteries to perform diagnostic or therapeutic (or both) procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of the transradial compared to the transfemoral approach in people with CAD undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or PCI (or both).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials on 10 October 2017: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2017. There were no language restrictions. Reference lists were also checked and we contacted authors of included studies for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared transradial and transfemoral approaches in adults (18 years of age or older) undergoing diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) for CAD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for missing information. We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were checked by another author.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 31 studies (44 reports) including 27,071 participants and two ongoing studies. The risk of bias in the studies was low or unclear for several domains. Compared to the transfemoral approach, the transradial approach reduced short-term net adverse clinical events (NACE) (i.e. assessed during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.94; 17,133 participants; 4 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiac death (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 11,170 participants; 11 studies; moderate quality evidence). However, short-term myocardial infarction was similar between both groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 19,430 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). The transradial approach had a lower procedural success rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98; 25,920 participants; 28 studies; moderate quality evidence), but was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; 18,955 participants; 10 studies; high quality evidence), bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; 23,043 participants; 20 studies; low quality evidence), and access site complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 16,112 participants; 24 studies; low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Transradial approach for diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) in CAD may reduce short-term NACE, cardiac death, all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications. There is insufficient evidence regarding the long-term clinical outcomes (i.e. beyond 30 days of follow-up).

Routes of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Post-caesarean section infection is a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Administration of antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for preventing infection after caesarean delivery. The route of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis should be effective, safe and convenient. Currently, there is a lack of synthesised evidence regarding the benefits and harms of different routes of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the benefits and harms of different routes of prophylactic antibiotics given for preventing infectious morbidity in women undergoing caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two alternative routes of antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section (both elective and emergency). Cross-over trials and quasi-RCTs were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies. These steps were checked by a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies (1354 women). The risk of bias was unclear or high in most of the included studies.All of the included trials involved women undergoing caesarean section whether elective or non-elective. Intravenous antibiotics versus antibiotic irrigation (nine studies, 1274 women) Nine studies (1274 women) compared the administration of intravenous antibiotics with antibiotic irrigation. There were no clear differences between groups in terms of this review's maternal primary outcomes: endometritis (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.29; eight studies (966 women) (low-quality evidence)); wound infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.43; seven studies (859 women) (very low-quality evidence)). The outcome of infant sepsis was not reported in the included studies.In terms of this review's maternal secondary outcomes, there were no clear differences between intravenous antibiotic or irrigation antibiotic groups in terms of postpartum febrile morbidity (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.60; three studies (264 women) (very low-quality evidence)); or urinary tract infection (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.15; five studies (660 women) (very low-quality evidence)). In terms of adverse effects of the treatment on the women, no drug allergic reactions were reported in three studies (284 women) (very low-quality evidence), and there were no cases of serious infectious complications reported (very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in terms of maternal length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.28 days, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.79 days, (random-effects analysis), four studies (512 women). No data were reported for the number of women readmitted to hospital. For the baby, there were no data reported in relation to oral thrush, infant length of hospital stay or immediate adverse effects of the antibiotics on the infant. Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis versus oral antibiotic prophylaxis (one study, 80 women) One study (80 women) compared an intravenous versus an oral route of administration of prophylactic antibiotics, but did not report any of this review's primary or secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no clear difference between irrigation and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing the risk of post-caesarean endometritis. For other outcomes, there is insufficient evidence regarding which route of administration of prophylactic antibiotics is most effective at preventing post-caesarean infections. The quality of evidence was very low to low, mainly due to limitations in study design and imprecision. Furthermore, most of the included studies were underpowered (small sample sizes with few events). Therefore, we advise caution in the interpretation and generalisability of the results.For future research, there is a need for well-designed, properly-conducted, and clearly-reported RCTs. Such studies should evaluate the more recently available antibiotics, elaborating on the various available routes of administration, and exploring potential neonatal side effects of such interventions.

Interventions for acne scars

BACKGROUND

Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide range of interventions have been proposed, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on treatments for acne scars to better inform patients and their healthcare providers about the most effective and safe methods of managing this condition. This review aimed to examine treatments for atrophic and hypertrophic acne scars, but we have concentrated on facial atrophic scarring.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for treating acne scars.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to November 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to randomised controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated participants (whether split-face or parallel arms) to any active intervention (or a combination) for treating acne scars. We excluded studies dealing only or mostly with keloid scars.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data from each of the studies included in this review and evaluated the risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and arbitration supported by a method expert as required. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported scar improvement and any adverse effects serious enough to cause participants to withdraw from the study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 trials with 789 adult participants aged 18 years or older. Twenty trials enrolled men and women, three trials enrolled only women and one trial enrolled only men. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. With regard to blinding we judged 17 studies to be at high risk of performance bias, because the participants and dermatologists were not blinded to the treatments administered or received; however, we judged all 24 trials to be at a low risk of detection bias for outcome assessment. We evaluated 14 comparisons of seven interventions and four combinations of interventions. Nine studies provided no usable data on our outcomes and did not contribute further to this review's results.For our outcome 'Participant-reported scar improvement' in one study fractional laser was more effective in producing scar improvement than non-fractional non-ablative laser at week 24 (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 12.84; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); fractional laser showed comparable scar improvement to fractional radiofrequency in one study at week eight (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.68; n = 40; very low-quality evidence) and was comparable to combined chemical peeling with skin needling in a different study at week 48 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; n = 26; very low-quality evidence). In a further study chemical peeling showed comparable scar improvement to combined chemical peeling with skin needling at week 32 (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.75; n = 20; very low-quality evidence). Chemical peeling in one study showed comparable scar improvement to skin needling at week four (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; n = 27; very low-quality evidence). In another study, injectable fillers provided better scar improvement compared to placebo at week 24 (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; n = 147 moderate-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Serious adverse effects' in one study chemical peeling was not tolerable in 7/43 (16%) participants (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 90.14; n = 58; very low-quality evidence).For our secondary outcome 'Participant-reported short-term adverse events', all participants reported pain in the following studies: in one study comparing fractional laser to non-fractional non-ablative laser (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); in another study comparing fractional laser to combined peeling plus needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; n = 25; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling plus needling to chemical peeling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20; n = 20; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling to skin needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; n = 27; very low-quality evidence); and also in a study comparing injectable filler and placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.10 to 11.10; n = 147; low-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Investigator-assessed short-term adverse events', fractional laser (6/32) was associated with a reduced risk of hyperpigmentation than non-fractional non-ablative laser (10/32) in one study (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); chemical peeling was associated with increased risk of hyperpigmentation (6/12) compared to skin needling (0/15) in one study (RR 16.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 258.36; n = 27; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the reported adverse events with injectable filler (17/97) compared to placebo (13/50) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.27; n = 147; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions for treating acne scars because of poor methodology, underpowered studies, lack of standardised improvement assessments, and different baseline variables.There is moderate-quality evidence that injectable filler might be effective for treating atrophic acne scars; however, no studies have assessed long-term effects, the longest follow-up being 48 weeks in one study only. Other studies included active comparators, but in the absence of studies that establish efficacy compared to placebo or sham interventions, it is possible that finding no evidence of difference between two active treatments could mean that neither approach works. The results of this review do not provide support for the first-line use of any intervention in the treatment of acne scars.Although our aim was to identify important gaps for further primary research, it might be that placebo and or sham trials are needed to establish whether any of the active treatments produce meaningful patient benefits over the long term.

High feedback versus low feedback of prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Prenatal ultrasound is one of many techniques used in screening and diagnosis. It gives parents instant access to the images of the fetus. Receiving information promotes knowledge and understanding, but it may also increase maternal anxiety.

OBJECTIVES

To compare high feedback versus low feedback during prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (12 May 2015), the Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 12 May 2015), and the ISRCTN Registry (12 May 2015). We handsearched citation lists of relevant publications. We did not apply any language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of high feedback (women can see the monitor screen and receive detailed visual and verbal explanations) versus low feedback (women can not see the monitor screen and women are given only a summary statement of the scan) during prenatal ultrasound. The primary outcome measure was maternal state anxiety.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. We have expressed results as risk ratio (RR) or mean differences (MD), together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (365 women). Three RCTs (346 participants) reported the effect of high versus low feedback during ultrasound on state anxiety scores (mean difference (MD) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.58 to 2.43; participants = 346; three studies, low quality evidence). Two trials (148 participants) reported women's views of the level of feedback. They do not show that women in the high feedback groups are more likely to choose very positive adjectives to describe their feelings after the scan (risk ratio (RR) 3.30; 95% CI 0.73 to 14.85). Women who had a high feedback during ultrasound were more likely to stop smoking during pregnancy (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.25 to 6.86; participants = 129; one study; low quality evidence) and to avoid alcohol during pregnancy (RR 2.96, 95% CI 1.15 to 7.60; participants = 129; one study; low quality evidence). Downgrading of evidence was based on the unclear risk of bias of included studies, wide CI crossing the line of no effect or presence of heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support either high or low feedback during a prenatal ultrasound to reduce maternal anxiety and promote health behaviour.

Hydralazine and nitrates alone or combined for the management of chronic heart failure: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hydralazine (H) and nitrates (Ns), when combined, reduced morbidity and mortality in some trials of chronic heart failure (CHF). It is unclear whether either agent used alone provides similar benefits. We aimed to evaluate the effects of H and/or N in patients with CHF.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomised trials assessing the effects of H and N in CHF. For meta-analysis, only the endpoints of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were considered.

RESULTS

In seven trials evaluating H&N in 2626 patients, combination therapy reduced all-cause mortality (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.55-0.95; p=0.02), and cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57-0.99; p=0.04) compared to placebo. However, when compared to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), combination therapy was associated with higher all-cause mortality (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.03-1.76; p=0.03), and cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.04-1.81; p=0.03). For N alone, ten trials including 375 patients reported all-cause mortality and showed a trend to harm (13 deaths in those assigned to nitrates and 7 to placebo; OR 2.13; 95% CI 0.88-5.13; p=0.09). For H alone, three trials showed no difference in all-cause mortality compared to placebo (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.37-2.47; p=0.93), and two trials suggested inferiority to ACEI (OR 2.28; 95% CI 1.03-5.04; p=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, H&N reduces mortality in patients with CHF. Whether race or background therapy influences benefit is uncertain, but on direct comparison H&N appears inferior to ACEI. There is little evidence to support the use of either drug alone in CHF.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in prelabor spontaneous rupture of fetal membranes at or beyond 36 weeks of pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics compared with placebo in preventing neonatal and maternal infection-related morbidity associated with prelabor spontaneous rupture of membranes at or beyond 36 weeks of pregnancy.

METHODS

In the present randomized controlled trial conducted during 2009-2011, 1640 women with prelabor spontaneous rupture of fetal membranes at or beyond 36 weeks of pregnancy were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of prophylactic intravenous antibiotics or placebo on admission to the labor ward of Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. The participants, caregivers, and investigators were blinded to the group assignment. The primary outcome measure was early-onset neonatal sepsis. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Early-onset neonatal sepsis occurred in 34 (4.1%) and 24 (2.9%) neonates in the antibiotics and placebo groups, respectively (risk ratio 1.42; 95% confidence interval 0.85-2.37). Maternal infection outcomes were not significantly different between the 2 trial arms.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in women with prelabor spontaneous rupture of fetal membranes at or beyond 36 weeks of pregnancy does not reduce the risk of neonatal and maternal infection-related morbidity.

Tight control of mild-moderate pre-existing or non-proteinuric gestational hypertension

BACKGROUND

The question of the target blood pressure in pregnant women with mild-moderate hypertension continues to be an area of debate.

OBJECTIVES

To compare tight versus very tight control of mild-moderate pre-existing or non-proteinuric gestational hypertension for improving outcomes

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2011), and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (31 March 2011). We handsearched citation lists of relevant publications, review articles, and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of tight versus very tight control in pregnant women with mild or moderate pre-existing or non-proteinuric gestational hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We expressed results as risk ratio (RR) or mean differences, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies (256 participants) with mild-moderate pre-existing or non-proteinuric gestational hypertension. There was no evidence of a difference between tight and very tight control groups regarding severe pre-eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.70; two trials, 256 participants). More women in the tight group were hospitalized during their pregnancy (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.14 to 5.63; one trial, 125 participants). There was no evidence of a difference in other outcome measures including fetal distress, IUGR, neonatal admission to a NICU, perinatal deaths, induction of labor and cesarean delivery between the tight and the very tight control groups. Gestational age at delivery had a non-significant mean difference (MD) of -0.15 weeks between the tight and very tight control groups (MD -0.15, 95% CI -1.52 to 1.21, random-effects, T² = 0.75, I² = 77%; two trials, 256 participants). The MD in birthweight between the tight and the very tight control group was not significant (MD -100.00 grams, 95% CI -363.69 to 163.69; one trial, 125 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For pregnant women with non-severe pre-existing or non-proteinuric gestational hypertension, there is insufficient evidence to determine how tight control of hypertension should be achieved to improve maternal and fetal-neonatal outcomes.

High feedback versus low feedback of prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Prenatal ultrasound is one of many techniques used in screening and diagnosis. It gives parents instant access to the images of the fetus. Receiving information promotes knowledge and understanding, but it may also increase maternal anxiety.

OBJECTIVES

To compare high feedback versus low feedback during prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2010), the Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 1 March 2010), and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (March 2010). We handsearched citation lists of relevant publications. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of high feedback (women can see the monitor screen and receive detailed visual and verbal explanations) versus low feedback (women can not see the monitor screen and women are given only a summary statement of the scan) during prenatal ultrasound. The primary outcome measure was maternal state anxiety.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We have expressed results as risk ratio (RR) or mean differences, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (365 women). Three RCTs(346 participants) reported the effect of high versus low feedback during ultrasound on state anxiety scores (mean difference 0.92, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.43). Two trials (148 participants) reported women's views of the level of feedback. They do not show that women in the high feedback groups are more likely to choose very positive adjectives to describe their feelings after the scan (RR 3.30; 95% CI 0.73 to 14.85). Women who had a high feedback during ultrasound were more likely to stop smoking during pregnancy (one trial, 129 participants; RR 2.93; 95% CI 1.25 to 6.86) and to avoid alcohol during pregnancy (one trial, 129 participants; RR 2.96; 95% CI 1.15 to 7.60).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support either high or low feedback during a prenatal ultrasound to reduce maternal anxiety and promote health behaviour.

A randomized trial of tight vs. less tight control of mild essential and gestational hypertension in pregnancy

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of applying a tight vs. a less tight control of mild chronic essential or gestational non-proteinuric hypertension in pregnancy.

METHODS

A randomized trial was conducted in 2006-2007 in the University of Ain Shams, Egypt. Eligible participants (n=125) were randomly assigned to either tight or less tight control of mild chronic (essential) or gestational (non-proteinuric) hypertension. The primary outcome measure was the development of severe hypertension during follow-up. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

In the tight target group, adjustment of the dose with an increment of 191 mg yielded a mean dose of methyldopa of 1267+/-406 mg. Both systolic and diastolic BP levels were significantly less than in the tight target group. More women in the less tight group had severe hypertension during follow up (RR 3.167 and 95% CI 1.36-7.37). The rate of antenatal hospitalization was significantly higher in the less tight target group with a relative risk of 2.57 and 95% CI 1.16-5.70. The gestational age at delivery was significantly better in the tight target group. Preterm delivery and birth weight were not significantly different between the study groups.

CONCLUSION

Tight control of blood pressure reduces the rate of antenatal hospitalization and does not adversely affect perinatal outcomes in women with mild essential or gestational hypertension.

Isosorbide mononitrate versus alendronate for postmenopausal osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness, safety, and affordability of isosorbide mononitrate with alendronate for postmenopausal osteoporosis.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial of 60 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 20 mg daily of isosorbide mononitrate or 70 mg weekly of alendronate for 12 months. Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at baseline and after 12 months.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significant improvement in BMD. Isosorbide mononitrate yielded a comparable effect to alendronate for BMD and T-score at the end of the follow-up period. For BMD and T score the mean differences between the 2 groups were -0.005 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.03) and 0.31 (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.64), respectively. A 10.8% and 12.1% change in BMD after 12 months was seen for isosorbide mononitrate and alendronate, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Isosorbide mononitrate is comparable to alendronate. Nitric oxide donors may be an effective and affordable therapy to improve bone mineral density.

Amniotic fluid index versus single deepest vertical pocket: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the use of the amniotic fluid index with the single deepest vertical pocket measurement, during antepartum fetal surveillance, in preventing adverse pregnancy outcome.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2008), and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (May 2008). We handsearched the citation lists of relevant publications, review articles, and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials involving women with a singleton pregnancy, whether at low or high risk, undergoing ultrasound measurement of amniotic fluid volume as part of antepartum assessment of fetal well-being that compared the amniotic fluid index and the single deepest vertical pocket measurement.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently assessed eligibility and quality, and extracted the data.

RESULTS

Four trials (3125 women) met the inclusion criteria. When the amniotic fluid index was used, significantly more cases of oligohydramnios were diagnosed (risk ratio (RR) 2.33, 95% CI 1.67-3.24), and more women had inductions of labor (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.60-2.76) and cesarean delivery for fetal distress (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.07-1.97). There is no evidence that one method is superior to the other in the prevention of poor peripartum outcomes, including: admission to a neonatal intensive care unit; an umbilical artery pH of less than 7.1; the presence of meconium; an Apgar score of less than 7 at 5 minutes; or cesarean delivery.

CONCLUSION

Single deepest vertical pocket measurement is the method of choice for the assessment of amniotic fluid volume.

Amniotic fluid index versus single deepest vertical pocket as a screening test for preventing adverse pregnancy outcome

BACKGROUND

Amniotic fluid volume is an important parameter in the assessment of fetal well-being. Oligohydramnios occurs in many high-risk conditions and is associated with poor perinatal outcomes. Many caregivers practice planned delivery by induction of labor or caesarean section after diagnosis of decreased amniotic fluid volume at term. There is no clear consensus on the best method to assess amniotic fluid adequacy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the use of the amniotic fluid index with the single deepest vertical pocket measurement as a screening tool for decreased amniotic fluid volume in preventing adverse pregnancy outcome.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2007) and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (May 2007). We handsearched the citation lists of relevant publications, review articles, and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving women with a singleton pregnancy, whether at low or high risk, undergoing ultrasound measurement of amniotic fluid volume as part of antepartum assessment of fetal well-being that compared the amniotic fluid index and the single deepest vertical pocket measurement.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently assessed eligibility and quality, and extracted the data.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials (3125 women) met the inclusion criteria. There is no evidence that one method is superior to the other in the prevention of poor peripartum outcomes, including: admission to a neonatal intensive care unit; an umbilical artery pH of less than 7.1; the presence of meconium; an Apgar score of less than 7 at five minutes; or caesarean delivery. When the amniotic fluid index was used, significantly more cases of oligohydramnios were diagnosed (risk ratio (RR, random) 2.33, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.24), and more women had inductions of labor (RR (fixed) 2.10, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.76) and caesarean delivery for fetal distress (RR (fixed) 1.45, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The single deepest vertical pocket measurement in the assessment of amniotic fluid volume during fetal surveillance seems a better choice since the use of the amniotic fluid index increases the rate of diagnosis of oligohydramnios and the rate of induction of labor without improvement in peripartum outcomes. A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of both methods in detecting decreased amniotic fluid volume is required.

Long-term outcomes of two different surgical techniques for cesarean

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rate of adhesions and other long-term outcomes of two cesarean delivery techniques.

METHODS

A total of 600 women were randomly assigned to either a standard (Pfannenstiel-Kerr) or modified (Joel-Cohen-Stark) technique for first-time cesarean delivery. A total of 124 women were assessed at repeat cesarean delivery. The primary outcome measure was the presence of adhesions.

RESULTS

At repeat cesarean delivery, anesthesia-to-delivery time, total duration of surgery, change in hemoglobin level, time to mobilization and oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly less with the modified technique. Adhesions were found in 7 (11.3%) and 22 (35.5%) of the cases using the modified and standard techniques, respectively (P=0.0026; relative risk 3.14 [95% CI, 1.45-6.82]).

CONCLUSION

A modified cesarean delivery technique, including Joel-Cohen incision, exteriorized full thickness suturing of the uterine incision, and non-closure of the peritoneum may reduce long-term morbidities of the procedure.