Summary Background To contribute to the WHO initiative, VISION 2020: The Right to Sight, an assessment of global vision impairment in 2020 and temporal change is needed. We aimed to extensively update estimates of global vision loss burden, presenting estimates for 2020, temporal change over three decades between 1990–2020, and forecasts for 2050. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys of eye disease from January, 1980, to October, 2018. Only studies with samples representative of the population and with clearly defined visual acuity testing protocols were included. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate 2020 prevalence (with 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) of mild vision impairment (presenting visual acuity ≥6/18 and <6/12), moderate and severe vision impairment (<6/18 to 3/60), and blindness (<3/60 or less than 10° visual field around central fixation); and vision impairment from uncorrected presbyopia (presenting near vision

Background Hearing loss affects access to spoken language, which can affect cognition and development, and can negatively affect social wellbeing. We present updated estimates from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study on the prevalence of hearing loss in 2019, as well as the condition's associated disability. Methods We did systematic reviews of population-representative surveys on hearing loss prevalence from 1990 to 2019. We fitted nested meta-regression models for severity-specific prevalence, accounting for hearing aid coverage, cause, and the presence of tinnitus. We also forecasted the prevalence of hearing loss until 2050. Findings An estimated 1•57 billion (95% uncertainty interval 1•51-1•64) people globally had hearing loss in 2019, accounting for one in five people (20•3% [19•5-21•1]). Of these, 403•3 million (357•3-449•5) people had hearing loss that was moderate or higher in severity after adjusting for hearing aid use, and 430•4 million (381•7-479•6) without adjustment. The largest number of people with moderate-to-complete hearing loss resided in the Western Pacific region (127•1 million people [112•3-142•6]). Of all people with a hearing impairment, 62•1% (60•2-63•9) were older than 50 years. The Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index explained 65•8% of the variation in national agestandardised rates of years lived with disability, because countries with a low HAQ Index had higher rates of years lived with disability. By 2050, a projected 2•45 billion (2•35-2•56) people will have hearing loss, a 56•1% (47•3-65•2) increase from 2019, despite stable age-standardised prevalence. Interpretation As populations age, the number of people with hearing loss will increase. Interventions such as childhood screening, hearing aids, effective management of otitis media and meningitis, and cochlear implants have the potential to ameliorate this burden. Because the burden of moderate-to-complete hearing loss is concentrated in countries with low health-care quality and access, stronger health-care provision mechanisms are needed to reduce the burden of unaddressed hearing loss in these settings. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and WHO.

Summary Background Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 has targeted elimination of preventable child mortality, reduction of neonatal death to less than 12 per 1000 livebirths, and reduction of death of children younger than 5 years to less than 25 per 1000 livebirths, for each country by 2030. To understand current rates, recent trends, and potential trajectories of child mortality for the next decade, we present the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 findings for all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality in children younger than 5 years of age, with multiple scenarios for child mortality in 2030 that include the consideration of potential effects of COVID-19, and a novel framework for quantifying optimal child survival. Methods We completed all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality analyses from 204 countries and territories for detailed age groups separately, with aggregated mortality probabilities per 1000 livebirths computed for neonatal mortality rate (NMR) and under-5 mortality rate (U5MR). Scenarios for 2030 represent different potential trajectories, notably including potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of improvements preferentially targeting neonatal survival. Optimal child survival metrics were developed by age, sex, and cause of death across all GBD location-years. The first metric is a global optimum and is based on the lowest observed mortality, and the second is a survival potential frontier that is based on stochastic frontier analysis of observed mortality and Healthcare Access and Quality Index. Findings Global U5MR decreased from 71·2 deaths per 1000 livebirths (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 68·3–74·0) in 2000 to 37·1 (33·2–41·7) in 2019 while global NMR correspondingly declined more slowly from 28·0 deaths per 1000 live births (26·8–29·5) in 2000 to 17·9 (16·3–19·8) in 2019. In 2019, 136 (67%) of 204 countries had a U5MR at or below the SDG 3.2 threshold and 133 (65%) had an NMR at or below the SDG 3.2 threshold, and the reference scenario suggests that by 2030, 154 (75%) of all countries could meet the U5MR targets, and 139 (68%) could meet the NMR targets. Deaths of children younger than 5 years totalled 9·65 million (95% UI 9·05–10·30) in 2000 and 5·05 million (4·27–6·02) in 2019, with the neonatal fraction of these deaths increasing from 39% (3·76 million [95% UI 3·53–4·02]) in 2000 to 48% (2·42 million; 2·06–2·86) in 2019. NMR and U5MR were generally higher in males than in females, although there was no statistically significant difference at the global level. Neonatal disorders remained the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years in 2019, followed by lower respiratory infections, diarrhoeal diseases, congenital birth defects, and malaria. The global optimum analysis suggests NMR could be reduced to as low as 0·80 (95% UI 0·71–0·86) deaths per 1000 livebirths and U5MR to 1·44 (95% UI 1·27–1·58) deaths per 1...

No abstract

No abstract

Cachexia is a devastating complication of cancer and an important cause of morbidity and mortality and can have a great effect on quality of life, and sense of self-esteem. Unfortunately; there is no standard cure available for cancer cachexia. Ghrelin; a 28 amino acid orexigenic gut hormone and its mimetics have shown potential benefits in reversing the breakdown of protein and weight loss in catabolic states like cancer cachexia. Ghrelin has effects on several vital pathways in the regulation of appetite, and composition of the body. It increases the secretion of growth hormone and reduces energy expenditure. It plays an important role in regulation of processes associated with cancer and antagonizing protein breakdown in catabolic conditions such as cancer cachexia. Additionally, ghrelin has anti-inflammatory, anti-apoptotic and anxiolytic effects. Administration of ghrelin for short-term has been found to be well-tolerated and safe. These versatile actions of ghrelin and its safety can render it as a potentially useful novel therapy for patients with cancer cachexia. However; there is a need to generate more evidence to support the use of ghrelin in the management of cancer cachexia.

BackgroundHeart failure (HF) continues to be a challenging condition in terms of prevention and management of the disease. Studies have demonstrated various cardio-protective effects of Ghrelin. The aim of the study is to determine the effect of Ghrelin on mortality and cardiac function in experimental rats/mice models of HF.MethodsData sources: PUBMED, Scopus. We searched the Digital Dissertations and conference proceedings on Web of Science. Search methods: We systematically searched for all controlled trials (upto November 2014) which assessed the effects of Ghrelin (irrespective of dose, form, frequency, duration and route of administration) on mortality and cardiac function in rats/ mice models of HF. Ghrelin administration irrespective of dose, form, frequency, duration and route of administration. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed each abstract for eligibility and extracted data on characteristics of the experimental model used, intervention and outcome measures. We assessed the methodological quality by SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for all studies and the quality of evidence by GRADEpro. We performed meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3.ResultsA total of 325 animals (rats and mice) were analyzed across seven studies. The meta-analysis revealed that the mortality in Ghrelin group was 31.1% and in control group was 40% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.47) i.e Ghrelin group had 68 fewer deaths per 1000 (from 216 fewer to 188 more) as compared to the control group. The meta-analysis reveals that the heart rate in rats/mice on Ghrelin was higher (MD 13.11, 95% CI 1.14 to 25.08, P=0.66) while the mean arterial blood pressure (MD -1.38, 95% CI -5.16 to 2.41, P=0.48) and left ventricular end diastolic pressure (MD -2.45, 95% CI -4.46 to -0.43, P=0.02) were lower as compared to the those on placebo. There were insignificant changes in cardiac output (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.80, P=0.29) and left ventricular end systolic pressure (MD 1.48, 95% CI -3.86 to 6.82, P=0.59).ConclusionsThe existing data provides evidence to suggest that Ghrelin may lower the risk of mortality and improve cardiovascular outcomes. However; the quality of evidence as assessed by GRADEpro is low to very low. Clinical judgments to administer Ghrelin to patients with HF must be made on better designed animal studies.

No abstract