Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration 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 equ...

Background Stomach cancer is a major health problem in many countries. Understanding the current burden of stomach cancer and the differential trends across various locations is essential for formulating effective preventive strategies. We report on the incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) due to stomach cancer in 195 countries and territories from 21 regions between 1990 and 2017.Methods Estimates from GBD 2017 were used to analyse the incidence, mortality, and DALYs due to stomach cancer at the global, regional, and national levels. The rates were standardised to the GBD world population and reported per 100 000 population as age-standardised incidence rates, age-standardised death rates, and age-standardised DALY rates. All estimates were generated with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).Findings In 2017, more than 1·22 million (95% UI 1·19-1·25) incident cases of stomach cancer occurred worldwide, and nearly 865 000 people (848 000-885 000) died of stomach cancer, contributing to 19·1 million (18·7-19·6) DALYs. The highest age-standardised incidence rates in 2017 were seen in the high-income Asia Pacific (29·5, 28·2-31·0 per 100 000 population) and east Asia (28·6, 27·3-30·0 per 100 000 population) regions, with nearly half of the global incident cases occurring in China. Compared with 1990, in 2017 more than 356 000 more incident cases of stomach cancer were estimated, leading to nearly 96 000 more deaths. Despite the increase in absolute numbers, the worldwide age-standardised rates of stomach cancer (incidence, deaths, and DALYs) have declined since 1990. The drop in the disease burden was associated with improved Socio-demographic Index. Globally, 38·2% (21·1-57·8) of the agestandardised DALYs were attributable to high-sodium diet in both sexes combined, and 24·5% (20·0-28·9) of the age-standardised DALYs were attributable to smoking in males.Interpretation Our findings provide insight into the changing burden of stomach cancer, which is useful in planning local strategies and monitoring their progress. To this end, specific local strategies should be tailored to each country's risk factor profile. Beyond the current decline in age-standardised incidence and death rates, a decrease in the absolute number of cases and deaths will be possible if the burden in east Asia, where currently almost half of the incident cases and deaths occur, is further reduced.

Mapping 123 million neonatal, infant and child deaths between 2000 and 2017 Since 2000, many countries have achieved considerable success in improving child survival, but localized progress remains unclear. To inform efforts towards United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3.2-to end preventable child deaths by 2030-we need consistently estimated data at the subnational level regarding child mortality rates and trends. Here we quantified, for the period 2000-2017, the subnational variation in mortality rates and number of deaths of neonates, infants and children under 5 years of age within 99 low-and middle-income countries using a geostatistical survival model. We estimated that 32% of children under 5 in these countries lived in districts that had attained rates of 25 or fewer child deaths per 1,000 live births by 2017, and that 58% of child deaths between 2000 and 2017 in these countries could have been averted in the absence of geographical inequality. This study enables the identification of high-mortality clusters, patterns of progress and geographical inequalities to inform appropriate investments and implementations that will help to improve the health of all populations. Gains in child survival have long served as an important proxy measure for improvements in overall population health and development 1,2. Global progress in reducing child deaths has been heralded as one of the greatest success stories of global health 3. The annual global number of deaths of children under 5 years of age (under 5) 4 has declined from 19.6 million in 1950 to 5.4 million in 2017. Nevertheless, these advances in child survival have been far from universally achieved, particularly in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) 4. Previous subnational child mortality assessments at the first (that is, states or provinces) or second (that is, districts or counties) administrative level indicate that extensive geographical inequalities persist 5-7. Progress in child survival also diverges across age groups 4. Global reductions in mortality rates of children under 5-that is, the under-5 mortality rate (U5MR)-among post-neonatal age groups are greater than those for mortality of neonates (0-28 days) 4,8. It is relatively unclear how these age patterns are shifting at a more local scale, posing challenges to ensuring child survival. To pursue the ambitious Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) of the United Nations 9 to "end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5" by 2030, it is vital for decision-makers at all levels to better understand where, and at what ages, child survival remains most tenuous.

Background Accurate childhood cancer burden data are crucial for resource planning and health policy prioritisation. Model-based estimates are necessary because cancer surveillance data are scarce or non-existent in many countries. Although global incidence and mortality estimates are available, there are no previous analyses of the global burden of childhood cancer represented in disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Methods Using the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017 methodology, childhood (ages 0-19 years) cancer mortality was estimated by use of vital registration system data, verbal autopsy data, and population-based cancer registry incidence data, which were transformed to mortality estimates through modelled mortality-to-incidence ratios (MIRs). Childhood cancer incidence was estimated using the mortality estimates and corresponding MIRs. Prevalence estimates were calculated by using MIR to model survival and multiplied by disability weights to obtain years lived with disability (YLDs). Years of life lost (YLLs) were calculated by multiplying age-specific cancer deaths by the difference between the age of death and a reference life expectancy. DALYs were calculated as the sum of YLLs and YLDs. Final point estimates are reported with 95% uncertainty intervals. Findings Globally, in 2017, there were 11•5 million (95% uncertainty interval 10•6-12•3) DALYs due to childhood cancer, 97•3% (97•3-97•3) of which were attributable to YLLs and 2•7% (2•7-2•7) of which were attributable to YLDs. Childhood cancer was the sixth leading cause of total cancer burden globally and the ninth leading cause of childhood disease burden globally. 82•2% (82•1-82•2) of global childhood cancer DALYs occurred in low, low-middle, or middle Socio-demographic Index locations, whereas 50•3% (50•3-50•3) of adult cancer DALYs occurred in these same locations. Cancers that are uncategorised in the current GBD framework comprised 26•5% (26•5-26•5) of global childhood cancer DALYs. Interpretation The GBD 2017 results call attention to the substantial burden of childhood cancer globally, which disproportionately affects populations in resource-limited settings. The use of DALY-based estimates is crucial in demonstrating that childhood cancer burden represents an important global cancer and child health concern. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities (ALSAC), and St. Baldrick's Foundation.

Background High rate of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been reported among patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Meanwhile there were controversies among different studies about CVD burden in COVID-19 patients. Hence, we aimed to study CVD burden among COVID-19 patients, using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We have systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science as well as medRxiv pre-print database. Hand searched was also conducted in journal websites and Google Scholar. Meta-analyses were carried out for Odds Ratio (OR) of mortality and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission for different CVDs. We have also performed a descriptive meta-analysis on different CVDs. Results Fifty-six studies entered into meta-analysis for ICU admission and mortality outcome and 198 papers for descriptive outcomes, including 159,698 COVID-19 patients. Results of meta-analysis indicated that acute cardiac injury, (OR: 13.29, 95% CI 7.35-24.03), hypertension (OR: 2.60, 95% CI 2.11-3.19), heart Failure (OR: 6.72, 95% CI 3.34-13.52), arrhythmia (OR: 2.75, 95% CI 1.43-5.25), coronary artery disease (OR: 3.78, 95% CI 2.42-5.90), and cardiovascular disease (OR: 2.61, 95% CI 1.89-3.62) were significantly associated with mortality. Arrhythmia (OR: 7.03, 95% CI 2.79-17.69), acute cardiac injury (OR: 15.58, 95% CI 5.15-47.12), coronary heart disease (OR: 2.61, 95% CI 1.09-6.26), cardiovascular disease (OR: 3.11, 95% CI 1.59-6.09), and hypertension (OR: 1.95, 95% CI 1.41-2.68) were also significantly associated with ICU admission in COVID-19 patients. Conclusion Findings of this study revealed a high burden of CVDs among COVID-19 patients, which was significantly associated with mortality and ICU admission. Proper management of CVD patients with COVID-19 and monitoring COVID-19 patients for acute cardiac conditions is highly recommended to prevent mortality and critical situations.

No abstract

This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of adding melatonin to the treatment protocol of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients. This was an open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Patients were randomized into a treatment arm receiving melatonin plus standard care or a control arm receiving standard care alone. The trial's primary endpoint was sleep quality examined by the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ). The trial's secondary endpoints were symptoms alleviation by Day 7, intensive care unit admission, 10-day mortality, white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein status, and peripheral capillary oxygen saturation. Ninety-six patients were recruited and allocated to either the melatonin arm (n = 48) or control arm (n = 48).Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment arms. There was no significant difference in symptoms on Day 7. The mean of the LSEQ scores was significantly higher in the melatonin group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in laboratory data, except for blood oxygen saturation, which has improved significantly in the melatonin group compared with the control group (95.81% vs. 93.65% respectively, p = 0.003). This clinical trial study showed that the combination of oral melatonin tablets and standard treatment could substantially improve sleep quality and blood oxygen saturation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Background:Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major global issue with rising the number of infected individuals and mortality in recent months. Among all therapeutic approaches, arguments have raised about hydroxychloroquine efficacy in treatment of COVID-19. We aimed to overcome the controversies regarding effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treatment of COVID-19, using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods:A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar and medRxiv pre-print database using all available MeSH terms for COVID-19 and hydroxychloroquine. Two authors selected and assessed the quality of studies independently using related checklists. Data have been extracted from included studies and analyzed using CMA v. 2.2.064. heterogeneity was also assessed using I-squared test. Results:Seven studies including four clinical trials and three observational studies have entered into the study. The results of meta-analysis of clinical trials showed that there were no significant differences between patients who received the standard treatment with HCQ regimen and the patients that received the standard treatment without HCQ (RR: 1.44, 95% CI, 0.80-2.59). CT-Scan findings improved in 59% (95% CI 0.15-0.92) and nasopharyngeal culture following RT-PCR resulted negative in 76% (95% CI 0.56-0.89) of patients received hydroxychloroquine. Metaanalysis of observational studies showed 75% (95% CI, 0.54-0.88) of patients were discharged from the hospital, 34% (95% CI, 0.07-0.14) admitted to intensive care unit and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.03-0.83) have expired. Conclusion:This study indicated no clinical benefits regarding HCQ for treatment of COVID-19 patients. However, further large clinical trials should be taken into account in order to achieve more reliable findings.