Background Regularly updated data on stroke and its pathological types, including data on their incidence, prevalence, mortality, disability, risk factors, and epidemiological trends, are important for evidence-based stroke care planning and resource allocation. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) aims to provide a standardised and comprehensive measurement of these metrics at global, regional, and national levels. MethodsWe applied GBD 2019 analytical tools to calculate stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and the population attributable fraction (PAF) of DALYs (with corresponding 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) associated with 19 risk factors, for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. These estimates were provided for ischaemic stroke, intracerebral haemorrhage, subarachnoid haemorrhage, and all strokes combined, and stratified by sex, age group, and World Bank country income level. FindingsIn 2019, there were 12•2 million (95% UI 11•0-13•6) incident cases of stroke, 101 million (93•2-111) prevalent cases of stroke, 143 million (133-153) DALYs due to stroke, and 6•55 million (6•00-7•02) deaths from stroke. Globally, stroke remained the second-leading cause of death (11•6% [10•8-12•2] of total deaths) and the third-leading cause of death and disability combined (5•7% [5•1-6•2] of total DALYs) in 2019. From 1990 to 2019, the absolute number of incident strokes increased by 70•0% (67•0-73•0), prevalent strokes increased by 85•0% (83•0-88•0), deaths from stroke increased by 43•0% (31•0-55•0), and DALYs due to stroke increased by 32•0% (22•0-42•0). During the same period, age-standardised rates of stroke incidence decreased by 17•0% (15•0-18•0), mortality decreased by 36•0% (31•0-42•0), prevalence decreased by 6•0% (5•0-7•0), and DALYs decreased by 36•0% (31•0-42•0). However, among people younger than 70 years, prevalence rates increased by 22•0% (21•0-24•0) and incidence rates increased by 15•0% (12•0-18•0). In 2019, the age-standardised stroke-related mortality rate was 3•6 (3•5-3•8) times higher in the World Bank low-income group than in the World Bank high-income group, and the age-standardised stroke-related DALY rate was 3•7 (3•5-3•9) times higher in the low-income group than the high-income group. Ischaemic stroke constituted 62•4% of all incident strokes in 2019 (7•63 million [6•57-8•96]), while intracerebral haemorrhage constituted 27•9% (3•41 million [2•97-3•91]) and subarachnoid haemorrhage constituted 9•7% (1•18 million [1•01-1•39]). In 2019, the five leading risk factors for stroke were high systolic blood pressure (contributing to 79•6 million [67•7-90•8] DALYs or 55•5% [48•2-62•0] of total stroke DALYs), high bodymass index (34•9 million [22•3-48•6] DALYs or 24•3% [15•7-33•2]), high fasting plasma glucose (28•9 million [19•8-41•5] DALYs or 20•2% [13•8-29•1]), ambient particulate matter pollution (28•7 million [23•4-33•4] DALYs or 20•1% [16•6-23•0]), and smoking (25•3 million [22•6-28•2] DALYs or 17•6% [16•4-19•0]...

Background Given the projected trends in population ageing and population growth, the number of people with dementia is expected to increase. In addition, strong evidence has emerged supporting the importance of potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia. Characterising the distribution and magnitude of anticipated growth is crucial for public health planning and resource prioritisation. This study aimed to improve on previous forecasts of dementia prevalence by producing country-level estimates and incorporating information on selected risk factors. MethodsWe forecasted the prevalence of dementia attributable to the three dementia risk factors included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 (high body-mass index, high fasting plasma glucose, and smoking) from 2019 to 2050, using relative risks and forecasted risk factor prevalence to predict GBD risk-attributable prevalence in 2050 globally and by world region and country. Using linear regression models with education included as an additional predictor, we then forecasted the prevalence of dementia not attributable to GBD risks. To assess the relative contribution of future trends in GBD risk factors, education, population growth, and population ageing, we did a decomposition analysis. FindingsWe estimated that the number of people with dementia would increase from 57•4 (95% uncertainty interval 50•4-65•1) million cases globally in 2019 to 152•8 (130•8-175•9) million cases in 2050. Despite large increases in the projected number of people living with dementia, age-standardised both-sex prevalence remained stable between 2019 and 2050 (global percentage change of 0•1% [-7•5 to 10•8]). We estimated that there were more women with dementia than men with dementia globally in 2019 (female-to-male ratio of 1•69 [1•64-1•73]), and we expect this pattern to continue to 2050 (female-to-male ratio of 1•67 [1•52-1•85]). There was geographical heterogeneity in the projected increases across countries and regions, with the smallest percentage changes in the number of projected dementia cases in high-income Asia Pacific (53% [41-67]) and western Europe (74% [58-90]), and the largest in north Africa and the Middle East (367% [329-403]) and eastern sub-Saharan Africa (357% [323-395]). Projected increases in cases could largely be attributed to population growth and population ageing, although their relative importance varied by world region, with population growth contributing most to the increases in sub-Saharan Africa and population ageing contributing most to the increases in east Asia. Interpretation Growth in the number of individuals living with dementia underscores the need for public health planning efforts and policy to address the needs of this group. Country-level estimates can be used to inform national planning efforts and decisions. Multifaceted approaches, including scaling up interventions to address modifiable risk factors and investing in research on biological mechanisms, will be key in addressing the expected incr...

No abstract

PurposeTo determine the potential associations between physical activity and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe illness from COVID-19 and COVID-19 related death using a nationwide cohort from South Korea.MethodsData regarding 212 768 Korean adults (age ≥20 years), who tested for SARS-CoV-2, from 1 January 2020 to 30 May 2020, were obtained from the National Health Insurance Service of South Korea and further linked with the national general health examination from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019 to assess physical activity levels. SARS-CoV-2 positivity, severe COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 related death were the main outcomes. The observation period was between 1 January 2020 and 31 July 2020.ResultsOut of 76 395 participants who completed the general health examination and were tested for SARS-CoV-2, 2295 (3.0%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, 446 (0.58%) had severe illness from COVID-19 and 45 (0.059%) died from COVID-19. Adults who engaged in both aerobic and muscle strengthening activities according to the 2018 physical activity guidelines had a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (2.6% vs 3.1%; adjusted relative risk (aRR), 0.85; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96), severe COVID-19 illness (0.35% vs 0.66%; aRR 0.42; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.91) and COVID-19 related death (0.02% vs 0.08%; aRR 0.24; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99) than those who engaged in insufficient aerobic and muscle strengthening activities. Furthermore, the recommended range of metabolic equivalent task (MET; 500–1000 MET min/week) was associated with the maximum beneficial effect size for reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aRR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.92), severe COVID-19 illness (aRR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.90) and COVID-19 related death (aRR 0.17; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.98). Similar patterns of association were observed in different sensitivity analyses.ConclusionAdults who engaged in the recommended levels of physical activity were associated with a decreased likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 related death. Our findings suggest that engaging in physical activity has substantial public health value and demonstrates potential benefits to combat COVID-19.

No abstract

Background Numerous clinical trials and observational studies have investigated various pharmacological agents as potential treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the results are heterogeneous and sometimes even contradictory to one another, making it difficult for clinicians to determine which treatments are truly effective. Methods and findings We carried out a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to systematically evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions and the level of evidence behind each treatment regimen in different clinical settings. Both published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and confounding-adjusted observational studies which met our predefined eligibility criteria were collected. We included studies investigating the effect of pharmacological management of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 management. Mild patients who do not require hospitalization or have self-limiting disease courses were not eligible for our NMA. A total of 110 studies (40 RCTs and 70 observational studies) were included. PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, SSRN, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the beginning of 2020 to August 24, 2020. Studies from Asia (41 countries, 37.2%), Europe (28 countries, 25.4%), North America (24 countries, 21.8%), South America (5 countries, 4.5%), and Middle East (6 countries, 5.4%), and additional 6 multinational studies (5.4%) were included in our analyses. The outcomes of interest were mortality, progression to severe disease (severe pneumonia, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and/or mechanical ventilation), viral clearance rate, QT prolongation, fatal cardiac complications, and noncardiac serious adverse events. Based on RCTs, the risk of progression to severe course and mortality was significantly reduced with corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.86, p = 0.032, and OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.91, p = 0.002, respectively) and remdesivir (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50, p < 0.001, and OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.98, p = 0.041, respectively) compared to standard care for moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in non-ICU; corticosteroids were also shown to reduce mortality rate (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73, p < 0.001) for critically ill patients in ICU. In analyses including observational studies, interferon-alpha (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.39, p = 0.004), itolizumab (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.92, p = 0.042), sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.88, p = 0.030), anakinra (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82, p = 0.019), tocilizumab (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60, p < 0.001), and convalescent plasma (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96, p = 0.038) were associated with reduced mortality rate in non-ICU setting, while high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, p = 0.003), ivermectin (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.57, p = 0.005), and tocilizumab (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90, p = 0.012) were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients. Convalescent plasma was the only treatment option that was associated with improved viral clearance rate at 2 weeks compared to standard care (OR 11.39, 95% CI 3.91 to 33.18, p < 0.001). The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was shown to be associated with increased QT prolongation incidence (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.20, p = 0.003) and fatal cardiac complications in cardiac-impaired populations (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.00, p = 0.007). No drug was significantly associated with increased noncardiac serious adverse events compared to standard care. The quality of evidence of collective outcomes were estimated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The major limitation of the present study is the overall low level of evidence that reduces the certainty of recommendations. Besides, the risk of bias (RoB) measured by RoB2 and ROBINS-I framework for individual studies was generally low to moderate. The outcomes deducted from observational studies could not infer causality and can only imply associations. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42020186527). Conclusions In this NMA, we found that anti-inflammatory agents (corticosteroids, tocilizumab, anakinra, and IVIG), convalescent plasma, and remdesivir were associated with improved outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Hydroxychloroquine did not provide clinical benefits while posing cardiac safety risks when combined with azithromycin, especially in the vulnerable population. Only 29% of current evidence on pharmacological management of COVID-19 is supported by moderate or high certainty and can be translated to practice and policy; the remaining 71% are of low or very low certainty and warrant further studies to establish firm conclusions.

No abstract

No abstract