Research output collection http://hdl.handle.net/11054/4 2019-02-24T05:02:29Z 2019-02-24T05:02:29Z http://hdl.handle.net/11054/1290 2019-02-21T04:06:49Z 2019-01-01T00:00:00Z

Title: Global, regional, and national burden of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Abstract: Background The number of individuals living with dementia is increasing, negatively affecting families, communities, and health-care systems around the world. A successful response to these challenges requires an accurate understanding of the dementia disease burden. We aimed to present the first detailed analysis of the global prevalence, mortality, and overall burden of dementia as captured by the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study 2016, and highlight the most important messages for clinicians and neurologists. Methods GBD 2016 obtained data on dementia from vital registration systems, published scientific literature and surveys, and data from health-service encounters on deaths, excess mortality, prevalence, and incidence from 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2016, through systematic review and additional data-seeking efforts. To correct for differences in cause of death coding across time and locations, we modelled mortality due to dementia using prevalence data and estimates of excess mortality derived from countries that were most likely to code deaths to dementia relative to prevalence. Data were analysed by standardised methods to estimate deaths, prevalence, years of life lost (YLLs), years of life lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; computed as the sum of YLLs and YLDs), and the fractions of these metrics that were attributable to four risk factors that met GBD criteria for assessment (high body-mass index [BMI], high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and a diet high in sugar-sweetened beverages). Findings In 2016, the global number of individuals who lived with dementia was 43·8 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 37·8–51·0), increased from 20.2 million (17·4–23·5) in 1990. This increase of 117% (95% UI 114–121) contrasted with a minor increase in age-standardised prevalence of 1·7% (1·0–2·4), from 701 cases (95% UI 602–815) per 100 000 population in 1990 to 712 cases (614–828) per 100 000 population in 2016. More women than men had dementia in 2016 (27·0 million, 95% UI 23·3–31·4, vs 16.8 million, 14.4–19.6), and dementia was the fifth leading cause of death globally, accounting for 2·4 million (95% UI 2·1–2·8) deaths. Overall, 28·8 million (95% UI 24·5–34·0) DALYs were attributed to dementia; 6·4 million (95% UI 3·4–10·5) of these could be attributed to the modifiable GBD risk factors of high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and a high intake of sugar-sweetened beverages. Interpretation The global number of people living with dementia more than doubled from 1990 to 2016, mainly due to increases in population ageing and growth. Although differences in coding for causes of death and the heterogeneity in case-ascertainment methods constitute major challenges to the estimation of the burden of dementia, future analyses should improve on the methods for the correction of these biases. Until breakthroughs are made in prevention or curative treatment, dementia will constitute an increasing challenge to health-care systems worldwide. Includes data collected from Ballarat Health Services (Ramesh Sahathevan).

2019-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11054/1289 2019-02-21T04:05:44Z 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z

Title: Global, regional, and country-specific lifetime risks of stroke, 1990 and 2016. Abstract: Background The lifetime risk of stroke has been calculated in a limited number of selected populations. We sought to estimate the lifetime risk of stroke at the regional, country, and global level using data from a comprehensive study of the prevalence of major diseases. Methods We used the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2016 estimates of stroke incidence and the competing risks of death from any cause other than stroke to calculate the cumulative lifetime risks of first stroke, ischemic stroke, or hemorrhagic stroke among adults 25 years of age or older. Estimates of the lifetime risks in the years 1990 and 2016 were compared. Countries were categorized into quintiles of the sociodemographic index (SDI) used in the GBD Study, and the risks were compared across quintiles. Comparisons were made with the use of point estimates and uncertainty intervals representing the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles around the estimate. Results The estimated global lifetime risk of stroke from the age of 25 years onward was 24.9% (95% uncertainty interval, 23.5 to 26.2); the risk among men was 24.7% (95% uncertainty interval, 23.3 to 26.0), and the risk among women was 25.1% (95% uncertainty interval, 23.7 to 26.5). The risk of ischemic stroke was 18.3%, and the risk of hemorrhagic stroke was 8.2%. In high-SDI, high-middle–SDI, and low-SDI countries, the estimated lifetime risk of stroke was 23.5%, 31.1% (highest risk), and 13.2% (lowest risk), respectively; the 95% uncertainty intervals did not overlap between these categories. The highest estimated lifetime risks of stroke according to GBD region were in East Asia (38.8%), Central Europe (31.7%), and Eastern Europe (31.6%), and the lowest risk was in eastern sub-Saharan Africa (11.8%). The mean global lifetime risk of stroke increased from 22.8% in 1990 to 24.9% in 2016, a relative increase of 8.9% (95% uncertainty interval, 6.2 to 11.5); the competing risk of death from any cause other than stroke was considered in this calculation. Conclusions In 2016, the global lifetime risk of stroke from the age of 25 years onward was approximately 25% among both men and women. There was geographic variation in the lifetime risk of stroke, with the highest risks in East Asia, Central Europe, and Eastern Europe. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.) Includes data collected from Ballarat Health Services.

2018-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11054/1288 2019-02-21T04:02:52Z 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z

Title: New drug developments in metastatic gastric cancer. Abstract: Abstract Metastatic gastric cancer is associated with a poor prognosis and novel treatment options are desperately needed. The development of targeted therapies heralded a new era for the management of metastatic gastric cancer, however results from clinical trials of numerous targeted agents have been mixed. The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors has yielded similar promise and results from early trials are encouraging. This review provides an overview of the systemic treatment options evaluated in metastatic gastric cancer, with a focus on recent evidence from clinical trials for targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors. The failure to identify appropriate predictive biomarkers has hampered the success of many targeted therapies in gastric cancer, and a deeper understanding of specific molecular subtypes and genomic alterations may allow for more precision in the application of novel therapies. Identifying appropriate biomarkers for patient selection is essential for future clinical trials, for the most effective use of novel agents and in combination approaches to account for growing complexity of treatment options.

2018-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11054/1287 2019-02-21T03:57:00Z 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z

Title: Antifungal stewardship: developments in the field. Abstract: Purpose of review: To outline key drivers and components of antifungal stewardship (AFS) programmes, the evidence for specific interventions, and methods to assess performance of programmes. Recent findings: Recent developments in antifungal resistance and breakthrough invasive fungal diseases have increased the urgency for effective AFS. In practice, however, few hospitals have dedicated AFS programmes. To date, AFS programmes have centred around the provision of expert bedside reviews and have reduced costs and consumption of antifungal agents. Incorporating tools such as fungal diagnostics and therapeutic drug monitoring into AFS programme models is recommended. However, the application and impact of these tools in this context have not been adequately assessed. The effectiveness of AFS programmes has been measured in multiple ways but a standardized method of evaluation remains elusive. Few studies have explored the impact of AFS interventions on patient outcomes. Summary: The uptake of formal AFS programmes has been slow. New initiatives integrating AFS tools in programmes, and measuring the impacts on patient outcomes are required given such data are not readily available. A comprehensive approach to evaluate AFS programmes by correlating the quantity and quality of antifungal prescribing with impacts on patient outcomes is needed. Consensus definitions for core AFS metrics are required to benchmark performance and are essential to the resourcing and sustainability of these programmes.

2018-01-01T00:00:00Z