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

Diabetes is classified clinically into two types: type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune diabetes, whereas, in contrast, type 2 diabetes is nonautoimmune. However, there is a group of phenotypic adult type 2 diabetic patients (ϳ10%) who have islet autoantibodies similar to type 1 diabetes. These patients are said to have latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA) or type 1.5 diabetes. T-cells reacting with islet proteins have been demonstrated in type 1 and type 1.5 diabetic patients. In contrast, classic autoantibody-negative type 2 diabetic patients are also negative for T-cell responses to islet proteins. Therefore, we questioned whether type 1 and type 1.5 diabetes are similar or different autoimmune diseases. We have investigated the immunological and metabolic differences between type 1, type 1.5, and classic type 2 diabetic patients. We have identified autoantibody differences, differences in islet proteins recognized by T-cells, and differences in insulin resistance. We have also identified a small group of patients who have T-cells responsive to islet proteins but who are autoantibody negative. These patients appear to be similar to type 1.5 patients in having decreased stimulated C-peptide values. These immunological differences between type 1 and type 1.5 diabetes suggest at least partially distinct disease processes. Diabetes 54 (Suppl. 2):S62-S67, 2005 T he finding nearly simultaneously by two groups in 1974 (1,2) that islet cell antibodies (ICAs) were common in the sera of patients with type 1 diabetes (type 1 diabetes) provided strong evidence that the ␤-cell lesion of type 1 diabetes was autoimmune in nature. Shortly thereafter, it was published that ϳ11% of patients with type 2 diabetes were also positive for ICAs and that this ICA ϩ subset of type 2 diabetic patients tended to fail sulfonylurea therapy and needed insulin treatment earlier than ICA Ϫ type 2 diabetic patients (3). Many other groups have also identified a subset of phenotypic type 2 diabetic patients who are positive for the antibodies commonly found in type 1 diabetes; this subset has been said to have type 1.5 diabetes, latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA), slowly progressive IDDM, latent type 1 diabetes, youth-onset diabetes of maturity, latent-onset type 1 diabetes, and antibody-positive non-insulin-dependent diabetes (4 -6) ( Table 1). Although the different names have caused some confusion, the finding of this subset of phenotypic type 2 diabetic patients by many different investigators rather than just one or two groups confirms their existence as an important subset of phenotypic type 2 diabetic patients.Probably the greatest area of confusion involves the distinction of LADA from type 1 diabetes occurring in individuals over the age of 30 -35 years. Epidemiologic evidence suggests that type 1 diabetes peaks around puberty and again around age 40 years (7), and Nerup and colleagues (8) have suggested that the incidence of type 1 diabetes is approximately equivalent below and above age 20 years...