Background Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a major threat to human health around the world. Previous publications have estimated the effect of AMR on incidence, deaths, hospital length of stay, and health-care costs for specific pathogen-drug combinations in select locations. To our knowledge, this study presents the most comprehensive estimates of AMR burden to date. MethodsWe estimated deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) attributable to and associated with bacterial AMR for 23 pathogens and 88 pathogen-drug combinations in 204 countries and territories in 2019. We obtained data from systematic literature reviews, hospital systems, surveillance systems, and other sources, covering 471 million individual records or isolates and 7585 study-location-years. We used predictive statistical modelling to produce estimates of AMR burden for all locations, including for locations with no data. Our approach can be divided into five broad components: number of deaths where infection played a role, proportion of infectious deaths attributable to a given infectious syndrome, proportion of infectious syndrome deaths attributable to a given pathogen, the percentage of a given pathogen resistant to an antibiotic of interest, and the excess risk of death or duration of an infection associated with this resistance. Using these components, we estimated disease burden based on two counterfactuals: deaths attributable to AMR (based on an alternative scenario in which all drugresistant infections were replaced by drug-susceptible infections), and deaths associated with AMR (based on an alternative scenario in which all drug-resistant infections were replaced by no infection). We generated 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) for final estimates as the 25th and 975th ordered values across 1000 posterior draws, and models were cross-validated for out-of-sample predictive validity. We present final estimates aggregated to the global and regional level. FindingsOn the basis of our predictive statistical models, there were an estimated 4•95 million (3•62-6•57) deaths associated with bacterial AMR in 2019, including 1•27 million (95% UI 0•911-1•71) deaths attributable to bacterial AMR. At the regional level, we estimated the all-age death rate attributable to resistance to be highest in western sub-Saharan Africa, at 27•3 deaths per 100 000 (20•9-35•3), and lowest in Australasia, at 6•5 deaths (4•3-9•4) per 100 000. Lower respiratory infections accounted for more than 1•5 million deaths associated with resistance in 2019, making it the most burdensome infectious syndrome. The six leading pathogens for deaths associated with resistance (Escherichia coli, followed by Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) were responsible for 929 000 (660 000-1 270 000) deaths attributable to AMR and 3•57 million (2•62-4•78) deaths associated with AMR in 2019. One pathogen-drug combination, meticillinresistant S aureus, caused more than 100 000 deaths attributa...

No abstract

Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

Background Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) has been the standard of care for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) for the last 40 years. It prevents severe visual loss in PDR but is also associated with adverse effects on visual functions. Objectives The clinical efficacy and mechanistic evaluation of aflibercept for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (CLARITY) trial evaluated the clinical efficacy, mechanisms and cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept (Eylea®, Regeneron, Tarrytown, NY, USA/Bayer Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany therapy for PDR. Design A multicentre, prospective, individually randomised, single-masked, active-controlled trial with concurrent economic evaluation that tested the non-inferiority of intravitreal aflibercept versus standard care PRP at 52 weeks. A subset of the participants enrolled in a mechanistic evaluation substudy. Setting 22 UK NHS clinical sites. Participants Patients aged at least 18 years having either treatment-naive PDR or active retinal neovascularisation (NV) despite prior PRP requiring treatment and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 54 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters or better in the study eye were included. Eyes with evidence of macular oedema at baseline confirmed by central subfield thickness > 320 µm on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography were excluded. Intervention In the intervention arm, intravitreal aflibercept injections were given at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks and patients were subsequently reviewed every month and injected pro re nata based on the treatment response defined by degree of regression of retinal NV. In the comparator arm, PRP was completed in 2-weekly sessions and then supplemented if necessary at 8-weekly intervals. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the mean change in BCVA at 52 weeks utilising a linear mixed-effects model incorporating data from both week 12 and week 52. Results A total of 232 participants (116 per arm) were recruited between August 2014 and November 2015. A total of 221 and 210 participants contributed to the intention-to-treat (ITT) model and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. Economic evaluation was undertaken on 202 participants (101 per arm) with complete cost and outcome data. Aflibercept was non-inferior and superior to PRP in both the ITT population [mean BCVA difference 3.9 letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3 to 5.6 letters; p < 0.0001] and the PP population (difference 4.0 letters, 95% CI 2.4 to 5.7 letters; p < 0.0001). From a public sector multiagency perspective that covers health and social care services, treatment with aflibercept costs more in terms of total resource use (mean adjusted total additional cost per patient = £5475, bootstrapped 95% CI £5211 to £5750) than PRP over a 12-month follow-up period. There were a small number of important safety events in each arm. Patients were more satisfied with aflibercept than PRP. Limitations This study is limited to 1 year of follow-up. Conclusions At an additional cost, the study shows that intravitreal aflibercept is an effective alternative treatment option for PDR in the first year. Future work Future research is needed to evaluate the long-term benefits of aflibercept in comparison with PRP and other anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for this condition. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32207582. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanistic Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and NIHR partnership. Aflibercept was supplied by Bayer Plc (Reading, UK). The study was sponsored by NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre and supported by the UK Clinical Research Network. The research was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and University College London Institute of Ophthalmology, the NIHR Moorfields Clinical Research Facility and the UK Clinical Reasearch Collaboration-registered King’s Clinical Trials Unit at King’s Health Partners, which is partly funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London.