Background The burden of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is rising globally, with substantial variation in levels and trends of disease in different countries and regions. Understanding these geographical differences is crucial for formulating effective strategies for preventing and treating IBD. We report the prevalence, mortality, and overall burden of IBD in 195 countries and territories between 1990 and 2017, based on data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017.Methods We modelled mortality due to IBD using a standard Cause of Death Ensemble model including data mainly from vital registrations. To estimate the non-fatal burden, we used data presented in primary studies, hospital discharges, and claims data, and used DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, to ensure consistency between measures. Mortality, prevalence, years of life lost (YLLs) due to premature death, years lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) were estimated. All of the estimates were reported as numbers and rates per 100 000 population, with 95% uncertainty intervals (UI). Findings In 2017, there were 6•8 million (95% UI 6•4-7•3) cases of IBD globally. The age-standardised prevalence rate increased from 79•5 (75•9-83•5) per 100 000 population in 1990 to 84•3 (79•2-89•9) per 100 000 population in 2017. The age-standardised death rate decreased from 0•61 (0•55-0•69) per 100 000 population in 1990 to 0•51 (0•42-0•54) per 100 000 population in 2017. At the GBD regional level, the highest age-standardised prevalence rate in 2017 occurred in high-income North America (422•0 [398•7-446•1] per 100 000) and the lowest agestandardised prevalence rates were observed in the Caribbean (6•7 [6•3-7•2] per 100 000 population). High Sociodemographic Index (SDI) locations had the highest age-standardised prevalence rate, while low SDI regions had the lowest age-standardised prevalence rate. At the national level, the USA had the highest age-standardised prevalence rate (464•5 [438•6-490•9] per 100 000 population), followed by the UK (449•6 [420•6-481•6] per 100 000). Vanuatu had the highest age-standardised death rate in 2017 (1•8 [0•8-3•2] per 100 000 population) and Singapore had the lowest (0•08 [0•06-0•14] per 100 000 population). The total YLDs attributed to IBD almost doubled over the study period, from 0•56 million (0•39-0•77) in 1990 to 1•02 million (0•71-1•38) in 2017. The agestandardised rate of DALYs decreased from 26•5 (21•0-33•0) per 100 000 population in 1990 to 23•2 (19•1-27•8) per 100 000 population in 2017.Interpretation The prevalence of IBD increased substantially in many regions from 1990 to 2017, which might pose a substantial social and economic burden on governments and health systems in the coming years. Our findings can be useful for policy makers developing strategies to tackle IBD, including the education of specialised personnel to address the burden of this complex disease.Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

No abstract

Background Currently no effective antiviral therapy has been found to treat COVID-19. The aim of this trial was to assess if the addition of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir improved clinical outcomes in patients with moderate or severe COVID-19. Methods This was an open-label, multicentre, randomized controlled clinical trial in adults with moderate or severe COVID-19 admitted to four university hospitals in Iran. Patients were randomized into a treatment arm receiving sofosbuvir and daclatasvir plus standard care, or a control arm receiving standard care alone. The primary endpoint was clinical recovery within 14 days of treatment. The study is registered with IRCT.ir under registration number IRCT20200128046294N2. Results Between 26 March and 26 April 2020, 66 patients were recruited and allocated to either the treatment arm (n = 33) or the control arm (n = 33). Clinical recovery within 14 days was achieved by 29/33 (88%) in the treatment arm and 22/33 (67%) in the control arm (P = 0.076). The treatment arm had a significantly shorter median duration of hospitalization [6 days (IQR 4–8)] than the control group [8 days (IQR 5–13)]; P = 0.029. Cumulative incidence of hospital discharge was significantly higher in the treatment arm versus the control (Gray’s P = 0.041). Three patients died in the treatment arm and five in the control arm. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions The addition of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir to standard care significantly reduced the duration of hospital stay compared with standard care alone. Although fewer deaths were observed in the treatment arm, this was not statistically significant. Conducting larger scale trials seems prudent.

Objectives Sofosbuvir and daclatasvir are direct-acting antivirals highly effective against hepatitis C virus. There is some in silico and in vitro evidence that suggests these agents may also be effective against SARS-CoV-2. This trial evaluated the effectiveness of sofosbuvir in combination with daclatasvir in treating patients with COVID-19. Methods Patients with a positive nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 on RT–PCR or bilateral multi-lobar ground-glass opacity on their chest CT and signs of severe COVID-19 were included. Subjects were divided into two arms with one arm receiving ribavirin and the other receiving sofosbuvir/daclatasvir. All participants also received the recommended national standard treatment which, at that time, was lopinavir/ritonavir and single-dose hydroxychloroquine. The primary endpoint was time from starting the medication until discharge from hospital with secondary endpoints of duration of ICU stay and mortality. Results Sixty-two subjects met the inclusion criteria, with 35 enrolled in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm and 27 in the ribavirin arm. The median duration of stay was 5 days for the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir group and 9 days for the ribavirin group. The mortality in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir group was 2/35 (6%) and 9/27 (33%) for the ribavirin group. The relative risk of death for patients treated with sofosbuvir/daclatasvir was 0.17 (95% CI 0.04–0.73, P = 0.02) and the number needed to treat for benefit was 3.6 (95% CI 2.1–12.1, P < 0.01). Conclusions Given these encouraging initial results, and the current lack of treatments proven to decrease mortality in COVID-19, further investigation in larger-scale trials seems warranted.