Search

UN member states have committed to universal health coverage (UHC) to ensure all individuals and communities receive the health services they need without suffering financial hardship. Although the pursuit of UHC should unify disparate global health challenges, it is too commonly seen as another standalone initiative with a singular focus on the health sector. Despite constituting the cornerstone of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals, UHC-related commitments, actions, and metrics do not engage with the major drivers and determinants of health, such as poverty, gender inequality, discriminatory laws and policies, environment, housing, education, sanitation, and employment. Given that all countries already face multiple competing health priorities, the global UHC agenda should be used to reconcile, rationalise, prioritise, and integrate investments and multisectoral actions that influence health. In this paper, we call for greater coordination and coherence using a UHC+ lens to suggest new approaches to funding that can extend beyond biomedical health services to include the cross-cutting determinants of health. The proposed intersectoral co-financing mechanisms aim to support the advancement of health for all, regardless of countries' income., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 IGO license which permits users to download and share the article for non-commercial purposes, so long as the article is reproduced in the whole without changes, and provided the original source is properly cited. This article shall not be used or reproduced in association with the promotion of commercial products, services or any entity. There should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.)

Nearly a century after the beginning of the antibiotic era, which has been associated with unparalleled improvements in human health and reductions in mortality associated with infection, the dwindling pipeline for new antibiotic classes coupled with the inevitable spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a major global challenge. Historically, surveillance of bacteria with AMR typically relied on phenotypic analysis of isolates taken from infected individuals, which provides only a low-resolution view of the epidemiology behind an individual infection or wider outbreak. Recent years have seen increasing adoption of powerful new genomic technologies with the potential to revolutionise AMR surveillance by providing a high-resolution picture of the AMR profile of the bacteria causing infections and providing real-time actionable information for treating and preventing infection. However, many barriers remain to be overcome before genomic technologies can be adopted as a standard part of routine AMR surveillance around the world. Accordingly, the Surveillance and Epidemiology of Drug-resistant Infections Consortium convened an expert working group to assess the benefits and challenges of using genomics for AMR surveillance. In this Series, we detail these discussions and provide recommendations from the working group that can help to realise the massive potential benefits for genomics in surveillance of AMR., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KSB reports funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and Medical Research Council and partial salary cover from Wellcome Trust and the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) over the course of this work. EJ had partial salary cover from Wellcome Trust over the course of this work. RA reports funding unrelated to this study from Novo Nordisk, Roche, Novartis, and UICC, and honoraria (unrelated to this study) from Merck & Co, Novartis, and F Hoffmann-La Roche. BE and INO report receiving funding from the UK Department of Health and Social Care: with a grant managed by the Fleming Fund and work performed under the auspices of the SEQAFRICA project. INO reports funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Joint Programming Initiative in Antimicrobial Resistance, Wellcome Trust, Grand Challenges Africa Award, and UK Medical Research Council, royalties for Genetics: Genes, Genomes and Evolution (Oxford University Press) and Divining Without Seeds and for Antimicrobial Resistance in Developing Countries (Springer), consulting fees from Wellcome Trust, and honoraria for Harvard University seminars and Peter Wildy Lecture Award 2023. LYH reports funding from Pfizer and honoraria from BioMerieux for a lecture in 2022. DMM reports funding from the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. NEW reports funding from Nuclear Threat Initiative, Medical Research Council, Open Philantropy, and Shionogi as well as consulting fees from Nuclear Threat Initiative. DMA reports funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research. NAF reports funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UK Research and Innovation, and National Institute for Health and Care Research. SJP is a member of the scientific advisory board of Next Gen Diagnostics and was supported by Illumina to attend the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease conference. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The global burden of diabetes is rising rapidly, yet there is little evidence on individual-level diabetes prevention activities undertaken by health systems in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Here we describe the population at high risk of developing diabetes, estimate diabetes prevention activities, and explore sociodemographic variation in these activities across LMICs., Methods: We performed a pooled, cross-sectional analysis of individual-level data from nationally representative, population-based surveys conducted in 44 LMICs between October, 2009, and May, 2019. Our sample included all participants older than 25 years who did not have diabetes and were not pregnant. We defined the population at high risk of diabetes on the basis of either the presence of impaired fasting glucose (or prediabetes in countries with a haemoglobin A 1c available) or overweight or obesity, consistent with the WHO Package of Essential Noncommunicable Disease Guidelines for type 2 diabetes management. We estimated the proportion of survey participants that were at high risk of developing diabetes based on this definition. We also estimated the proportion of the population at high risk that reported each of four fundamental diabetes prevention activities: physical activity counselling, weight loss counselling, dietary counselling, and blood glucose screening, overall and stratified by World Bank income group. Finally, we used multivariable Poisson regression models to evaluate associations between sociodemographic characteristics and these activities., Findings: The final pooled sample included 145 739 adults (86 269 [59·2%] of whom were female and 59 468 [40·4%] of whom were male) across 44 LMICs, of whom 59 308 (40·6% [95% CI 38·5-42·8]) were considered at high risk of diabetes (20·6% [19·8-21·5] in low-income countries, 38·0% [37·2-38·9] in lower-middle-income countries, and 57·5% [54·3-60·6] in upper-middle-income countries). Overall, the reach of diabetes prevention activities was low at 40·0% (38·6-41·4) for physical activity counselling, 37·1% (35·9-38·4) for weight loss counselling, 42·7% (41·6-43·7) for dietary counselling, and 37·1% (34·7-39·6) for blood glucose screening. Diabetes prevention varied widely by national-level wealth: 68·1% (64·6-71·4) of people at high risk of diabetes in low-income countries reported none of these activities, whereas 49·0% (47·4-50·7) at high risk in upper-middle-income countries reported at least three activities. Educational attainment was associated with diabetes prevention, with estimated increases in the predicted probability of receipt ranging between 6·5 (3·6-9·4) percentage points for dietary fruit and vegetable counselling and 21·3 (19·5-23·2) percentage points for blood glucose screening, among people with some secondary schooling compared with people with no formal education., Interpretation: A large proportion of individuals across LMICs are at high risk of diabetes but less than half reported receiving fundamental prevention activities overall, with the lowest receipt of these activities among people in low-income countries and with no formal education. These findings offer foundational evidence to inform future global targets for diabetes prevention and to strengthen policies and programmes to prevent continued increases in diabetes worldwide., Funding: Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health McLennan Fund: Dean's Challenge Grant Program and the EU's Research and Innovation programme Horizon 2020., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Testing for the risk factors of cardiovascular disease, which include hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolaemia, is important for timely and effective risk management. Yet few studies have quantified and analysed testing of cardiovascular risk factors in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) with respect to sociodemographic inequalities. We aimed to address this knowledge gap., Methods: In this cross-sectional analysis, we pooled individual-level data for non-pregnant adults aged 18 years or older from nationally representative surveys done between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2019 in LMICs that included a question about whether respondents had ever had their blood pressure, glucose, or cholesterol measured. We analysed diagnostic testing performance by quantifying the overall proportion of people who had ever been tested for these cardiovascular risk factors and the proportion of individuals who met the diagnostic testing criteria in the WHO package of essential noncommunicable disease interventions for primary care (PEN) guidelines (ie, a BMI >30 kg/m 2 or a BMI >25 kg/m 2 among people aged 40 years or older). We disaggregated and compared diagnostic testing performance by sex, wealth quintile, and education using two-sided t tests and multivariable logistic regression models., Findings: Our sample included data for 994 185 people from 57 surveys. 19·1% (95% CI 18·5-19·8) of the 943 259 people in the hypertension sample met the WHO PEN criteria for diagnostic testing, of whom 78·6% (77·8-79·2) were tested. 23·8% (23·4-24·3) of the 225 707 people in the diabetes sample met the WHO PEN criteria for diagnostic testing, of whom 44·9% (43·7-46·2) were tested. Finally, 27·4% (26·3-28·6) of the 250 573 people in the hypercholesterolaemia sample met the WHO PEN criteria for diagnostic testing, of whom 39·7% (37·1-2·4) were tested. Women were more likely than men to be tested for hypertension and diabetes, and people in higher wealth quintiles compared with those in the lowest wealth quintile were more likely to be tested for all three risk factors, as were people with at least secondary education compared with those with less than primary education., Interpretation: Our study shows opportunities for health systems in LMICs to improve the targeting of diagnostic testing for cardiovascular risk factors and adherence to diagnostic testing guidelines. Risk-factor-based testing recommendations rather than sociodemographic characteristics should determine which individuals are tested., Funding: Harvard McLennan Family Fund, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the US National Institutes of Health., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This Viewpoint brings together insights from health system experts working in a range of settings. Our focus is on examining the state of the resilience field, including current thinking on definitions, conceptualisation, critiques, measurement, and capabilities. We highlight the analytical value of resilience, but also its risks, which include neglect of equity and of who is bearing the costs of resilience strategies. Resilience depends crucially on relationships between system actors and components, and-as amply shown during the COVID-19 pandemic-relationships with wider systems (eg, economic, political, and global governance structures). Resilience is therefore connected to power imbalances, which need to be addressed to enact the transformative strategies that are important in dealing with more persistent shocks and stressors, such as climate change. We discourage the framing of resilience as an outcome that can be measured; instead, we see it emerge from systemic resources and interactions, which have effects that can be measured. We propose a more complex categorisation of shocks than the common binary one of acute versus chronic, and outline some of the implications of this for resilience strategies. We encourage a shift in thinking from capacities towards capabilities-what actors could do in future with the necessary transformative strategies, which will need to encompass global, national, and local change. Finally, we highlight lessons emerging in relation to preparing for the next crisis, particularly in clarifying roles and avoiding fragmented governance., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Alcohol is a leading risk factor for over 200 conditions and an important contributor to socioeconomic health inequalities. However, little is known about the associations between individuals' socioeconomic circumstances and alcohol consumption, especially heavy episodic drinking (HED; ≥5 drinks on one occasion) in low-income or middle-income countries. We investigated the association between individual and household level socioeconomic status, and alcohol drinking habits in these settings., Methods: In this pooled analysis of individual-level data, we used available nationally representative surveys-mainly WHO Stepwise Approach to Surveillance surveys-conducted in 55 low-income and middle-income countries between 2005 and 2017 reporting on alcohol use. Surveys from participants aged 15 years or older were included. Logistic regression models controlling for age, country, and survey year stratified by sex and country income groups were used to investigate associations between two indicators of socioeconomic status (individual educational attainment and household wealth) and alcohol use (current drinking and HED amongst current drinkers)., Findings: Surveys from 336 287 participants were included in the analysis. Among males, the highest prevalence of both current drinking and HED was found in lower-middle-income countries (L-MICs; current drinking 49·9% [95% CI 48·7-51·2] and HED 63·3% [61·0-65·7]). Among females, the prevalence of current drinking was highest in upper-middle-income countries (U-MIC; 29·5% [26·1-33·2]), and the prevalence of HED was highest in low-income countries (LICs; 36·8% [33·6-40·2]). Clear gradients in the prevalence of current drinking were observed across all country income groups, with a higher prevalence among participants with high socioeconomic status. However, in U-MICs, current drinkers with low socioeconomic status were more likely to engage in HED than participants with high socioeconomic status; the opposite was observed in LICs, and no association between socioeconomic status and HED was found in L-MICs., Interpretation: The findings call for urgent alcohol control policies and interventions in LICs and L-MICs to reduce harmful HED. Moreover, alcohol control policies need to be targeted at socially disadvantaged groups in U-MICs., Funding: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the US National Institutes of Health., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RA reports grants or contracts from Novo Nordisk, Roche, Novartis, and UICC; and payment or honoraria from Merck & Co, Novartis, and F Hoffmann-La Roche. TB is a board member of the Virchow Foundation for Global Health, Berlin; is a co-chair for Global Health Hub Germany; is a representative of the United Nations Western European and Others Group on the UNAIDS, Global Evaluation Expert Advisory Committee; is a standing review panel member in the National Institutes of Health section on Population and Public Health Approaches to HIV/AIDS; is a board member for the UNAIDS Unified Budget, Results and Accountability Framework; is a council member for the World Health Summit; is member of the Governing Council, Berlin, Germany; is a committee member on the German National Committee on the Future of Public Health Research and Education. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the prevention of cardiovascular disease, a WHO target is that at least 50% of eligible people use statins. Robust evidence is needed to monitor progress towards this target in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where most cardiovascular disease deaths occur. The objectives of this study were to benchmark statin use in LMICs and to investigate country-level and individual-level characteristics associated with statin use., Methods: We did a cross-sectional analysis of pooled, individual-level data from nationally representative health surveys done in 41 LMICs between 2013 and 2019. Our sample consisted of non-pregnant adults aged 40-69 years. We prioritised WHO Stepwise Approach to Surveillance (STEPS) surveys because these are WHO's recommended method for population monitoring of non-communicable disease targets. For countries in which no STEPS survey was available, a systematic search was done to identify other surveys. We included surveys that were done in an LMIC as classified by the World Bank in the survey year; were done in 2013 or later; were nationally representative; had individual-level data available; and asked questions on statin use and previous history of cardiovascular disease. Primary outcomes were the proportion of eligible individuals self-reporting use of statins for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Eligibility for statin therapy for primary prevention was defined among individuals with a history of diagnosed diabetes or a 10-year cardiovascular disease risk of at least 20%. Eligibility for statin therapy for secondary prevention was defined among individuals with a history of self-reported cardiovascular disease. At the country level, we estimated statin use by per-capita health spending, per-capita income, burden of cardiovascular diseases, and commitment to non-communicable disease policy. At the individual level, we used modified Poisson regression models to assess statin use alongside individual-level characteristics of age, sex, education, and rural versus urban residence. Countries were weighted in proportion to their population size in pooled analyses., Findings: The final pooled sample included 116 449 non-pregnant individuals. 9229 individuals reported a previous history of cardiovascular disease (7·9% [95% CI 7·4-8·3] of the population-weighted sample). Among those without a previous history of cardiovascular disease, 8453 were eligible for a statin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (9·7% [95% CI 9·3-10·1] of the population-weighted sample). For primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, statin use was 8·0% (95% CI 6·9-9·3) and for secondary prevention statin use was 21·9% (20·0-24·0). The WHO target that at least 50% of eligible individuals receive statin therapy to prevent cardiovascular disease was achieved by no region or income group. Statin use was less common in countries with lower health spending. At the individual level, there was generally higher statin use among women (primary prevention only, risk ratio [RR] 1·83 [95% CI 1·22-2·76), and individuals who were older (primary prevention, 60-69 years, RR 1·86 [1·04-3·33]; secondary prevention, 50-59 years RR 1·71 [1·35-2·18]; and 60-69 years RR 2·09 [1·65-2·65]), more educated (primary prevention, RR 1·61 [1·09-2·37]; secondary prevention, RR 1·28 [0·97-1·69]), and lived in urban areas (secondary prevention only, RR 0·82 [0·66-1·00])., Interpretation: In a diverse sample of LMICs, statins are used by about one in ten eligible people for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases and one in five eligible people for secondary prevention. There is an urgent need to scale up statin use in LMICs to achieve WHO targets. Policies and programmes that facilitate implementation of statins into primary health systems in these settings should be investigated for the future., Funding: National Clinician Scholars Program at the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases., Translation: For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JML reports graduate research funding from the German Academic Scholarship Foundation. RA reports contracts with Novo Nordisk, Union for International Cancer Control's, National Institute for Health Research, and Sloan Memorial Kettering Hospital, outside of the submitted work. RA also reports payments or honoraria from Merck, Novartis, and F Hoffmann-La Roche, outside of the submitted work. TWB reports support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. MH reports grants from the National Institutes of Health and receives salary support from Physician for Human Rights. MDH received funding in the past 3 years from the World Heart Federation to serve as its senior programme advisor for the Emerging Leaders programme, which has been supported by Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Bupa, and AstraZeneca. MDH also received support from the American Heart Association, Verily, AstraZeneca, and American Medical Association for work unrelated to this research. MDH plans to submit patents for heart failure polypill. MDH has received meeting or travel support from the American Heart Association and World Heart Federation. MDH has an appointment at The George Institute for Global Health, which has a patent, licence, and has received investment funding with intent to commercialise fixed-dose combination therapy through its social enterprise business, George Medicines. DF reports grant funding within the past 3 years from a Pilot and Feasibility Grant funded by the Michigan Center for Diabetes Translational Research (NIH Grant P30-DK092926) and a grant from the Swinmurn Foundation to implement a sustainable diabetes clinic in Guatemala. DF also reports volunteer affiliations with Wuqu’ Kawoq and GlucoSalud, outside of the submitted work. During the course of this study, DF has received research fellowship funding from National Clinician Scholars Program at the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy & Innovation. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is a lack of published studies on incidence of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in Thailand. We aimed to estimate the national prevalence and incidence of T1D and DKA., Methods: Using Thailand's nationwide population-based longitudinal data covering 69 million individuals, we included the entire children and adolescents recorded in the database. Diseases were identified using ICD-10 codes. We investigated the prevalence of T1D and cumulative incidence of T1D, T1D referral, DKA, and mortality risk of DKA in five years from 2015 to 2020. T1D and DKA annual incidence were also estimated. We present findings for the total population and by sex, age, and urban-rural residencies., Findings: A total of 19,784,781 individuals aged less than 20 years were identified in 2015. The crude T1D prevalence in 2015 was 17·6 per 100,000 and crude T1D incidence rate was 5·0 per 100,000. T1D prevalence and cumulative incidence were significantly higher in older children ( p  < 0·001) and females ( p  < 0·001) than their counterparts. Among those with T1D, cumulative incidence of T1D referral was 42·4%. It was highest amongst children aged 5-14 years and was significantly higher among females (all p  < 0·05). The crude DKA incidence rate at any point after diagnosis was 10·8%. The cumulative incidence of DKA was significantly higher in females and peaked in individuals aged 5-14 years (all p  < 0·001). The DKA mortality risk was 258·2 per 100,000., Interpretation: Older children and females had higher T1D prevalence. The DKA cumulative incidence and mortality risk were relatively low, and such incidence was peak in individuals aged 5-14 years., Funding: Harvard University., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Background: Many children who develop tuberculosis are thought to be missed by diagnostic and reporting systems. We aimed to estimate paediatric tuberculosis incidence and underreporting between 2013 and 2019 in countries representing more than 99% of the global tuberculosis burden., Methods: We developed a mathematical model of paediatric tuberculosis natural history, accounting for key mechanisms and risk factors for infectious exposure (HIV, malnutrition, and BCG non-vaccination), the probability of infection given exposure, and progression to disease among infected individuals. We extracted paediatric population estimates from UN Population Division data, and we used WHO estimates for adult tuberculosis incidence rates. We parameterised this model for 185 countries and calibrated it using data from countries with stronger case detection and reporting systems. Using this model, we estimated trends in paediatric incidence, and the proportion of these cases that are diagnosed and reported (case detection ratio [CDR]) for each country, age group, and year., Findings: For 2019, we estimated 997 500 (95% credible interval [CrI] 868 700-1 163 100) incident tuberculosis cases among children, with 481 000 cases (398 400-587 400) among those aged 0-4 years and 516 500 cases (442 900-608 000) among those aged 5-14 years. The paediatric CDR was estimated to be lower in children aged 0-4 years (41%, 95% CrI 34-50) than in those aged 5-14 years (63%, 53-75) and varied widely between countries. Estimated CDRs increased substantially over the study period, from 18% (15-20) in 2013 to 53% (45-60) in 2019, with improvements concentrated in the Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia, and Western Pacific regions. Over the study period, global incidence was estimated to have declined slowly at an average annual rate of 1·52% (1·42-1·66)., Interpretation: Paediatric tuberculosis causes substantial morbidity and mortality, and these data indicate that cases (and, thus, probably associated mortality) are currently substantially underreported. These findings reinforce the need to ensure prompt diagnosis and care for children developing tuberculosis, strengthen reporting systems, and invest in research to develop more accurate and easy-to-use diagnostics for paediatric tuberculosis in high-burden settings., Funding: National Institutes of Health., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TC reports grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USAID, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and financial support for attending meetings from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, all to his institution. NAM reports grants from NIH, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, WHO, US Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, CDC, and Facebook, all to his institution; consulting fees from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and advisory board membership for NIH and Tufts University. RA reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research, Union for International Cancer Control, Novo Nordisk, and Sloan Memorial Kettering Hospital; and payments from Merck, Novartis, and F Hoffmann–La Roche, outside the submitted study. SY declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: To fight against the rising incidence of syphilis, the Brazilian Ministry of Health (MoH) launched the "Syphilis No!" Project (SNP), with specific resources funded by a parliamentary amendment. Then, in 2018, a national rapid response started to be implemented on the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS, Sistema Único de Saúde) in two strategic lines (1) to reinforce SUS's universal actions and (2) to implement specific ones to 100 municipalities chosen by the MoH as priorities for syphilis congenital response. In 2015, such localities represented 6895% of congenital syphilis cases in Brazil. In this context, SNP has implemented actions to strengthen epidemiological surveillance of acquired syphilis and congenital syphilis by instituting an integrated and collaborative response through health services networks and reinforcing interstate relations., Methods: A quasi-experimental study using time series analysis was conducted to assess immediate impacts and changes to the trend in national congenital syphilis before and after the project, from September 2016 to December 2019. Data were assessed considering rates of congenital syphilis per 1,000 live births in all priority municipalities (n=100) covered by the project and in non-priority municipalities (n=5,470) from all five macro-regions of Brazil., Findings: Priority municipalities showed a greater reduction (change in trend) in comparison to non-priority. The linear regression model revealed trend changes after the intervention, with both groups of municipalities showing a drop in the average monthly number of cases per 1,000 live births, with a reduction of -0·21 (CI 95% -0·33 to -0·09; p =0·0011) in priority municipalities and of -0·10 (CI 95% -0.19 to -0.02; p =0·0216) in non-priority municipalities., Interpretation: The study using ITS provides important evidence on the direction, timing, and magnitude of the effects of interventions introduced as part of the SNP on congenital syphilis in Brazil. Our results suggest that the Syphilis No! Project influenced the trends of congenital syphilis in Brazil from 2018, with higher reductions achieved in the priority municipalities., Funding: The research is funded by a grant to the Syphilis No! Project from Brazilian Ministry of Health (Project Number: 54/2017). The funders had no role in study design, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript., Competing Interests: No relevant conflicts of interest., (© 2021 The Author(s).)

We present a new concept, Punt Politics , and apply it to the COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) in two epicenters of the pandemic: Mexico and Brazil. Punt Politics refers to national leaders in federal systems deferring or deflecting responsibility for health systems decision-making to sub-national entities without evidence or coordination. The fragmentation of authority and overlapping functions in federal, decentralized political systems make them more susceptible to coordination problems than centralized, unitary systems. We apply the concept to pandemics, which require national health system stewardship, using sub-national NPI data that we developed and curated through the Observatory for the Containment of COVID-19 in the Americas to illustrate Punt Politics in Mexico and Brazil. Both countries suffer from protracted, high levels of COVID-19 mortality and inadequate pandemic responses, including little testing and disregard for scientific evidence. We illustrate how populist leadership drove Punt Politics and how partisan politics contributed to disabling an evidence-based response in Mexico and Brazil. These cases illustrate the combination of decentralization and populist leadership that is most conducive to punting responsibility. We discuss how Punt Politics reduces health system functionality, providing lessons for other countries and future pandemic responses, including vaccine rollout., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interest., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Given the increasing prevalence of diabetes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), we aimed to estimate the health and cost implications of achieving different targets for diagnosis, treatment, and control of diabetes and its associated cardiovascular risk factors among LMICs., Methods: We constructed a microsimulation model to estimate disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) lost and health-care costs of diagnosis, treatment, and control of blood pressure, dyslipidaemia, and glycaemia among people with diabetes in LMICs. We used individual participant data-specifically from the subset of people who were defined as having any type of diabetes by WHO standards-from nationally representative, cross-sectional surveys (2006-18) spanning 15 world regions to estimate the baseline 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (defined as fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke), heart failure (ejection fraction of <40%, with New York Heart Association class III or IV functional limitations), end-stage renal disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 or needing dialysis or transplant), retinopathy with severe vision loss (<20/200 visual acuity as measured by the Snellen chart), and neuropathy with pressure sensation loss (assessed by the Semmes-Weinstein 5·07/10 g monofilament exam). We then used data from meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials to estimate the reduction in risk and the WHO OneHealth tool to estimate costs in reaching either 60% or 80% of diagnosis, treatment initiation, and control targets for blood pressure, dyslipidaemia, and glycaemia recommended by WHO guidelines. Costs were updated to 2020 International Dollars, and both costs and DALYs were computed over a 10-year policy planning time horizon at a 3% annual discount rate., Findings: We obtained data from 23 678 people with diabetes from 67 countries. The median estimated 10-year risk was 10·0% (IQR 4·0-18·0) for cardiovascular events, 7·8% (5·1-11·8) for neuropathy with pressure sensation loss, 7·2% (5·6-9·4) for end-stage renal disease, 6·0% (4·2-8·6) for retinopathy with severe vision loss, and 2·6% (1·2-5·3) for congestive heart failure. A target of 80% diagnosis, 80% treatment, and 80% control would be expected to reduce DALYs lost from diabetes complications from a median population-weighted loss to 1097 DALYs per 1000 population over 10 years (IQR 1051-1155), relative to a baseline of 1161 DALYs, primarily from reduced cardiovascular events (down from a median of 143 to 117 DALYs per 1000 population) due to blood pressure and statin treatment, with comparatively little effect from glycaemic control. The target of 80% diagnosis, 80% treatment, and 80% control would be expected to produce an overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$1362 per DALY averted (IQR 1304-1409), with the majority of decreased costs from reduced cardiovascular event management, counterbalanced by increased costs for blood pressure and statin treatment, producing an overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1362 per DALY averted (IQR 1304-1409)., Interpretation: Reducing complications from diabetes in LMICs is likely to require a focus on scaling up blood pressure and statin medication treatment initiation and blood pressure medication titration rather than focusing on increasing screening to increase diabetes diagnosis, or a glycaemic treatment and control among people with diabetes., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SB reports grants from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; consulting fees from the Clinton Health Access Initiative and University of California San Francisco; patents pending for a multi-model patient outreach system; unpaid leadership roles at La Scuola International School and Columbia University Global Research Analytics for Population Health; and stock options at Collective Health, outside the submitted work. DF reports volunteer affiliations with Wuqu' Kawoq and GlucoSalud, outside the submitted work. RA reports contracts with Novo Nordisk, outside the submitted work. TB reports grants from the NIH–National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH–National Institute on Aging, NIH, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Wellcome, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, UNAIDS, German Research Foundation, European Union, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, German Federal Ministry of Health, KfW, Else Kröner Foundation, African Academy of Science, European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The tuberculosis targets for the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) call for a 90% reduction in tuberculosis deaths by 2030, compared with 2015, but meeting this target now seems highly improbable. To assess the economic impact of not meeting the target until 2045, we estimated full-income losses in 120 countries, including those due to excess deaths resulting from COVID-19-related disruptions to tuberculosis services, for the period 2020-50., Methods: Annual mortality risk changes at each age in each year from 2020 to 2050 were estimated for 120 countries. This risk change was then converted to full-income risk by calculating a population-level mortality risk change and multiplying it by the value of a statistical life-year in each country and year. As a comparator, we assumed that current rates of tuberculosis continue to decline through the period of analysis. We calculated the full-income losses, and mean life expectancy losses per person, at birth and at age 35 years, under scenarios in which the SDG targets are met in 2030 and in 2045. We defined the cost of inaction as the difference in full-income losses and tuberculosis mortality between these two scenarios., Findings: From 2020 to 2050, based on the current annual decrease in tuberculosis deaths of 2%, 31·8 million tuberculosis deaths (95% uncertainty interval 25·2 million-39·5 million) are estimated to occur, corresponding to an economic loss of US$17·5 trillion (14·9 trillion-20·4 trillion). If the SDG tuberculosis mortality target is met in 2030, 23·8 million tuberculosis deaths (18·9 million-29·5 million) and $13·1 trillion (11·2 trillion-15·3 trillion) in economic losses can be avoided. If the target is met in 2045, 18·1 million tuberculosis deaths (14·3 million-22·4 million) and $10·2 trillion (8·7 trillion-11·8 trillion) can be avoided. The cost of inaction of not meeting the SDG tuberculosis mortality target until 2045 (vs 2030) is, therefore, 5·7 million tuberculosis deaths (5·1 million-8·1 million) and $3·0 trillion (2·5 trillion-3·5 trillion) in economic losses. COVID-19-related disruptions add $290·3 billion (260·2 billion-570·1 billion) to this cost., Interpretation: Failure to achieve the SDG tuberculosis mortality target by 2030 will lead to profound economic and health losses. The effects of delay will be greatest in sub-Saharan Africa. Affected countries, donor nations, and the private sector should redouble efforts to finance tuberculosis programmes and research because the economic dividend of such strategies is likely to be substantial., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Approximately 80% of the 463 million adults worldwide with diabetes live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A major obstacle to designing evidence-based policies to improve diabetes outcomes in LMICs is the limited nationally representative data on the current patterns of treatment coverage. The objectives of this study are (1) to estimate the proportion of adults with diabetes in LMICs who receive coverage of recommended pharmacological and non-pharmacological diabetes treatment and (2) to describe country-level and individual-level characteristics that are associated with treatment., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of pooled, individual data from 55 nationally representative surveys in LMICs. Our primary outcome of self-reported diabetes treatment coverage was based upon population-level monitoring indicators recommended in the 2020 World Health Organization Package of Essential Noncommunicable Disease Interventions. We assessed coverage of three pharmacological and three non-pharmacological treatments among people with diabetes. At the country level, we estimated the proportion of individuals reporting coverage by per-capita gross national income and geographic region. At the individual level, we used logistic regression models to assess coverage along several key individual characteristics including sex, age, BMI, wealth quintile, and educational attainment. In the primary analysis, we scaled sample weights such that countries were weighted equally., Findings: The final pooled sample from the 55 LMICs included 680,102 total individuals and 37,094 individuals with diabetes. Using equal weights for each country, diabetes prevalence was 9.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.7-9.4), with 43.9% (95% CI, 41.9-45.9) reporting a prior diabetes diagnosis. Overall, 4.6% (95% CI, 3.9-5.4) of individuals with diabetes self-reported meeting need for all treatments recommended for them. Coverage of glucose-lowering medication was 50.5% (95% CI, 48.6-52.5); antihypertensive medication, 41.3% (95% CI, 39.3-43.3); cholesterol-lowering medication, 6.3% (95% CI, 5.5-7.2); diet counseling, 32.2% (95% CI, 30.7-33.7); exercise counseling, 28.2% (95% CI, 26.6-29.8); and weight-loss counseling, 31.5% (95% CI, 29.3-33.7). Countries at higher income levels tended to have greater coverage. Female sex and higher age, BMI, educational attainment, and household wealth were also associated with greater coverage., Interpretation: Fewer than one in ten people with diabetes in LMICs receive coverage of guideline-based comprehensive diabetes treatment. Scaling-up the capacity of health systems to deliver treatment not only to lower glucose but also to address cardiovascular disease risk factors such as hypertension and high cholesterol are urgent global diabetes priorities., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests D.J.W. reports serving on a data-monitoring committee for Novo Nordisk.

Background: COVID-19 spread rapidly in Brazil despite the country's well established health and social protection systems. Understanding the relationships between health-system preparedness, responses to COVID-19, and the pattern of spread of the epidemic is particularly important in a country marked by wide inequalities in socioeconomic characteristics (eg, housing and employment status) and other health risks (age structure and burden of chronic disease)., Methods: From several publicly available sources in Brazil, we obtained data on health risk factors for severe COVID-19 (proportion of the population with chronic disease and proportion aged ≥60 years), socioeconomic vulnerability (proportions of the population with housing vulnerability or without formal work), health-system capacity (numbers of intensive care unit beds and physicians), coverage of health and social assistance, deaths from COVID-19, and state-level responses of government in terms of physical distancing policies. We also obtained data on the proportion of the population staying at home, based on locational data, as a measure of physical distancing adherence. We developed a socioeconomic vulnerability index (SVI) based on household characteristics and the Human Development Index. Data were analysed at the state and municipal levels. Descriptive statistics and correlations between state-level indicators were used to characterise the relationship between the availability of health-care resources and socioeconomic characteristics and the spread of the epidemic and the response of governments and populations in terms of new investments, legislation, and physical distancing. We used linear regressions on a municipality-by-month dataset from February to October, 2020, to characterise the dynamics of COVID-19 deaths and response to the epidemic across municipalities., Findings: The initial spread of COVID-19 was mostly affected by patterns of socioeconomic vulnerability as measured by the SVI rather than population age structure and prevalence of health risk factors. The states with a high (greater than median) SVI were able to expand hospital capacity, to enact stringent COVID-19-related legislation, and to increase physical distancing adherence in the population, although not sufficiently to prevent higher COVID-19 mortality during the initial phase of the epidemic compared with states with a low SVI. Death rates accelerated until June, 2020, particularly in municipalities with the highest socioeconomic vulnerability. Throughout the following months, however, differences in policy response converged in municipalities with lower and higher SVIs, while physical distancing remained relatively higher and death rates became relatively lower in the municipalities with the highest SVIs compared with those with lower SVIs., Interpretation: In Brazil, existing socioeconomic inequalities, rather than age, health status, and other risk factors for COVID-19, have affected the course of the epidemic, with a disproportionate adverse burden on states and municipalities with high socioeconomic vulnerability. Local government responses and population behaviour in the states and municipalities with higher socioeconomic vulnerability have helped to contain the effects of the epidemic. Targeted policies and actions are needed to protect those with the greatest socioeconomic vulnerability. This experience could be relevant in other low-income and middle-income countries where socioeconomic vulnerability varies greatly., Funding: None., Translation: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Each year, billions of US$ are spent globally on infectious disease research and development. However, there is little systematic tracking of global research and development. We present research on investments into infectious diseases research from funders in the G20 countries across an 18-year time period spanning 2000-17, comparing amounts invested for different conditions and considering the global burden of disease to identify potential areas of relative underfunding., Methods: The study examined research awards made between 2000 and 2017 for infectious disease research from G20-based public and philanthropic funders. We searched research databases using a range of keywords, and open access data were extracted from funder websites. Awards were categorised by type of science, specialty, and disease or pathogen. Data collected included study title, abstract, award amount, funder, and year. We used descriptive statistics and Spearman's correlation coefficient to investigate the association between research investment and disease burden, using Global Burden of Disease 2017 study data., Findings: The final 2000-17 dataset included 94 074 awards for infectious disease research, with a sum investment of $104·9 billion (annual range 4·1 billion to 8·4 billion) and a median award size of $257 176 (IQR 62 562-770 661). Pre-clinical research received $61·1 billion (58·2%) across 70 337 (74·8%) awards and public health research received $29·5 billion (28·1%) from 19 197 (20·4%) awards. HIV/AIDS received $42·1 billion (40·1%), tuberculosis received $7·0 billion (6·7%), malaria received $5·6 billion (5·3%), and pneumonia received $3·5 billion (3·3%). Funding for Ebola virus ($1·2 billion), Zika virus ($0·3 billion), influenza ($4·4 billion), and coronavirus ($0·5 billion) was typically highest soon after a high-profile outbreak. There was a general increase in year-on-year investment in infectious disease research between 2000 and 2006, with a decline between 2007 and 2017. Funders based in the USA provided $81·6 billion (77·8%). Based on funding per 2017 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), HIV/AIDS received the greatest relative investment ($772 per DALY), compared with tuberculosis ($156 per DALY), malaria ($125 per DALY), and pneumonia ($33 per DALY). Syphilis and scabies received the least relative investment (both $9 per DALY). We observed weak positive correlation (r=0·30) between investment and 2017 disease burden., Interpretation: HIV research received the highest amount of investment relative to DALY burden. Scabies and syphilis received the lowest relative funding. Investments for high-threat pathogens (eg, Ebola virus and coronavirus) were often reactive and followed outbreaks. We found little evidence that funding is proactively guided by global burden or pandemic risk. Our findings show how research investments are allocated and how this relates to disease burden and diseases with pandemic potential., Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multimorbidity, the presence of two or more mental or physical chronic non-communicable diseases, is a major challenge for the health system in China, which faces unprecedented ageing of its population. Here we examined the distribution of physical multimorbidity in relation to socioeconomic status; the association between physical multimorbidity, health-care service use, and catastrophic health expenditures; and whether these associations varied by socioeconomic group and social health insurance schemes., Methods: In this population-based, panel data analysis, we used data from three waves of the nationally representative China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) for 2011, 2013, and 2015. We included participants aged 50 years and older in 2015, who had complete follow-up for the three waves. We used 11 physical non-communicable diseases to measure physical multimorbidity and annual per-capita household consumption spending as a proxy for socioeconomic status., Findings: Of 17 708 participants in CHARLS, 11 817 were eligible for inclusion in our analysis. The median age of participants was 62 years (IQR 56-69) in 2015, and 5766 (48·8%) participants were male. 7320 (61·9%) eligible participants had physical multimorbidity in China in 2015. The prevalence of physical multimorbidity was increased with older age (odds ratio 2·93, 95% CI 2·71-3·15), among women (2·70, 2·04-3·57), within a higher socioeconomic group (for quartile 4 [highest group] 1·50, 1·24-1·82), and higher educational level (5·17, 3·02-8·83); however, physical multimorbidity was more common in poorer regions than in the more affluent regions. An additional chronic non-communicable disease was associated with an increase in the number of outpatient visits (incidence rate ratio 1·29, 95% CI 1·27-1·31), and number of days spent in hospital as an inpatient (1·38, 1·35-1·41). We saw similar effects in health service use of an additional chronic non-communicable disease in different socioeconomic groups and among those covered by different social health insurance programmes. Overall, physical multimorbidity was associated with a significantly increased likelihood of catastrophic health expenditure (for the overall population: odds ratio 1·29, 95% CI 1·26-1·32, adjusted for sociodemographic variables). The effect of physical multimorbidity on catastrophic health expenditures persisted even among the higher socioeconomic groups and across all health insurance programmes., Interpretation: Concerted efforts are needed to reduce health inequalities that are due to physical multimorbidity, and its adverse economic effect in population groups in China. Social health insurance reforms must place emphasis on reducing out-of-pocket spending for patients with multimorbidity to provide greater financial risk protection., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Total domestic and international funding for malaria is inadequate to achieve WHO global targets in burden reduction by 2030. We describe the trends of investments in malaria-related research in sub-Saharan Africa and compare investment with national disease burden to identify areas of funding strength and potentially neglected populations. We also considered funding for malaria control., Methods: Research funding data related to malaria for 1997-2013 were sourced from existing datasets, from 13 major public and philanthropic global health funders, and from funding databases. Investments (reported in US$) were considered by geographical area and compared with data on parasite prevalence and populations at risk in sub-Saharan Africa. 45 sub-Saharan African countries were ranked by amount of research funding received., Findings: We found 333 research awards totalling US$814·4 million. Public health research covered $308·1 million (37·8%) and clinical trials covered $275·2 million (33·8%). Tanzania ($107·8 million [13·2%]), Uganda ($97·9 million [12·0%]), and Kenya ($92·9 million [11·4%]) received the highest sum of research investment and the most research awards. Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda remained highly ranked after adjusting for national gross domestic product. Countries with a reasonably high malaria burden that received little research investment or funding for malaria control included Central African Republic (ranked 40th) and Sierra Leone (ranked 35th). Congo (Brazzaville) and Guinea had reasonably high malaria mortality, yet Congo (Brazzaville) ranked 38th and Guinea ranked 25th, thus receiving little investment., Interpretation: Some countries receive reasonably large investments in malaria-related research (Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda), whereas others receive little or no investments (Sierra Leone, Central African Republic). Research investments are typically highest in countries where funding for malaria control is also high. Investment strategies should consider more equitable research and operational investments across countries to include currently neglected and susceptible populations., Funding: Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., (Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Development assistance for health (DAH), the value of which peaked in 2013 and fell in 2015, is unlikely to rise substantially in the near future, increasing reliance on domestic and innovative financing sources to sustain health programmes in low-income and middle-income countries. We examined innovative financing instruments (IFIs)-financing schemes that generate and mobilise funds-to estimate the quantum of financing mobilised from 2002 to 2015. We identified ten IFIs, which mobilised US$8·9 billion (2·3% of overall DAH) in 2002-15. The funds generated by IFIs were channelled mostly through GAVI and the Global Fund, and used for programmes for new and underused vaccines, HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and maternal and child health. Vaccination programmes received the largest amount of funding ($2·6 billion), followed by HIV/AIDS ($1080·7 million) and malaria ($1028·9 million), with no discernible funding targeted to non-communicable diseases., (Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)