Search

Competing Interests: The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered one of the largest global health and economic crises in recent history. COVID-19 vaccination (CV) has been the central tool for global health and macroeconomic recovery, yet estimates of CV's global health and macroeconomic value remain scarce., Methods: We used regression analyses to measure the impact of CV on gross domestic product (GDP), infections and deaths. We combined regression estimates of vaccine-averted infections and deaths with estimates of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) losses, and direct and indirect costs, to estimate three broad value components: (i) QALY gains, (ii) direct and indirect costs averted and (iii) GDP impacts. The global value is the sum of components over 148 countries between January 2020 and December 2021 for CV generally and for Pfizer-BioNTech specifically., Results: CV's global value was US$5.2 (95% CI US$4.1 to US$6.2) trillion, with Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccines contributing over US$1.9 (95% CI US$1.5 to US$2.3) trillion. Varying key parameters results in values 10%-20% higher or lower than the base-case value. The largest value component was GDP impacts, followed by QALY gains, then direct and indirect costs averted. CV provided US$740 of value per dose, while Pfizer-BioNTech specifically provided >US$1600 per dose. We estimated conservative benefit-cost ratios of 13.9 and 30.8 for CV and Pfizer-BioNTech, respectively., Conclusions: We provide the first estimates of the broad value of CV incorporating GDP, QALY and direct and indirect cost impacts. Through December 2021, CV produced significant health and economic value, represented strong value for money and produced significant macroeconomic benefits that should be considered in vaccine evaluation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JPS, DB and JSK are employees of Data for Decisions (DfD) and worked on this study in that capacity. JPS and DB have worked on other studies funded by grants from Pfizer Inc. to DfD. DEB is an external consultant to DfD and in that capacity has worked on this and other studies funded by grants from Pfizer Inc. to DfD. JPS and DEB in their personal capacities have received compensation from Pfizer Inc. for providing consulting services and for speaking and participating in meetings and advisory boards. MDF, MK, JLN and JY are employees of Pfizer Inc. and each held Pfizer stock or stock options at the time of the study. Pfizer Inc. employs MDF, MK, JLN and JY, but otherwise played no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the article., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Governance, health financing, and service delivery are critical elements of health systems for provision of robust and sustainable chronic disease care. We leveraged the third iteration of the International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas (ISN-GKHA) to evaluate oversight and financing for kidney care worldwide., Methods: A survey was administered to stakeholders from countries affiliated with the ISN from July to September 2022. We evaluated funding models utilized for reimbursement of medications, services for the management of chronic kidney disease, and provision of kidney replacement therapy (KRT). We also assessed oversight structures for the delivery of kidney care., Results: Overall, 167 of the 192 countries and territories contacted responded to the survey, representing 97.4% of the global population. High-income countries tended to use public funding to reimburse all categories of kidney care in comparison with low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle income countries (LMICs). In countries where public funding for KRT was available, 78% provided universal health coverage. The proportion of countries that used public funding to fully reimburse care varied for non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (27%), dialysis for acute kidney injury (either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis) (44%), chronic hemodialysis (45%), chronic peritoneal dialysis (42%), and kidney transplant medications (36%). Oversight for kidney care was provided at a national level in 63% of countries, and at a state/provincial level in 28% of countries., Conclusion: This study demonstrated significant gaps in universal care coverage, and in oversight and financing structures for kidney care, particularly in in LICs and LMICs., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.)

Introduction: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated central nervous system disorder and a growing global health challenge affecting nearly 3 million people worldwide. Incidence and prevalence continue to increase with no known cause or cure. Globally governments and non-profit organizations fund research toward better understanding of and treatments for multiple sclerosis., Methods: This study identified MS research projects funded between 2021 and 2023 by government and non-profit organization sources. Projects were described by type of scientific approach, Pathways to Cure research category (i.e. Stop, Restore, End), and other key characteristics., Results: Over 2,300 MS research projects were identified through 16 non-profit MS organizations and 18 government databases. The overall global portfolio of these projects is valued at nearly one and a half billion Euros. The majority of projects were classified in the Stop category (60%). Research collaboration occurs in many forms among the research community; around 272 projects were reported to be co-funded., Conclusion: Global MS research collaboration will accelerate progress toward increased knowledge, effective treatments, improved health outcomes, and ultimately cures for MS. This landscape analysis highlights the current distribution of MS research investment between topics and begins to suggest where the MS community should focus to increase potential impact for current and future endeavors., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The sole treatment for snakebite envenomation (SBE), the anti-snake venom (ASV), suffers from considerable drawbacks, including side effects and limited species specificity. Additionally, despite its existence for more than a century, uniform availability of good quality ASV does not yet exist. The present review describes the journey of a SBE victim and highlights the global crisis of SBE management. A detailed analysis of the current ASV market has also been presented along with the worldwide snake distribution. The current production of country specific licensed ASV throughout the globe along with their manufacturers has been examined at the snake species level. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of on-ground situation of SBE management in antivenom manufacturing countries has been done using the most recent literature. Additionally, the export and import of different ASVs have been discussed in terms of procurement policies of individual countries, their shortcomings, along with the possible solution at the species level. It is interesting to note that in most countries, the existence of ASV is really either neglected or overstated, implying that it is there but unsuitable for use, or that it is not present but can be obtained from other countries. This highlights the urgent need of significant reassessment and international collaborations not just for development and production, but also for procurement, distribution, availability, and awareness. A PROMISE (Practical ROutes for Managing Indigenous Snakebite Envenoming) approach has also been introduced, offering simple, economical, and easy to adopt steps to efficiently alleviate the worldwide SBE burden., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) involves all individuals attaining accessible health interventions at an affordable cost. We examined current patterns and temporal trends of cancer mortality and UHC across sociodemographic index (SDI) settings, and quantified these association., Methods: We used data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 and Our World in Data. The UHC effective coverage index was obtained to assess the potential population health gains delivered by health systems. The estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated to quantify the trend of cancer age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR). A generalized linear model was applied to estimate the association between ASMR and UHC., Findings: The high (EAPC = -0.9% [95% CI, -1.0%, -0.9%]) and high-middle (-0.9% [-1.0%, -0.8%]) SDI regions had the fastest decline in ASMR (per 100,000) for total cancers from 1990 to 2019. The overall UHC effective coverage index increased by 27.9% in the high-SDI quintile to 62.2% in the low-SDI quintile. A negative association was observed between ASMR for all-cancer (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.87 [0.76, 0.99]), stomach (0.73 [0.56, 0.95]), breast (0.64 [0.52, 0.79]), cervical (0.42 [0.30, 0.60]), lip and oral cavity (0.55 [0.40, 0.75]), and nasopharynx (0.42 [0.26, 0.68]) cancers and high UHC level (the lowest as the reference)., Conclusions: Our findings strengthen the evidence base for achieving UHC to improve cancer outcomes., Funding: This work is funded by the China National Natural Science Foundation and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Science., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Injuries are the greatest single cause of surgical disease globally, disproportionately affecting low and middle-income countries and representing 10% of global mortality and 32% greater annual mortality than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. Road traffic injuries are the single greatest contributor to the global injury burden and the leading cause of death for young people aged 5 to 29 years. In May 2023, the 76th World Health Assembly resolved that emergency, critical, and operative care services are an integral part of a comprehensive national primary health care approach and foundational for health systems to effectively address emergencies. However, robust trauma systems and emergency medical services are lacking in low and middle-income countries to adequately address the prehospital injury burden in systematic and financially sustainable approaches, despite the disproportionate burden faced. Replicating formal Tier 2 emergency medical services (staffed by professional emergency responders within well-defined jurisdictions using dedicated vehicles and equipment) from high-income countries has failed, and the World Health Organization recommends Tier 1 systems (community bystander-driven prehospital care by provided by lay first responders) as the first step toward formal emergency medical services in these same settings. The Global Prehospital Consortium has identified 7 priority areas as a framework for future emergency medical services development, forming the basis for the remaining articles in this series, spanning infrastructure and operations, communication, education/training, impact evaluation, financing, governance/legal, and transportation/equipment., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Worldwide, one billion people sustain trauma, and 5 million people will die every year from their injuries. Countries must build trauma systems to effectively address this high-burden disease, but efforts are often challenged by financial constraints. Understanding mechanisms for trauma funding internationally can help to identify opportunities to address the burden of injuries. Trauma leaders from around the world contributed summaries around how trauma is managed across their respective continents. These were aggregated to create a comparison of worldwide trauma systems of care. The burden of injuries is high across the world's inhabited continents, but trauma systems remain underfunded worldwide and, as a result, are overall underdeveloped and do not rise to the levels required given the burden of disease. Some countries in Africa and Asia have invested in financing mechanisms such as road accident funds or trauma-specific funding. In Latin America, active surgeon involvement in accident prevention advocacy has made meaningful impact. All continents show progress in trauma system maturation. This article describes how different regions of the world organize and commit to trauma care financially. Overall, while trauma tends to be underfunded, there is evidence of change in many regions and good examples of what can happen when a country invests in building trauma systems., Level of Evidence: Expert Opinions; Level VII., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although biotherapeutic drugs have the potential of transforming the management of many life-threatening diseases, their affordability and accessibility remain an issue. This study offers an overview of the global affordability of biotherapeutic products. For this, prices for 10 representative biotherapeutic products were examined in 40 countries, including high-income countries (HICs), upper middle-income countries (UMICs), lower middle-income countries (LMICs), and low-income countries (LICs). The affordability of these biotherapeutics was calculated based on the World Health Organization/Health Action International (WHO/HAI) method. As expected, affordability was found to be better in HICs, followed by UMICs, LMICs, and finally, LICs. Furthermore, based on the trend of per capita income, we predict that in UMICs and LMICs, the affordability of high molecular weight biologics will worsen by 1.5× and 2× by 2030, respectively, and further by 4× and 6× by 2040. On the other hand, affordability will stay nearly the same for people living in HICs in the coming decades. Our analysis suggests that it is imperative that measures be taken to make this class of products more affordable and accessible. Governments can contribute by creating conducive policies. Global institutions like the WHO can play a significant role as well. Finally, manufacturers need to invest in and implement manufacturing innovations., (© 2024 The New York Academy of Sciences.)

Background and Objective: Imaging with low or no benefit for the patient undermines the quality of care and amounts to vast opportunity costs. More than 3.6 billion imaging examinations are performed annually, and about 20-50% of these are of low value. This study aimed to synthesize knowledge of the costs of low-value imaging worldwide., Methods: This systematic review was based on the PRISMA statement. The database search was developed in Medline and further adapted to Embase-Ovid, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Primary empirical studies assessing the costs of low-value diagnostic imaging were included if published between 2012 and March 2022. Studies designed as randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, descriptive studies, cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and mixed-methods studies were eligible. The analysis was descriptive., Results: Of 5,567 records identified, 106 were included. Most of the studies included were conducted in the USA (n = 76), and a hospital or medical center was the most common setting (n = 82). Thirty-eight of the included studies calculated the costs of multiple imaging modalities; in studies with only one imaging modality included, conventional radiography was the most common (n = 32). Aggregated costs for low-value examinations amounts to billions of dollars per year globally. Initiatives to reduce low-value imaging may reduce costs by up to 95% without harming patients., Conclusions: This study is the first systematic review of the cost of low-value imaging worldwide, documenting a high potential for cost reduction. Given the universal challenges with resource allocation, the large amount used for low-value imaging represents a vast opportunity cost and offers great potential to improve the quality and efficiency of care., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Early-onset osteoarthritis (OA) is an emerging health issue amidst the escalating prevalence of overweight and obesity. However, there are scant data on its disease, economic burden and attributable burden due to high body mass index (BMI)., Methods: Using data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2019, we examined the numbers of incident cases, prevalent cases, years lived with disability (YLDs) and corresponding age-standardised rates for early-onset OA (diagnosis before age 55) from 1990 to 2019. The case definition was symptomatic and radiographically confirmed OA in any joint. The average annual percentage changes (AAPCs) of the age-standardised rates were calculated to quantify changes. We estimated the economic burden of early-onset OA and attributable burden to high BMI., Results: From 1990 to 2019, the global incident cases, prevalent cases and YLDs of early-onset OA were doubled. 52.31% of incident OA cases in 2019 were under 55 years. The age-standardised rates of incidence, prevalence and YLDs increased globally and for countries in all Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles (all AAPCs>0, p<0.05), with the fastest increases in low-middle SDI countries. 98.04% of countries exhibited increasing trends in all age-standardised rates. Early-onset OA accounts for US$46.17 billion in healthcare expenditure and US$60.70 billion in productivity loss cost in 2019. The attributable proportion of high BMI for early-onset OA increased globally from 9.41% (1990) to 15.29% (2019)., Conclusions: Early-onset OA is a developing global health problem, causing substantial economic costs in most countries. Targeted implementation of cost-effective policies and preventive intervention is required to address the growing health challenge., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ on behalf of EULAR.)

The Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) supports increased funding for policies in the 2024 Farm Bill that align with a Food is Medicine (FIM) framework and address multiple dimensions of human and planetary health., (© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2024. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, costing the lives of 18 million people annually, with up to one-third being attributable to cardiac surgical conditions. Approximately 6 billion people do not have access to safe, timely, and affordable cardiac surgery, predominantly affecting populations living in low-middle income countries. Cardiac surgical care is costly, resulting in few centers in variable-resource contexts operating continuously or with the resources observed in higher-resource environments. As a result, innovations may be formally developed or informally adopted to bypass resource constraints and ensure care delivery. Innovations have been observed across the cardiac surgical care continuum and across settings, potentially benefiting both high-income countries, where growing health care costs are becoming unsustainable, and low- and middle-income countries, where competing health agendas may limit investments into cardiac surgery. This narrative review attempts to address the costs associated with cardiac surgery, placing an emphasis on frugal innovations in the perioperative and postoperative care spectrum., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Sustainable financing for immunization refers to the sufficient and predictable allocation and use of resources to support the achievement of immunization goals within the framework of overall health financing. The Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) agenda spells out four important focus areas needed for sustainable financing: (1) ensuring sufficient and predictable resources, (2) making optimal use of resources, (3) aligning partnerships, and (4) supporting sustainable transitions from external assistance. This paper summarizes the evidence and proposes interventions under each area. While immunization is one of the best investments and justifies public financing, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the worst economic recession since the Great Depression and threatens countries' ability to mobilize funding to ensure continuity and access to essential services, including immunization. Strategies for ensuring adequate resources differ by income group but include raising more revenues, reprioritizing the budget towards health, and ensuring that health resources favor Primary Health Care (PHC) and immunization. In low- and lower-middle income countries, support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which channels the largest amount of external financing, will remain important, but some lower-middle income countries will need to prepare for transition. Countries benefitting from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) are also experiencing a transition from GPEI financing to domestic and other external financing. This paper outlines ways in which countries can improve the use of domestic and external resources to better incentivize high-quality PHC and immunization services and align immunization programs with health sector reforms. While governments must lead, collective action from development partners, the private sector, and civil society is needed to promote health system financing systems that ensure that the world is better prepared for future outbreaks and pandemics, while reinforcing the IA2030 vision and making progress towards universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a considerable threat to the economics of patients, health systems, and society., Objectives: This meta-analysis aims to quantitatively assess the global economic burden of COVID-19., Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify studies examining the economic impact of COVID-19. The selected studies were classified into two categories based on the cost-of-illness (COI) study approach: top-down and bottom-up studies. The results of top-down COI studies were presented by calculating the average costs as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) and health expenditures. Conversely, the findings of bottom-up studies were analyzed through meta-analysis using the standardized mean difference., Results: The implemented search strategy yielded 3271 records, of which 27 studies met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 7 top-down and 20 bottom-up studies. The included studies were conducted in various countries, including the USA (5), China (5), Spain (2), Brazil (2), South Korea (2), India (2), and one study each in Italy, South Africa, the Philippines, Greece, Iran, Kenya, Nigeria, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The results of the top-down studies indicated that indirect costs represent 10.53% of GDP, while the total estimated cost accounts for 85.91% of healthcare expenditures and 9.13% of GDP. In contrast, the bottom-up studies revealed that the average direct medical costs ranged from US $1264 to US $79,315. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the medical costs for COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) were approximately twice as high as those for patients in general wards, with a range from 0.05 to 3.48 times higher., Conclusions: Our study indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic has imposed a significant economic burden worldwide, with varying degrees of impact across countries. The findings of our study, along with those of other research, underscore the vital role of economic consequences in the post-COVID-19 era for communities and families. Therefore, policymakers and health administrators should prioritize economic programs and accord them heightened attention., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected not only individual lives but also the world and global systems, both natural and human-made. Besides millions of deaths and environmental challenges, the rapid spread of the infection and its very high socioeconomic impact have affected healthcare, economic status and wealth, and mental health across the globe. To better appreciate the pandemic's influence, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches are needed. In this chapter, world-leading scientists from different backgrounds share collectively their views about the pandemic's footprint and discuss challenges that face the international community., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Dementia prevalence is expected to increase as populations grow and age. Therefore, additional resources will be needed to meet the global demand for care for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD)., Objective: Estimate global and country-level health care spending attributable to ADRD and the cost of informal care for people living with ADRD., Methods: We gathered data from three systematic literature reviews and the Global Burden of Disease 2019 study. We used spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression to impute estimates for the many countries without underlying data. We projected future costs to 2050 based on past trends in costs, diagnosis rates, and institutionalization rate., Results: We estimated that in 2019, the direct health care spending attributable to ADRD across 204 countries reached $260.6 billion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 131.6-420.4) and the cost of informal ADRD care was $354.1 billion (95% UI 190.0-544.1). On average, informal care represents 57% (95% UI 38-75%) of the total cost of care. We estimated that direct health care spending attributable to ADRD will reach $1.6 trillion (95% UI 0.6-3.3) in 2050, or 9.4% (95% UI 3.9-19.6%) of projected health spending worldwide. We estimated the cost of informal care will reach $0.9 trillion (95% UI 0.3-1.7) in 2050., Conclusions: These cost estimates underscore the magnitude of resources needed to ensure sufficient resources for people living with ADRD and highlight the role that informal care plays in provision of their care. Incorporating informal care cost estimates is critical to capture the social cost of ADRD.

Background: Countries designing a health benefit package (HBP) to support progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) require robust cost-effectiveness evidence. This paper reports on Pakistan's approach to assessing the applicability of global cost-effectiveness evidence to country context as part of a HBP design process., Methods: A seven-step process was developed and implemented with Disease Control Priority 3 (DCP3) project partners to assess the applicability of global incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to Pakistan. First, the scope of the interventions to be assessed was defined and an independent, interdisciplinary team was formed. Second, the team familiarized itself with intervention descriptions. Third, the team identified studies from the Tufts Medical School Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GH-CEA) registry. Fourth, the team applied specific knock-out criteria to match identified studies to local intervention descriptions. Matches were then cross-checked across reviewers and further selection was made where there were multiple ICER matches. Sixth, a quality scoring system was applied to ICER values. Finally, a database was created containing all the ICER results with a justification for each decision, which was made available to decision-makers during HBP deliberation., Results: We found that less than 50% of the interventions in DCP3 could be supported with evidence of cost-effectiveness applicable to the country context. Out of 78 ICERs identified as applicable to Pakistan from the Tufts GH-CEA registry, only 20 ICERs were exact matches of the DCP3 Pakistan intervention descriptions and 58 were partial matches., Conclusion: This paper presents the first attempt globally to use the main public GH-CEA database to estimate cost-effectiveness in the context of HBPs at a country level. This approach is a useful learning for all countries trying to develop essential packages informed by the global database on ICERs, and it will support the design of future evidence and further development of methods., (© 2024 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

The COVID-19 pandemic led many countries to consider reforms to their economic policies, in part to better deal with global warming, mass population migration and displacements, and worsening global inequalities. Some health progressive changes have been made, but the world still confronts the contradiction between economic growth and the need to reduce aggregate global consumption. Well-being economies based on valuing human and planetary health have been proposed as a viable option, with more appeal than concepts such as degrowth or postgrowth economics. Some governments are moving in a "well-being economy" direction, but are they moving far and fast enough? What are the policy actions governments must take, and how will they overcome powerful interests opposed to any economic changes that might challenge their privileges? The idea of well-being economies resonates strongly with most cultures; and therein lies its civil society activist potential., (© 2024 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Objective: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) partnered with the Ethiopian Pharmaceutical Supply Agency (EPSA) in 2018-2019 to reform procurement and supply chain management (PSCM) procedures within the Ethiopian healthcare system. This assessment sought to determine the impact of the reforms and document the lessons learnt., Design: Mixed-methods study incorporating qualitative and quantitative analysis. Purposive and snowballing sampling techniques were applied for the qualitative methods, and the data collected was transcribed in full and subjected to thematic content analysis. Descriptive analysis was applied to quantitative data., Setting: The study was based in Ethiopia and focused on the EPSA operations nationally between 2017 and 2021., Participants: Twenty-five Ethiopian healthcare decision-makers and health workers., Intervention: Global Fund training programme for health workers and infrastructural improvements OUTCOMES: Operational and financial measures for healthcare PSCM., Results: The availability of antiretrovirals, tuberculosis and malaria medicines, and other related commodities, remained consistently high. Line fill rate and forecast accuracy were average. Between 2018 and 2021, procurement lead times for HIV and malaria-related orders reduced by 43.0% relative to other commodities that reported an increase. Many interview respondents recognised the important role of the Global Fund support in improving the performance of EPSA and provided specific attributions to the observed successes. However, they were also clear that more needs to be done in specific critical areas such as financing, strategic reorganisation, data and information management systems., Conclusion: The Global Fund-supported initiatives led to improvements in the EPSA performance, despite several persistent challenges. To sustain and secure the gains achieved so far through Global Fund support and make progress, it is important that various stakeholders, including the government and the donor community, work together to support EPSA in delivering on its core mandate within the Ethiopian health system., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TA, AL and LW declare that they have no competing interests. TT and SN are full-time employees of EPSA. LM, GS, PG and SG are full-time employees of the Global Fund. Both the employees of EPSA and the Global Fund did not materially influence the data analysis and independent publication of the manuscript., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The global 2030 goal set by the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), to eliminate dog-mediated human rabies deaths, has undeniably been a catalyst for many countries to re-assess existing dog rabies control programmes. Additionally, the 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development includes a blueprint for global targets which will benefit both people and secure the health of the planet. Rabies is acknowledged as a disease of poverty, but the connections between economic development and rabies control and elimination are poorly quantified yet, critical evidence for planning and prioritisation. We have developed multiple generalised linear models, to model the relationship between health care access, poverty, and death rate as a result of rabies, with separate indicators that can be used at country-level; total Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and current health expenditure as a percentage of the total gross domestic product (% GDP) as an indicator of economic growth; and a metric of poverty assessing the extent and intensity of deprivation experienced at the individual level (Multidimensional Poverty Index, MPI). Notably there was no detectable relationship between GDP or current health expenditure (% GDP) and death rate from rabies. However, MPI showed statistically significant relationships with per capita rabies deaths and the probability of receiving lifesaving post exposure prophylaxis. We highlight that those most at risk of not being treated, and dying due to rabies, live in communities experiencing health care inequalities, readily measured through poverty indicators. These data demonstrate that economic growth alone, may not be enough to meet the 2030 goal. Indeed, other strategies such as targeting vulnerable populations and responsible pet ownership are also needed in addition to economic investment., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Taylor et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: I have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no conflicts to declare.

The worldwide spread of the COVID-19 pandemic is a complex and multivariate process differentiated across countries, and geographical distance is acceptable as a critical determinant of the uneven spreading. Although social connectivity is a defining condition for virus transmission, the network paradigm in the study of the COVID-19 spatio-temporal spread has not been used accordingly. Toward contributing to this demand, this paper uses network analysis to develop a multidimensional methodological framework for understanding the uneven (cross-country) spread of COVID-19 in the context of the globally interconnected economy. The globally interconnected system of tourism mobility is modeled as a complex network and studied within the context of a three-dimensional (3D) conceptual model composed of network connectivity, economic openness, and spatial impedance variables. The analysis reveals two main stages in the temporal spread of COVID-19, defined by the cutting-point of the 44th day from Wuhan. The first describes the outbreak in Asia and North America, the second stage in Europe, South America, and Africa, while the outbreak in Oceania intermediates. The analysis also illustrates that the average node degree exponentially decays as a function of COVID-19 emergence time. This finding implies that the highly connected nodes, in the Global Tourism Network (GTN), are disproportionally earlier infected by the pandemic than the other nodes. Moreover, countries with the same network centrality as China are early infected on average by COVID-19. The paper also finds that network interconnectedness, economic openness, and transport integration are critical determinants in the early global spread of the pandemic, and it reveals that the spatio-temporal patterns of the worldwide spreading of COVID-19 are more a matter of network interconnectivity than of spatial proximity., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: In this study, we quantified the global macroeconomic burden of breast cancer to underscore the critical importance of improving access to oncologic surgical care internationally., Summary Background Data: Breast cancer mortality in many low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is dramatically higher than in high-income countries. Prior to identifying solutions, however, it is important to first define the burden of disease., Methods: Data from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (2005-2015) were used to assess epidemiologic trends for 194, middle, and low-income countries. Economic burden defined by Welfare Loss (WL) was calculated by measuring disability-adjusted-life-years lost to breast cancer alongside the dollar equivalent of a value of statistical life year and as a function of each country's gross domestic product (GDP)., Results: Annual mortality rates among breast cancer patients were significantly greater in LMICs in South Asia (3.06 per 100 women) and Sub-Saharan Africa (2.76 per 100 women), compared with high-income countries like the United States (1.69 per 100 women). From 2005-2015, mortality in South Asia increased by 8.20% and decreased by 6.45% in Sub-Saharan Africa; mortality rates in 2015 were observed as 27.9 per 100,000 in South Asia and 18.61 per 100,000 in Sub-Saharan Africa. Countries in South Asia demonstrated the greatest rise in WL due to breast cancer, from 0.05% to 0.08% of GDP., Conclusions: The burden of disease and economic impact of breast cancer is intensifying in LMICs. Global efforts to improve access to surgical care for women with breast cancer could reduce mortality and mitigate the social and financial impact of this disease in LMICs., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: SS and SK declare no competing interests. Countdown Global Mental Health 2030 report and dashboard have been made possible by financial and technical assistance of Bernard van Leer Foundation.

The last two decades have witnessed the emergence of three deadly coronaviruses (CoVs) in humans: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). There are still no reliable and efficient therapeutics to manage the devastating consequences of these CoVs. Of these, SARS-CoV-2, the cause of the currently ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, has posed great global health concerns. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented crisis with devastating socio-economic and health impacts worldwide. This highlights the fact that CoVs continue to evolve and have the genetic flexibility to become highly pathogenic in humans and other mammals. SARS-CoV-2 carries a high genetic homology to the previously identified CoV (SARS-CoV), and the immunological and pathogenic characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS contain key similarities and differences that can guide therapy and management. This review presents salient and updated information on comparative pathology, molecular pathogenicity, immunological features, and genetic characterization of SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2; this can help in the design of more effective vaccines and therapeutics for countering these pathogenic CoVs.

Background: The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020., Methods: We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$ per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050., Findings: In 2019, health spending globally reached $8·8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8·7-8·8) or $1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total, $40·4 billion (0·5%, 95% UI 0·5-0·5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24·6% (UI 24·0-25·1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54·8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this, $13·7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12·3 billion was newly committed and $1·4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3·1 billion (22·4%) of the funds focused on country-level coordination and $2·4 billion (17·9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714·4 million (7·7%) of COVID-19 development assistance for health went to Latin America, despite this region reporting 34·3% of total recorded COVID-19 deaths in low-income or middle-income countries in 2020. Spending on health is expected to rise to $1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied., Interpretation: Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all., Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests D McCracken's position was supported in part through the Wellcome Trust, and by the Department of Health and Social Care using UK aid funding managed by the Fleming Fund. R Ancuceanu reports consulting fees from AbbVie and AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Sandoz, AbbVie, and Braun Medical; and support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie and AstraZeneca, all outside the submitted work. M Ausloos and C Herteliu report grants or contracts from the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation (CNDS-UEFISCDI), project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084, outside the submitted work. C Herteliu reports grants or contracts from CNDS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P2-2.1-SOL-2020-2-0351, outside the submitted work. S Bhaskar reports an unpaid leadership or fiduciary role in a board, society, committee or advocacy group, with the Rotary Club of Sydney Board of Directors, outside the submitted work. R Busse reports grants or contracts from Berlin University Alliance (COVID pre-exploration project), outside the submitted work. S M S Islam reports grants or contracts from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the National Heart Foundation of Australia, all outside the submitted work. K Krishan reports non-financial support from UGC Centre of Advanced Study phase II, Department of Anthropology, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India, outside the submitted work. M J Postma reports grants or contacts from Merck Sharp & DDohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novavax, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, IQVIA, BioMerieux, WHO, EU, Seqirus, FIND, Antilope, DIKTI, LPDP, and Budi; consulting fees from Merk Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novavax, Quintiles, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, Pharmerit, IQVIA, and Seqirus; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board to Asc Academics as Advisor; and stock or stock options in Health-Ecore and PAG, all outside the submitted work. M G Shrime reports grants or contracts from the Iris O'Brien Foundation; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Brightsight speakers; and leadership or fiduciary role in board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid with Pharos Global Health Advisors as a board member. J A Singh reports consulting fees from Crealta/Horizon, Medisys, Fidia, Two labs, Adept Field Solutions, Clinical Care options, Clearview healthcare partners, Putnam associates, Focus forward, Navigant consulting, Spherix, MedIQ, UBM, Trio Health, Medscape, WebMD, and Practice Point communications, and the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Rheumatology; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Simply Speaking; support for attending meetings and travel from OMERACT; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, with OMERACT as a member of the steering committee, with the US Food and Drug Administration Arthritis Advisory Committee, with the Veterans Affairs Rheumatology Field Advisory Committee as a member, and with the UAB Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Satellite Center on Network Meta-analysis as a Director and Editor; stock or stock options in TPT Global Tech, Vaxart pharmaceuticals, and Charlotte's Web Holdings; and previously owned stock options in Amarin, Viking, and Moderna pharmaceuticals, all outside the submitted work. 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 WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) identifies priority medicines that are most important to public health. Over time, the EML has included an increasing number of cancer medicines. We aimed to investigate whether the cancer medicines in the EML are aligned with the priority medicines of frontline oncologists worldwide, and the extent to which these medicines are accessible in routine clinical practice., Methods: This international, cross-sectional survey was developed by investigators from a range of clinical practice settings across low-income to high-income countries, including members of the WHO Essential Medicines Cancer Working Group. A 28-question electronic survey was developed and disseminated to a global network of oncologists in 89 countries and regions by use of a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their national and regional oncology associations or personal networks. The survey was open from Oct 15 to Dec 7, 2020. Fully qualified physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy to adults were eligible to participate in the survey. The primary question asked respondents to select the ten cancer medicines that would provide the greatest public health benefit to their country; subsequent questions explored availability and cost of cancer medicines. Descriptive statistics were used to compare access to medicines between low-income and lower-middle-income countries, upper-middle-income countries, and high-income countries., Findings: 87 country-level contacts and two regional networks were invited to participate in the survey; 46 (52%) accepted the invitation and distributed the survey. 1697 respondents opened the survey link; 423 were excluded as they did not answer the primary study question and 326 were excluded because of ineligibility. 948 eligible oncologists from 82 countries completed the survey (165 [17%] in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 165 [17%] in upper-middle-income countries, and 618 [65%] in high-income countries). The most commonly selected medicines were doxorubicin (by 499 [53%] of 948 respondents), cisplatin (by 470 [50%]), paclitaxel (by 423 [45%]), pembrolizumab (by 414 [44%]), trastuzumab (by 402 [42%]), carboplatin (by 390 [41%]), and 5-fluorouracil (by 386 [41%]). Of the 20 most frequently selected high-priority cancer medicines, 19 (95%) are currently on the WHO EML; 12 (60%) were cytotoxic agents and 13 (65%) were granted US Food and Drug Administration regulatory approval before 2000. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability of each top 20 medication was 9-54% in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 13-90% in upper-middle-income countries, and 68-94% in high-income countries. The risk of catastrophic expenditure (spending >40% of total consumption net of spending on food) was more common in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, with 13-68% of respondents indicating a substantial risk of catastrophic expenditures for each of the top 20 medications in lower-middle-income countries versus 2-41% of respondents in upper-middle-income countries and 0-9% in high-income countries., Interpretation: These data demonstrate major barriers in access to core cancer medicines worldwide. These findings challenge the feasibility of adding additional expensive cancer medicines to the EML. There is an urgent need for global and country-level policy action to ensure patients with cancer globally have access to high priority medicines., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FR, LM, and AI are employees of WHO. MS, DL, LM, EGEDV, DT, FR, RS, BG, and CMB are members of the WHO Essential Medicines List Cancer Medicine Working Group. EGEDV reports institutional financial support for research from Amgen, Bayer, Crescendo Biologics, CytomX Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Regeneron, Roche, Servier, and Synthon, and institutional financial support for participation on data safety monitoring boards and advisory boards of Daiichi Sankyo, NSABP, and Crescendo Biologics. FR reports honoraria for lectures from Dr Reddy's and payments for participation on advisory boards from Boehringer-Ingelheim and MSD. BG reports consulting fees from Vivio Health. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2021 World Health Organization; licensee Elsevier. This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, 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.)

Anemia is a globally widespread condition in women and is associated with reduced economic productivity and increased mortality worldwide. Here we map annual 2000-2018 geospatial estimates of anemia prevalence in women of reproductive age (15-49 years) across 82 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), stratify anemia by severity and aggregate results to policy-relevant administrative and national levels. Additionally, we provide subnational disparity analyses to provide a comprehensive overview of anemia prevalence inequalities within these countries and predict progress toward the World Health Organization's Global Nutrition Target (WHO GNT) to reduce anemia by half by 2030. Our results demonstrate widespread moderate improvements in overall anemia prevalence but identify only three LMICs with a high probability of achieving the WHO GNT by 2030 at a national scale, and no LMIC is expected to achieve the target in all their subnational administrative units. Our maps show where large within-country disparities occur, as well as areas likely to fall short of the WHO GNT, offering precision public health tools so that adequate resource allocation and subsequent interventions can be targeted to the most vulnerable populations., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

International hospitals and healthcare facilities are facing catastrophic financial challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Hospital Association estimates a financial impact of $202.6 billion in lost revenue for America's hospitals and healthcare systems, or an average of $50.7 billion per month. Furthermore, it could cost low- and middle-income countries ~ US$52 billion (equivalent to US$8.60 per person) each four weeks to provide an effective healthcare response to COVID-19. In the setting of the largest daily COVID-19 new cases in the US, this burden will influence patient care, surgeries, and surgical outcomes. From a global economic standpoint, The World Bank projects that global growth is projected to shrink by almost 8% with poorer countries feeling most of the impact, and the United Nations projects that it will cost the global economy around 2 trillion dollars this year. Overall, a lack of preparedness was a major contributor to the struggles experienced by healthcare facilities around the world. Items such as personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers, hospital equipment, sanitizing supplies, toilet paper, and water were in short supply. These deficiencies were exposed by COVID-19 and have prompted healthcare organizations around the world to invent new essential plans for pandemic preparedness. In this paper, we will discuss the economic impact of COVID-19 on US and international hospitals, healthcare facilities, surgery, and surgical outcomes. In the future, the US and countries around the world will benefit from preparing a plan of action to use as a guide in the event of a disaster or pandemic., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Richard D. Urman received fees or funding from Merck, Medtronic, Takeda, Heron, Sandoz, Acacia, AcelRx. Other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)