The Lancet Countdown: tracking progress on health and climate change.

The Lancet Countdown: tracking progress on health and climate change is an international, multidisciplinary research collaboration between academic institutions and practitioners across the world. It follows on from the work of the 2015 Lancet Commission, which concluded that the response to climate change could be "the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century". The Lancet Countdown aims to track the health impacts of climate hazards; health resilience and adaptation; health co-benefits of climate change mitigation; economics and finance; and political and broader engagement. These focus areas form the five thematic working groups of the Lancet Countdown and represent different aspects of the complex association between health and climate change. These thematic groups will provide indicators for a global overview of health and climate change; national case studies highlighting countries leading the way or going against the trend; and engagement with a range of stakeholders. The Lancet Countdown ultimately aims to report annually on a series of indicators across these five working groups. This paper outlines the potential indicators and indicator domains to be tracked by the collaboration, with suggestions on the methodologies and datasets available to achieve this end. The proposed indicator domains require further refinement, and mark the beginning of an ongoing consultation process-from November, 2016 to early 2017-to develop these domains, identify key areas not currently covered, and change indicators where necessary. This collaboration will actively seek to engage with existing monitoring processes, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and WHO's climate and health country profiles. The indicators will also evolve over time through ongoing collaboration with experts and a range of stakeholders, and be dependent on the emergence of new evidence and knowledge. During the course of its work, the Lancet Countdown will adopt a collaborative and iterative process, which aims to complement existing initiatives, welcome engagement with new partners, and be open to developing new research projects on health and climate change.

Climate change and health: three grand challenges.

Climate change may be the greatest health threat of the twenty-first century, impacting lives both directly and indirectly, through undermining the environmental and social determinants of health. Rapid action to decarbonize economies and build resilience is justified on health, human rights, environmental and economic grounds. While the necessary health response is wide ranging, it can largely be encapsulated within three grand challenges: (i) promote actions that both reduce carbon emissions and improve health; (ii) build better, more climate-resilient and low-carbon health systems; and (iii) implement public health measures to protect from the range of climate risks to health. The health community can make a unique and powerful contribution, applying its trusted voice to climate leadership and advocacy, providing evidence for action, taking responsibility for climate resilience and decarbonization of healthcare systems, and guiding other sectors whose actions impact substantially on health, carbon emissions and climate resilience.

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions.

BACKGROUND: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. METHODS: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. RESULTS: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. DISCUSSION: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745.

Oral Phage Therapy of Acute Bacterial Diarrhea With Two Coliphage Preparations: A Randomized Trial in Children From Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is rising in important bacterial pathogens. Phage therapy (PT), the use of bacterial viruses infecting the pathogen in a species-specific way, is a potential alternative. METHOD: T4-like coliphages or a commercial Russian coliphage product or placebo was orally given over 4 days to Bangladeshi children hospitalized with acute bacterial diarrhea. Safety of oral phage was assessed clinically and by functional tests; coliphage and Escherichia coli titers and enteropathogens were determined in stool and quantitative diarrhea parameters (stool output, stool frequency) were measured. Stool microbiota was studied by 16S rRNA gene sequencing; the genomes of four fecal Streptococcus isolates were sequenced. FINDINGS: No adverse events attributable to oral phage application were observed (primary safety outcome). Fecal coliphage was increased in treated over control children, but the titers did not show substantial intestinal phage replication (secondary microbiology outcome). 60% of the children suffered from a microbiologically proven E. coli diarrhea; the most frequent diagnosis was ETEC infections. Bacterial co-pathogens were also detected. Half of the patients contained phage-susceptible E. coli colonies in the stool. E. coli represented less than 5% of fecal bacteria. Stool ETEC titers showed only a short-lived peak and were otherwise close to the replication threshold determined for T4 phage in vitro. An interim analysis after the enrollment of 120 patients showed no amelioration in quantitative diarrhea parameter by PT over standard care (tertiary clinical outcome). Stool microbiota was characterized by an overgrowth with Streptococcus belonging to the Streptococcus gallolyticus and Streptococcus salivarius species groups, their abundance correlated with quantitative diarrhea outcome, but genome sequencing did not identify virulence genes. INTERPRETATION: Oral coliphages showed a safe gut transit in children, but failed to achieve intestinal amplification and to improve diarrhea outcome, possibly due to insufficient phage coverage and too low E. coli pathogen titers requiring higher oral phage doses. More knowledge is needed on in vivo phage-bacterium interaction and the role of E. coli in childhood diarrhea for successful PT. FUNDING: The study was supported by a grant from Nestlé Nutrition and Nestlé Health Science. The trial was registered with Identifier NCT00937274 at ClinicalTrials.gov.