Spatial-temporal trends in leprosy burden and its associations with socioeconomic and physical geographic factors: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to assess the multiscalar changes in leprosy burden and its associated risk factors over the last three decades. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an in-depth examination of leprosy's spatial-temporal trends at multiple geographical scale (global, regional, and national), utilizing information from Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD 2019). METHODS: Incidence and the estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) in age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) of leprosy were determined, with countries categorized based on leprosy incidence changes. We examined socioeconomic and physical geography influences on leprosy incidence via Spearman correlation analysis, using ternary phase diagrams to reveal the synergetic effects on leprosy occurrence. RESULTS: Globally, incident cases of leprosy decreased by 27.86% from 1990 to 2019, with a reduction in ASIR (EAPC = -2.53), yet trends were not homogeneous across regions. ASIR and EAPC correlated positively with sociodemographic index (SDI), and an ASIR growth appeared in high SDI region (EAPC = 3.07). Leprosy burden was chiefly distributed in Tropical Latin America, Oceania, Central Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia. Negative correlations were detected between the incidence of leprosy and factors of SDI, GDP per capita, urban population to total population, and precipitation, whereas the number of refugee population, temperature, and elevation showed opposite positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a global decline in leprosy over the past three decades, the disparities of disease occurrence at regional and national scales still persisted. Socioeconomic and physical geographic factors posed an obvious influence on the transmission risk of leprosy. The persistence and regional fluctuations of leprosy incidence necessitate the ongoing dynamic and multilayered control strategies worldwide in combating this ancient disease.

The burden of skin diseases in India: Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.

Background The prevalence of skin diseases has increased over the last few decades, and they contribute to a significant burden on health-care systems across the world. Aims/Objective This report looks at the burden of skin and subcutaneous diseases in terms of years lived with disability and agestandardised years lived with disability in India using the Global Burden of Disease Study results from 2017. Methods Data were obtained from the Global Burden of Disease online interactive tool. Updated estimates of the world's health for 359 diseases and injuries and 84 risk factors from 1990 to 2017 are available in this interactive tool. Results Years lived with disability due to skin and subcutaneous diseases accounted for 4.02% of the total years lived with disability in India in 2017. There was an increase of 53.7% in all age standardised years lived with disability for all the skin and subcutaneous diseases from 1990 to 2017. Among skin and subcutaneous diseases, dermatitis contributed maximum years lived with disability (1.40 million; 95% uncertainty interval, 0.82-2.21) in 2017, followed by urticaria (1.02 million; 95% uncertainty interval, 0.06-1.44) with percentage increases of 48.9% and 45.7% respectively. Conclusion The burden due to infectious skin diseases (e.g., scabies, fungal skin disease and bacterial skin disease) and non-infectious diseases (e.g., dermatitis, urticaria and psoriasis) has increased over the past three decades, however the age-standardised years lived with disability for leprosy, scabies, fungal infections, sexually transmitted infections and non-melanoma skin cancer (basal cell carcinoma) has decreased. The high burden of skin and subcutaneous diseases demand that they be given due importance in the national programmes and health policy of India.

JAK inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of atopic dermatitis: effectiveness and value.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Herron-Smith, Nhan, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Atlas, Brouwer, Carlson, and Hansen received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

Cost-effectiveness of incorporating Mycobacterium indicus pranii vaccine to multidrug therapy in newly diagnosed leprosy cases for better treatment outcomes & immunoprophylaxis in contacts as leprosy control measures for National Leprosy Eradication Programme in India.

Background & objectives: The elimination goal for leprosy as a public health problem at the national level was achieved in 2005 in India. However, the number of new cases reporting annually remained nearly the same during the last 10-15 years. Moreover, a substantial number of these new cases reported disabilities for the first time. Therefore, besides multidrug therapy (MDT), newer strategies with focus on effectively decreasing the number of new cases, optimizing the treatment of detected cases, averting disabilities and arresting the transmission of the disease are required. So the objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of Mycobacterium indicus pranii (MIP) vaccine implementation in National Leprosy Eradication Programme (NLEP) for newly diagnosed leprosy patients as well as their contacts to arrest/decrease the transmission and occurrence of new cases. Methods: This was a model-based estimation of incremental costs, total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, new cases averted, deaths averted, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and budget impact of the vaccination intervention. This model included the addition of MIP treatment intervention to the newly detected leprosy patients as well as vaccination with MIP to their contacts. Results: Using the societal perspective, discounted ICER was estimated to be ₹73,790 per QALY gained over a five-year time period. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was assessed by varying the values of input parameters. Majority (96%) of simulations fell in North East quadrant of cost-effectiveness plane, which were all below the willingness to pay threshold. Interpretation & conclusions: Introduction of MIP vaccination in the NLEP appears to be a cost-effective strategy for India. Significant health gains were reduction in the number of new leprosy cases, decreased incidence and severity of reactions during treatment, and after release from treatment, prevention of disabilities, thus reducing the cost as well as stigma of the disease.

Cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment for type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is the first oral formulation of a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist to be approved in the United States for glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). While oral semaglutide is not indicated for reduction of cardiovascular event risk, its label does include evidence of no increase in cardiovascular risk in people who received oral semaglutide. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental value of oral semaglutide added to existing antihyperglycemic treatment for people with T2DM with additional risk for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment for T2DM using a microsimulation model based primarily on the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model 2 (OM2) equations. Oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment was separately compared with (a) ongoing background antihyperglycemic treatment, (b) sitagliptin, (c) empagliflozin, and (d) liraglutide. Comparators sitagliptin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide were added to ongoing antihyperglycemic treatment. We applied hazard ratios derived from a network meta-analysis for cardiovascular and renal outcomes to the UKPDS OM2 estimated baseline rates. Health state utilities and costs were derived from the published literature. We estimated total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), clinical events, and cost per major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) avoided, over a lifetime time horizon using discount rates of 3% for costs and outcomes. RESULTS: The lifetime total cost for people treated with oral semaglutide was $311,300, with costs for the other comparators ranging from $262,800 (background treatment alone) to $287,800 (liraglutide). Oral semaglutide resulted in the fewest MACE, including the fewest cardiovascular deaths. Among the 5 modeled treatment strategies, oral semaglutide had the highest LYs gained (8.43 vs. 7.76 [background treatment alone] to 8.29 [empagliflozin and liraglutide]) and the highest QALYs gained (4.11 vs. 3.70 [background treatment alone] to 4.03 [empagliflozin]). Oral semaglutide would likely be considered cost-effective compared with liraglutide (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $40,100), and moderately cost-effective versus background treatment alone ([ICER] = $117,500/QALY) and sitagliptin (ICER = $145,200/QALY). The ICER for oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin was approximately $458,400 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: As modeled, oral semaglutide as an add-on therapy to background antihyperglycemic treatment produced incremental benefits in MACE avoided, along with greater QALYs compared with background antihyperglycemic treatment alone. Oral semaglutide use resulted in better outcomes than background treatment alone or sitagliptin, and similar outcomes to liraglutide or empagliflozin with overlapping 95% confidence ranges for QALYs. Oral semaglutide was estimated to be cost-effective compared with liraglutide and to have incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY versus sitagliptin and background therapy alone, but it did not meet these thresholds compared with empagliflozin. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER reports grants from Laura and John Arnold Foundation, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Rind, Fazioli, Chapman, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Guzauskas and Hansen have nothing to disclose. Study results were presented at the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC), November 14, 2019, at Brown University, Providence, RI.

Leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis in the Indian health system: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

India has the highest burden of leprosy in the world. Following a recent WHO guideline, the Indian National Leprosy Programme is introducing post-exposure prophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (SDR-PEP) in all high-endemic districts of the country. The aim of this study is to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of SDR-PEP in different leprosy disability burden situations. We used a stochastic individual-based model (SIMCOLEP) to simulate the leprosy new case detection rate trend and the impact of implementing contact screening and SDR-PEP from 2016 to 2040 (25 years) in the Union Territory of Dadra Nagar Haveli (DNH) in India. Effects of the intervention were expressed as disability adjusted life years (DALY) averted under three assumption of disability prevention: 1) all grade 1 disability (G1D) cases prevented; 2) G1D cases prevented in PB cases only; 3) no disability prevented. Costs were US$ 2.9 per contact. Costs and effects were discounted at 3%. The incremental cost per DALY averted by SDR-PEP was US$ 210, US$ 447, and US$ 5,673 in the 25th year under assumption 1, 2, and 3, respectively. If prevention of G1D was assumed, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 1.0 at the threshold of US$ 2,000, which is equivalent to the GDP per capita of India. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.6, if no disability prevention was assumed. The cost per new leprosy case averted was US$ 2,873. Contact listing, screening and the provision of SDR-PEP is a cost-effective strategy in leprosy control in both the short (5 years) and long term (25 years). The cost-effectiveness depends on the extent to which disability can be prevented. As the intervention becomes increasingly cost-effective in the long term, we recommend a long-term commitment for its implementation.

Neglected tropical diseases in Brazil: lack of correlation between disease burden, research funding and output.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the correlation between the burden of seven priority neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) included in the Brazilian National Agenda of Priorities in Health Research - tuberculosis, Chagas disease, leprosy, malaria, leishmaniasis, dengue and schistosomiasis - and their respective research funding and output. METHODS: This retrospective review obtained data on disease burden from the Global Burden of Disease Study and funding data from open access sources. Publications were retrieved from Scopus and SciELO, and characterised according to the type of research conducted. Correlation between funding, research output and burden was assessed by comparing the 'expected' and 'observed' values for funding and publications relative to the proportional burden for each disease. RESULTS: There was an emphasis in basic biomedical research (average 30% of publications) and a shortage of health policy and systems (average 7%) and social sciences research (average 3%). Research output and funding were poorly correlated with disease burden. Tuberculosis, Chagas disease and schistosomiasis accounted for more than 75% of total NTD-related DALYs, but accounted for only 34% of publications. Leprosy, leishmaniasis and malaria, together, received 49% of NTD-related funding despite being responsible for only 9% of DALYs. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis evidenced a lack of correlation between disease burden, research output and government funding for priority NTDs in Brazil. Our findings highlight the importance of monitoring health needs, research investments and outputs to inform policy and optimise the uptake of evidence for action, particularly in developing countries, where resources are scarce and the research capacity is limited. The results contribute to health policy by highlighting the need for improving coordination of scientific activities and public health needs for effective impact.

OBJECTIFS: Evaluer la corrélation entre la charge de sept maladies tropicales négligées (MTN) prioritaires incluses dans le programme national brésilien des priorités en matière de recherche en santé - tuberculose, maladie de Chagas, lèpre, paludisme, leishmaniose, dengue et schistosomiase - et leurs financements de recherche respectifs et les résultats. MÉTHODES: Cette revue rétrospective a obtenu des données sur la charge de morbidité de l'étude sur la Charge Globale des Maladies et des données de financement provenant de sources en accès publique. Les publications ont été extraites de Scopus et SciELO et caractérisées selon le type de recherche menée. La corrélation entre le financement, les résultats de la recherche et la charge a été évaluée en comparant les valeurs "attendues" et "observées" pour le financement et les publications par rapport à la charge proportionnel de chaque maladie. RÉSULTATS: L'accent a été mis sur la recherche biomédicale fondamentale (en moyenne 30% des publications) et une pénurie de politiques et de systèmes de santé (en moyenne 7%) et de recherche en sciences sociales (en moyenne 3%). Les résultats et le financement de la recherche étaient mal associés à la charge de morbidité. La tuberculose, la maladie de Chagas et la schistosomiase représentaient plus de 75% du total des EVCI, mais ne représentaient que 34% des publications. La lèpre, la leishmaniose et le paludisme, ensemble, ont reçu 49% des financements liés aux MTN alors qu'ils n'étaient responsables que de 9% des EVCI. CONCLUSIONS: L'analyse a mis en évidence une absence de corrélation entre la charge de morbidité, le résultat de la recherche et le financement de la plupart des MTN. Nos résultats soulignent l'importance du suivi des besoins en matière de santé, des investissements dans la recherche et des résultats pour éclairer les politiques et optimiser l'utilisation des données pour l'action, en particulier dans les pays en développement, où les ressources sont rares et la capacité de recherche est limitée. Les résultats contribuent à la politique de santé en soulignant la nécessité d'améliorer la coordination et la planification stratégique des activités scientifiques pour un impact efficace.

Concerted Efforts to Control or Eliminate Neglected Tropical Diseases: How Much Health Will Be Gained?

BACKGROUND: The London Declaration (2012) was formulated to support and focus the control and elimination of ten neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), with targets for 2020 as formulated by the WHO Roadmap. Five NTDs (lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminths and trachoma) are to be controlled by preventive chemotherapy (PCT), and four (Chagas' disease, human African trypanosomiasis, leprosy and visceral leishmaniasis) by innovative and intensified disease management (IDM). Guinea worm, virtually eradicated, is not considered here. We aim to estimate the global health impact of meeting these targets in terms of averted morbidity, mortality, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs). METHODS: The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 study provides prevalence and burden estimates for all nine NTDs in 1990 and 2010, by country, age and sex, which were taken as the basis for our calculations. Estimates for other years were obtained by interpolating between 1990 (or the start-year of large-scale control efforts) and 2010, and further extrapolating until 2030, such that the 2020 targets were met. The NTD disease manifestations considered in the GBD study were analyzed as either reversible or irreversible. Health impacts were assessed by comparing the results of achieving the targets with the counterfactual, construed as the health burden had the 1990 (or 2010 if higher) situation continued unabated. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS: Our calculations show that meeting the targets will lead to about 600 million averted DALYs in the period 2011-2030, nearly equally distributed between PCT and IDM-NTDs, with the health gain amongst PCT-NTDs mostly (96%) due to averted disability and amongst IDM-NTDs largely (95%) from averted mortality. These health gains include about 150 million averted irreversible disease manifestations (e.g. blindness) and 5 million averted deaths. Control of soil-transmitted helminths accounts for one third of all averted DALYs. We conclude that the projected health impact of the London Declaration justifies the required efforts.

Comparing cutaneous research funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) with the US skin disease burden.

BACKGROUND: Disease burden should be an important component for guiding research funding. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the relationship between dermatologic research funded from 2012 to 2013 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and US skin disease burden as measured by disability-adjusted life years in the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was independently performed by 2 researchers who matched projects from the 2012 to 2013 NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools with 15 skin conditions and their respective disability-adjusted life years from Global Burden of Disease 2010. RESULTS: The NIH funded 1108 projects spanning the 15 skin conditions. Melanoma received almost half of the total skin condition budget (49.5%). Melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and leprosy were funded above what would be suggested by their disease burden, whereas dermatitis, acne vulgaris, pruritus, urticaria, decubitus ulcer, fungal skin diseases, alopecia areata, cellulitis, and scabies appeared underfunded. Bacterial skin diseases, viral skin diseases, and psoriasis were well matched with disease burden. LIMITATIONS: Disease burden is one of many factors that may be used to guide priority-setting decisions. CONCLUSION: Skin disease burden measured by disability-adjusted life year metrics partially correlates with NIH funding prioritization. Comparing US disease burden with NIH funding suggests possible underfunded and overfunded skin diseases.

Comparing cutaneous research funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases with 2010 Global Burden of Disease results.

IMPORTANCE: Disease burden data helps guide research prioritization. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which grants issued by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) reflect disease burden, measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 project. DESIGN: Two investigators independently assessed 15 skin conditions studied by GBD 2010 in the NIAMS database for grants issued in 2013. The 15 skin diseases were matched to their respective DALYs from GBD 2010. SETTING: The United States NIAMS database and GBD 2010 skin condition disability data. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): Relationship of NIAMS grant database topic funding with percent total GBD 2010 DALY and DALY rank for 15 skin conditions. RESULTS: During fiscal year 2013, 1,443 NIAMS grants were issued at a total value of $424 million. Of these grants, 17.7% covered skin topics. Of the total skin disease funding, 82% (91 grants) were categorized as "general cutaneous research." Psoriasis, leprosy, and "other skin and subcutaneous diseases" (ie; immunobullous disorders, vitiligo, and hidradenitis suppurativa) were over-represented when funding was compared with disability. Conversely, cellulitis, decubitus ulcer, urticaria, acne vulgaris, viral skin diseases, fungal skin diseases, scabies, and melanoma were under-represented. Conditions for which disability and funding appeared well-matched were dermatitis, squamous and basal cell carcinoma, pruritus, bacterial skin diseases, and alopecia areata. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Degree of representation in NIAMS is partly correlated with DALY metrics. Grant funding was well-matched with disability metrics for five of the 15 studied skin diseases, while two skin diseases were over-represented and seven were under-represented. Global burden estimates provide increasingly transparent and important information for investigating and prioritizing national research funding allocations.

Global burden of skin disease as reflected in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

IMPORTANCE: Research prioritization should be guided by impact of disease. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether systematic reviews and protocol topics in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) reflect disease burden, measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 project. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two investigators independently assessed 15 skin conditions in the CDSR for systematic review and protocol representation from November 1, 2013, to December 6, 2013. The 15 skin diseases were matched to their respective DALYs from GBD 2010. An official publication report of all reviews and protocols published by the Cochrane Skin Group (CSG) was also obtained to ensure that no titles were missed. There were no study participants other than the researchers, who worked with databases evaluating CDSR and GBD 2010 skin condition disability data. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Relationship of CDSR topic coverage (systematic reviews and protocols) with percentage of total 2010 DALYs, 2010 DALY rank, and DALY percentage change from 1990 to 2010 for 15 skin conditions. RESULTS: All 15 skin conditions were represented by at least 1 systematic review in CDSR; 69% of systematic reviews and 67% of protocols by the CSG covered the 15 skin conditions. Comparing the number of reviews/protocols and disability, dermatitis, melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, viral skin diseases, and fungal skin diseases were well matched. Decubitus ulcer, psoriasis, and leprosy demonstrated review/protocol overrepresentation when matched with corresponding DALYs. In comparison, acne vulgaris, bacterial skin diseases, urticaria, pruritus, scabies, cellulitis, and alopecia areata were underrepresented in CDSR when matched with corresponding DALYs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Degree of representation in CDSR is partly correlated with DALY metrics. The number of published reviews/protocols was well matched with disability metrics for 5 of the 15 studied skin diseases, while 3 skin diseases were overrepresented, and 7 were underrepresented. Our results provide high-quality and transparent data to inform future prioritization decisions.

Disability adjusted working life years (DAWLYs) of leprosy affected persons in India.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) have been accepted as a useful method to estimate the burden of disease, and can be adapted to determine the number of productive years lost due to the disability. DALY has been reported for many studies but not for leprosy. Hence this study was carried out in three States of India. In view of the fact that in this study, productive working years are used, the term is modified as DAWLY. METHODS: A representative random sample of 150 leprosy affected persons, 50 from each States of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Chhattisgarh, was chosen, and data were collected on detailed work-life history, occupation, time when leprosy was discovered, reported and treatment started, break of job/loss of income due to leprosy. The loss of wages and durations were used to compute the life-years lost due to leprosy, and summarized over the average total duration of 42 years of productive work-life from 18 to 60 years. The percentage losses were determined and differences tested for statistical significance. RESULTS: The overall mean (± SE) disability adjusted working life years was 28.6 (±0.67), a reduction of 13.4 yr from the ideal productive working life period of 42 yr. The youngest patients with disability had a reduction of 41.4 per cent, as compared to the oldest patients. There was a significant increase in loss based on year for those whose disability started earlier (P=0.0024). INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSIONS: On an average, 30 per cent of the leprosy affected person's work life is lost due to disability.

Measuring the burden of neglected tropical diseases: the global burden of disease framework.

Reliable, comparable information about the main causes of disease and injury in populations, and how these are changing, is a critical input for debates about priorities in the health sector. Traditional sources of information about the descriptive epidemiology of diseases, injuries, and risk factors are generally incomplete, fragmented, and of uncertain reliability and comparability. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study has provided a conceptual and methodological framework to quantify and compare the health of populations using a summary measure of both mortality and disability, the disability-adjusted life year (DALY).This paper describes key features of the Global Burden of Disease analytic approach, which provides a standardized measurement framework to permit comparisons across diseases and injuries, as well as risk factors, and a systematic approach to the evaluation of data. The paper describes the evolution of the GBD, starting from the first study for the year 1990, summarizes the methodological improvements incorporated into GBD revisions for the years 2000-2004 carried out by the World Health Organization, and examines priorities and issues for the next major GBD study, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and commencing in 2007.The paper presents an overview of summary results from the Global Burden of Disease study 2002, with a particular focus on the neglected tropical diseases, and also an overview of the comparative risk assessment for 26 global risk factors. Taken together, trypanosomiasis, Chagas disease, schistosomiasis, leishmaniasis, lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, intestinal nematode infections, Japanese encephalitis, dengue, and leprosy accounted for an estimated 177,000 deaths worldwide in 2002, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, and about 20 million DALYs, or 1.3% of the global burden of disease and injuries. Further research is currently underway to revise and update these estimates.

Anti-social welfare functions: a reply to Hansen et al.

We could reasonably expect society to give at least the same weight to the marginal utility of the poor as to the rich, and to the marginal utility of the ill as compared to the healthy. Whilst Hansen et al. [Journal of Health Economics (2004)], may be said to link CEA and CBA within a welfarist framework, the assumptions they require are inconsistent with these types of ethical preferences. Thus, the degree to which they employ a reasonable social welfare function is doubtful. This paper argues that any link between CEA and CBA will occur not within a welfarist framework but instead within a non-welfarist one in which it is unlikely that CBA results could be easily transformed into cost-effectiveness ratios.