Suchergebnisse

The increasing stroke burden in the world strongly suggests that currently implemented primary stroke prevention strategies are not sufficiently effective, and new effective primary prevention strategies with larger effect size are needed. In this article, we reviewed the latest stroke epidemiology literature with the emphasis on the recent Global Burden of Disease 2013 Study stroke burden estimates from 1990 to 2013, highlight the problems with current primary stroke and cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention strategies, and outline new developments in primary stroke and CVD prevention. We also suggested key priorities for the future, including comprehensive prevention strategies that target people with all levels of CVD risk, implementation of an integrated approach to promote health behaviors and reduce health disparities, capitalizing on information technology to advance prevention approaches and techniques, and incorporation of culturally appropriate education about healthy lifestyle into standard education curricula early in life. Given the already immense and fast increasing burden of stroke and other major noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) which threatens worldwide sustainability, governments could develop and implement an emergency action plan addressing the primary prevention of NCDs.

Stroke is the second leading cause of death and the third leading cause of disability worldwide and its burden is increasing rapidly in low-income and middle-income countries, many of which are unable to face the challenges it imposes. In this Health Policy paper on primary stroke prevention, we provide an overview of the current situation regarding primary prevention services, estimate the cost of stroke and stroke prevention, and identify deficiencies in existing guidelines and gaps in primary prevention. We also offer a set of pragmatic solutions for implementation of primary stroke prevention, with an emphasis on the role of governments and population-wide strategies, including task-shifting and sharing and health system re-engineering. Implementation of primary stroke prevention involves patients, health professionals, funders, policy makers, implementation partners, and the entire population along the life course.

Background: The burden of stroke in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is large and increasing, challenging the already stretched health-care services. Aims and Objectives: To determine the quality of existing stroke-care services in LMICs and to highlight indigenous, inexpensive, evidence-based implementable strategies being used in stroke-care. Methods: A detailed literature search was undertaken using PubMed and Google scholar from January 1966 to October 2015 using a range of search terms. Of 921 publications, 373 papers were shortlisted and 31 articles on existing stroke-services were included. Results: We identified efficient models of ambulance transport and pre-notification. Stroke Units (SU) are available in some countries, but are relatively sparse and mostly provided by the private sector. Very few patients were thrombolysed; this could be increased with telemedicine and governmental subsidies. Adherence to secondary preventive drugs is affected by limited availability and affordability, emphasizing the importance of primary prevention. Training of paramedics, care-givers and nurses in post-stroke care is feasible. Conclusion: In this systematic review, we found several reports on evidence-based implementable stroke services in LMICs. Some strategies are economic, feasible and reproducible but remain untested. Data on their outcomes and sustainability is limited. Further research on implementation of locally and regionally adapted stroke-services and cost-effective secondary prevention programs should be a priority.

Stroke is the second leading cause of death and the third leading cause of disability worldwide and its burden is increasing rapidly in low-income and middle-income countries, many of which are unable to face the challenges it imposes. In this Health Policy paper on primary stroke prevention, we provide an overview of the current situation regarding primary prevention services, estimate the cost of stroke and stroke prevention, and identify deficiencies in existing guidelines and gaps in primary prevention. We also offer a set of pragmatic solutions for implementation of primary stroke prevention, with an emphasis on the role of governments and population-wide strategies, including task-shifting and sharing and health system re-engineering. Implementation of primary stroke prevention involves patients, health professionals, funders, policy makers, implementation partners, and the entire population along the life course.

Background and purposeThe aim of the Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke.MethodsPreliminary work was performed by seven working groups of stroke leaders followed by a synergium (a forum for working synergistically together) with approximately 100 additional participants. The resulting draft document had further input from contributors outside the synergium.ResultsRecommendations of the Synergium are: Basic Science, Drug Development and Technology: There is a need to develop: (1) New systems of working together to break down the prevalent 'silo' mentality; (2) New models of vertically integrated basic, clinical, and epidemiological disciplines; and (3) Efficient methods of identifying other relevant areas of science. Stroke Prevention: (1) Establish a global chronic disease prevention initiative with stroke as a major focus. (2) Recognize not only abrupt clinical stroke, but subtle subclinical stroke, the commonest type of cerebrovascular disease, leading to impairments of executive function. (3) Develop, implement and evaluate a population approach for stroke prevention. (4) Develop public health communication strategies using traditional and novel (eg, social media/marketing) techniques. Acute Stroke Management: Continue the establishment of stroke centers, stroke units, regional systems of emergency stroke care and telestroke networks. Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation: (1) Translate best neuroscience, including animal and human studies, into poststroke recovery research and clinical care. (2) Standardize poststroke rehabilitation based on best evidence. (3) Develop consensus on, then implementation of, standardized clinical and surrogate assessments. (4) Carry out rigorous clinical research to advance stroke recovery. Into the 21st Century: Web, Technology and Communications: (1) Work toward global unrestricted access to stroke-related information. (2) Build centralized electronic archives and registries. Foster Cooperation Among Stakeholders (large stroke organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, patient organizations and industry) to enhance stroke care. Educate and energize professionals, patients, the public and policy makers by using a 'Brain Health' concept that enables promotion of preventive measures.ConclusionsTo accelerate progress in stroke, we must reach beyond the current status scientifically, conceptually, and pragmatically. Advances can be made not only by doing, but ceasing to do. Significant savings in time, money, and effort could result from discontinuing practices driven by unsubstantiated opinion, unproven approaches, and financial gain. Systematic integration of knowledge into programs coupled with careful evaluation can speed the pace of progress.

The aim of the Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke.Preliminary work was performed by 7 working groups of stroke leaders followed by a synergium (a forum for working synergistically together) with approximately 100 additional participants. The resulting draft document had further input from contributors outside the synergium.Recommendations of the Synergium are: Basic Science, Drug Development and Technology: There is a need to develop: (1) New systems of working together to break down the prevalent "silo" mentality; (2) New models of vertically integrated basic, clinical, and epidemiological disciplines; and (3) Efficient methods of identifying other relevant areas of science. Stroke Prevention: (1) Establish a global chronic disease prevention initiative with stroke as a major focus. (2) Recognize not only abrupt clinical stroke, but subtle subclinical stroke, the commonest type of cerebrovascular disease, leading to impairments of executive function. (3) Develop, implement and evaluate a population approach for stroke prevention. (4) Develop public health communication strategies using traditional and novel (eg, social media/marketing) techniques. Acute Stroke Management: Continue the establishment of stroke centers, stroke units, regional systems of emergency stroke care and telestroke networks. Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation: (1) Translate best neuroscience, including animal and human studies, into poststroke recovery research and clinical care. (2) Standardize poststroke rehabilitation based on best evidence. (3) Develop consensus on, then implementation of, standardized clinical and surrogate assessments. (4) Carry out rigorous clinical research to advance stroke recovery. Into the 21st Century: Web, Technology and Communications: (1) Work toward global unrestricted access to stroke-related information. (2) Build centralized electronic archives and registries. Foster Cooperation Among Stakeholders (large stroke organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, patient organizations and industry) to enhance stroke care. Educate and energize professionals, patients, the public and policy makers by using a "Brain Health" concept that enables promotion of preventive measures.To accelerate progress in stroke, we must reach beyond the current status scientifically, conceptually, and pragmatically. Advances can be made not only by doing, but ceasing to do. Significant savings in time, money, and effort could result from discontinuing practices driven by unsubstantiated opinion, unproven approaches, and financial gain. Systematic integration of knowledge into programs coupled with careful evaluation can speed the pace of progress.

Background and purposeThe aim of the Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke.MethodsPreliminary work was performed by 7 working groups of stroke leaders followed by a synergium (a forum for working synergistically together) with approximately 100 additional participants. The resulting draft document had further input from contributors outside the synergium.ResultsRecommendations of the Synergium are: Basic Science, Drug Development and Technology: There is a need to develop: (1) New systems of working together to break down the prevalent 'silo' mentality; (2) New models of vertically integrated basic, clinical, and epidemiological disciplines; and (3) Efficient methods of identifying other relevant areas of science. Stroke Prevention: (1) Establish a global chronic disease prevention initiative with stroke as a major focus. (2) Recognize not only abrupt clinical stroke, but subtle subclinical stroke, the commonest type of cerebrovascular disease, leading to impairments of executive function. (3) Develop, implement and evaluate a population approach for stroke prevention. (4) Develop public health communication strategies using traditional and novel (e.g., social media/marketing) techniques. Acute Stroke Management: Continue the establishment of stroke centers, stroke units, regional systems of emergency stroke care and telestroke networks. Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation: (1) Translate best neuroscience, including animal and human studies, into poststroke recovery research and clinical care. (2) Standardize poststroke rehabilitation based on best evidence. (3) Develop consensus on, then implementation of, standardized clinical and surrogate assessments. (4) Carry out rigorous clinical research to advance stroke recovery. Into the 21st Century: Web, Technology and Communications: (1) Work toward global unrestricted access to stroke-related information. (2) Build centralized electronic archives and registries. Foster Cooperation Among Stakeholders (large stroke organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, patient organizations and industry) to enhance stroke care. Educate and energize professionals, patients, the public and policy makers by using a 'Brain Health' concept that enables promotion of preventive measures.ConclusionsTo accelerate progress in stroke, we must reach beyond the current status scientifically, conceptually, and pragmatically. Advances can be made not only by doing, but ceasing to do. Significant savings in time, money, and effort could result from discontinuing practices driven by unsubstantiated opinion, unproven approaches, and financial gain. Systematic integration of knowledge into programs coupled with careful evaluation can speed the pace of progress.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of the Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke. METHODS: Preliminary work was performed by 7 working groups of stroke leaders followed by a synergium (a forum for working synergistically together) with approximately 100 additional participants. The resulting draft document had further input from contributors outside the synergium. RESULTS: Recommendations of the Synergium are: Basic Science, Drug Development and Technology: There is a need to develop: (1) New systems of working together to break down the prevalent 'silo' mentality; (2) New models of vertically integrated basic, clinical, and epidemiological disciplines; and (3) Efficient methods of identifying other relevant areas of science. Stroke Prevention: (1) Establish a global chronic disease prevention initiative with stroke as a major focus. (2) Recognize not only abrupt clinical stroke, but subtle subclinical stroke, the commonest type of cerebrovascular disease, leading to impairments of executive function. (3) Develop, implement and evaluate a population approach for stroke prevention. (4) Develop public health communication strategies using traditional and novel (e.g., social media/marketing) techniques. Acute Stroke Management: Continue the establishment of stroke centers, stroke units, regional systems of emergency stroke care and telestroke networks. Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation: (1) Translate best neuroscience, including animal and human studies, into poststroke recovery research and clinical care. (2) Standardize poststroke rehabilitation based on best evidence. (3) Develop consensus on, then implementation of, standardized clinical and surrogate assessments. (4) Carry out rigorous clinical research to advance stroke recovery. Into the 21st Century: Web, Technology and Communications: (1) Work toward global unrestricted access to stroke-related information. (2) Build centralized electronic archives and registries. Foster Cooperation Among Stakeholders (large stroke organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, patient organizations and industry) to enhance stroke care. Educate and energize professionals, patients, the public and policy makers by using a 'Brain Health' concept that enables promotion of preventive measures. CONCLUSIONS: To accelerate progress in stroke, we must reach beyond the current status scientifically, conceptually, and pragmatically. Advances can be made not only by doing, but ceasing to do. Significant savings in time, money, and effort could result from discontinuing practices driven by unsubstantiated opinion, unproven approaches, and financial gain. Systematic integration of knowledge into programs coupled with careful evaluation can speed the pace of progress.

The aim of the Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke.Preliminary work was performed by seven working groups of stroke leaders followed by a synergium (a forum for working synergistically together) with approximately 100 additional participants. The resulting draft document had further input from contributors outside the synergium.Recommendations of the Synergium are: Basic Science, Drug Development and Technology: There is a need to develop: (1) New systems of working together to break down the prevalent 'silo' mentality; (2) New models of vertically integrated basic, clinical, and epidemiological disciplines; and (3) Efficient methods of identifying other relevant areas of science. Stroke Prevention: (1) Establish a global chronic disease prevention initiative with stroke as a major focus. (2) Recognize not only abrupt clinical stroke, but subtle subclinical stroke, the commonest type of cerebrovascular disease, leading to impairments of executive function. (3) Develop, implement and evaluate a population approach for stroke prevention. (4) Develop public health communication strategies using traditional and novel (eg, social media/marketing) techniques. Acute Stroke Management: Continue the establishment of stroke centers, stroke units, regional systems of emergency stroke care and telestroke networks. Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation: (1) Translate best neuroscience, including animal and human studies, into poststroke recovery research and clinical care. (2) Standardize poststroke rehabilitation based on best evidence. (3) Develop consensus on, then implementation of, standardized clinical and surrogate assessments. (4) Carry out rigorous clinical research to advance stroke recovery. Into the 21st Century: Web, Technology and Communications: (1) Work toward global unrestricted access to stroke-related information. (2) Build centralized electronic archives and registries. Foster Cooperation Among Stakeholders (large stroke organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, patient organizations and industry) to enhance stroke care. Educate and energize professionals, patients, the public and policy makers by using a 'Brain Health' concept that enables promotion of preventive measures.To accelerate progress in stroke, we must reach beyond the current status scientifically, conceptually, and pragmatically. Advances can be made not only by doing, but ceasing to do. Significant savings in time, money, and effort could result from discontinuing practices driven by unsubstantiated opinion, unproven approaches, and financial gain. Systematic integration of knowledge into programs coupled with careful evaluation can speed the pace of progress.

Background and purposeThe aim of the Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke.MethodsPreliminary work was performed by 7 working groups of stroke leaders followed by a synergium (a forum for working synergistically together) with approximately 100 additional participants. The resulting draft document had further input from contributors outside the synergium.ResultsRecommendations of the Synergium are: Basic Science, Drug Development and Technology: There is a need to develop: (1) New systems of working together to break down the prevalent "silo" mentality; (2) New models of vertically integrated basic, clinical, and epidemiological disciplines; and (3) Efficient methods of identifying other relevant areas of science. Stroke Prevention: (1) Establish a global chronic disease prevention initiative with stroke as a major focus. (2) Recognize not only abrupt clinical stroke, but subtle subclinical stroke, the commonest type of cerebrovascular disease, leading to impairments of executive function. (3) Develop, implement and evaluate a population approach for stroke prevention. (4) Develop public health communication strategies using traditional and novel (eg, social media/marketing) techniques. Acute Stroke Management: Continue the establishment of stroke centers, stroke units, regional systems of emergency stroke care and telestroke networks. Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation: (1) Translate best neuroscience, including animal and human studies, into poststroke recovery research and clinical care. (2) Standardize poststroke rehabilitation based on best evidence. (3) Develop consensus on, then implementation of, standardized clinical and surrogate assessments. (4) Carry out rigorous clinical research to advance stroke recovery. Into the 21st Century: Web, Technology and Communications: (1) Work toward global unrestricted access to stroke-related information. (2) Build centralized electronic archives and registries. Foster Cooperation Among Stakeholders (large stroke organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, patient organizations and industry) to enhance stroke care. Educate and energize professionals, patients, the public and policy makers by using a "Brain Health" concept that enables promotion of preventive measures.ConclusionsTo accelerate progress in stroke, we must reach beyond the current status scientifically, conceptually, and pragmatically. Advances can be made not only by doing, but ceasing to do. Significant savings in time, money, and effort could result from discontinuing practices driven by unsubstantiated opinion, unproven approaches, and financial gain. Systematic integration of knowledge into programs coupled with careful evaluation can speed the pace of progress.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Polymorphisms in coagulation genes have been associated with early-onset ischemic stroke. Here we pursue an a priori hypothesis that genetic variation in the endothelial-based receptors of the thrombomodulin-protein C system (THBD and PROCR) may similarly be associated with early-onset ischemic stroke. We explored this hypothesis utilizing a multi-stage design of discovery and replication. METHODS: Discovery was performed in the Genetics-of-Early-Onset Stroke (GEOS) Study, a biracial population-based case-control study of ischemic stroke among men and women aged 15-49 including 829 cases of first ischemic stroke (42.2% African-American) and 850 age-comparable stroke-free controls (38.1% African-American). Twenty-four single-nucleotide-polymorphisms (SNPs) in THBD and 22 SNPs in PROCR were evaluated. Following LD pruning (r2≥0.8), we advanced uncorrelated SNPs forward for association analyses. Associated SNPs were evaluated for replication in an early-onset ischemic stroke population (onset-age<60 years) consisting of 3676 cases and 21118 non-stroke controls from 6 case-control studies. Lastly, we determined if the replicated SNPs also associated with older-onset ischemic stroke in the METASTROKE data-base. RESULTS: Among GEOS Caucasians, PROCR rs9574, which was in strong LD with 8 other SNPs, and one additional independent SNP rs2069951, were significantly associated with ischemic stroke (rs9574, OR = 1.33, p = 0.003; rs2069951, OR = 1.80, p = 0.006) using an additive-model adjusting for age, gender and population-structure. Adjusting for risk factors did not change the associations; however, associations were strengthened among those without risk factors. PROCR rs9574 also associated with early-onset ischemic stroke in the replication sample (OR = 1.08, p = 0.015), but not older-onset stroke. There were no PROCR associations in African-Americans, nor were there any THBD associations in either ethnicity. CONCLUSION: PROCR polymorphisms are associated with early-onset ischemic stroke in Caucasians. ; This study was supported in part by NIH grants U01 NS069208, R01 NS100178, and R01 NS105150; an Epidemiology of Aging Training Program Grant, NIH/NIA T32 AG000262; the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the American Heart Association Cardiovascular Genome-Phenome Study (grant# 15GPSPG23770000), and an American Heart Association Discovery Grant supported by Bayer Group (grant# 17IBDG33700328). Further details regarding the data collection, organization, funding and relationships between METASTROKE and the other studies involved can be found below. Genetics of Early Onset Stroke (GEOS) Study (Baltimore, USA): GWAS data for the GEOS Study was supported by the National Institutes of Health Genes, Environment and Health Initiative (GEI) grant U01 HG004436, as part of the GENEVA consortium under GEI, with additional support provided by the Mid-Atlantic Nutrition and Obesity Research Center (P30 DK072488); and the Office of Research and Development, Medical Research Service, and the Baltimore Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Center of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Genotyping services were provided by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR), which is fully funded through a federal contract from the National Institutes of Health to the Johns Hopkins University (contract number HHSN268200782096C). Assistance with data cleaning was provided by the GENEVA Coordinating Center (U01 HG 004446; PI Bruce S Weir). Study recruitment and collection of datasets were supported by a cooperative agreement with the Division of Adult and Community Health, Centers for Disease Control and by grants from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health (R01 NS45012, U01 NS069208-01). METASTROKE: METASTROKE is a collaboration of numerous international studies with the aim of validating associations from previous GWAS and identifying novel genetic associations through meta-analysis of GWAS datasets for ischemic stroke and its subtypes. Included studies are as follows: ASGC: Australian population control data were derived from the Hunter Community Study. We also thank the University of Newcastle for funding and the men and women of the Hunter region who participated in this study. This research was funded by grants from the Australian National and Medical Health Research Council (NHMRC Project Grant ID: 569257), the Australian National Heart Foundation (NHF Project Grant ID: G 04S 1623), the University of Newcastle, the Gladys M Brawn Fellowship scheme, and the Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation in Australia. Elizabeth G Holliday was supported by a Fellowship from the National Heart Foundation and National Stroke Foundation of Australia (ID: 100071). BRAINS: Bio-Repository of DNA in Stroke (BRAINS) is partly funded by a Senior Fellowship from the Department of Health (UK) to P Sharma, the Henry Smith Charity and the UK-India Education Research Institutive (UKIERI) from the British Council. HPS: Heart Protection Study (HPS) (ISRCTN48489393) was supported by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC), British Heart Foundation, Merck and Co (manufacturers of simvastatin), and Roche Vitamins Ltd (manufacturers of vitamins). Genotyping was supported by a grant to Oxford University and CNG from Merck and Co. Jemma C Hopewell acknowledges support from the British Heart Foundation (FS/14/55/30806). ISGS: Ischemic Stroke Genetics Study (ISGS)/Siblings With Ischemic Stroke Study (SWISS) was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIA, NIH project Z01 AG-000954-06. ISGS/SWISS used samples and clinical data from the NIH-NINDS Human Genetics Resource Center DNA and Cell Line Repository (http://ccr.coriell.org/ninds), human subjects protocol numbers 2003-081 and 2004-147. ISGS/SWISS used stroke-free participants from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA) as controls. The inclusion of BLSA samples was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIA, NIH project Z01 AG-000015-50, human subjects protocol number 2003-078. The ISGS study was funded by NIH-NINDS grant R01 NS-42733 (JF Meschia). The SWISS study was funded by NIH-NINDS grant R01 NS-39987 (J F Meschia). This study used the high-performance computational capabilities of the Biowulf Linux cluster at the NIH (http://biowulf.nih.gov). MGH-GASROS: MGH Genes Affecting Stroke Risk and Outcome Study (MGH-GASROS) was supported by NINDS (U01 NS069208), the American Heart Association/Bugher Foundation Centers for Stroke Prevention Research 0775010N, the NIH and NHLBI's STAMPEED genomics research program (R01 HL087676), and a grant from the National Center for Research Resources. The Broad Institute Center for Genotyping and Analysis is supported by grant U54 RR020278 from the National Center for Research resources. MILANO: Milano - Besta Stroke Register Collection and genotyping of the Milan cases within CEDIR were supported by the Italian Ministry of Health (grant numbers: RC 2007/LR6, RC 2008/LR6; RC 2009/LR8; RC 2010/LR8; GR-2011-02347041). FP6 LSHM-CT-2007-037273 for the PROCARDIS control samples. WTCCC2: Wellcome Trust Case-Control Consortium 2 (WTCCC2) was principally funded by the Wellcome Trust, as part of the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 2 project (085475/B/08/Z and 085475/Z/08/Z and WT084724MA). The Stroke Association provided additional support for collection of some of the St George's, London cases. The Oxford cases were collected as part of the Oxford Vascular Study which is funded by the MRC, Stroke Association, Dunhill Medical Trust, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford. The Edinburgh Stroke Study was supported by the Wellcome Trust (clinician scientist award to C Sudlow), and the Binks Trust. Sample processing occurred in the Genetics Core Laboratory of the Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh. Much of the neuroimaging occurred in the Scottish Funding Council Brain Imaging Research Centre (www.sbirc.ed.ac.uk), Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, a core area of the Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility and part of the SINAPSE (Scottish Imaging Network—A Platform for Scientific Excellence) collaboration (www.sinapse.ac.uk), funded by the Scottish Funding Council and the Chief Scientist Office. Collection of the Munich cases and data analysis was supported by the Vascular Dementia Research Foundation. M Farrall and A Helgadottir acknowledge support from the BHF Centre of Research Excellence in Oxford and the Wellcome Trust core award (090532/Z/09/Z). VISP: The GWAS component of the Vitamin Intervention for Stroke Prevention (VISP) study was supported by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), grant U01 HG005160 (PI Michèle Sale & Bradford Worrall), as part of the Genomics and Randomized Trials Network (GARNET). Genotyping services were provided by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR), which is fully funded through a federal contract from the NIH to the Johns Hopkins University. Assistance with data cleaning was provided by the GARNET Coordinating Center (U01 HG005157; PI Bruce S Weir). Study recruitment and collection of datasets for the VISP clinical trial were supported by an investigator-initiated research grant (R01 NS34447; PI James Toole) from the United States Public Health Service, NINDS, Bethesda, Maryland. Control data obtained through the database of genotypes and phenotypes (dbGAP) maintained and supported by the United States National Center for Biotechnology Information, US National Library of Medicine. WHI: Funding support for WHI-GARNET was provided through the NHGRI GARNET (Grant Number U01 HG005152). Assistance with phenotype harmonisation and genotype cleaning, as well as with general study coordination, was provided by the GARNET Coordinating Center (U01 HG005157). Funding support for genotyping, which was performed at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, was provided by the NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI; U01 HG004424). SiGN: The Stroke Genetics Network (SiGN) study was funded by a cooperative agreement grant from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) U01 NS069208. Genotyping services were provided by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR), which is fully funded through a federal contract from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to the Johns Hopkins University (contract no. HHSN268200782096C). The Biostatistics Department Genetics Coordinating Center at the University of Washington (Seattle) provided more extensive quality control of the genotype data through a subcontract with CIDR. Additional support to the Administrative Core of SiGN was provided by the Dean's Office, University of Maryland School of Medicine. This work was supported by grants received from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the context of the e:Med program (e:AtheroSysMed), the FP7 European Union project CVgenes@target (261123), the DFG as part of the CRC 1123 (B3), the Corona Foundation and the Fondation Leducq (Transatlantic Network of Excellence on the Pathogenesis of Small Vessel Disease of the Brain).

Background: Neurological disorders are increasingly recognised as major causes of death and disability worldwide. The aim of this analysis from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 is to provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date estimates of the global, regional, and national burden from neurological disorders. Methods: We estimated prevalence, incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; the sum of years of life lost [YLLs] and years lived with disability [YLDs]) by age and sex for 15 neurological disorder categories (tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, stroke, brain and other CNS cancers, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron diseases, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine, tension-type headache, and a residual category for other less common neurological disorders) in 195 countries from 1990 to 2016. DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, was the main method of estimation of prevalence and incidence, and the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) was used for mortality estimation. We quantified the contribution of 84 risks and combinations of risk to the disease estimates for the 15 neurological disorder categories using the GBD comparative risk assessment approach. Findings: Globally, in 2016, neurological disorders were the leading cause of DALYs (276 million [95% UI 247–308]) and second leading cause of deaths (9·0 million [8·8–9·4]). The absolute number of deaths and DALYs from all neurological disorders combined increased (deaths by 39% [34–44] and DALYs by 15% [9–21]) whereas their age-standardised rates decreased (deaths by 28% [26–30] and DALYs by 27% [24–31]) between 1990 and 2016. The only neurological disorders that had a decrease in rates and absolute numbers of deaths and DALYs were tetanus, meningitis, and encephalitis. The four largest contributors of neurological DALYs were stroke (42·2% [38·6–46·1]), migraine (16·3% [11·7–20·8]), Alzheimer's and other dementias (10·4% [9·0–12·1]), and meningitis (7·9% [6·6–10·4]). For the combined neurological disorders, age-standardised DALY rates were significantly higher in males than in females (male-to-female ratio 1·12 [1·05–1·20]), but migraine, multiple sclerosis, and tension-type headache were more common and caused more burden in females, with male-to-female ratios of less than 0·7. The 84 risks quantified in GBD explain less than 10% of neurological disorder DALY burdens, except stroke, for which 88·8% (86·5–90·9) of DALYs are attributable to risk factors, and to a lesser extent Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (22·3% [11·8–35·1] of DALYs are risk attributable) and idiopathic epilepsy (14·1% [10·8–17·5] of DALYs are risk attributable). Interpretation: Globally, the burden of neurological disorders, as measured by the absolute number of DALYs, continues to increase. As populations are growing and ageing, and the prevalence of major disabling neurological disorders steeply increases with age, governments will face increasing demand for treatment, rehabilitation, and support services for neurological disorders. The scarcity of established modifiable risks for most of the neurological burden demonstrates that new knowledge is required to develop effective prevention and treatment strategies. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Background Neurological disorders are increasingly recognised as major causes of death and disability worldwide. The aim of this analysis from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 is to provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date estimates of the global, regional, and national burden from neurological disorders. Methods We estimated prevalence, incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; the sum of years of life lost [YLLs] and years lived with disability [YLDs]) by age and sex for 15 neurological disorder categories (tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, stroke, brain and other CNS cancers, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron diseases, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine, tension-type headache, and a residual category for other less common neurological disorders) in 195 countries from 1990 to 2016. DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, was the main method of estimation of prevalence and incidence, and the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) was used for mortality estimation. We quantified the contribution of 84 risks and combinations of risk to the disease estimates for the 15 neurological disorder categories using the GBD comparative risk assessment approach. Findings Globally, in 2016, neurological disorders were the leading cause of DALYs (276 million [95% UI 247-308]) and second leading cause of deaths (9.0 million [8.8-9.4]). The absolute number of deaths and DALYs from all neurological disorders combined increased (deaths by 39% [34-44] and DALYs by 15% [9-21]) whereas their age-standardised rates decreased (deaths by 28% [26-30] and DALYs by 27% [24-31]) between 1990 and 2016. The only neurological disorders that had a decrease in rates and absolute numbers of deaths and DALYs were tetanus, meningitis, and encephalitis. The four largest contributors of neurological DALYs were stroke (42.2% [38.6-46.1]), migraine (16.3% [11.7-20.8]), Alzheimer's and other dementias (10.4% [9.0-124]), and meningitis (7.9% [6.6-10.4]). For the combined neurological disorders, age-standardised DALY rates were significantly higher in males than in females (male-to-female ratio 1.12 [1.05-1.20]), but migraine, multiple sclerosis, and tension-type headache were more common and caused more burden in females, with male-to-female ratios of less than 0.7. The 84 risks quantified in GBD explain less than 10% of neurological disorder DALY burdens, except stroke, for which 88.8% (86.5-90.9) of DALYs are attributable to risk factors, and to a lesser extent Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (22.3% [11.8-35.1] of DALYs are risk attributable) and idiopathic epilepsy (14.1% [10.8-17.5] of DALYs are risk attributable). Interpretation Globally, the burden of neurological disorders, as measured by the absolute number of DALYs, continues to increase. As populations are growing and ageing, and the prevalence of major disabling neurological disorders steeply increases with age, governments will face increasing demand for treatment, rehabilitation, and support services for neurological disorders. The scarcity of established modifiable risks for most of the neurological burden demonstrates that new knowledge is required to develop effective prevention and treatment strategies. Copyright (C) The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Publisher´s version (útgefin grein). ; Background Neurological disorders are increasingly recognised as major causes of death and disability worldwide. The aim of this analysis from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 is to provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date estimates of the global, regional, and national burden from neurological disorders.Methods We estimated prevalence, incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; the sum of years of life lost [YLLs] and years lived with disability [YLDs]) by age and sex for 15 neurological disorder categories (tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, stroke, brain and other CNS cancers, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron diseases, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine, tension-type headache, and a residual category for other less common neurological disorders) in 195 countries from 1990 to 2016. DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, was the main method of estimation of prevalence and incidence, and the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) was used for mortality estimation. We quantified the contribution of 84 risks and combinations of risk to the disease estimates for the 15 neurological disorder categories using the GBD comparative risk assessment approach.Findings Globally, in 2016, neurological disorders were the leading cause of DALYs (276 million [95% UI 247–308]) and second leading cause of deaths (9·0 million [8·8–9·4]). The absolute number of deaths and DALYs from all neurological disorders combined increased (deaths by 39% [34–44] and DALYs by 15% [9–21]) whereas their age-standardised rates decreased (deaths by 28% [26–30] and DALYs by 27% [24–31]) between 1990 and 2016. The only neurological disorders that had a decrease in rates and absolute numbers of deaths and DALYs were tetanus, meningitis, and encephalitis. The four largest contributors of neurological DALYs were stroke (42·2% [38·6–46·1]), migraine (16·3% [11·7–20·8]), Alzheimer's and other dementias (10·4% [9·0–12·1]), and meningitis (7·9% [6·6–10·4]). For the combined neurological disorders, age-standardised DALY rates were significantly higher in males than in females (male-to-female ratio 1·12 [1·05–1·20]), but migraine, multiple sclerosis, and tension-type headache were more common and caused more burden in females, with male-to-female ratios of less than 0·7. The 84 risks quantified in GBD explain less than 10% of neurological disorder DALY burdens, except stroke, for which 88·8% (86·5–90·9) of DALYs are attributable to risk factors, and to a lesser extent Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (22·3% [11·8–35·1] of DALYs are risk attributable) and idiopathic epilepsy (14·1% [10·8–17·5] of DALYs are risk attributable).Interpretation Globally, the burden of neurological disorders, as measured by the absolute number of DALYs, continues to increase. As populations are growing and ageing, and the prevalence of major disabling neurological disorders steeply increases with age, governments will face increasing demand for treatment, rehabilitation, and support services for neurological disorders. The scarcity of established modifiable risks for most of the neurological burden demonstrates that new knowledge is required to develop effective prevention and treatment strategies. ; ROA is funded by the National Institutes of Health (U01HG010273). SMA acknowledges the International Centre for Casemix and Clinical Coding, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia and Department of Health Policy and Management, Faculty of Public Health, Kuwait University for the approval and support to participate in this research project. AAw acknowledges funding support from Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi, through INSPIRE Faculty scheme. TBA acknowledges partial funding from the Institute of Medical Research and Medicinal Plant Studies. ABa is supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada. TWB was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through the Alexander von Humboldt Professor Award, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. MSBS acknowledges support from the Australian Government Research and Training Program scholarship for a PhD degree at the Australian National University, Australia. JJC is supported by the Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation. FCar is supported by the European Union (FEDER funds POCI/01/0145/FEDER/007728 and POCI/01/0145/FEDER/007265) and National Funds (FCT/MEC, Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia and Ministerio da Educacao e Ciencia) under the Partnership Agreements PT2020 UID/MULTI/04378/2013 and PT2020UID/QUI/50006/2013. EC is supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT3 140100085). KD is supported by a Wellcome Trust [Grant Number 201900] as part of his International Intermediate Fellowship. EF is supported by the European Union (FEDER funds POCI/01/0145/FEDER/007728 and POCI/01/0145/FEDER/007265) and National Funds (FCT/MEC, Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia and Ministerio da Educacao e Ciencia) under the Partnership Agreements PT2020 UID/MULTI/04378/2013 and PT2020UID/QUI/50006/2013. SMSI is funded by the Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University and received funding from High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia. YKa is a DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance Fellow in Public Health. YJK is supported by the Office of Research and Innovation at Xiamen University Malaysia. BL acknowledges funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. WDL is supported in part by U10NS086484 NINDS. SLo is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (nutriCARD, grant agreement number 01EA1411A). RML is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia Senior Research Fellowship. AMa and the Imperial College London are grateful for support from the NW London NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. JJM is supported by the Danish National Research Foundation (Niels Bohr Professorship), and the John Cade Fellowship (APP1056929) from NHMRC. TMei acknowledges additional institutional support from the Competence Cluster for Nutrition and Cardiovascular Health (nutriCARD), Jena-Halle-Leipzig. IMV is supported by the Sistema Nacional de Investigacion (Panama). MOO is supported by SIREN U54 U54HG007479 and SIBS Genomics R01NS107900 grants. AMS was supported by a fellowship from the Egyptian Fulbright Mission Program. MMSM acknowledges the support from the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia (contract no 175087). AShe is supported by Health Data Research UK. MBS' work on traumatic brain injury is supported by grants NIH U01 NS086090 (PI G Manley) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and DoD W81XWH-14-2-0176 (PI G Manley) from the United States Department of Defense. RTS is supported in part by grant number PROMETEOII/2015/021 from Generalitat Valenciana and the national grant PI17/00719 from ISCIIIFEDER. AGT was supported by a Fellowship from the NHMRC (Australia; 1042600. KBT acknowledges funding supports from the Maurice Wilkins Centre for Biodiscovery, Cancer Society of New Zealand, Health Research Council, Gut Cancer Foundation, and the University of Auckland. CY acknowledges support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81773552) and the Chinese NSFC International Cooperation and Exchange Program (grant number 71661167007). ; "Peer Reviewed"

BACKGROUND: Neurological disorders are increasingly recognised as major causes of death and disability worldwide. The aim of this analysis from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 is to provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date estimates of the global, regional, and national burden from neurological disorders. METHODS: We estimated prevalence, incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; the sum of years of life lost [YLLs] and years lived with disability [YLDs]) by age and sex for 15 neurological disorder categories (tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, stroke, brain and other CNS cancers, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron diseases, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine, tension-type headache, and a residual category for other less common neurological disorders) in 195 countries from 1990 to 2016. DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, was the main method of estimation of prevalence and incidence, and the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) was used for mortality estimation. We quantified the contribution of 84 risks and combinations of risk to the disease estimates for the 15 neurological disorder categories using the GBD comparative risk assessment approach. FINDINGS: Globally, in 2016, neurological disorders were the leading cause of DALYs (276 million [95% UI 247-308]) and second leading cause of deaths (9·0 million [8·8-9·4]). The absolute number of deaths and DALYs from all neurological disorders combined increased (deaths by 39% [34-44] and DALYs by 15% [9-21]) whereas their age-standardised rates decreased (deaths by 28% [26-30] and DALYs by 27% [24-31]) between 1990 and 2016. The only neurological disorders that had a decrease in rates and absolute numbers of deaths and DALYs were tetanus, meningitis, and encephalitis. The four largest contributors of neurological DALYs were stroke (42·2% [38·6-46·1]), migraine (16·3% [11·7-20·8]), Alzheimer's and other dementias (10·4% [9·0-12·1]), and meningitis (7·9% [6·6-10·4]). For the combined neurological disorders, age-standardised DALY rates were significantly higher in males than in females (male-to-female ratio 1·12 [1·05-1·20]), but migraine, multiple sclerosis, and tension-type headache were more common and caused more burden in females, with male-to-female ratios of less than 0·7. The 84 risks quantified in GBD explain less than 10% of neurological disorder DALY burdens, except stroke, for which 88·8% (86·5-90·9) of DALYs are attributable to risk factors, and to a lesser extent Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (22·3% [11·8-35·1] of DALYs are risk attributable) and idiopathic epilepsy (14·1% [10·8-17·5] of DALYs are risk attributable). INTERPRETATION: Globally, the burden of neurological disorders, as measured by the absolute number of DALYs, continues to increase. As populations are growing and ageing, and the prevalence of major disabling neurological disorders steeply increases with age, governments will face increasing demand for treatment, rehabilitation, and support services for neurological disorders. The scarcity of established modifiable risks for most of the neurological burden demonstrates that new knowledge is required to develop effective prevention and treatment strategies. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. ; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. ; Sí