The Lancet
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00257-9
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P445, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
William W Huang,Steven R Feldman
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00269-5
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P446-448, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Zulfiqar A Bhutta,Michelle F Gaffey,Paul B Spiegel,Ronald J Waldman,Paul H Wise,Karl Blanchet,Ties Boerma,Ana Langer,Robert E Black
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00127-6
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P448-450, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Helen Clark
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00137-9
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P450-452, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Ester C Sabino,Lewis F Buss,Maria P S Carvalho,Carlos A Prete Jr,Myuki A E Crispim,Nelson A Fraiji,Rafael H M Pereira,Kris V Parag,Pedro da Silva Peixoto,Moritz U G Kraemer,Marcio K Oikawa,Tassila Salomon,Zulma M Cucunuba,M?rcia C Castro,Andreza Aruska de Souza Santos,V?tor H Nascimento,Henrique S Pereira,Neil M Ferguson,Oliver G Pybus,Adam Kucharski,Michael P Busch,Christopher Dye,Nuno R Faria
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00183-5
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P452-455, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Robin Gorna,Nathalie MacDermott,Clare Rayner,Margaret O’Hara,Sophie Evans,Lisa Agyen,Will Nutland,Natalie Rogers,Claire Hastie
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32705-7
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P455-457, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Richard Horton
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00309-3
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P458, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
John Zarocostas
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00295-6
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P459, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Udani Samarasekera
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00296-8
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P460, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Jacqui Thornton
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00297-X
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P461, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Talha Burki
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00298-1
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P462, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Richard Lane
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00253-1
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P463, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Sarah Ditum
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00254-3
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P464-465, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Neil Francey
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00255-5
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P466-467, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Andrew Green
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00256-7
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P468, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Viola Priesemann,Rudi Balling,Melanie M Brinkmann,Sandra Ciesek,Thomas Czypionka,Isabella Eckerle,Giulia Giordano,Claudia Hanson,Zdenek Hel,Pirta Hotulainen,Peter Klimek,Armin Nassehi,Andreas Peichl,Matjaz Perc,Elena Petelos,Barbara Prainsack,Ewa Szczurek
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00150-1
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P469-470, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
R H Behrens,Vipul Patel
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00192-6
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P471, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Mary J Warrell
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00220-8
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P471-472, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Rob Yates
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00225-7
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P472, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Michelle M Amri
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32383-7
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P472-473, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Jordan D Jarvis,Belinda Townsend
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32382-5
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P473-474, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Gene Bukhman,Ana Mocumbi
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32389-8
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P474, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00259-2
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P474, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Kenneth B Gordon,Peter Foley,James G Krueger,Andreas Pinter,Kristian Reich,Ronald Vender,Veerle Vanvoorden,Cynthia Madden,Katy White,Christopher Cioffi,Andrew Blauvelt
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00126-4
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P475-486, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Bimekizumab is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, the effects of treatment withdrawal, and two maintenance dosing schedules over 56 weeks.
Kristian Reich,Kim A Papp,Andrew Blauvelt,Richard G Langley,April Armstrong,Richard B Warren,Kenneth B Gordon,Joseph F Merola,Yukari Okubo,Cynthia Madden,Maggie Wang,Christopher Cioffi,Veerle Vanvoorden,Mark Lebwohl
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00125-2
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P487-498, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
There is an unmet need for a treatment for psoriasis that results in complete skin clearance with a reliably quick response. Bimekizumab is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab with placebo and ustekinumab in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis over 52 weeks.
Johan A Maertens,Galia Rahav,Dong-Gun Lee,Alfredo Ponce-de-Le?n,Isabel Cristina Ram?rez S?nchez,Nikolay Klimko,Anne Sonet,Shariq Haider,Juan Diego Vélez,Issam Raad,Liang-Piu Koh,Meinolf Karthaus,Jianying Zhou,Ronen Ben-Ami,Mary R Motyl,Seongah Han,Anjana Grandhi,Hetty Waskinon behalf of the study investigators
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00219-1
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P499-509, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Voriconazole has been recommended as primary treatment for patients with invasive aspergillosis. Intravenous and tablet formulations of posaconazole that have improved systemic absorption could be an effective alternative to voriconazole. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of posaconazole to voriconazole for the primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis.
Jessica P Hwang,Alessandra Ferrajoli,Anna S Lok
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00210-5
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P510, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Paul H Wise,Annie Shiel,Nicole Southard,Eran Bendavid,Jennifer Welsh,Stephen Stedman,Tanisha Fazal,Vanda Felbab-Brown,David Polatty,Ronald J Waldman,Paul B Spiegel,Karl Blanchet,Rita Dayoub,Aliyu Zakayo,Michele Barry,Daniel Martinez Garcia,Heather Pagano,Robert Black,Michelle F Gaffey,Zulfiqar A Bhuttafor the BRANCH Consortium
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00130-6
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P511-521, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
The nature of armed conflict throughout the world is intensely dynamic. Consequently, the protection of non-combatants and the provision of humanitarian services must continually adapt to this changing conflict environment. Complex political affiliations, the systematic use of explosive weapons and sexual violence, and the use of new communication technology, including social media, have created new challenges for humanitarian actors in negotiating access to affected populations and security for their own personnel. The nature of combatants has also evolved as armed, non-state actors might have varying motivations, use different forms of violence, and engage in a variety of criminal activities to generate requisite funds. New health threats, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and new capabilities, such as modern trauma care, have also created new challenges and opportunities for humanitarian health provision. In response, humanitarian policies and practices must develop negotiation and safety capabilities, informed by political and security realities on the ground, and guidance from affected communities. More fundamentally, humanitarian policies will need to confront a changing geopolitical environment, in which traditional humanitarian norms and protections might encounter wavering support in the years to come.
Eran Bendavid,Ties Boerma,Nadia Akseer,Ana Langer,Espoir Bwenge Malembaka,Emelda A Okiro,Paul H Wise,Sam Heft-Neal,Robert E Black,Zulfiqar A Bhuttaand the BRANCH Consortium Steering Committee
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00131-8
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P522-532, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Women and children bear substantial morbidity and mortality as a result of armed conflicts. This Series paper focuses on the direct (due to violence) and indirect health effects of armed conflict on women and children (including adolescents) worldwide. We estimate that nearly 36 million children and 16 million women were displaced in 2017, on the basis of international databases of refugees and internally displaced populations. From geospatial analyses we estimate that the number of non-displaced women and children living dangerously close to armed conflict (within 50 km) increased from 185 million women and 250 million children in 2000, to 265 million women and 368 million children in 2017. Women's and children's mortality risk from non-violent causes increases substantially in response to nearby conflict, with more intense and more chronic conflicts leading to greater mortality increases. More than 10 million deaths in children younger than 5 years can be attributed to conflict between 1995 and 2015 globally. Women of reproductive ages living near high intensity conflicts have three times higher mortality than do women in peaceful settings. Current research provides fragmentary evidence about how armed conflict indirectly affects the survival chances of women and children through malnutrition, physical injuries, infectious diseases, poor mental health, and poor sexual and reproductive health, but major systematic evidence is sparse, hampering the design and implementation of essential interventions for mitigating the harms of armed conflicts.
Neha S Singh,Anushka Ataullahjan,Khadidiatou Ndiaye,Jai K Das,Paul H Wise,Chiara Altare,Zahra Ahmed,Samira Sami,Chaza Akik,Hannah Tappis,Shafiq Mirzazada,Isabel C Garcés-Palacio,Hala Ghattas,Ana Langer,Ronald J Waldman,Paul Spiegel,Zulfiqar A Bhutta,Karl Blanchetand the BRANCH Consortium Steering Committee
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00132-X
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P533-542, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Armed conflict disproportionately affects the morbidity, mortality, and wellbeing of women, newborns, children, and adolescents. Our study presents insights from a collection of ten country case studies aiming to assess the provision of sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health and nutrition interventions in ten conflict-affected settings in Afghanistan, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. We found that despite large variations in contexts and decision making processes, antenatal care, basic emergency obstetric and newborn care, comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care, immunisation, treatment of common childhood illnesses, infant and young child feeding, and malnutrition treatment and screening were prioritised in these ten conflict settings. Many lifesaving women's and children's health (WCH) services, including the majority of reproductive, newborn, and adolescent health services, are not reported as being delivered in the ten conflict settings, and interventions to address stillbirths are absent. International donors remain the primary drivers of influencing the what, where, and how of implementing WCH interventions. Interpretation of WCH outcomes in conflict settings are particularly context-dependent given the myriad of complex factors that constitute conflict and their interactions. Moreover, the comprehensiveness and quality of data remain limited in conflict settings. The dynamic nature of modern conflict and the expanding role of non-state armed groups in large geographic areas pose new challenges to delivering WCH services. However, the humanitarian system is creative and pluralistic and has developed some novel solutions to bring lifesaving WCH services closer to populations using new modes of delivery. These solutions, when rigorously evaluated, can represent concrete response to current implementation challenges to modern armed conflicts.
Michelle F Gaffey,Ronald J Waldman,Karl Blanchet,Ribka Amsalu,Emanuele Capobianco,Lara S Ho,Tanya Khara,Daniel Martinez Garcia,Samira Aboubaker,Per Ashorn,Paul B Spiegel,Robert E Black,Zulfiqar A Bhuttaand the BRANCH Consortium Steering Committee
doi : 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00133-1
VOLUME 397, ISSUE 10273, P543-554, FEBRUARY 06, 2021
Existing global guidance for addressing women's and children's health and nutrition in humanitarian crises is not sufficiently contextualised for conflict settings specifically, reflecting the still-limited evidence that is available from such settings. As a preliminary step towards filling this guidance gap, we propose a conflict-specific framework that aims to guide decision makers focused on the health and nutrition of women and children affected by conflict to prioritise interventions that would address the major causes of mortality and morbidity among women and children in their particular settings and that could also be feasibly delivered in those settings. Assessing local needs, identifying relevant interventions from among those already recommended for humanitarian settings or universally, and assessing the contextual feasibility of delivery for each candidate intervention are key steps in the framework. We illustratively apply the proposed decision making framework to show what a framework-guided selection of priority interventions might look like in three hypothetical conflict contexts that differ in terms of levels of insecurity and patterns of population displacement. In doing so, we aim to catalyse further iteration and eventual field-testing of such a decision making framework by local, national, and international organisations and agencies involved in the humanitarian health response for women and children affected by conflict.
آیا می خواهید مدیلیب را به صفحه اصلی خود اضافه کنید؟