METHODS: The association between alcohol consumption at recruitment and over the lifetime and risk of differentiated thyroid carcinoma was examined in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Among 477 263 eligible participants (70% women), 556 (90% women) were diagnosed with differentiated thyroid carcinoma over a mean follow-up of 11 years. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: Compared with participants consuming 0.1-4.9 g of alcohol per day at recruitment, participants consuming 15 or more grams (approximately 1-1.5 drinks) had a 23% lower risk of differentiated thyroid carcinoma (HR=0.77; 95% CI=0.60-0.98). These findings did not differ greatly when analyses were conducted for lifetime alcohol consumption, although the risk estimates were attenuated and not statistically significant anymore. Similar results were observed by type of alcoholic beverage, by differentiated thyroid carcinoma histology or according to age, sex, smoking status, body mass index and diabetes.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides some support to the hypothesis that moderate alcohol consumption may be associated with a lower risk of papillary and follicular thyroid carcinomas.
METHODS: We applied global burden of disease(GBD) 2019 to compare glaucoma prevalence and Years lived with disabilities (YLDs) from 1990 to 2019 in the B&R countries. Trends of disease burden between 1990 and 2019 were evaluated using the average annual percent change and the 95% uncertainty interval (UI) were reported.
RESULTS: From 1990 to 2019, most B&R countries showed a downward trend in age-standardized prevalence and YLDs (all P 85 years), Malaysia(75-84 years), Brunei Darussalam(45-49 years), Afghanistan(70-79 years). Finally, in all Central Asian countries, the age-standardized YLDs due to glaucoma caused by fasting hyperglycemia demonstrated have an increase between 1990 and 2019 (all P
DESIGN: Data were derived from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey, Malaysia (GATS-M). GATS-M is a nationwide study that employed a multistage, proportionate-to-size sampling strategy to select a representative sample of 5112 Malaysian adults aged 15 years and above. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with support for smoke-free policy in selected public domains that is, workplaces, restaurants, bars, hotels, casinos, karaoke centres, public transport terminals and shopping centres.
RESULTS: The level of support for enactment of a smoke-free policy at selected public domains varied from 37.8% to 94.4%, with the highest support was for gazetted smoke-free domains, namely, shopping centres (94.4%, 95% CI: 93.2% to 95.3%) and public transport terminals (85.2%, 95% CI: 83.3% to 86.9%). Multiple logistic regression revealed that non-smokers were more likely to support smoke-free policy at all domains. In addition, respondents who worked in workplaces with total or partial smoking restrictions were more likely to support a smoke-free policy ((total restriction adjusted OR (AOR): 14.94 (6.44 to 34.64); partial restriction AOR: 2.96 (1.138 to 6.35); non-restriction was applied as a reference).
CONCLUSION: A majority of the Malaysian adult population supported the smoke-free policy, especially at gazetted smoke-free domains. Therefore, expansion of a total smoking ban to workplaces, restaurants, bars, hotels, casinos and karaoke centres is strongly recommended to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke and to denormalise smoking behaviour.
METHODS: A population-wide hospital discharge database in Singapore was used to identify all hospital admissions with a primary discharge diagnosis of PACG (International Classification of Disease-CM code: 365.2). The Singapore census was used for denominator data.
RESULTS: Between 1993 and 1997 there were 894 hospital admissions for PACG. The mean annual rate of PACG admissions was 11.1 per 100 000 (95% confidence interval (CI), 10.4, 11.8) among people aged 30 years and over. The annual rate was highest for Chinese (age and sex adjusted rate: 12.2 per 100 000), which was twice that of Malays (6.0 per 100 000) and Indians (6.3 per 100 000). Females had two times higher rates than males in all three races (age adjusted relative risk: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.7, 2.3).
CONCLUSION: Malay and Indian people had identical rates of hospital admissions for PACG, which were only half the rates compared with Chinese.
METHODS: We used data from 1108 population-representative studies with 141 million participants aged 18 years and older with measurements of fasting glucose and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and information on diabetes treatment. We defined diabetes as having a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of 7·0 mmol/L or higher, having an HbA1c of 6·5% or higher, or taking medication for diabetes. We defined diabetes treatment as the proportion of people with diabetes who were taking medication for diabetes. We analysed the data in a Bayesian hierarchical meta-regression model to estimate diabetes prevalence and treatment.
FINDINGS: In 2022, an estimated 828 million (95% credible interval [CrI] 757-908) adults (those aged 18 years and older) had diabetes, an increase of 630 million (554-713) from 1990. From 1990 to 2022, the age-standardised prevalence of diabetes increased in 131 countries for women and in 155 countries for men with a posterior probability of more than 0·80. The largest increases were in low-income and middle-income countries in southeast Asia (eg, Malaysia), south Asia (eg, Pakistan), the Middle East and north Africa (eg, Egypt), and Latin America and the Caribbean (eg, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Costa Rica). Age-standardised prevalence neither increased nor decreased with a posterior probability of more than 0·80 in some countries in western and central Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, east Asia and the Pacific, Canada, and some Pacific island nations where prevalence was already high in 1990; it decreased with a posterior probability of more than 0·80 in women in Japan, Spain, and France, and in men in Nauru. The lowest prevalence in the world in 2022 was in western Europe and east Africa for both sexes, and in Japan and Canada for women, and the highest prevalence in the world in 2022 was in countries in Polynesia and Micronesia, some countries in the Caribbean and the Middle East and north Africa, as well as Pakistan and Malaysia. In 2022, 445 million (95% CrI 401-496) adults aged 30 years or older with diabetes did not receive treatment (59% of adults aged 30 years or older with diabetes), 3·5 times the number in 1990. From 1990 to 2022, diabetes treatment coverage increased in 118 countries for women and 98 countries for men with a posterior probability of more than 0·80. The largest improvement in treatment coverage was in some countries from central and western Europe and Latin America (Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Costa Rica), Canada, South Korea, Russia, Seychelles, and Jordan. There was no increase in treatment coverage in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa; the Caribbean; Pacific island nations; and south, southeast, and central Asia. In 2022, age-standardised treatment coverage was lowest in countries in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, and treatment coverage was less than 10% in some African countries. Treatment coverage was 55% or higher in South Korea, many high-income western countries, and some countries in central and eastern Europe (eg, Poland, Czechia, and Russia), Latin America (eg, Costa Rica, Chile, and Mexico), and the Middle East and north Africa (eg, Jordan, Qatar, and Kuwait).
INTERPRETATION: In most countries, especially in low-income and middle-income countries, diabetes treatment has not increased at all or has not increased sufficiently in comparison with the rise in prevalence. The burden of diabetes and untreated diabetes is increasingly borne by low-income and middle-income countries. The expansion of health insurance and primary health care should be accompanied with diabetes programmes that realign and resource health services to enhance the early detection and effective treatment of diabetes.
FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation (Research England), and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.