University of the Witwatersrand

The formal relationship between ultrasoft (US) Vanderbilt-type pseudopotentials and Bl\"ochl's projector augmented wave (PAW) method is derived. It is shown that the total energy functional for US pseudopotentials can be obtained by linearization of two terms in a slightly modified PAW total energy functional. The Hamilton operator, the forces, and the stress tensor are derived for this modified PAW functional. A simple way to implement the PAW method in existing plane-wave codes supporting US pseudopotentials is pointed out. In addition, critical tests are presented to compare the accuracy and efficiency of the PAW and the US pseudopotential method with relaxed core all electron methods. These tests include small molecules $({\mathrm{H}}_{2}{,\mathrm{}\mathrm{H}}_{2}{\mathrm{O},\mathrm{}\mathrm{Li}}_{2}{,\mathrm{}\mathrm{N}}_{2}{,\mathrm{}\mathrm{F}}_{2}{,\mathrm{}\mathrm{BF}}_{3}{,\mathrm{}\mathrm{SiF}}_{4})$ and several bulk systems (diamond, Si, V, Li, Ca, ${\mathrm{CaF}}_{2},$ Fe, Co, Ni). Particular attention is paid to the bulk properties and magnetic energies of Fe, Co, and Ni.

Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to describe the updated methodological guidance for conducting a JBI scoping review, with a focus on new updates to the approach and development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (the PRISMA-ScR). INTRODUCTION: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to informing decision-making and research based on the identification and examination of the literature on a given topic or issue. Scoping reviews draw on evidence from any research methodology and may also include evidence from non-research sources, such as policy. In this manner, scoping reviews provide a comprehensive overview to address broader review questions than traditionally more specific systematic reviews of effectiveness or qualitative evidence. The increasing popularity of scoping reviews has been accompanied by the development of a reporting guideline: the PRISMA-ScR. In 2014, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group developed guidance for scoping reviews that received minor updates in 2017 and was most recently updated in 2020. The updates reflect ongoing and substantial developments in approaches to scoping review conduct and reporting. As such, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align with the current state of knowledge and reporting standards in evidence synthesis. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2020, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group expanded its membership; extensively reviewed the literature; engaged via annual face-to-face meetings, regular teleconferences, and email correspondence; sought advice from methodological experts; facilitated workshops; and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to updated guidance for scoping reviews published in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The updated chapter was endorsed by JBI's International Scientific Committee in 2020. RESULTS: The updated JBI guidance for scoping reviews includes additional guidance on several methodological issues, such as when a scoping review is (or is not) appropriate, and how to extract, analyze, and present results, and provides clarification for implications for practice and research. Furthermore, it is aligned with the PRISMA-ScR to ensure consistent reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The latest JBI guidance for scoping reviews provides up-to-date guidance that can be used by authors when conducting a scoping review. Furthermore, it aligns with the PRISMA-ScR, which can be used to report the conduct of a scoping review. A series of ongoing and future methodological projects identified by the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are planned.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a multinational, randomized study to compare radiotherapy alone with radiotherapy plus cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor, in the treatment of locoregionally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: Patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer were randomly assigned to treatment with high-dose radiotherapy alone (213 patients) or high-dose radiotherapy plus weekly cetuximab (211 patients) at an initial dose of 400 mg per square meter of body-surface area, followed by 250 mg per square meter weekly for the duration of radiotherapy. The primary end point was the duration of control of locoregional disease; secondary end points were overall survival, progression-free survival, the response rate, and safety. RESULTS: The median duration of locoregional control was 24.4 months among patients treated with cetuximab plus radiotherapy and 14.9 months among those given radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for locoregional progression or death, 0.68; P=0.005). With a median follow-up of 54.0 months, the median duration of overall survival was 49.0 months among patients treated with combined therapy and 29.3 months among those treated with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.74; P=0.03). Radiotherapy plus cetuximab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.70; P=0.006). With the exception of acneiform rash and infusion reactions, the incidence of grade 3 or greater toxic effects, including mucositis, did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer with concomitant high-dose radiotherapy plus cetuximab improves locoregional control and reduces mortality without increasing the common toxic effects associated with radiotherapy to the head and neck. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004227.)

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 10 10 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; p interaction =0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. Funding UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

AIMS: To appraise the clinical and genetic evidence that low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed whether the association between LDL and ASCVD fulfils the criteria for causality by evaluating the totality of evidence from genetic studies, prospective epidemiologic cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials of LDL-lowering therapies. In clinical studies, plasma LDL burden is usually estimated by determination of plasma LDL cholesterol level (LDL-C). Rare genetic mutations that cause reduced LDL receptor function lead to markedly higher LDL-C and a dose-dependent increase in the risk of ASCVD, whereas rare variants leading to lower LDL-C are associated with a correspondingly lower risk of ASCVD. Separate meta-analyses of over 200 prospective cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials including more than 2 million participants with over 20 million person-years of follow-up and over 150 000 cardiovascular events demonstrate a remarkably consistent dose-dependent log-linear association between the absolute magnitude of exposure of the vasculature to LDL-C and the risk of ASCVD; and this effect appears to increase with increasing duration of exposure to LDL-C. Both the naturally randomized genetic studies and the randomized intervention trials consistently demonstrate that any mechanism of lowering plasma LDL particle concentration should reduce the risk of ASCVD events proportional to the absolute reduction in LDL-C and the cumulative duration of exposure to lower LDL-C, provided that the achieved reduction in LDL-C is concordant with the reduction in LDL particle number and that there are no competing deleterious off-target effects. CONCLUSION: Consistent evidence from numerous and multiple different types of clinical and genetic studies unequivocally establishes that LDL causes ASCVD.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the efficacy of cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer and sought associations between the mutation status of the KRAS gene in tumors and clinical response to cetuximab. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-positive colorectal cancer with unresectable metastases to receive FOLFIRI either alone or in combination with cetuximab. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 599 patients received cetuximab plus FOLFIRI, and 599 received FOLFIRI alone. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival in the cetuximab-FOLFIRI group as compared with the FOLFIRI group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.99; P=0.048). There was no significant difference in the overall survival between the two treatment groups (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.07; P=0.31). There was a significant interaction between treatment group and KRAS mutation status for tumor response (P=0.03) but not for progression-free survival (P=0.07) or overall survival (P=0.44). The hazard ratio for progression-free survival among patients with wild-type-KRAS tumors was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.94), in favor of the cetuximab-FOLFIRI group. The following grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI than with FOLFIRI alone: skin reactions (which were grade 3 only) (in 19.7% vs. 0.2% of patients, P<0.001), infusion-related reactions (in 2.5% vs. 0%, P<0.001), and diarrhea (in 15.7% vs. 10.5%, P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI, as compared with FOLFIRI alone, reduced the risk of progression of metastatic colorectal cancer. The benefit of cetuximab was limited to patients with KRAS wild-type tumors. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00154102.)

The 2017 Concussion in Sport Group (CISG) consensus statement is designed to build on the principles outlined in the previous statements This document is developed for physicians and healthcare providers who are involved in athlete care, whether at a recreational, elite or professional level. While agreement exists on the principal messages conveyed by this document, the authors acknowledge that the science of SRC is evolving and therefore individual management and return-to-play decisions remain in the realm of clinical judgement.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years worldwide. Although preterm survival rates have increased in high-income countries, preterm newborns still die because of a lack of adequate newborn care in many low-income and middle-income countries. We estimated global, regional, and national rates of preterm birth in 2014, with trends over time for some selected countries. METHODS: We systematically searched for data on preterm birth for 194 WHO Member States from 1990 to 2014 in databases of national civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS). We also searched for population-representative surveys and research studies for countries with no or limited CRVS data. For 38 countries with high-quality data for preterm births in 2014, data are reported directly. For countries with at least three data points between 1990 and 2014, we used a linear mixed regression model to estimate preterm birth rates. We also calculated regional and global estimates of preterm birth for 2014. FINDINGS: We identified 1241 data points across 107 countries. The estimated global preterm birth rate for 2014 was 10·6% (uncertainty interval 9·0-12·0), equating to an estimated 14·84 million (12·65 million-16·73 million) live preterm births in 2014. 12· 0 million (81·1%) of these preterm births occurred in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Regional preterm birth rates for 2014 ranged from 13·4% (6·3-30·9) in North Africa to 8·7% (6·3-13·3) in Europe. India, China, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Indonesia accounted for 57·9 million (41×4%) of 139·9 million livebirths and 6·6 million (44×6%) of preterm births globally in 2014. Of the 38 countries with high-quality data, preterm birth rates have increased since 2000 in 26 countries and decreased in 12 countries. Globally, we estimated that the preterm birth rate was 9×8% (8×3-10×9) in 2000, and 10×6% (9×0-12×0) in 2014. INTERPRETATION: Preterm birth remains a crucial issue in child mortality and improving quality of maternal and newborn care. To better understand the epidemiology of preterm birth, the quality and volume of data needs to be improved, including standardisation of definitions, measurement, and reporting. FUNDING: WHO and the March of Dimes.

INTRODUCTION Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection (1). Sepsis and septic shock are major healthcare problems, impacting millions of people around the world each year and killing between one in three and one in six of those it affects (2–4). Early identification and appropriate management in the initial hours after the development of sepsis improve outcomes. The recommendations in this document are intended to provide guidance for the clinician caring for adult patients with sepsis or septic shock in the hospital setting. Recommendations from these guidelines cannot replace the clinician’s decision-making capability when presented with a unique patient’s clinical variables. These guidelines are intended to reflect best practice (Table 1). TABLE 1. - Table of Current Recommendations and Changes From Previous 2016 Recommendations Recommendations 2021 Recommendation Strength and Quality of Evidence Changes From 2016 Recommendations 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong , moderate-quality evidence (for screening) Changed from Best practice statement “We recommend that hospitals and hospital systems have a performance improvement program for sepsis including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients.” Strong , very low-quality evidence (for standard operating procedures) 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a single-screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong , moderate-quality evidence NEW 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence INITIAL RESUSCITATION 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice statement 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hr of resuscitation. Weak, low quality of evidence DOWNGRADE from Strong , low quality of evidence “We recommend that in the initial resuscitation from sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid be given within the first 3 hr” 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation, over physical examination, or static parameters alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW MEAN ARTERIAL PRESSURE 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong , moderate-quality evidence ADMISSION TO INTENSIVE CARE 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require we suggest the patients to the within Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock we recommend and for and an of is or Best practice statement For adults with septic shock or a for sepsis, we recommend within hr of Strong , low quality of evidence from “We recommend that of should be as as after and within one for septic shock and sepsis Strong , very low quality of evidence , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis shock, we recommend of the of of Best practice statement For adults with sepsis shock, we suggest a of and for infection the of within 3 hr from the time when sepsis first Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend that of IV should be as as after and within hr for septic shock and sepsis , quality of evidence For adults with a low of infection and shock, we suggest to the Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend that of IV should be as as after and within hr for septic shock and sepsis , quality of evidence For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using clinical to when to as compared to clinical alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we recommend using with over using Best practice statement NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against using with as compared with using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and for we suggest using with for treatment over one Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low for we suggest against using for as compared to one Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using the and the are Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we suggest using over Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against of Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence We on the of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using of for an initial over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of on and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend or a of infection that and as as and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of that are a of sepsis or septic shock after other Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest for of over using of for Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with an initial of sepsis or septic shock and we suggest using over of Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with an initial of sepsis or septic shock and of is we suggest using clinical to when to over clinical alone. Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using as fluid for resuscitation. Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using of for resuscitation. Weak , low quality of evidence from , low quality of “We suggest using or for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using in patients who of Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend against using for resuscitation. Strong , evidence For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we suggest against using for resuscitation. Weak , moderate-quality evidence from , low quality of evidence “We suggest using over when patients with sepsis or septic For adults with septic shock, we recommend using as the over other Strong evidence evidence quality of evidence quality of evidence low-quality evidence For adults with septic shock on with mean arterial pressure we suggest of the of Weak , quality evidence For adults with septic shock and mean arterial pressure and we suggest Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock, we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and dysfunction with hypoperfusion and arterial blood we suggest to or using alone. Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and dysfunction with hypoperfusion and arterial blood we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock, we suggest of arterial blood pressure over as as and are Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock, we suggest to mean arterial pressure a is Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW is evidence to a on the of fluid in the first hr of resuscitation in patients with sepsis and septic shock who have of hypoperfusion and after the initial resuscitation. NEW “We suggest using or for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic Weak , low quality of evidence “We suggest using over when patients with sepsis or septic Weak , low quality of evidence is evidence to a on the of in adults with sepsis-induced For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest the of over Weak , low quality of evidence NEW is evidence to a on the of in to for adults with sepsis-induced For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using a low over a Strong , evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using an for of 30 over higher Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with to sepsis-induced we suggest using higher over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using low as compared with Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using Weak , moderate-quality evidence using we recommend against using Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using for hr Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis induced we suggest using over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using when in with the in to Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock and an for we suggest using IV Weak , moderate-quality evidence from Weak , low quality of evidence “We suggest against using IV to septic shock patients fluid resuscitation and are to for this is not we suggest IV at a of For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We the of blood is evidence to a on the of other blood For adults with sepsis or septic shock we recommend using a Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, and who have for we suggest using Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using a to Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using low over for Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using in to over alone. Weak , low quality of evidence adults with sepsis or septic shock and we suggest using or Weak , low quality of evidence adults with sepsis or septic shock and with for we suggest against using Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend at a of Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock and we suggest against using to improve or to Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and and or we suggest using Weak , low quality of evidence For adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who be we suggest of Weak , very low quality of evidence CARE For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of and with patients and over Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest of over hr or Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a on to of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend that the of on clinician be the treatment when to and and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against for patients over on clinician Weak , low quality of evidence For adult of sepsis or septic shock and we suggest to over Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using a of at of over Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a on the of tool over For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we recommend screening for and and and to these Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we suggest and sepsis and to hospital and in the setting. Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we recommend the clinical provide the to in in and hospital to are and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis and septic shock and we suggest using a compared with to the Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we recommend at and hospital Best practice statement For adult of sepsis and septic shock and we recommend including the sepsis and and after sepsis in the and hospital Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock who we recommend hospital with to and and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock and is evidence to a on compared with For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a for or against For adult of sepsis or septic shock, we recommend and for and after hospital Best practice statement For adult of sepsis or septic shock, we suggest to a program Weak , very low quality of evidence For adult of sepsis or septic shock for or an of we suggest to a Weak , very low quality of evidence are to in the be at for Sepsis and - Recommendation 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong quality of evidence for Strong very low-quality evidence for standard operating Sepsis performance improvement of sepsis of sepsis and for a of on the of performance improvement that these with to sepsis with a in in patients with sepsis and septic shock The of performance improvement not to be as as the of a program that sepsis screening and Sepsis screening are to identification of sepsis and of or of the health is in of these with having the of with in of clinical and are for sepsis as response of or Early or Early improve performance of screening and in a of patients from for hospital sepsis the the operating and higher for the for screening as MEWS and target patients in as or of three not a of screening is in and of sepsis screening are an of sepsis for operating procedures are a of that a response to clinical Sepsis standard operating as Early have to a standard with of the sepsis and the between of sepsis and of sepsis to hospitals in the in a and after of sepsis with a from other this time in hospitals with higher with the sepsis a of in higher with standard operating procedures compared with it in one - Recommendation 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong moderate-quality The qSOFA three to and in patients with or suspected a a and a blood pressure mm of these are the is qSOFA to the recommendations of the on the of Sepsis qSOFA as a of in patients with or suspected to as a screening tool that time have the of the qSOFA as a screening tool for sepsis The have as to have that qSOFA is having of for identification of infection induced organ dysfunction qSOFA are screening for sepsis and the clinician to the of the that of patients a qSOFA or these patients for of have when against the Early and the Early the of a qSOFA should the clinician to the of sepsis in given the of the the a against as a screening - Recommendation 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak low-quality The of lactate with in patients with suspected infection and sepsis is is as of the sepsis for those patients with sepsis and an elevated lactate is of the of septic shock that lactate be to for the of sepsis adult patients with suspected not have the of lactate in this The lactate an elevated from of the from with from and from the three are and an between the of lactate at and the are the of an elevated or lactate or the of a of sepsis in patients with suspected lactate is to or the on not be in we a the of serum lactate as an to the of sepsis in patients with suspected not - Recommendations 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hours of resuscitation. Weak low-quality 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation over physical or static parameters alone. Weak very low-quality parameters response to a or a fluid using pressure or 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak low-quality resuscitation, serum lactate should be the clinical and other of elevated lactate. 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak low-quality fluid resuscitation is for the of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion in sepsis and septic shock. Previous guidelines recommend appropriate resuscitation of sepsis or septic shock and having a low for it in those patients sepsis is not is the evidence from this is a best practice and are that a is The 2016 a for using a of 30 mL/kg of IV in initial fluid resuscitation. of initial resuscitation on evidence are for initial resuscitation in sepsis or septic shock. of adults to an with sepsis or septic shock that to 30 mL/kg of crystalloid fluid within 3 hours of sepsis with of of and of in of including and the and the of fluid in the of 30 that this fluid in clinical practice patients require fluid initial resuscitation. to be with the of fluid and with fluid of and of the of septic patients is the for a initial and of the response to treatment. and fluid the initial resuscitation should be by of and organ perfusion. pressure and blood pressure are of fluid measures have at fluid compared with static measures with fluid against pressure or and of in response to in a and dynamic to guide fluid with to of to and of to in one other in between septic patients with a compared with standard from and a of evidence in to guide of fluid resuscitation as as the appropriate in patients with sepsis and in that resuscitation with of IV by and arterial with fluid in the first hours and higher hospital standard fluid the initial 30 mL/kg is by measures of fluid of mL/kg compared to to 3 mL/kg the of fluid and on of of or not be a in pressure that the is fluid a for lactate is an of and is not a of of septic shock in lactate as evidence of to (1). Previous of these guidelines have using lactate as a target of resuscitation in the of sepsis and septic shock, on to and of in serum lactate in with or in The that serum lactate are not in patients with septic shock, these that decrease lactate lactate should be the clinical and other of elevated lactate. with sepsis lactate not be in is not measures of organ be to the and of of the and capillary refill time have and to be of The a resuscitation a resuscitation at or lactate by hours in the first hours of septic shock the organ dysfunction as by in the and in the lactate this not the of a on using resuscitation and is and this should be by and to or fluid are of the or to the should management - Recommendation 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong moderate-quality MAP is a of mean in is the major of and MAP in blood and the of perfusion. as the and have the to blood a to be mm are with organ with MAP Previous guidelines a MAP of 65 mm Hg for initial resuscitation. The on a in septic shock patients who given to target a MAP of mm a target of mm Hg in a a in with higher MAP patients with higher MAP with with a higher of of this that the MAP in the of on this that higher MAP not improve in septic shock to and MAP target compared a mm with a that and MAP by the in patients 65 and with septic shock The in this a mean MAP of mm compared with mm Hg in the to in the by of and in in the and the of with higher MAP and the of patients with MAP of mm the a MAP of 65 mm Hg in the initial resuscitation of patients with septic shock who require to - Recommendation 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require we suggest the patients to the within Weak low-quality The of patients on of in an appropriate the septic patients are in the and hospital of patients from are with sepsis and and and hospital of on the time for to the from and an of an in of for each of to of patients in the a higher hospital for the higher to time hr and compared with the to time for of an to time hr with hospital in patients with higher of with sepsis not patients to when hours hospital the a hospital higher and higher of and of patients in hospitals in the that to to higher and on of patients to an in outcomes. is evidence of and are best in an are of patients with sepsis to an not be in in and be this and appropriate treatment should not be of of - Recommendation For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock we recommend and for and an of is or Best practice of these we the of a for to it is to in a a best practice we that appropriate should be in patients with suspected sepsis and septic shock it in in the of not in this as as The and of sepsis are and other is to sepsis, the cannot have a of sepsis in a with organ a or of patients with sepsis to have Best practice is to the to other are or a patient’s clinical after hospital or the of a of this be in when it is to or major is a that to on the that the is each as in and of the that by or in each in of or that the for a in the or a We not or evidence this are to a an that not from is or this is not of the should the of patients and patients that is not to - Recommendations For adults with septic shock or a for sepsis, we recommend within one of Strong low quality of evidence very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis shock, we recommend of the of of Best practice and clinical examination, for and of and treatment for that this should be within 3 hours of that a be as to the of an of the patient’s and the of sepsis is to be For adults with sepsis shock, we suggest a of and for infection the of within 3 hours from the time when sepsis first Weak very low quality of For adults with a low of infection and shock, we suggest to the Weak very low quality of Early of appropriate is one of the to in patients with sepsis to patients with sepsis or septic shock should be as an The to provide as as be against the with to patients infection These a of as or and sepsis is as sepsis in and that first to be sepsis to be the of infection and of for each with suspected sepsis should the and of The with in patients with septic shock, have a between time to and in patients with septic shock in patients septic shock a of patients at each of time from to of with of for patients for patients not on a of patients at each of time from to of with of for patients with sepsis at least one of or or organ and for patients with septic to a for sepsis and a for septic shock in a of patients in each in time from to of with of and of in patients with in patients not an between and should be that the and at of to the of with or other patients with sepsis shock, the between time to and within the first hours from is have one to a in between and the other in a in time to suggest that after hours from hospital sepsis We suggest in patients with sepsis shock as as sepsis to be the and 3 hours after sepsis first suspected for sepsis at that given the of with septic shock and the of and the a to and within one in patients with septic shock. for patients with sepsis, we recommend be 1). For patients with sepsis shock, we recommend a of and of be to within 3 should be or should be to the Recommendations on of from suggest that of in patients with sepsis and septic shock is and and of a of in The and time for by and the of and of on is to recommendations to the of in patients with sepsis and septic shock in are in with the recommendations to - Recommendation For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using clinical to when to as compared to clinical alone. Weak very low quality of is in in response to in with clinical the of and of a of 30 a of and of for sepsis in patients We evidence from three that compared for of the three in to of to or of to and not in of the and on the with of the and the quality of evidence very guidelines for the management of recommend of for patients with of and in including the a against using to guide in to clinical - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we recommend using with over using Best practice For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against using with as compared with using Weak low quality of The on to an against in an treatment for sepsis and septic shock the that the patient’s infection is caused by the of with treatment for in a with and the of with treatment in a for of patients and be to The of by from in to in and by for of infection or IV of or of hospital and of on the of including in on patients with the of in patients with of hours are with in not in patients with or sepsis, including against with higher patients The with are by an between of and in patients with or to for in a with be in a be from including the of to for are and on and clinical for are - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock and for we suggest using with for treatment over one Weak very low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low for we suggest against using for compared with one Weak very low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using the and the are Weak very low quality of the of in of the world and between in and the initial of is to the at least one that is against the the and are the of on the of for and the of the and are is for patients with in a with of in or other between in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock when from the in the of of and in a low with the from the Recommendations the of one for treatment over one are given clinical including of and the of the of sepsis is to the appropriate For this we from recommendations in patients with sepsis or septic shock recommend the of on of to guide this infection or with within the of within the to a within the and within the the and are is not for patients with with and quality of evidence very and the of with the of for treatment. have an in in patients at for we suggest using for treatment to the of in patients with a low for we suggest using a for as are of using and the a of including infection and development of of is in patients at for with septic shock. - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we suggest using over Weak low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against of Weak low quality of Sepsis and septic shock to are in and are with that of appropriate

IMPORTANCE: Cancer is among the leading causes of death worldwide. Current estimates of cancer burden in individual countries and regions are necessary to inform local cancer control strategies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate mortality, incidence, years lived with disability (YLDs), years of life lost (YLLs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 28 cancers in 188 countries by sex from 1990 to 2013. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The general methodology of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2013 study was used. Cancer registries were the source for cancer incidence data as well as mortality incidence (MI) ratios. Sources for cause of death data include vital registration system data, verbal autopsy studies, and other sources. The MI ratios were used to transform incidence data to mortality estimates and cause of death estimates to incidence estimates. Cancer prevalence was estimated using MI ratios as surrogates for survival data; YLDs were calculated by multiplying prevalence estimates with disability weights, which were derived from population-based surveys; YLLs were computed by multiplying the number of estimated cancer deaths at each age with a reference life expectancy; and DALYs were calculated as the sum of YLDs and YLLs. FINDINGS: In 2013 there were 14.9 million incident cancer cases, 8.2 million deaths, and 196.3 million DALYs. Prostate cancer was the leading cause for cancer incidence (1.4 million) for men and breast cancer for women (1.8 million). Tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer was the leading cause for cancer death in men and women, with 1.6 million deaths. For men, TBL cancer was the leading cause of DALYs (24.9 million). For women, breast cancer was the leading cause of DALYs (13.1 million). Age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) per 100 000 and age-standardized death rates (ASDRs) per 100 000 for both sexes in 2013 were higher in developing vs developed countries for stomach cancer (ASIR, 17 vs 14; ASDR, 15 vs 11), liver cancer (ASIR, 15 vs 7; ASDR, 16 vs 7), esophageal cancer (ASIR, 9 vs 4; ASDR, 9 vs 4), cervical cancer (ASIR, 8 vs 5; ASDR, 4 vs 2), lip and oral cavity cancer (ASIR, 7 vs 6; ASDR, 2 vs 2), and nasopharyngeal cancer (ASIR, 1.5 vs 0.4; ASDR, 1.2 vs 0.3). Between 1990 and 2013, ASIRs for all cancers combined (except nonmelanoma skin cancer and Kaposi sarcoma) increased by more than 10% in 113 countries and decreased by more than 10% in 12 of 188 countries. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Cancer poses a major threat to public health worldwide, and incidence rates have increased in most countries since 1990. The trend is a particular threat to developing nations with health systems that are ill-equipped to deal with complex and expensive cancer treatments. The annual update on the Global Burden of Cancer will provide all stakeholders with timely estimates to guide policy efforts in cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and palliation.

AIMS: The first aim was to critically evaluate the extent to which familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is underdiagnosed and undertreated. The second aim was to provide guidance for screening and treatment of FH, in order to prevent coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the theoretical estimated prevalence of 1/500 for heterozygous FH, <1% are diagnosed in most countries. Recently, direct screening in a Northern European general population diagnosed approximately 1/200 with heterozygous FH. All reported studies document failure to achieve recommended LDL cholesterol targets in a large proportion of individuals with FH, and up to 13-fold increased risk of CHD. Based on prevalences between 1/500 and 1/200, between 14 and 34 million individuals worldwide have FH. We recommend that children, adults, and families should be screened for FH if a person or family member presents with FH, a plasma cholesterol level in an adult ≥8 mmol/L(≥310 mg/dL) or a child ≥6 mmol/L(≥230 mg/dL), premature CHD, tendon xanthomas, or sudden premature cardiac death. In FH, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets are <3.5 mmol/L(<135 mg/dL) for children, <2.5 mmol/L(<100 mg/dL) for adults, and <1.8 mmol/L(<70 mg/dL) for adults with known CHD or diabetes. In addition to lifestyle and dietary counselling, treatment priorities are (i) in children, statins, ezetimibe, and bile acid binding resins, and (ii) in adults, maximal potent statin dose, ezetimibe, and bile acid binding resins. Lipoprotein apheresis can be offered in homozygotes and in treatment-resistant heterozygotes with CHD. CONCLUSION: Owing to severe underdiagnosis and undertreatment of FH, there is an urgent worldwide need for diagnostic screening together with early and aggressive treatment of this extremely high-risk condition.

In the effort to understand the evolution of mammalian brains, we have found that common relationships between brain structure mass and numbers of nonneuronal (glial and vascular) cells apply across eutherian mammals, but brain structure mass scales differently with numbers of neurons across structures and across primate and nonprimate clades. This suggests that the ancestral scaling rules for mammalian brains are those shared by extant nonprimate eutherians - but do these scaling relationships apply to marsupials, a sister group to eutherians that diverged early in mammalian evolution? Here we examine the cellular composition of the brains of 10 species of marsupials. We show that brain structure mass scales with numbers of nonneuronal cells, and numbers of cerebellar neurons scale with numbers of cerebral cortical neurons, comparable to what we have found in eutherians. These shared scaling relationships are therefore indicative of mechanisms that have been conserved since the first therians. In contrast, while marsupials share with nonprimate eutherians the scaling of cerebral cortex mass with number of neurons, their cerebella have more neurons than nonprimate eutherian cerebella of a similar mass, and their rest of brain has fewer neurons than eutherian structures of a similar mass. Moreover, Australasian marsupials exhibit ratios of neurons in the cerebral cortex and cerebellum over the rest of the brain, comparable to artiodactyls and primates. Our results suggest that Australasian marsupials have diverged from the ancestral Theria neuronal scaling rules, and support the suggestion that the scaling of average neuronal cell size with increasing numbers of neurons varies in evolution independently of the allocation of neurons across structures.

BACKGROUND: We have previously estimated that respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) was associated with 22% of all episodes of (severe) acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI) resulting in 55 000 to 199 000 deaths in children younger than 5 years in 2005. In the past 5 years, major research activity on RSV has yielded substantial new data from developing countries. With a considerably expanded dataset from a large international collaboration, we aimed to estimate the global incidence, hospital admission rate, and mortality from RSV-ALRI episodes in young children in 2015. METHODS: We estimated the incidence and hospital admission rate of RSV-associated ALRI (RSV-ALRI) in children younger than 5 years stratified by age and World Bank income regions from a systematic review of studies published between Jan 1, 1995, and Dec 31, 2016, and unpublished data from 76 high quality population-based studies. We estimated the RSV-ALRI incidence for 132 developing countries using a risk factor-based model and 2015 population estimates. We estimated the in-hospital RSV-ALRI mortality by combining in-hospital case fatality ratios with hospital admission estimates from hospital-based (published and unpublished) studies. We also estimated overall RSV-ALRI mortality by identifying studies reporting monthly data for ALRI mortality in the community and RSV activity. FINDINGS: We estimated that globally in 2015, 33·1 million (uncertainty range [UR] 21·6-50·3) episodes of RSV-ALRI, resulted in about 3·2 million (2·7-3·8) hospital admissions, and 59 600 (48 000-74 500) in-hospital deaths in children younger than 5 years. In children younger than 6 months, 1·4 million (UR 1·2-1·7) hospital admissions, and 27 300 (UR 20 700-36 200) in-hospital deaths were due to RSV-ALRI. We also estimated that the overall RSV-ALRI mortality could be as high as 118 200 (UR 94 600-149 400). Incidence and mortality varied substantially from year to year in any given population. INTERPRETATION: Globally, RSV is a common cause of childhood ALRI and a major cause of hospital admissions in young children, resulting in a substantial burden on health-care services. About 45% of hospital admissions and in-hospital deaths due to RSV-ALRI occur in children younger than 6 months. An effective maternal RSV vaccine or monoclonal antibody could have a substantial effect on disease burden in this age group. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

BACKGROUND: Alirocumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9), has been shown to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels in patients who are receiving statin therapy. Larger and longer-term studies are needed to establish safety and efficacy. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial involving 2341 patients at high risk for cardiovascular events who had LDL cholesterol levels of 70 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) or more and were receiving treatment with statins at the maximum tolerated dose (the highest dose associated with an acceptable side-effect profile), with or without other lipid-lowering therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive alirocumab (150 mg) or placebo as a 1-ml subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks for 78 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the percentage change in calculated LDL cholesterol level from baseline to week 24. RESULTS: At week 24, the difference between the alirocumab and placebo groups in the mean percentage change from baseline in calculated LDL cholesterol level was -62 percentage points (P<0.001); the treatment effect remained consistent over a period of 78 weeks. The alirocumab group, as compared with the placebo group, had higher rates of injection-site reactions (5.9% vs. 4.2%), myalgia (5.4% vs. 2.9%), neurocognitive events (1.2% vs. 0.5%), and ophthalmologic events (2.9% vs. 1.9%). In a post hoc analysis, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization) was lower with alirocumab than with placebo (1.7% vs. 3.3%; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.90; nominal P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Over a period of 78 weeks, alirocumab, when added to statin therapy at the maximum tolerated dose, significantly reduced LDL cholesterol levels. In a post hoc analysis, there was evidence of a reduction in the rate of cardiovascular events with alirocumab. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; ODYSSEY LONG TERM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01507831.).

Plant traits-the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants-determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait-based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits-almost complete coverage for 'plant growth form'. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait-environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives.

Peer Reviewed

Hemophilia is a rare disorder that is complex to diagnose and to manage. These evidence-based guidelines offer practical recommendations on the diagnosis and general management of hemophilia, as well as the management of complications including musculoskeletal issues, inhibitors, and transfusion-transmitted infections. By compiling these guidelines, the World Federation of Hemophilia aims to assist healthcare providers seeking to initiate and/or maintain hemophilia care programs, encourage practice harmonization around the world and, where recommendations lack adequate evidence, stimulate appropriate studies.

Abstract The SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in southern Africa has been characterized by three distinct waves. The first was associated with a mix of SARS-CoV-2 lineages, while the second and third waves were driven by the Beta (B.1.351) and Delta (B.1.617.2) variants, respectively 1–3 . In November 2021, genomic surveillance teams in South Africa and Botswana detected a new SARS-CoV-2 variant associated with a rapid resurgence of infections in Gauteng province, South Africa. Within three days of the first genome being uploaded, it was designated a variant of concern (Omicron, B.1.1.529) by the World Health Organization and, within three weeks, had been identified in 87 countries. The Omicron variant is exceptional for carrying over 30 mutations in the spike glycoprotein, which are predicted to influence antibody neutralization and spike function 4 . Here we describe the genomic profile and early transmission dynamics of Omicron, highlighting the rapid spread in regions with high levels of population immunity.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the most common cause of acute lower respiratory infection in young children. We previously estimated that in 2015, 33·1 million episodes of RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection occurred in children aged 0-60 months, resulting in a total of 118 200 deaths worldwide. Since then, several community surveillance studies have been done to obtain a more precise estimation of RSV associated community deaths. We aimed to update RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection morbidity and mortality at global, regional, and national levels in children aged 0-60 months for 2019, with focus on overall mortality and narrower infant age groups that are targeted by RSV prophylactics in development. METHODS: In this systematic analysis, we expanded our global RSV disease burden dataset by obtaining new data from an updated search for papers published between Jan 1, 2017, and Dec 31, 2020, from MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, OpenGrey, CNKI, Wanfang, and ChongqingVIP. We also included unpublished data from RSV GEN collaborators. Eligible studies reported data for children aged 0-60 months with RSV as primary infection with acute lower respiratory infection in community settings, or acute lower respiratory infection necessitating hospital admission; reported data for at least 12 consecutive months, except for in-hospital case fatality ratio (CFR) or for where RSV seasonality is well-defined; and reported incidence rate, hospital admission rate, RSV positive proportion in acute lower respiratory infection hospital admission, or in-hospital CFR. Studies were excluded if case definition was not clearly defined or not consistently applied, RSV infection was not laboratory confirmed or based on serology alone, or if the report included fewer than 50 cases of acute lower respiratory infection. We applied a generalised linear mixed-effects model (GLMM) to estimate RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection incidence, hospital admission, and in-hospital mortality both globally and regionally (by country development status and by World Bank Income Classification) in 2019. We estimated country-level RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection incidence through a risk-factor based model. We developed new models (through GLMM) that incorporated the latest RSV community mortality data for estimating overall RSV mortality. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252400). FINDINGS: In addition to 317 studies included in our previous review, we identified and included 113 new eligible studies and unpublished data from 51 studies, for a total of 481 studies. We estimated that globally in 2019, there were 33·0 million RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection episodes (uncertainty range [UR] 25·4-44·6 million), 3·6 million RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection hospital admissions (2·9-4·6 million), 26 300 RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection in-hospital deaths (15 100-49 100), and 101 400 RSV-attributable overall deaths (84 500-125 200) in children aged 0-60 months. In infants aged 0-6 months, we estimated that there were 6·6 million RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection episodes (4·6-9·7 million), 1·4 million RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection hospital admissions (1·0-2·0 million), 13 300 RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection in-hospital deaths (6800-28 100), and 45 700 RSV-attributable overall deaths (38 400-55 900). 2·0% of deaths in children aged 0-60 months (UR 1·6-2·4) and 3·6% of deaths in children aged 28 days to 6 months (3·0-4·4) were attributable to RSV. More than 95% of RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection episodes and more than 97% of RSV-attributable deaths across all age bands were in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). INTERPRETATION: RSV contributes substantially to morbidity and mortality burden globally in children aged 0-60 months, especially during the first 6 months of life and in LMICs. We highlight the striking overall mortality burden of RSV disease worldwide, with one in every 50 deaths in children aged 0-60 months and one in every 28 deaths in children aged 28 days to 6 months attributable to RSV. For every RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection in-hospital death, we estimate approximately three more deaths attributable to RSV in the community. RSV passive immunisation programmes targeting protection during the first 6 months of life could have a substantial effect on reducing RSV disease burden, although more data are needed to understand the implications of the potential age-shifts in peak RSV burden to older age when these are implemented. FUNDING: EU Innovative Medicines Initiative Respiratory Syncytial Virus Consortium in Europe (RESCEU).