Mahmood Moosazadeh

Dr. Mahmood Moosazadeh

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

57Years (1970-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 May 2019 in The Lancet Neurology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
VFValery L Feigin
Valery L Feigin
ENEmma Nichols
Emma Nichols
TATahiya Alam
Tahiya Alam
MBMarlena S Bannick
Marlena S Bannick
EBEttore Beghi
Ettore Beghi
TVTheo Vos
Theo Vos
Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and disability worldwide and the economic costs of treatment and post-stroke care are substantial. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) provides a systematic, comparable method of quantifying health loss by disease, age, sex, year, and location to provide information to health systems and policy makers on more than 300 causes of disease and injury, including stroke. The results presented here are the estimates of burden due to overall stroke and ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke from GBD 2016. We report estimates and corresponding uncertainty intervals (UIs), from 1990 to 2016, for incidence, prevalence, deaths, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). DALYs were generated by summing YLLs and YLDs. Cause-specific mortality was estimated using an ensemble modelling process with vital registration and verbal autopsy data as inputs. Non-fatal estimates were generated using Bayesian meta-regression incorporating data from registries, scientific literature, administrative records, and surveys. The Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary indicator generated using educational attainment, lagged distributed income, and total fertility rate, was used to group countries into quintiles. In 2016, there were 5·5 million (95% UI 5·3 to 5·7) deaths and 116·4 million (111·4 to 121·4) DALYs due to stroke. The global age-standardised mortality rate decreased by 36·2% (-39·3 to -33·6) from 1990 to 2016, with decreases in all SDI quintiles. Over the same period, the global age-standardised DALY rate declined by 34·2% (-37·2 to -31·5), also with decreases in all SDI quintiles. There were 13·7 million (12·7 to 14·7) new stroke cases in 2016. Global age-standardised incidence declined by 8·1% (-10·7 to -5·5) from 1990 to 2016 and decreased in all SDI quintiles except the middle SDI group. There were 80·1 million (74·1 to 86·3) prevalent cases of stroke globally in 2016; 41·1 million (38·0 to 44·3) in women and 39·0 million (36·1 to 42·1) in men. Although age-standardised mortality rates have decreased sharply from 1990 to 2016, the decrease in age-standardised incidence has been less steep, indicating that the burden of stroke is likely to remain high. Planned updates to future GBD iterations include generating separate estimates for subarachnoid haemorrhage and intracerebral haemorrhage, generating estimates of transient ischaemic attack, and including atrial fibrillation as a risk factor. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

1 April 2017 in JAMA Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CFChristina Fitzmaurice
Christina Fitzmaurice
TATomi F. Akinyemiju
Tomi F. Akinyemiju
FLFaris Hasan Al Lami
Faris Hasan Al Lami
TATahiya Alam
Tahiya Alam
RAReza Alizadeh-Navaei
Reza Alizadeh-Navaei
MNMohsen Naghavi
Mohsen Naghavi
In 2015, cancer caused over 8.7 million deaths globally and was the second leading cause of death behind cardiovascular diseases.1 Even though these impressive numbers are testimony that the “war on cancer” has not been won, recent developments in personalized medicine and novel treatment approaches like immunotherapy have raised hope of significantly improving cancer survival.2-4 These expectations for patients with cancer in high-income countries contrast with the challenge of making basic diagnostic and treatment options widely available in low-resource settings.5 Both the equity and affordability of cancer care from individual and societal perspectives are increasingly being questioned.6 Survival rates between and within high-income countries differ for reasons such as variation in education, access to specialized care, effective treatment, and insurance status.7-9 The full potential of cancer prevention for reducing incidence and mortality is far from being realized, and efforts are especially lagging in low-income countries.10 Awareness of this “cancer divide,” with substantially worse outcomes and a high burden in socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, has led to a focus on global oncology by the international health community.4,5,10 This is reflected in the third Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) to “by 2030, reduce by one-third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.”11 Estimates of the burden of cancer are produced annually as part of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study providing a unique means of tracking progress in closing this divide. Here, we present results of the GBD 2015 study for 32 cancer groups covering cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 195 countries or territories from 1990 to 2015 for both sexes across age groups.

1 June 2018 in The Lancet
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
NFNancy Fullman
Nancy Fullman
JYJamal Yearwood
Jamal Yearwood
SASOLOMON MEQUANENTE ABAY
SOLOMON MEQUANENTE ABAY
CACristiana Abbafati
Cristiana Abbafati
FAFoad Abd-Allah
Foad Abd-Allah
RLRafael Lozano
Rafael Lozano
A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0-100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita. In 2016, HAQ Index performance spanned from a high of 97·1 (95% UI 95·8-98·1) in Iceland, followed by 96·6 (94·9-97·9) in Norway and 96·1 (94·5-97·3) in the Netherlands, to values as low as 18·6 (13·1-24·4) in the Central African Republic, 19·0 (14·3-23·7) in Somalia, and 23·4 (20·2-26·8) in Guinea-Bissau. The pace of progress achieved between 1990 and 2016 varied, with markedly faster improvements occurring between 2000 and 2016 for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, whereas several countries in Latin America and elsewhere saw progress stagnate after experiencing considerable advances in the HAQ Index between 1990 and 2000. Striking subnational disparities emerged in personal health-care access and quality, with China and India having particularly large gaps between locations with the highest and lowest scores in 2016. In China, performance ranged from 91·5 (89·1-93·6) in Beijing to 48·0 (43·4-53·2) in Tibet (a 43·5-point difference), while India saw a 30·8-point disparity, from 64·8 (59·6-68·8) in Goa to 34·0 (30·3-38·1) in Assam. Japan recorded the smallest range in subnational HAQ performance in 2016 (a 4·8-point difference), whereas differences between subnational locations with the highest and lowest HAQ Index values were more than two times as high for the USA and three times as high for England. State-level gaps in the HAQ Index in Mexico somewhat narrowed from 1990 to 2016 (from a 20·9-point to 17·0-point difference), whereas in Brazil, disparities slightly increased across states during this time (a 17·2-point to 20·4-point difference). Performance on the HAQ Index showed strong linkages to overall development, with high and high-middle SDI countries generally having higher scores and faster gains for non-communicable diseases. Nonetheless, countries across the development spectrum saw substantial gains in some key health service areas from 2000 to 2016, most notably vaccine-preventable diseases. Overall, national performance on the HAQ Index was positively associated with higher levels of total health spending per capita, as well as health systems inputs, but these relationships were quite heterogeneous, particularly among low-to-middle SDI countries. GBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle-SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals. Alongside initiatives to strengthen public health programmes, the pursuit of universal health coverage hinges upon improving both access and quality worldwide, and thus requires adopting a more comprehensive view-and subsequent provision-of quality health care for all populations. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

1 November 2018 in The Lancet
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
RLRafael Lozano
Rafael Lozano
NFNancy Fullman
Nancy Fullman
DADegu Abate
Degu Abate
SASOLOMON MEQUANENTE ABAY
SOLOMON MEQUANENTE ABAY
CACristiana Abbafati
Cristiana Abbafati
CMChristopher J L Murray
Christopher J L Murray
Efforts to establish the 2015 baseline and monitor early implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) highlight both great potential for and threats to improving health by 2030. To fully deliver on the SDG aim of "leaving no one behind", it is increasingly important to examine the health-related SDGs beyond national-level estimates. As part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017), we measured progress on 41 of 52 health-related SDG indicators and estimated the health-related SDG index for 195 countries and territories for the period 1990-2017, projected indicators to 2030, and analysed global attainment. We measured progress on 41 health-related SDG indicators from 1990 to 2017, an increase of four indicators since GBD 2016 (new indicators were health worker density, sexual violence by non-intimate partners, population census status, and prevalence of physical and sexual violence [reported separately]). We also improved the measurement of several previously reported indicators. We constructed national-level estimates and, for a subset of health-related SDGs, examined indicator-level differences by sex and Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintile. We also did subnational assessments of performance for selected countries. To construct the health-related SDG index, we transformed the value for each indicator on a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the 2·5th percentile and 100 as the 97·5th percentile of 1000 draws calculated from 1990 to 2030, and took the geometric mean of the scaled indicators by target. To generate projections through 2030, we used a forecasting framework that drew estimates from the broader GBD study and used weighted averages of indicator-specific and country-specific annualised rates of change from 1990 to 2017 to inform future estimates. We assessed attainment of indicators with defined targets in two ways: first, using mean values projected for 2030, and then using the probability of attainment in 2030 calculated from 1000 draws. We also did a global attainment analysis of the feasibility of attaining SDG targets on the basis of past trends. Using 2015 global averages of indicators with defined SDG targets, we calculated the global annualised rates of change required from 2015 to 2030 to meet these targets, and then identified in what percentiles the required global annualised rates of change fell in the distribution of country-level rates of change from 1990 to 2015. We took the mean of these global percentile values across indicators and applied the past rate of change at this mean global percentile to all health-related SDG indicators, irrespective of target definition, to estimate the equivalent 2030 global average value and percentage change from 2015 to 2030 for each indicator. The global median health-related SDG index in 2017 was 59·4 (IQR 35·4-67·3), ranging from a low of 11·6 (95% uncertainty interval 9·6-14·0) to a high of 84·9 (83·1-86·7). SDG index values in countries assessed at the subnational level varied substantially, particularly in China and India, although scores in Japan and the UK were more homogeneous. Indicators also varied by SDI quintile and sex, with males having worse outcomes than females for non-communicable disease (NCD) mortality, alcohol use, and smoking, among others. Most countries were projected to have a higher health-related SDG index in 2030 than in 2017, while country-level probabilities of attainment by 2030 varied widely by indicator. Under-5 mortality, neonatal mortality, maternal mortality ratio, and malaria indicators had the most countries with at least 95% probability of target attainment. Other indicators, including NCD mortality and suicide mortality, had no countries projected to meet corresponding SDG targets on the basis of projected mean values for 2030 but showed some probability of attainment by 2030. For some indicators, including child malnutrition, several infectious diseases, and most violence measures, the annualised rates of change required to meet SDG targets far exceeded the pace of progress achieved by any country in the recent past. We found that applying the mean global annualised rate of change to indicators without defined targets would equate to about 19% and 22% reductions in global smoking and alcohol consumption, respectively; a 47% decline in adolescent birth rates; and a more than 85% increase in health worker density per 1000 population by 2030. The GBD study offers a unique, robust platform for monitoring the health-related SDGs across demographic and geographic dimensions. Our findings underscore the importance of increased collection and analysis of disaggregated data and highlight where more deliberate design or targeting of interventions could accelerate progress in attaining the SDGs. Current projections show that many health-related SDG indicators, NCDs, NCD-related risks, and violence-related indicators will require a concerted shift away from what might have driven past gains-curative interventions in the case of NCDs-towards multisectoral, prevention-oriented policy action and investments to achieve SDG aims. Notably, several targets, if they are to be met by 2030, demand a pace of progress that no country has achieved in the recent past. The future is fundamentally uncertain, and no model can fully predict what breakthroughs or events might alter the course of the SDGs. What is clear is that our actions-or inaction-today will ultimately dictate how close the world, collectively, can get to leaving no one behind by 2030. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

26 April 2017 in Rheumatology International
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
FHFatemeh Heidari
Fatemeh Heidari
MAMahdi Afshari
Mahdi Afshari
MMMahmood Moosazadeh
Mahmood Moosazadeh

1 December 2018 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
HKHmwe Hmwe Kyu
Hmwe Hmwe Kyu
EMEmilie R Maddison
Emilie R Maddison
NHNathaniel J Henry
Nathaniel J Henry
JLJorge R Ledesma
Jorge R Ledesma
KWKirsten Wiens
Kirsten Wiens
CMChristopher J L Murray
Christopher J L Murray
Although a preventable and treatable disease, tuberculosis causes more than a million deaths each year. As countries work towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target to end the tuberculosis epidemic by 2030, robust assessments of the levels and trends of the burden of tuberculosis are crucial to inform policy and programme decision making. We assessed the levels and trends in the fatal and non-fatal burden of tuberculosis by drug resistance and HIV status for 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2016. We analysed 15 943 site-years of vital registration data, 1710 site-years of verbal autopsy data, 764 site-years of sample-based vital registration data, and 361 site-years of mortality surveillance data to estimate mortality due to tuberculosis using the Cause of Death Ensemble model. We analysed all available data sources, including annual case notifications, prevalence surveys, population-based tuberculin surveys, and estimated tuberculosis cause-specific mortality to generate internally consistent estimates of incidence, prevalence, and mortality using DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool. We assessed how the burden of tuberculosis differed from the burden predicted by the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a composite indicator of income per capita, average years of schooling, and total fertility rate. Globally in 2016, among HIV-negative individuals, the number of incident cases of tuberculosis was 9·02 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8·05-10·16) and the number of tuberculosis deaths was 1·21 million (1·16-1·27). Among HIV-positive individuals, the number of incident cases was 1·40 million (1·01-1·89) and the number of tuberculosis deaths was 0·24 million (0·16-0·31). Globally, among HIV-negative individuals the age-standardised incidence of tuberculosis decreased annually at a slower rate (-1·3% [-1·5 to -1·2]) than mortality did (-4·5% [-5·0 to -4·1]) from 2006 to 2016. Among HIV-positive individuals during the same period, the rate of change in annualised age-standardised incidence was -4·0% (-4·5 to -3·7) and mortality was -8·9% (-9·5 to -8·4). Several regions had higher rates of age-standardised incidence and mortality than expected on the basis of their SDI levels in 2016. For drug-susceptible tuberculosis, the highest observed-to-expected ratios were in southern sub-Saharan Africa (13·7 for incidence and 14·9 for mortality), and the lowest ratios were in high-income North America (0·4 for incidence) and Oceania (0·3 for mortality). For multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, eastern Europe had the highest observed-to-expected ratios (67·3 for incidence and 73·0 for mortality), and high-income North America had the lowest ratios (0·4 for incidence and 0·5 for mortality). If current trends in tuberculosis incidence continue, few countries are likely to meet the SDG target to end the tuberculosis epidemic by 2030. Progress needs to be accelerated by improving the quality of and access to tuberculosis diagnosis and care, by developing new tools, scaling up interventions to prevent risk factors for tuberculosis, and integrating control programmes for tuberculosis and HIV. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.