METHODS: We assembled 1155 geographical records of yellow fever virus infection in people from 1970 to 2016. We used a Poisson point process boosted regression tree model that explicitly incorporated environmental and biological explanatory covariates, vaccination coverage, and spatial variability in disease reporting rates to predict the relative risk of apparent yellow fever virus infection at a 5 × 5 km resolution across all risk zones (47 countries across the Americas and Africa). We also used the fitted model to predict the receptivity of areas outside at-risk zones to the introduction or reintroduction of yellow fever transmission. By use of previously published estimates of annual national case numbers, we used the model to map subnational variation in incidence of yellow fever across at-risk countries and to estimate the number of cases averted by vaccination worldwide.

FINDINGS: Substantial international and subnational spatial variation exists in relative risk and incidence of yellow fever as well as varied success of vaccination in reducing incidence in several high-risk regions, including Brazil, Cameroon, and Togo. Areas with the highest predicted average annual case numbers include large parts of Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan, where vaccination coverage in 2016 was estimated to be substantially less than the recommended threshold to prevent outbreaks. Overall, we estimated that vaccination coverage levels achieved by 2016 avert between 94 336 and 118 500 cases of yellow fever annually within risk zones, on the basis of conservative and optimistic vaccination scenarios. The areas outside at-risk regions with predicted high receptivity to yellow fever transmission (eg, parts of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand) were less extensive than the distribution of the main urban vector, A aegypti, with low receptivity to yellow fever transmission in southern China, where A aegypti is known to occur.

INTERPRETATION: Our results provide the evidence base for targeting vaccination campaigns within risk zones, as well as emphasising their high effectiveness. Our study highlights areas where public health authorities should be most vigilant for potential spread or importation events.

METHODS: The Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study is a multinational cross-sectional study of 41 municipalities in 34 countries across all WHO regions. Adults aged 40 years or older who were not living in an institution were eligible to participate. To ensure a representative sample, participants were selected from a random sample of the population according to a predefined site-specific sampling strategy. We included participants' data in this study if they completed the core study questionnaire and had acceptable spirometry according to predefined quality criteria. We excluded participants with a contraindication for lung function testing. We defined small airways obstruction as either mean forced expiratory flow rate between 25% and 75% of the forced vital capacity (FEF25-75) less than the lower limit of normal or forced expiratory volume in 3 s to forced vital capacity ratio (FEV3/FVC ratio) less than the lower limit of normal. We estimated the prevalence of pre-bronchodilator (ie, before administration of 200 μg salbutamol) and post-bronchodilator (ie, after administration of 200 μg salbutamol) small airways obstruction for each site. To identify risk factors for small airways obstruction, we performed multivariable regression analyses within each site and pooled estimates using random-effects meta-analysis.

FINDINGS: 36 618 participants were recruited between Jan 2, 2003, and Dec 26, 2016. Data were collected from participants at recruitment. Of the recruited participants, 28 604 participants had acceptable spirometry and completed the core study questionnaire. Data were available for 26 443 participants for FEV3/FVC ratio and 25 961 participants for FEF25-75. Of the 26 443 participants included, 12 490 were men and 13 953 were women. Prevalence of pre-bronchodilator small airways obstruction ranged from 5% (34 of 624 participants) in Tartu, Estonia, to 34% (189 of 555 participants) in Mysore, India, for FEF25-75, and for FEV3/FVC ratio it ranged from 5% (31 of 684) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to 31% (287 of 924) in Salzburg, Austria. Prevalence of post-bronchodilator small airways obstruction was universally lower. Risk factors significantly associated with FEV3/FVC ratio less than the lower limit of normal included increasing age, low BMI, active and passive smoking, low level of education, working in a dusty job for more than 10 years, previous tuberculosis, and family history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Results were similar for FEF25-75, except for increasing age, which was associated with reduced odds of small airways obstruction.

INTERPRETATION: Despite the wide geographical variation, small airways obstruction is common and more prevalent than chronic airflow obstruction worldwide. Small airways obstruction shows the same risk factors as chronic airflow obstruction. However, further research is required to investigate whether small airways obstruction is also associated with respiratory symptoms and lung function decline.

FUNDING: National Heart and Lung Institute and Wellcome Trust.

METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, data on newly diagnosed patients with cancer were derived from the ASEAN Costs in Oncology (ACTION) cohort study, a prospective longitudinal study in 47 centres located in eight countries in southeast Asia. The ACTION study measured household expenditures on complementary medicine in the immediate year after cancer diagnosis. Participants were given cost diaries at baseline to record illness-related payments that were directly incurred and not reimbursed by insurance over the 12-month period after study recruitment. We assessed incidence of financial catastrophe (out-of-pocket cancer-related costs ≥30% of annual household income), medical impoverishment (reduction in annual household income to below poverty line following subtraction of out-of-pocket cancer-related costs), and economic hardship (inability to make necessary household payments) at 1 year.

FINDINGS: Between March, 2012, and September, 2013, 9513 participants were recruited into the ACTION cohort study, of whom 4754 (50·0%) participants were included in this analysis. Out-of-pocket expenditures on complementary medicine were reported by 1233 households. These payments constituted 8·6% of the annual total out-of-pocket health costs in lower-middle-income countries and 42·9% in upper-middle-income countries. Expenditures on complementary medicine significantly increased risks of financial catastrophe (adjusted odds ratio 1·52 [95% CI 1·23-1·88]) and medical impoverishment (1·75 [1·36-2·24]) at 12 months in upper-middle-income countries only. However, the risks were significantly higher for economically disadvantaged households, irrespective of country income group.

INTERPRETATION: Integration of evidence-supported complementary therapies into mainstream cancer care, along with interventions to address use of non-evidence-based complementary medicine, might help alleviate any associated adverse financial impacts.