METHODS: The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate cancer burden attributable to behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risk factors. A total of 82 risk-outcome pairs were included on the basis of the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Estimated cancer deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019 and change in these measures between 2010 and 2019 are presented.

FINDINGS: Globally, in 2019, the risk factors included in this analysis accounted for 4·45 million (95% uncertainty interval 4·01-4·94) deaths and 105 million (95·0-116) DALYs for both sexes combined, representing 44·4% (41·3-48·4) of all cancer deaths and 42·0% (39·1-45·6) of all DALYs. There were 2·88 million (2·60-3·18) risk-attributable cancer deaths in males (50·6% [47·8-54·1] of all male cancer deaths) and 1·58 million (1·36-1·84) risk-attributable cancer deaths in females (36·3% [32·5-41·3] of all female cancer deaths). The leading risk factors at the most detailed level globally for risk-attributable cancer deaths and DALYs in 2019 for both sexes combined were smoking, followed by alcohol use and high BMI. Risk-attributable cancer burden varied by world region and Socio-demographic Index (SDI), with smoking, unsafe sex, and alcohol use being the three leading risk factors for risk-attributable cancer DALYs in low SDI locations in 2019, whereas DALYs in high SDI locations mirrored the top three global risk factor rankings. From 2010 to 2019, global risk-attributable cancer deaths increased by 20·4% (12·6-28·4) and DALYs by 16·8% (8·8-25·0), with the greatest percentage increase in metabolic risks (34·7% [27·9-42·8] and 33·3% [25·8-42·0]).

INTERPRETATION: The leading risk factors contributing to global cancer burden in 2019 were behavioural, whereas metabolic risk factors saw the largest increases between 2010 and 2019. Reducing exposure to these modifiable risk factors would decrease cancer mortality and DALY rates worldwide, and policies should be tailored appropriately to local cancer risk factor burden.

METHODS: Solidarity enrolled consenting adults (aged ≥18 years) recently hospitalised with, in the view of their doctor, definite COVID-19 and no contraindication to any of the study drugs, regardless of any other patient characteristics. Participants were randomly allocated, in equal proportions between the locally available options, to receive whichever of the four study drugs (lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, IFN-β1a, or remdesivir) were locally available at that time or no study drug (controls). All patients also received the local standard of care. No placebos were given. The protocol-specified primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, subdivided by disease severity. Secondary endpoints were progression to ventilation if not already ventilated, and time-to-discharge from hospital. Final log-rank and Kaplan-Meier analyses are presented for remdesivir, and are appended for all four study drugs. Meta-analyses give weighted averages of the mortality findings in this and all other randomised trials of these drugs among hospital inpatients. Solidarity is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN83971151, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948.

FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021, 14 304 potentially eligible patients were recruited from 454 hospitals in 35 countries in all six WHO regions. After the exclusion of 83 (0·6%) patients with a refuted COVID-19 diagnosis or encrypted consent not entered into the database, Solidarity enrolled 14 221 patients, including 8275 randomly allocated (1:1) either to remdesivir (ten daily infusions, unless discharged earlier) or to its control (allocated no study drug although remdesivir was locally available). Compliance was high in both groups. Overall, 602 (14·5%) of 4146 patients assigned to remdesivir died versus 643 (15·6%) of 4129 assigned to control (mortality rate ratio [RR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·82-1·02], p=0·12). Of those already ventilated, 151 (42·1%) of 359 assigned to remdesivir died versus 134 (38·6%) of 347 assigned to control (RR 1·13 [0·89-1·42], p=0·32). Of those not ventilated but on oxygen, 14·6% assigned to remdesivir died versus 16·3% assigned to control (RR 0·87 [0·76-0·99], p=0·03). Of 1730 not on oxygen initially, 2·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 3·8% assigned to control (RR 0·76 [0·46-1·28], p=0·30). Combining all those not ventilated initially, 11·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 13·5% assigned to control (RR 0·86 [0·76-0·98], p=0·02) and 14·1% versus 15·7% progressed to ventilation (RR 0·88 [0·77-1·00], p=0·04). The non-prespecified composite outcome of death or progression to ventilation occurred in 19·6% assigned to remdesivir versus 22·5% assigned to control (RR 0·84 [0·75-0·93], p=0·001). Allocation to daily remdesivir infusions (vs open-label control) delayed discharge by about 1 day during the 10-day treatment period. A meta-analysis of mortality in all randomised trials of remdesivir versus no remdesivir yielded similar findings.

INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir has no significant effect on patients with COVID-19 who are already being ventilated. Among other hospitalised patients, it has a small effect against death or progression to ventilation (or both).

METHODS: Using FHSC global registry data, we did a cross-sectional assessment of adults (aged 18 years or older) with a clinical or genetic diagnosis of probable or definite heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia at the time they were entered into the registries. Data were assessed overall and by WHO regions, sex, and index versus non-index cases.

FINDINGS: Of the 61 612 individuals in the registry, 42 167 adults (21 999 [53·6%] women) from 56 countries were included in the study. Of these, 31 798 (75·4%) were diagnosed with the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network criteria, and 35 490 (84·2%) were from the WHO region of Europe. Median age of participants at entry in the registry was 46·2 years (IQR 34·3-58·0); median age at diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia was 44·4 years (32·5-56·5), with 40·2% of participants younger than 40 years when diagnosed. Prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors increased progressively with age and varied by WHO region. Prevalence of coronary disease was 17·4% (2·1% for stroke and 5·2% for peripheral artery disease), increasing with concentrations of untreated LDL cholesterol, and was about two times lower in women than in men. Among patients receiving lipid-lowering medications, 16 803 (81·1%) were receiving statins and 3691 (21·2%) were on combination therapy, with greater use of more potent lipid-lowering medication in men than in women. Median LDL cholesterol was 5·43 mmol/L (IQR 4·32-6·72) among patients not taking lipid-lowering medications and 4·23 mmol/L (3·20-5·66) among those taking them. Among patients taking lipid-lowering medications, 2·7% had LDL cholesterol lower than 1·8 mmol/L; the use of combination therapy, particularly with three drugs and with proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors, was associated with a higher proportion and greater odds of having LDL cholesterol lower than 1·8 mmol/L. Compared with index cases, patients who were non-index cases were younger, with lower LDL cholesterol and lower prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular diseases (all p<0·001).

INTERPRETATION: Familial hypercholesterolaemia is diagnosed late. Guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol concentrations are infrequently achieved with single-drug therapy. Cardiovascular risk factors and presence of coronary disease were lower among non-index cases, who were diagnosed earlier. Earlier detection and greater use of combination therapies are required to reduce the global burden of familial hypercholesterolaemia.

METHODS: We did a randomised, controlled, assessor-masked trial at ten Australian hospitals. Our hypothesis was CRBSI equivalence for central venous access devices and non-inferiority for peripheral arterial catheters (both 2% margin). Adults and children with expected greater than 24 h central venous access device-peripheral arterial catheter use were randomly assigned (1:1; stratified by hospital, catheter type, and intensive care unit or ward) by a centralised, web-based service (concealed before allocation) to infusion set replacement every 7 days, or 4 days. This included crystalloids, non-lipid parenteral nutrition, and medication infusions. Patients and clinicians were not masked, but the primary outcome (CRBSI) was adjudicated by masked infectious diseases physicians. The analysis was modified intention to treat (mITT). This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000505000 and is complete.

FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2011, and Dec, 9, 2016, from 6007 patients assessed, we assigned 2944 patients to 7-day (n=1463) or 4-day (n=1481) infusion set replacement, with 2941 in the mITT analysis. For central venous access devices, 20 (1·78%) of 1124 patients (7-day group) and 16 (1·46%) of 1097 patients (4-day group) had CRBSI (absolute risk difference [ARD] 0·32%, 95% CI -0·73 to 1·37). For peripheral arterial catheters, one (0·28%) of 357 patients in the 7-day group and none of 363 patients in the 4-day group had CRBSI (ARD 0·28%, -0·27% to 0·83%). There were no treatment-related adverse events.

INTERPRETATION: Infusion set use can be safely extended to 7 days with resultant cost and workload reductions.