The evolution of the Global Burden of Disease framework for disease, injury and risk factor quantification: Developing the evidence base for national, regional and global public health action

Reliable, comparable information about the main causes of disease and injury in populations, and how these are changing, is a critical input for debates about priorities in the health sector. Traditional sources of information about the descriptive epidemiology of diseases, injuries and risk factors are generally incomplete, fragmented and of uncertain reliability and comparability. Lack of a standardized measurement framework to permit comparisons across diseases and injuries, as well as risk factors, and failure to systematically evaluate data quality have impeded comparative analyses of the true public health importance of various conditions and risk factors. As a consequence the impact of major conditions and hazards on population health has been poorly appreciated, often leading to a lack of public health investment. Global disease and risk factor quantification improved dramatically in the early 1990s with the completion of the first Global Burden of Disease Study. For the first time, the comparative importance of over 100 diseases and injuries, and ten major risk factors, for global and regional health status could be assessed using a common metric (Disability-Adjusted Life Years) which simultaneously accounted for both premature mortality and the prevalence, duration and severity of the non-fatal consequences of disease and injury. As a consequence, mental health conditions and injuries, for which non-fatal outcomes are of particular significance, were identified as being among the leading causes of disease/injury burden worldwide, with clear implications for policy, particularly prevention. A major achievement of the Study was the complete global descriptive epidemiology, including incidence, prevalence and mortality, by age, sex and Region, of over 100 diseases and injuries. National applications, further methodological research and an increase in data availability have led to improved national, regional and global estimates for 2000, but substantial uncertainty around the disease burden caused by major conditions, including, HIV, remains. The rapid implementation of cost-effective data collection systems in developing countries is a key priority if global public policy to promote health is to be more effectively informed.

The origin of the pelagobenthic metazoan life cycle: what's sex got to do with it?

The biphasic (pelagobenthic) life cycle is found throughout the animal kingdom, and includes gametogenesis, embryogenesis, and metamorphosis. From a tangled web of hypotheses on the origin and evolution of the metazoan pelagobenthic life cycle, current opinion appears to favor a simple, larval-like holopelagic ancestor that independently settled multiple times to incorporate a benthic phase into the life cycle. This hypothesis derives originally from Haeckel's (1874) Gastraea theory of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, in which the gastrula is viewed as the recapitulation of a gastracan ancestor that evolved via selection on a simple, planktonic hollow ball of cells to develop the capacity to feed. Here, we propose an equally plausible hypothesis that the origin of the metazoan pelagobenthic life cycle was a direct consequence of sexual reproduction in a likely holobenthic ancestor. In doing so, we take into account new insights from poriferan development and from molecular phylogenies. In this scenario, the gastrula does not represent a recapitulation, but simply an embryological stage that is an outcome of sexual reproduction. The embryo can itself be considered as the precursor to a biphasic lifestyle, with the embryo representing one phase and the adult another phase. This hypothesis is more parsimonious because it precludes the need for multiple, independent origins of the benthic form. It is then reasonable to consider that multilayered, ciliated embryos ultimately released into the water column are subject to natural selection for dispersal/longevity/feeding that sets them on the evolutionary trajectory towards the crown metazoan planktonic larvae. These new insights from poriferan development thus clearly support the intercalation hypothesis of bilaterian larval evolution, which we now believe should be extended to discussions of the origin of biphasy in the metazoan last common ancestor.