Despite increasing evidence about the value and importance of breastfeeding, less than half of the world's infants and young children (aged 0-36 months) are breastfed as recommended. This Series paper examines the social, political, and economic reasons for this problem. First, this paper highlights the power of the commercial milk formula (CMF) industry to commodify the feeding of infants and young children; influence policy at both national and international levels in ways that grow and sustain CMF markets; and externalise the social, environmental, and economic costs of CMF. Second, this paper examines how breastfeeding is undermined by economic policies and systems that ignore the value of care work by women, including breastfeeding, and by the inadequacy of maternity rights protection across the world, especially for poorer women. Third, this paper presents three reasons why health systems often do not provide adequate breastfeeding protection, promotion, and support. These reasons are the gendered and biomedical power systems that deny women-centred and culturally appropriate care; the economic and ideological factors that accept, and even encourage, commercial influence and conflicts of interest; and the fiscal and economic policies that leave governments with insufficient funds to adequately protect, promote, and support breastfeeding. We outline six sets of wide-ranging social, political, and economic reforms required to overcome these deeply embedded commercial and structural barriers to breastfeeding.

Despite proven benefits, less than half of infants and young children globally are breastfed in accordance with the recommendations of WHO. In comparison, commercial milk formula (CMF) sales have increased to about US$55 billion annually, with more infants and young children receiving formula products than ever. This Series paper describes the CMF marketing playbook and its influence on families, health professionals, science, and policy processes, drawing on national survey data, company reports, case studies, methodical scoping reviews, and two multicountry research studies. We report how CMF sales are driven by multifaceted, well resourced marketing strategies that portray CMF products, with little or no supporting evidence, as solutions to common infant health and developmental challenges in ways that systematically undermine breastfeeding. Digital platforms substantially extend the reach and influence of marketing while circumventing the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. Creating an enabling policy environment for breastfeeding that is free from commercial influence requires greater political commitment, financial investment, CMF industry transparency, and sustained advocacy. A framework convention on the commercial marketing of food products for infants and children is needed to end CMF marketing.

In this Series paper, we examine how mother and baby attributes at the individual level interact with breastfeeding determinants at other levels, how these interactions drive breastfeeding outcomes, and what policies and interventions are necessary to achieve optimal breastfeeding. About one in three neonates in low-income and middle-income countries receive prelacteal feeds, and only one in two neonates are put to the breast within the first hour of life. Prelacteal feeds are strongly associated with delayed initiation of breastfeeding. Self-reported insufficient milk continues to be one of the most common reasons for introducing commercial milk formula (CMF) and stopping breastfeeding. Parents and health professionals frequently misinterpret typical, unsettled baby behaviours as signs of milk insufficiency or inadequacy. In our market-driven world and in violation of the WHO International Code for Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, the CMF industry exploits concerns of parents about these behaviours with unfounded product claims and advertising messages. A synthesis of reviews between 2016 and 2021 and country-based case studies indicate that breastfeeding practices at a population level can be improved rapidly through multilevel and multicomponent interventions across the socioecological model and settings. Breastfeeding is not the sole responsibility of women and requires collective societal approaches that take gender inequities into consideration.

Malnutrition is a highly prevalent condition in older adults, and poses a substantial burden on health, social, and aged-care systems. Older adults are vulnerable to malnutrition due to age-related physiological decline, reduced access to nutritious food, and comorbidity. Clinical guidelines recommend routine screening for malnutrition in all older adults, together with nutritional assessment and individually tailored nutritional support for older adults with a positive screening test. Nutritional support includes offering individualised nutritional advice and counselling; oral nutritional supplements; fortified foods; and enteral or parenteral nutrition as required. However, in clinical practice, the incorporation of nutritional guidelines is inadequate and low-value care is commonplace. This Review discusses the current evidence on identification and treatment of malnutrition in older adults, identifies gaps between evidence and practice in clinical care, and offers practical strategies to translate evidence-based knowledge into improved nutritional care. We also provide an overview of the prevalence, causes, and risk factors of malnutrition in older adults across health-care settings.

The apparent failure of global health security to prevent or prepare for the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for closer cooperation between human, animal (domestic and wildlife), and environmental health sectors. However, the many institutions, processes, regulatory frameworks, and legal instruments with direct and indirect roles in the global governance of One Health have led to a fragmented, global, multilateral health security architecture. We explore four challenges: first, the sectoral, professional, and institutional silos and tensions existing between human, animal, and environmental health; second, the challenge that the international legal system, state sovereignty, and existing legal instruments pose for the governance of One Health; third, the power dynamics and asymmetry in power between countries represented in multilateral institutions and their impact on priority setting; and finally, the current financing mechanisms that predominantly focus on response to crises, and the chronic underinvestment for epidemic and emergency prevention, mitigation, and preparedness activities. We illustrate the global and regional dimensions to these four challenges and how they relate to national needs and priorities through three case studies on compulsory licensing, the governance of water resources in the Lake Chad Basin, and the desert locust infestation in east Africa. Finally, we propose 12 recommendations for the global community to address these challenges. Despite its broad and holistic agenda, One Health continues to be dominated by human and domestic animal health experts. Substantial efforts should be made to address the social-ecological drivers of health emergencies including outbreaks of emerging, re-emerging, and endemic infectious diseases. These drivers include climate change, biodiversity loss, and land-use change, and therefore require effective and enforceable legislation, investment, capacity building, and integration of other sectors and professionals beyond health.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed faults in the way we assess preparedness and response capacities for public health emergencies. Existing frameworks are limited in scope, and do not sufficiently consider complex social, economic, political, regulatory, and ecological factors. One Health, through its focus on the links among humans, animals, and ecosystems, is a valuable approach through which existing assessment frameworks can be analysed and new ways forward proposed. Although in the past few years advances have been made in assessment tools such as the International Health Regulations Joint External Evaluation, a rapid and radical increase in ambition is required. To sufficiently account for the range of complex systems in which health emergencies occur, assessments should consider how problems are defined across stakeholders and the wider sociopolitical environments in which structures and institutions operate. Current frameworks do little to consider anthropogenic factors in disease emergence or address the full array of health security hazards across the social-ecological system. A complex and interdependent set of challenges threaten human, animal, and ecosystem health, and we cannot afford to overlook important contextual factors, or the determinants of these shared threats. Health security assessment frameworks should therefore ensure that the process undertaken to prioritise and build capacity adheres to core One Health principles and that interventions and outcomes are assessed in terms of added value, trade-offs, and cobenefits across human, animal, and environmental health systems.

Asthma is one of the most common chronic non-communicable diseases worldwide and is characterised by variable airflow obstruction, causing dyspnoea and wheezing. Highly effective therapies are available; asthma morbidity and mortality have vastly improved in the past 15 years, and most patients can attain good asthma control. However, undertreatment is still common, and improving patient and health-care provider understanding of when and how to adjust treatment is crucial. Asthma management consists of a cycle of assessment of asthma control and risk factors and adjustment of medications accordingly. With the introduction of biological therapies, management of severe asthma has entered the precision medicine era-a shift that is driving clinical ambitions towards disease remission. Patients with severe asthma often have co-existing conditions contributing to their symptoms, mandating a multidimensional management approach. In this Seminar, we provide a clinically focused overview of asthma; epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management in children and adults.

In this Series paper, we review the contributions of One Health approaches (ie, at the human-animal-environment interface) to improve global health security across a range of health hazards and we summarise contemporary evidence of incremental benefits of a One Health approach. We assessed how One Health approaches were reported to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, formerly OIE), and WHO, within the monitoring and assessment frameworks, including WHO International Health Regulations (2005) and WOAH Performance of Veterinary Services. We reviewed One Health theoretical foundations, methods, and case studies. Examples from joint health services and infrastructure, surveillance-response systems, surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, food safety and security, environmental hazards, water and sanitation, and zoonoses control clearly show incremental benefits of One Health approaches. One Health approaches appear to be most effective and sustainable in the prevention, preparedness, and early detection and investigation of evolving risks and hazards; the evidence base for their application is strongest in the control of endemic and neglected tropical diseases. For benefits to be maximised and extended, improved One Health operationalisation is needed by strengthening multisectoral coordination mechanisms at national, regional, and global levels.

There has been a renewed focus on threats to the human-animal-environment interface as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and investments in One Health collaborations are expected to increase. Efforts to monitor the development of One Health Networks (OHNs) are essential to avoid duplication or misalignment of investments. This Series paper shows the global distribution of existing OHNs and assesses their collective characteristics to identify potential deficits in the ways OHNs have formed and to help increase the effectiveness of investments. We searched PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and relevant conference websites for potential OHNs and identified 184 worldwide for further analysis. We developed four case studies to show important findings from our research and exemplify best practices in One Health operationalisation. Our findings show that, although more OHNs were formed in the past 10 years than in the preceding decade, investment in OHNs has not been equitably distributed; more OHNs are formed and headquartered in Europe than in any other region, and emerging infections and novel pathogens were the priority focus area for most OHNs, with fewer OHNs focusing on other important hazards and pressing threats to health security. We found substantial deficits in the OHNs collaboration model regarding the diversity of stakeholder and sector representation, which we argue impedes effective and equitable OHN formation and contributes to other imbalances in OHN distribution and priorities. These findings are supported by previous evidence that shows the skewed investment in One Health thus far. The increased attention to One Health after the COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to focus efforts and resources to areas that need them most. Analyses, such as this Series paper, should be used to establish databases and repositories of OHNs worldwide. Increased attention should then be given to understanding existing resource allocation and distribution patterns, establish more egalitarian networks that encompass the breadth of One Health issues, and serve communities most affected by emerging, re-emerging, or endemic threats at the human-animal-environment interface.

Although substantial progress has been made in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of acute aortic dissection, it remains a complex cardiovascular event, with a high immediate mortality and substantial morbidity in individuals surviving the acute period. The past decade has allowed a leap forward in understanding the pathophysiology of this disease; the existing classifications have been challenged, and the scientific community moves towards a nomenclature that is likely to unify the current definitions according to morphology and function. The most important pathophysiological pathway, namely the location and extension of the initial intimal tear, which causes a disruption of the media layer of the aortic wall, together with the size of the affected aortic segments, determines whether the patient should undergo emergency surgery, an endovascular intervention, or receive optimal medical treatment. The scientific evidence for the management and follow-up of acute aortic dissection continues to evolve. This Seminar provides a clinically relevant overview of potential prevention, diagnosis, and management of acute aortic dissection, which is the most severe acute aortic syndrome.

94 million people are blind or visually impaired globally, and cataract is the most common cause of blindness worldwide. However, most cases of blindness are avoidable. Cataract is associated with decreased quality of life and reduced life expectancy. Most cases of cataract occur after birth and share ageing and oxidative stress as primary causes, although several non-modifiable and modifiable risk factors can accelerate cataract formation. In most patients, phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation is the preferred treatment and is highly cost-effective. There has been an increase in the use of comprehensive cataract surgical services, including diagnoses, treatment referrals, and rehabilitation. However, global inequity in surgical service quality is still a limitation. Implementation of preoperative risk assessment, risk reduction strategies, and new surgical technologies have made cataract surgery possible at an earlier stage of cataract severity with the expectation of good refractive outcomes. The main challenge is making the service that is currently available to some patients accessible to all by use of universal health coverage.

Randomised controlled trials, including the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and the NELSON trial, have shown reduced mortality with lung cancer screening with low-dose CT compared with chest radiography or no screening. Although research has provided clarity on key issues of lung cancer screening, uncertainty remains about aspects that might be critical to optimise clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This Review brings together current evidence on lung cancer screening, including an overview of clinical trials, considerations regarding the identification of individuals who benefit from lung cancer screening, management of screen-detected findings, smoking cessation interventions, cost-effectiveness, the role of artificial intelligence and biomarkers, and current challenges, solutions, and opportunities surrounding the implementation of lung cancer screening programmes from an international perspective. Further research into risk models for patient selection, personalised screening intervals, novel biomarkers, integrated cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessments, smoking cessation interventions, and artificial intelligence for lung nodule detection and risk stratification are key opportunities to increase the efficiency of lung cancer screening and ensure equity of access.

Depression is common, costly, debilitating, and associated with increased risk of suicide. It is one of the leading global public health problems. Although existing available pharmacological treatments can be effective, their onset of action can take up to 6 weeks, side-effects are common, and recovery can require treatment with multiple different agents. Although psychosocial interventions might also be recommended, more effective treatments than those currently available are needed for people with moderate or severe depression. In the past 10 years, treatment trials have developed and tested many new targeted interventions. In this Review, we assess novel and emerging biological treatments for major depressive disorder, evaluate their putative brain and body mechanisms, and highlight how close each might be to clinical use.

Louis Pasteur has long been heralded as one of the fathers of microbiology and immunology. Less known is Pasteur's vision on infection prevention and control (IPC) that drove current infection control, public health, and much of modern medicine and surgery. In this Review, we revisited Pasteur's pioneering works to assess progress and challenges in the process and technological innovation of IPC. We focused on Pasteur's far-sighted conceptualisation of the hospital as a reservoir of microorganisms and amplifier of transmission, aseptic technique in surgery, public health education, interdisciplinary working, and the protection of health services and patients. Examples from across the globe help inform future thinking for IPC innovation, adoption, scale up and sustained use.

The education of health professionals substantially changed before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. A 2010 Lancet Commission examined the 100-year history of health-professional education, beginning with the 1910 Flexner report. Since the publication of the Lancet Commission, several transformative developments have happened, including in competency-based education, interprofessional education, and the large-scale application of information technology to education. Although the COVID-19 pandemic did not initiate these developments, it increased their implementation, and they are likely to have a long-term effect on health-professional education. They converge with other societal changes, such as globalisation of health care and increasing concerns of health disparities across the world, that were exacerbated by the pandemic. In this Health Policy, we list institutional and instructional reforms to assess what has happened to health-professional education since the publication of the Lancet Commission and how the COVID-19 pandemic altered the education process.

Racism, xenophobia, and discrimination are key determinants of health and equity and must be addressed for improved health outcomes. We conclude that far broader, deeper, transformative action is needed compared with current measures to tackle adverse effects of racism on health. To challenge the structural drivers of racism and xenophobia, anti-racist action and other wider measures that target determinants should implement an intersectional approach to effectively address the causes and consequences of racism within a population. Structurally, legal instruments and human rights law provide a robust framework to challenge the pervasive drivers of disadvantage linked to caste, ethnicity, Indigeneity, migratory status, race, religion, and skin colour. Actions need to consider the historical, economic, and political contexts in which the effects of racism, xenophobia, and discrimination affect health. We propose several specific actions: a commission that explores how we action the approaches laid out in this paper; building a conversation and a series of events with international multilateral agency stakeholders to raise the issue and profile of racism, xenophobia, and discrimination within health; and using our multiple platforms to build coalitions, expand knowledge, highlight inequities, and advocate for change across the world.

Intersectionality is a useful tool to address health inequalities, by helping us understand and respond to the individual and group effects of converging systems of power. Intersectionality rejects the notion of inequalities being the result of single, distinct factors, and instead focuses on the relationships between overlapping processes that create inequities. In this Series paper, we use an intersectional approach to highlight the intersections of racism, xenophobia, and discrimination with other systems of oppression, how this affects health, and what can be done about it. We present five case studies from different global locations that outline different dimensions of discrimination based on caste, ethnicity and migration status, Indigeneity, religion, and skin colour. Although experiences are diverse, the case studies show commonalities in how discrimination operates to affect health and wellbeing: how historical factors and coloniality shape contemporary experiences of race and racism; how racism leads to separation and hierarchies across shifting lines of identity and privilege; how racism and discrimination are institutionalised at a systems level and are embedded in laws, regulations, practices, and health systems; how discrimination, minoritisation, and exclusion are racialised processes, influenced by visible factors and tacit knowledge; and how racism is a form of structural violence. These insights allow us to begin to articulate starting points for justice-based action that addresses root causes, engages beyond the health sector, and encourages transnational solidarity.