-
PloS One 2017We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the question "what is the impact of meningitis on IQ and development." (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the question "what is the impact of meningitis on IQ and development."
METHODS
Search: conducted using standardized search terms across Medline, PsychInfo and EMBASE to 06/2014. Eligibility: human studies of any infectious aetiology of meningitis reporting IQ or infant developmental age or stage outcomes. Quality: Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Oxford, quality tools. Analysis: random effects meta-analysis by organism.
RESULTS
39 studies were included in the review, 34 providing data on IQ (2015 subjects) and 12 on developmental delay (382 subjects). Across all bacterial organisms, meningitis survivors had a mean IQ 5.50 (95% CI: -7.19, -3.80; I2 = 47%, p = 0.02) points lower than controls. IQ was significantly lower than controls for Neisseria meningitides (NM: 5 points) and Haemophilus influenzae b (Hib: 6 points) but not in viral meningitis, with only single studies included for Streptococcus pneumoniae (SP) and group B streptococcus (GBS). The pooled relative risk (RR) for low IQ (IQ<70) in survivors of bacterial meningitis compared with controls was 4.99 (95% CI: 3.17, 7.86) with no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 49%, p = 0.07). Developmental delay of approximately 0.5SD was reported in studies of bacterial meningitis but no delay in the only study of viral meningitis.
CONCLUSIONS
We found moderate evidence that surviving bacterial meningitis has a deleterious impact on IQ and development but no evidence that viral meningitis had meaningful cognitive impacts. Survivors of bacterial meningitis should be routinely offered screening for cognitive deficits and developmental delay in addition to hearing loss.
Topics: Humans; Intelligence; Meningitis, Bacterial; Meningitis, Viral
PubMed: 28837564
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175024 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2015Streptococcus suis is the most common cause of meningitis in pork consuming and pig rearing countries in South-East Asia. We performed a systematic review of studies on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Streptococcus suis is the most common cause of meningitis in pork consuming and pig rearing countries in South-East Asia. We performed a systematic review of studies on S. suis meningitis to define the clinical characteristics, predisposing factors and outcome.
METHODOLOGY
Studies published between January 1, 1980 and August 1, 2015 were identified from main literature databases and reference lists. Studies were included if they were written in West-European languages and described at least 5 adult patients with S. suis meningitis in whom at least one clinical characteristic was described.
FINDINGS
We identified 913 patients with S. suis meningitis included in 24 studies between 1980 and 2015. The mean age was 49 years and 581 of 711 patients were male (82%). Exposure to pigs or pork was present in 395 of 648 patients (61%) while other predisposing factors were less common. 514 of 528 patients presented with fever (97%), 429 of 451 with headache (95%), 462 of 496 with neck stiffness (93%) and 78 of 384 patients (20%) had a skin injury in the presence of pig/pork contact. The case fatality rate was 2.9% and hearing loss was a common sequel occurring in 259 of 489 patients (53%). Treatment included dexamethasone in 157 of 300 (52%) of patients and was associated with reduced hearing loss in S. suis meningitis patients included in a randomized controlled trial.
CONCLUSION
S. suis meningitis has a clear association with pig and pork contact. Mortality is low, but hearing loss occurs frequently. Dexamethasone was shown to reduce hearing loss.
Topics: Age Distribution; Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Asia, Southeastern; Dexamethasone; Environmental Exposure; Humans; Meningitis, Bacterial; Mortality; Occupational Exposure; Risk Factors; Sex Distribution; Streptococcal Infections; Streptococcus suis; Swine
PubMed: 26505485
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004191 -
PloS One 2017Bacterial meningitis persists in being a substantial cause of high mortality and severe neurological morbidity, despite the advances in antimicrobial therapy. Accurate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Bacterial meningitis persists in being a substantial cause of high mortality and severe neurological morbidity, despite the advances in antimicrobial therapy. Accurate data has not been available regarding the epidemiology of bacterial meningitis particularly in developing countries, yet. Indeed, the present systematic review provides a comprehensive data analysis on the prevalence and epidemiology of bacterial meningitis in Iran.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed articles from 1994 to 2015. The reports which contained the prevalence and etiology of acute bacterial meningitis by valid clinical and laboratory diagnosis were comprised in the present study.
RESULTS
Our analysis indicated that Streptococcus pneumoniae (30% [I2 = 56% p < 0.01]), Haemophilus influenza type b (15% [I2 = 82.75% p < 0.001]), coagulase negative staphylococci (CoNS) (14% [I2 = 60.5% p < 0.06]), and Neisseria meningitidis (13% [I2 = 74.16% p < 0.001]) were the most common cause of acute bacterial meningitis among meningitis cases in Iran. Notably, high frequency rates of nosocomial meningitis pathogens were detected in the present analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
It was magnificently attained that the majority of cases for bacterial meningitis in Iran could be avertable by public immunization schemes and by preventive care to inhibit the broadening of hospital acquired pathogens.
Topics: Biomarkers; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Iran; Meningitis, Bacterial; Phenotype; Population Surveillance; Prevalence
PubMed: 28170400
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169617 -
British Journal of Neurosurgery Dec 2022Systematic reviews (SR) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMA) can constitute the highest level of research evidence. Such evidence syntheses are relied upon... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Systematic reviews (SR) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMA) can constitute the highest level of research evidence. Such evidence syntheses are relied upon heavily to inform the clinical knowledge base and to guide clinical practice for meningioma. This review evaluates the reporting and methodological quality of published meningioma evidence syntheses to date.
METHODS
Eight electronic databases/registries were searched to identify eligible meningioma SRs with and without meta-analysis published between January 1990 and December 2020. Articles concerning spinal meningioma were excluded. Reporting and methodological quality were assessed against the following tools: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2), and Risk Of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS).
RESULTS
116 SRs were identified, of which 57 were SRMAs (49.1%). The mean PRISMA score for SRMA was 20.9 out of 27 (SD 3.9, 77.0% PRISMA adherence) and for SR without meta-analysis was 13.8 out of 22 (SD 3.4, 63% PRISMA adherence). Thirty-eight studies (32.8%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA. Methodological quality assessment against AMSTAR 2 revealed that 110 (94.8%) studies were of critically low quality. Only 21 studies (18.1%) were judged to have a low risk of bias against ROBIS.
CONCLUSION
The reporting and methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses was poor. Established guidelines and critical appraisal tools may be used as an adjunct to aid methodological conduct and reporting of such reviews, in order to improve the validity and transparency of research which may influence clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Meningeal Neoplasms; Meningioma; Research Design; Research Report
PubMed: 36263847
DOI: 10.1080/02688697.2022.2115008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) widely used for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) widely used for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum. To extend our previous review on extrapulmonary tuberculosis (Kohli 2018), we performed this update to inform updated WHO policy (WHO Consolidated Guidelines (Module 3) 2020).
OBJECTIVES
To estimate diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive extrapulmonary tuberculosis.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, 2 August 2019 and 28 January 2020 (Xpert Ultra studies), without language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Cross-sectional and cohort studies using non-respiratory specimens. Forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: tuberculous meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, disseminated tuberculosis. Reference standards were culture and a study-defined composite reference standard (tuberculosis detection); phenotypic drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays (rifampicin resistance detection).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. For tuberculosis detection, we performed separate analyses by specimen type and reference standard using the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). We applied a latent class meta-analysis model to three forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
69 studies: 67 evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF and 11 evaluated Xpert Ultra, of which nine evaluated both tests. Most studies were conducted in China, India, South Africa, and Uganda. Overall, risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains, and low (49%) or unclear (43%) for the reference standard domain. Applicability for the patient selection domain was unclear for most studies because we were unsure of the clinical settings. Cerebrospinal fluid Xpert Ultra (6 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 89.4% (79.1 to 95.6) (89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 91.2% (83.2 to 95.7) (386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 168 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 79 (47%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives) and 832 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 11 (1%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). Xpert MTB/RIF (30 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 71.1% (62.8 to 79.1) (571 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 96.9% (95.4 to 98.0) (2824 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 99 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 28 (28%) would not have tuberculosis; and 901 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Pleural fluid Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 75.0% (58.0 to 86.4) (158 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 87.0% (63.1 to 97.9) (240 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 192 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 117 (61%) would not have tuberculosis; and 808 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 25 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (25 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 49.5% (39.8 to 59.9) (644 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 98.9% (97.6 to 99.7) (2421 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 60 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 10 (17%) would not have tuberculosis; and 940 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 50 (5%) would have tuberculosis. Lymph node aspirate Xpert Ultra (1 study) Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) against composite reference standard were 70% (51 to 85) (30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 100% (92 to 100) (43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 70 would be Xpert Ultra-positive and 0 (0%) would not have tuberculosis; 930 would be Xpert Ultra-negative and 30 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against composite reference standard were 81.6% (61.9 to 93.3) (377 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 96.4% (91.3 to 98.6) (302 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 118 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive and 37 (31%) would not have tuberculosis; 882 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative and 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis. In lymph node aspirate, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity against culture was 86.2% (78.0 to 92.3), lower than that against a composite reference standard. Using the latent class model, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity was 99.5% (99.1 to 99.7), similar to that observed with a composite reference standard. Rifampicin resistance Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity were 100.0% (95.1 to 100.0), (24 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 100.0% (99.0 to 100.0) (105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 100 would be Xpert Ultra-positive (resistant): of these, zero (0%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 900 would be Xpert Ultra-negative (susceptible): of these, zero (0%) would have rifampicin resistance. Xpert MTB/RIF (19 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 96.5% (91.9 to 98.8) (148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 99.1% (98.0 to 99.7) (822 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 105 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive (resistant): of these, 8 (8%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 895 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative (susceptible): of these, 3 (0.3%) would have rifampicin resistance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF may be helpful in diagnosing extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens: while for most specimens specificity is high, the tests rarely yield a positive result for people without tuberculosis. For tuberculous meningitis, Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF against culture. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity for rifampicin resistance. Future research should acknowledge the concern associated with culture as a reference standard in paucibacillary specimens and consider ways to address this limitation.
Topics: Adult; Antibiotics, Antitubercular; Bias; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; False Negative Reactions; False Positive Reactions; Humans; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques; Reagent Kits, Diagnostic; Rifampin; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Lymph Node; Tuberculosis, Meningeal; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant; Tuberculosis, Pleural
PubMed: 33448348
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012768.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Angiostrongylus cantonensis (A. cantonensis) is the major cause of infectious eosinophilic meningitis. Dead larvae of this parasite cause inflammation and exacerbate... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Angiostrongylus cantonensis (A. cantonensis) is the major cause of infectious eosinophilic meningitis. Dead larvae of this parasite cause inflammation and exacerbate symptoms of meningitis. Corticosteroids are drugs used to reduce the inflammation caused by this parasite.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for the treatment of eosinophilic meningitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1950 to November Week 3, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to December 2014), Scopus (1960 to December 2014), Web of Science (1955 to December 2014), LILACS (1982 to December 2014) and CINAHL (1981 to December 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroids versus placebo for eosinophilic meningitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (SiT, SaT) independently collected and extracted study data. We graded the methodological quality of the RCTs. We identified and analysed outcomes and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identifiy any new trials for inclusion or exclusion in this 2014 update. One study involving 110 participants (55 participants in each group) met our inclusion criteria. The corticosteroid (prednisolone) showed a benefit in shortening the median time to resolution of headaches (five days in the treatment group versus 13 days in the control group, P value < 0.0001). Corticosteroids were also associated with smaller numbers of participants who still had headaches after a two-week course of treatment (9.1% versus 45.5%, P value < 0.0001). The number of patients who needed repeat lumbar puncture was also smaller in the treatment group (12.7% versus 40%, P value = 0.002). There was a reduction in the median time of analgesic use in participants receiving corticosteroids (10.5 versus 25.0, P value = 0.038). There were no reported adverse effects from prednisolone in the treatment group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids significantly help relieve headache in patients with eosinophilic meningitis, who have a pain score of four or more on a visual analogue scale. However, there is only one RCT supporting this benefit and this trial did not clearly mention allocation concealment and stratification. Therefore, we agreed to grade our included study as a moderate quality trial. Future well-designed RCTs are necessary.
Topics: Animals; Central Nervous System Parasitic Infections; Eosinophilia; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Meningitis; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25687750
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009088.pub3 -
Meningitis after elective intracranial surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence.European Journal of Medical Research Jun 2023Meningitis is a potential complication of elective intracranial surgery (EIS). The prevalence of meningitis after EIS varies greatly in the literature. The objective of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Meningitis is a potential complication of elective intracranial surgery (EIS). The prevalence of meningitis after EIS varies greatly in the literature. The objective of this study was to estimate the overall pooled prevalence of meningitis following EIS. Four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were searched to identify relevant studies. Meta-analyses of proportions were used to combine data. Cochran's Q and I statistics were used to assess and quantify heterogeneity. Additionally, several subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate the source of heterogeneity and examine differences in the prevalence based on variables such as geographical regions, income level, and meningitis type. The meta-analysis included 83 studies (30 959 patients) from 26 countries. The overall pooled prevalence of meningitis after EIS was 1.6% (95% CI 1.1-2.1), with high heterogeneity present (I = 88%). The pooled prevalence in low- to middle-income countries and high-income countries was 2.7% (95% CI 1.6-4.1) and 1.2% (95% CI 0.8-1.7), respectively. Studies that reported only aseptic meningitis had a pooled prevalence of 3.2% (95% CI 1.3-5.8). The pooled prevalence was 2.8% (95% CI 1.5-4.5) in studies that reported only bacterial meningitis. Similar prevalence rates of meningitis were observed in the subgroups of tumor resection, microvascular decompression, and aneurysm clipping. Meningitis is a rare but not exceptional complication following EIS, with an estimated prevalence of 1.6%.
Topics: Humans; Prevalence; Meningitis, Bacterial; Elective Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37291583
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01141-3 -
Journal of Interferon & Cytokine... Mar 2022No formal agreement exists regarding central inflammatory cytokine aberrations in tuberculosis (TB). We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
No formal agreement exists regarding central inflammatory cytokine aberrations in tuberculosis (TB). We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing cytokine levels in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from patients with TB compared with controls. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published up to June 22, 2021. Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they assessed unadjusted levels of cytokines in unstimulated CSF samples and drew the comparison(s) between any of the following pairs: patients with TB versus controls without central nervous system (CNS) infection and meningitis, patients with TB versus patients with meningitis of etiologies other than , HIV-infected patients with TB versus HIV-uninfected patients with TB, and HIV-infected patients with TB versus HIV-infected patients without TB. The primary outcome was the difference in mean CSF inflammatory cytokine levels between each of the 2 groups mentioned. The standardized mean difference was chosen to measure effect using a restricted maximum-likelihood estimator random-effects model. Of 1170 records identified, 40 studies were included in the meta-analysis. We calculated effect sizes for 30 different cytokines. About half of the studies took place in South Africa and India (18 out of 40 studies). Studies were mostly (92.5%) on patients with tuberculous meningitis (TBM), with only 3 articles of patients with neurotuberculosis and spinal TB. The quality of studies was rated as low to moderate and high with a 1.2:1 ratio. Compared with controls without CNS infection and meningitis, interferon-gamma (IFNγ), interleukin (IL)-12p40, IL-17F, IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, sIL-2R, transforming growth factor beta (TGFβ), TGFβ1, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) were increased in patients with TBM. Compared with patients with meningitis of etiologies other than or combined meningitis and nonmeningitis patients, patients with TBM had higher CSF concentrations of IFNγ, IL-13, and sIL-2R, whereas levels of IL-12p70, IL-15, IL-1Ra, IL-5, IL-7, IL-9, and sTNFR55 were decreased. Compared with patients with meningitis of bacterial etiologies other than , CSF levels of IFNγ and sIL-2R were increased in patients with TBM, whereas levels of IL-1Ra, IL-13, IL-17, and TNF R55-BP were decreased. Patients with TBM were not different from patients with CM for most CSF cytokines assessed, but IFNγ and IL-1β were increased. TNFα, IL-1β, IL-1Ra, IL-8, IFNγ, sIL-2R, IL-13, and IL-17 were higher in patients with TBM than those with viral or aseptic meningitis. Compared with HIV-negative patients with TBM, IFNγ, IL-10, IL-12p70, and IL-5 were decreased in HIV-positive patients with TBM, whereas IL-1β, TNFα, and IL-2 were increased. Elevated TNFα, IL-1β, IFNγ, IL-6, IL-17, and IFNα2 were found in HIV-positive patients with TBM compared with their counterparts without TBM. This study should be considered an explorative meta-analytic review, leading us to offer the best TBM-associated central inflammatory cytokines. Our study could prepare a panel of central cytokines as a potential aid in diagnosing TBM and its differentiation from meningitis of other etiologies.
Topics: Cytokines; HIV Infections; Humans; Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein; Interleukin-13; Interleukin-17; Interleukin-2; Interleukin-5; Interleukin-6; Interleukin-8; Meningitis; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Meningeal; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 35298290
DOI: 10.1089/jir.2021.0176 -
Saudi Medical Journal Dec 2022To investigate the incidence, risk factors, and management of meningitis in cochlear implant (CI)users.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the incidence, risk factors, and management of meningitis in cochlear implant (CI)users.
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register. Articles were considered relevant if reported any data on incidence, clinical presentations, the role of vaccination, management, and outcomes of meningitis after CI.
RESULTS
A total of 32 studies including 27358 patients were included, and meningitis was reported in only 202 cases. Meningitis occurred in the period ranging from 1 day to 72 months after CI. A total of 55 patients received the pneumococcal vaccine, while 20 patients received the type B vaccine. A large number of participants (n=47) had associated anatomical malformations, while 62 had otitis media before meningitis. A total of 24 cases required revision surgery along with medical treatment. Full recovery was the outcome reported by the included studies in 19 patients.
CONCLUSION
Cochlear implant users seem to be at possible risk of bacterial meningitis at any time after implantation, especially in the presence of risk factors, such as otitis media and anatomical malformations of the cochlea.
Topics: Humans; Cochlear Implants; Cochlear Implantation; Meningitis, Bacterial; Otitis Media; Vaccination
PubMed: 36517062
DOI: 10.15537/smj.2022.43.12.20220426 -
Annals of Clinical and Translational... Jun 2024Fabry disease is caused by enzymatic defects in alpha-galactosidase A that leads to the accumulation of glycosphingolipids throughout the body, resulting in a...
OBJECTIVE
Fabry disease is caused by enzymatic defects in alpha-galactosidase A that leads to the accumulation of glycosphingolipids throughout the body, resulting in a multisystemic disorder. The most common neurological manifestations are neuropathic pain, autonomic nervous system dysfunction and strokes, but some rarer neurological manifestations exist. Among these, aseptic meningitis is a possible complication. Our objectives were to measure the prevalence of this complication in a cohort of patients with Fabry disease, and to describe its clinical features.
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective review of Fabry disease patients followed at our tertiary referral center between 1995 and September 2023 with at least one episode of meningitis, and performed a systematic review to identify similar published cases.
RESULTS
Four patients out of 107 (3.7%) had at least one episode of aseptic meningitis. Our systematic review identified 25 other observations. The median age of these 29 patients was 29.0 years, the median cerebrospinal fluid leukocyte count was 24 cells/mm3 with a predominance of lymphocytes in 64.7% of cases. In 82.8% of the patients, the diagnosis of Fabry disease was unknown before the meningitis. Large artery stenosis was present in 17.2% of patients and 57.1% of patients had a recent stroke concomitant with the meningitis. Several differential diagnoses were evoked, such as multiple sclerosis or central nervous system vasculitis.
INTERPRETATION
Our study suggests that Fabry disease should be considered as a cause of aseptic meningitis. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying meningeal inflammation remain largely unknown but may reflect the dysregulation of pro-inflammatory signaling pathways.
Topics: Humans; Fabry Disease; Meningitis, Aseptic; Adult; Male; Female; Retrospective Studies; Middle Aged; Young Adult; Adolescent; Aged; Child
PubMed: 38717582
DOI: 10.1002/acn3.52043