-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Description of the condition Malaria, an infectious disease transmitted by the bite of female mosquitoes from several Anopheles species, occurs in 87 countries with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Description of the condition Malaria, an infectious disease transmitted by the bite of female mosquitoes from several Anopheles species, occurs in 87 countries with ongoing transmission (WHO 2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that, in 2019, approximately 229 million cases of malaria occurred worldwide, with 94% occurring in the WHO's African region (WHO 2020). Of these malaria cases, an estimated 409,000 deaths occurred globally, with 67% occurring in children under five years of age (WHO 2020). Malaria also negatively impacts the health of women during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period (WHO 2020). Sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (SP), an antifolate antimalarial, has been widely used across sub-Saharan Africa as the first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria since it was first introduced in Malawi in 1993 (Filler 2006). Due to increasing resistance to SP, in 2000 the WHO recommended that one of several artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) be used instead of SP for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum (Global Partnership to Roll Back Malaria 2001). However, despite these recommendations, SP continues to be advised for intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) and intermittent preventive treatment in infants (IPTi), whether the person has malaria or not (WHO 2013). Description of the intervention Folate (vitamin B9) includes both naturally occurring folates and folic acid, the fully oxidized monoglutamic form of the vitamin, used in dietary supplements and fortified food. Folate deficiency (e.g. red blood cell (RBC) folate concentrations of less than 305 nanomoles per litre (nmol/L); serum or plasma concentrations of less than 7 nmol/L) is common in many parts of the world and often presents as megaloblastic anaemia, resulting from inadequate intake, increased requirements, reduced absorption, or abnormal metabolism of folate (Bailey 2015; WHO 2015a). Pregnant women have greater folate requirements; inadequate folate intake (evidenced by RBC folate concentrations of less than 400 nanograms per millilitre (ng/mL), or 906 nmol/L) prior to and during the first month of pregnancy increases the risk of neural tube defects, preterm delivery, low birthweight, and fetal growth restriction (Bourassa 2019). The WHO recommends that all women who are trying to conceive consume 400 micrograms (µg) of folic acid daily from the time they begin trying to conceive through to 12 weeks of gestation (WHO 2017). In 2015, the WHO added the dosage of 0.4 mg of folic acid to the essential drug list (WHO 2015c). Alongside daily oral iron (30 mg to 60 mg elemental iron), folic acid supplementation is recommended for pregnant women to prevent neural tube defects, maternal anaemia, puerperal sepsis, low birthweight, and preterm birth in settings where anaemia in pregnant women is a severe public health problem (i.e. where at least 40% of pregnant women have a blood haemoglobin (Hb) concentration of less than 110 g/L). How the intervention might work Potential interactions between folate status and malaria infection The malaria parasite requires folate for survival and growth; this has led to the hypothesis that folate status may influence malaria risk and severity. In rhesus monkeys, folate deficiency has been found to be protective against Plasmodium cynomolgi malaria infection, compared to folate-replete animals (Metz 2007). Alternatively, malaria may induce or exacerbate folate deficiency due to increased folate utilization from haemolysis and fever. Further, folate status measured via RBC folate is not an appropriate biomarker of folate status in malaria-infected individuals since RBC folate values in these individuals are indicative of both the person's stores and the parasite's folate synthesis. A study in Nigeria found that children with malaria infection had significantly higher RBC folate concentrations compared to children without malaria infection, but plasma folate levels were similar (Bradley-Moore 1985). Why it is important to do this review The malaria parasite needs folate for survival and growth in humans. For individuals, adequate folate levels are critical for health and well-being, and for the prevention of anaemia and neural tube defects. Many countries rely on folic acid supplementation to ensure adequate folate status in at-risk populations. Different formulations for folic acid supplements are available in many international settings, with dosages ranging from 400 µg to 5 mg. Evaluating folic acid dosage levels used in supplementation efforts may increase public health understanding of its potential impacts on malaria risk and severity and on treatment failures. Examining folic acid interactions with antifolate antimalarial medications and with malaria disease progression may help countries in malaria-endemic areas determine what are the most appropriate lower dose folic acid formulations for at-risk populations. The WHO has highlighted the limited evidence available and has indicated the need for further research on biomarkers of folate status, particularly interactions between RBC folate concentrations and tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and antifolate antimalarial drugs (WHO 2015b). An earlier Cochrane Review assessed the effects and safety of iron supplementation, with or without folic acid, in children living in hyperendemic or holoendemic malaria areas; it demonstrated that iron supplementation did not increase the risk of malaria, as indicated by fever and the presence of parasites in the blood (Neuberger 2016). Further, this review stated that folic acid may interfere with the efficacy of SP; however, the efficacy and safety of folic acid supplementation on these outcomes has not been established. This review will provide evidence on the effectiveness of daily folic acid supplementation in healthy and malaria-infected individuals living in malaria-endemic areas. Additionally, it will contribute to achieving both the WHO Global Technical Strategy for Malaria 2016-2030 (WHO 2015d), and United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3 (to ensure healthy lives and to promote well-being for all of all ages) (United Nations 2021), and evaluating whether the potential effects of folic acid supplementation, at different doses (e.g. 0.4 mg, 1 mg, 5 mg daily), interferes with the effect of drugs used for prevention or treatment of malaria.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects of folic acid supplementation, at various doses, on malaria susceptibility (risk of infection) and severity among people living in areas with various degrees of malaria endemicity. We will examine the interaction between folic acid supplements and antifolate antimalarial drugs. Specifically, we will aim to answer the following. Among uninfected people living in malaria endemic areas, who are taking or not taking antifolate antimalarials for malaria prophylaxis, does taking a folic acid-containing supplement increase susceptibility to or severity of malaria infection? Among people with malaria infection who are being treated with antifolate antimalarials, does folic acid supplementation increase the risk of treatment failure?
METHODS
Criteria for considering studies for this review Types of studies Inclusion criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) Quasi-RCTs with randomization at the individual or cluster level conducted in malaria-endemic areas (areas with ongoing, local malaria transmission, including areas approaching elimination, as listed in the World Malaria Report 2020) (WHO 2020) Exclusion criteria Ecological studies Observational studies In vivo/in vitro studies Economic studies Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses (relevant systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses will be excluded but flagged for grey literature screening) Types of participants Inclusion criteria Individuals of any age or gender, living in a malaria endemic area, who are taking antifolate antimalarial medications (including but not limited to sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (SP), pyrimethamine-dapsone, pyrimethamine, chloroquine and proguanil, cotrimoxazole) for the prevention or treatment of malaria (studies will be included if more than 70% of the participants live in malaria-endemic regions) Studies assessing participants with or without anaemia and with or without malaria parasitaemia at baseline will be included Exclusion criteria Individuals not taking antifolate antimalarial medications for prevention or treatment of malaria Individuals living in non-malaria endemic areas Types of interventions Inclusion criteria Folic acid supplementation Form: in tablet, capsule, dispersible tablet at any dose, during administration, or periodically Timing: during, before, or after (within a period of four to six weeks) administration of antifolate antimalarials Iron-folic acid supplementation Folic acid supplementation in combination with co-interventions that are identical between the intervention and control groups. Co-interventions include: anthelminthic treatment; multivitamin or multiple micronutrient supplementation; 5-methyltetrahydrofolate supplementation. Exclusion criteria Folate through folate-fortified water Folic acid administered through large-scale fortification of rice, wheat, or maize Comparators Placebo No treatment No folic acid/different doses of folic acid Iron Types of outcome measures Primary outcomes Uncomplicated malaria (defined as a history of fever with parasitological confirmation; acceptable parasitological confirmation will include rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), malaria smears, or nucleic acid detection (i.e. polymerase chain reaction (PCR), loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), etc.)) (WHO 2010). This outcome is relevant for patients without malaria, given antifolate antimalarials for malaria prophylaxis. Severe malaria (defined as any case with cerebral malaria or acute P. falciparum malaria, with signs of severity or evidence of vital organ dysfunction, or both) (WHO 2010). This outcome is relevant for patients without malaria, given antifolate antimalarials for malaria prophylaxis. Parasite clearance (any Plasmodium species), defined as the time it takes for a patient who tests positive at enrolment and is treated to become smear-negative or PCR negative. This outcome is relevant for patients with malaria, treated with antifolate antimalarials. Treatment failure (defined as the inability to clear malaria parasitaemia or prevent recrudescence after administration of antimalarial medicine, regardless of whether clinical symptoms are resolved) (WHO 2019). This outcome is relevant for patients with malaria, treated with antifolate antimalarials. Secondary outcomes Duration of parasitaemia Parasite density Haemoglobin (Hb) concentrations (g/L) Anaemia: severe anaemia (defined as Hb less than 70 g/L in pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months; and Hb less than 80 g/L in other populations); moderate anaemia (defined as Hb less than 100 g/L in pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months; and less than 110 g/L in others) Death from any cause Among pregnant women: stillbirth (at less than 28 weeks gestation); low birthweight (less than 2500 g); active placental malaria (defined as Plasmodium detected in placental blood by smear or PCR, or by Plasmodium detected on impression smear or placental histology). Search methods for identification of studies A search will be conducted to identify completed and ongoing studies, without date or language restrictions. Electronic searches A search strategy will be designed to include the appropriate subject headings and text word terms related to each intervention of interest and study design of interest (see Appendix 1). Searches will be broken down by these two criteria (intervention of interest and study design of interest) to allow for ease of prioritization, if necessary. The study design filters recommended by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), and those designed by Cochrane for identifying clinical trials for MEDLINE and Embase, will be used (SIGN 2020). There will be no date or language restrictions. Non-English articles identified for inclusion will be translated into English. If translations are not possible, advice will be requested from the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group and the record will be stored in the "Awaiting assessment" section of the review until a translation is available. The following electronic databases will be searched for primary studies. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Embase. MEDLINE. Scopus. Web of Science (both the Social Science Citation Index and the Science Citation Index). We will conduct manual searches of ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Evaluation and Research Database (ERD), in order to identify relevant ongoing or planned trials, abstracts, and full-text reports of evaluations, studies, and surveys related to programmes on folic acid supplementation in malaria-endemic areas. Additionally, manual searches of grey literature to identify RCTs that have not yet been published but are potentially eligible for inclusion will be conducted in the following sources. Global Index Medicus (GIM). African Index Medicus (AIM). Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR). Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Western Pacific Region Index Medicus (WPRO). Index Medicus for the South-East Asian Region (IMSEAR). The Spanish Bibliographic Index in Health Sciences (IBECS) (ibecs.isciii.es/). Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR) (journals.lww.com/ijmr/pages/default.aspx). Native Health Database (nativehealthdatabase.net/). Scielo (www.scielo.br/). Searching other resources Handsearches of the five journals with the highest number of included studies in the last 12 months will be conducted to capture any relevant articles that may not have been indexed in the databases at the time of the search. We will contact the authors of included studies and will check reference lists of included papers for the identification of additional records. For assistance in identifying ongoing or unpublished studies, we will contact the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity (DNPAO) and the Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria (DPDM) of the CDC, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), Nutrition International (NI), Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), and Hellen Keller International (HKI). Data collection and analysis Selection of studies Two review authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts of articles retrieved by each search to assess eligibility, as determined by the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies deemed eligible for inclusion by both review authors in the abstract screening phase will advance to the full-text screening phase, and full-text copies of all eligible papers will be retrieved. If full articles cannot be obtained, we will attempt to contact the authors to obtain further details of the studies. If such information is not obtained, we will classify the study as "awaiting assessment" until further information is published or made available to us. The same two review authors will independently assess the eligibility of full-text articles for inclusion in the systematic review. If any discrepancies occur between the studies selected by the two review authors, a third review author will provide arbitration. Each trial will be scrutinized to identify multiple publications from the same data set, and the justification for excluded trials will be documented. A PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process will be presented to provide information on the number of records identified in the literature searches, the number of studies included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusion (Moher 2009). The list of excluded studies, along with their reasons for exclusion at the full-text screening phase, will also be created. Data extraction and management Two review authors will independently extract data for the final list of included studies using a standardized data specification form. Discrepancies observed between the data extracted by the two authors will be resolved by involving a third review author and reaching a consensus. Information will be extracted on study design components, baseline participant characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcomes. For individually randomized trials, we will record the number of participants experiencing the event and the number analyzed in each treatment group or the effect estimate reported (e.g. risk ratio (RR)) for dichotomous outcome measures. For count data, we will record the number of events and the number of person-months of follow-up in each group. If the number of person-months is not reported, the product of the duration of follow-up and the number of children evaluated will be used to estimate this figure. We will calculate the rate ratio and standard error (SE) for each study. Zero events will be replaced by 0.5. We will extract both adjusted and unadjusted covariate incidence rate ratios if they are reported in the original studies. For continuous data, we will extract means (arithmetic or geometric) and a measure of variance (standard deviation (SD), SE, or confidence interval (CI)), percentage or mean change from baseline, and the numbers analyzed in each group. SDs will be computed from SEs or 95% CIs, assuming a normal distribution of the values. Haemoglobin values in g/dL will be calculated by multiplying haematocrit or packed cell volume values by 0.34, and studies reporting haemoglobin values in g/dL will be converted to g/L. In cluster-randomized trials, we will record the unit of randomization (e.g. household, compound, sector, or village), the number of clusters in the trial, and the average cluster size. The statistical methods used to analyze the trials will be documented, along with details describing whether these methods adjusted for clustering or other covariates. We plan to extract estimates of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) for each outcome. Where results are adjusted for clustering, we will extract the treatment effect estimate and the SD or CI. If the results are not adjusted for clustering, we will extract the data reported. Assessment of risk of bias in included studies Two review authors (KSC, LFY) will independently assess the risk of bias for each included trial using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias 2' tool (RoB 2) for randomized studies (Sterne 2019). Judgements about the risk of bias of included studies will be made according to the recommendations outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2021). Disagreements will be resolved by discussion, or by involving a third review author. The interest of our review will be to assess the effect of assignment to the interventions at baseline. We will evaluate each primary outcome using the RoB2 tool. The five domains of the Cochrane RoB2 tool include the following. Bias arising from the randomization process. Bias due to deviations from intended interventions. Bias due to missing outcome data. Bias in measurement of the outcome. Bias in selection of the reported result. Each domain of the RoB2 tool comprises the following. A series of 'signalling' questions. A judgement about the risk of bias for the domain, facilitated by an algorithm that maps responses to the signalling questions to a proposed judgement. Free-text boxes to justify responses to the signalling questions and 'Risk of bias' judgements. An option to predict (and explain) the likely direction of bias. Responses to signalling questions elicit information relevant to an assessment of the risk of bias. These response options are as follows. Yes (may indicate either low or high risk of bias, depending on the most natural way to ask the question). Probably yes. Probably no. No. No information (may indicate no evidence of that problem or an absence of information leading to concerns about there being a problem). Based on the answer to the signalling question, a 'Risk of bias' judgement is assigned to each domain. These judgements include one of the following. High risk of bias Low risk of bias Some concerns To generate the risk of bias judgement for each domain in the randomized studies, we will use the Excel template, available at www.riskofbias.info/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/current-version-of-rob-2. This file will be stored on a scientific data website, available to readers. Risk of bias in cluster randomized controlled trials For the cluster randomized trials, we will be using the RoB2 tool to analyze the five standard domains listed above along with Domain 1b (bias arising from the timing of identification or recruitment of participants) and its related signalling questions. To generate the risk of bias judgement for each domain in the cluster RCTs, we will use the Excel template available at https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/rob-2-for-cluster-randomized-trials. This file will be stored on a scientific data website, available to readers. Risk of bias in cross-over randomized controlled trials For cross-over randomized trials, we will be using the RoB2 tool to analyze the five standard domains listed above along with Domain 2 (bias due to deviations from intended interventions), and Domain 3 (bias due to missing outcome data), and their respective signalling questions. To generate the risk of bias judgement for each domain in the cross-over RCTs, we will use the Excel template, available at https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/rob-2-for-crossover-trials, for each risk of bias judgement of cross-over randomized studies. This file will be stored on a scientific data website, available to readers. Overall risk of bias The overall 'Risk of bias' judgement for each specific trial being assessed will be based on each domain-level judgement. The overall judgements include the following. Low risk of bias (the trial is judged to be at low risk of bias for all domains). Some concerns (the trial is judged to raise some concerns in at least one domain but is not judged to be at high risk of bias for any domain). High risk of bias (the trial is judged to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain, or is judged to have some concerns for multiple domains in a way that substantially lowers confidence in the result). The 'risk of bias' assessments will inform our GRADE evaluations of the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes presented in the 'Summary of findings' tables and will also be used to inform the sensitivity analyses; (see Sensitivity analysis). If there is insufficient information in study reports to enable an assessment of the risk of bias, studies will be classified as "awaiting assessment" until further information is published or made available to us. Measures of treatment effect Dichotomous data For dichotomous data, we will present proportions and, for two-group comparisons, results as average RR or odds ratio (OR) with 95% CIs. Ordered categorical data Continuous data We will report results for continuous outcomes as the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs, if outcomes are measured in the same way between trials. Where some studies have reported endpoint data and others have reported change-from-baseline data (with errors), we will combine these in the meta-analysis, if the outcomes were reported using the same scale. We will use the standardized mean difference (SMD), with 95% CIs, to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods. If we do not find three or more studies for a pooled analysis, we will summarize the results in a narrative form. Unit of analysis issues Cluster-randomized trials We plan to combine results from both cluster-randomized and individually randomized studies, providing there is little heterogeneity between the studies. If the authors of cluster-randomized trials conducted their analyses at a different level from that of allocation, and they have not appropriately accounted for the cluster design in their analyses, we will calculate the trials' effective sample sizes to account for the effect of clustering in data. When one or more cluster-RCT reports RRs adjusted for clustering, we will compute cluster-adjusted SEs for the other trials. When none of the cluster-RCTs provide cluster-adjusted RRs, we will adjust the sample size for clustering. We will divide, by the estimated design effects (DE), the number of events and number evaluated for dichotomous outcomes and the number evaluated for continuous outcomes, where DE = 1 + ((average cluster size 1) * ICC). The derivation of the estimated ICCs and DEs will be reported. We will utilize the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC), derived from the trial (if available), or from another source (e.g., using the ICCs derived from other, similar trials) and then calculate the design effect with the formula provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2021). If this approach is used, we will report it and undertake sensitivity analysis to investigate the effect of variations in ICC. Studies with more than two treatment groups If we identify studies with more than two intervention groups (multi-arm studies), where possible we will combine groups to create a single pair-wise comparison or use the methods set out in the Cochrane Handbook to avoid double counting study participants (Higgins 2021). For the subgroup analyses, when the control group was shared by two or more study arms, we will divide the control group (events and total population) over the number of relevant subgroups to avoid double counting the participants. Trials with several study arms can be included more than once for different comparisons. Cross-over trials From cross-over trials, we will consider the first period of measurement only and will analyze the results together with parallel-group studies. Multiple outcome events In several outcomes, a participant might experience more than one outcome event during the trial period. For all outcomes, we will extract the number of participants with at least one event. Dealing with missing data We will contact the trial authors if the available data are unclear, missing, or reported in a format that is different from the format needed. We aim to perform a 'per protocol' or 'as observed' analysis; otherwise, we will perform a complete case analysis. This means that for treatment failure, we will base the analyses on the participants who received treatment and the number of participants for which there was an inability to clear malarial parasitaemia or prevent recrudescence after administration of an antimalarial medicine reported in the studies. Assessment of heterogeneity Heterogeneity in the results of the trials will be assessed by visually examining the forest plot to detect non-overlapping CIs, using the Chi2 test of heterogeneity (where a P value of less than 0.1 indicates statistical significance) and the I2 statistic of inconsistency (with a value of greater than 50% denoting moderate levels of heterogeneity). When statistical heterogeneity is present, we will investigate the reasons for it, using subgroup analysis. Assessment of reporting biases We will construct a funnel plot to assess the effect of small studies for the main outcome (when including more than 10 trials). Data synthesis The primary analysis will include all eligible studies that provide data regardless of the overall risk of bias as assessed by the RoB2 tool. Analyses will be conducted using Review Manager 5.4 (Review Manager 2020). Cluster-RCTs will be included in the main analysis after adjustment for clustering (see the previous section on cluster-RCTs). The meta-analysis will be performed using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model or the generic inverse variance method (when adjustment for clustering is performed by adjusting SEs), as appropriate. Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity The overall risk of bias will not be used as the basis in conducting our subgroup analyses. However, where data are available, we plan to conduct the following subgroup analyses, independent of heterogeneity. Dose of folic acid supplementation: higher doses (4 mg or more, daily) versus lower doses (less than 4 mg, daily). Moderate-severe anaemia at baseline (mean haemoglobin of participants in a trial at baseline below 100 g/L for pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months, and below 110 g/L for other populations) versus normal at baseline (mean haemoglobin above 100 g/L for pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months, and above 110 g/L for other populations). Antimalarial drug resistance to parasite: known resistance versus no resistance versus unknown/mixed/unreported parasite resistance. Folate status at baseline: Deficient (e.g. RBC folate concentration of less than 305 nmol/L, or serum folate concentration of less than 7nmol/L) and Insufficient (e.g. RBC folate concentration from 305 to less than 906 nmol/L, or serum folate concentration from 7 to less than 25 nmol/L) versus Sufficient (e.g. RBC folate concentration above 906 nmol/L, or serum folate concentration above 25 nmol/L). Presence of anaemia at baseline: yes versus no. Mandatory fortification status: yes, versus no (voluntary or none). We will only use the primary outcomes in any subgroup analyses, and we will limit subgroup analyses to those outcomes for which three or more trials contributed data. Comparisons between subgroups will be performed using Review Manager 5.4 (Review Manager 2020). Sensitivity analysis We will perform a sensitivity analysis, using the risk of bias as a variable to explore the robustness of the findings in our primary outcomes. We will verify the behaviour of our estimators by adding and removing studies with a high risk of bias overall from the analysis. That is, studies with a low risk of bias versus studies with a high risk of bias. Summary of findings and assessment of the certainty of the evidence For the assessment across studies, we will use the GRADE approach, as outlined in (Schünemann 2021). We will use the five GRADE considerations (study limitations based on RoB2 judgements, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of the body of evidence as it relates to the studies which contribute data to the meta-analyses for the primary outcomes. The GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool (GRADEpro) will be used to import data from Review Manager 5.4 (Review Manager 2020) to create 'Summary of Findings' tables. The primary outcomes for the main comparison will be listed with estimates of relative effects, along with the number of participants and studies contributing data for those outcomes. These tables will provide outcome-specific information concerning the overall certainty of evidence from studies included in the comparison, the magnitude of the effect of the interventions examined, and the sum of available data on the outcomes we considered. We will include only primary outcomes in the summary of findings tables. For each individual outcome, two review authors (KSC, LFY) will independently assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (Balshem 2011). For assessments of the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome that includes pooled data from included trials, we will downgrade the evidence from 'high certainty' by one level for serious (or by two for very serious) study limitations (risk of bias, indirectness of evidence, serious inconsistency, imprecision of effect estimates, or potential publication bias).
Topics: Child; Infant; Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Child, Preschool; Antimalarials; Sulfadoxine; Pyrimethamine; Folic Acid Antagonists; Birth Weight; Parasitemia; Vitamins; Folic Acid; Anemia; Neural Tube Defects; Dietary Supplements; Iron; Recurrence
PubMed: 36321557
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217 -
Journal of Neurological Surgery Reports Apr 2024Diastematomyelia is a rare congenital disorder characterized by the separation of the spinal cord by an osseocartilaginous or fibrous septum. While diastematomyelia has...
Diastematomyelia is a rare congenital disorder characterized by the separation of the spinal cord by an osseocartilaginous or fibrous septum. While diastematomyelia has been reported to be more common in the thoracic and lumbar regions, the true incidence of cervical diastematomyelia is currently unknown. In this study, we conducted the most comprehensive systematic review to date of all other case reports of diastematomyelia to better characterize the incidence of cervical diastematomyelia and provide comprehensive statistics on the clinical characteristics of diastematomyelia generally. Ninety-one articles were included in our study, which comprised 252 males (27.9%) and 651 females (72.0%) (and one patient with unspecified gender). In 507 cases, the vertebral level of the diastematomyelia was described, and we recorded those levels as either cervical ( = 8, 1.6%), thoracic ( = 220, 43.4%), lumbar ( = 277, 54.6%), or sacral ( = 2, 0.4%). In 719 cases, the type of diastematomyelia was specified as either Type I ( = 482, 67.0%) or Type II ( = 237, 33.0%). Our study found that diastematomyelia has been reported in the cervical region in only 1.6% of cases, and we provide comprehensive data that this disorder occurs in female-to-male ratio of approximately 2.6:1 and Type I versus Type II diastematomyelia in an estimated ratio of 2:1.
PubMed: 38798790
DOI: 10.1055/a-2319-3444 -
The Lancet. Global Health Dec 2022We aimed to identify the aetiological distribution and the diagnostic methods for paediatric hydrocephalus across Africa, for which there is currently scarce evidence. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We aimed to identify the aetiological distribution and the diagnostic methods for paediatric hydrocephalus across Africa, for which there is currently scarce evidence.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE (Ovid), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Wiley), Embase (Ovid), Global Health (Ovid), Maternity & Infant Care (Ovid), Scopus, African Index Medicus (Global Index Medicus, WHO) and Africa-Wide Information (EBSCO) from inception to Nov 29, 2021. We included studies from any African country reporting on the distribution of hydrocephalus aetiology in children aged 18 years and younger, with no language restrictions. Hydrocephalus was defined as radiological evidence of ventriculomegaly or associated clinical symptoms and signs of the disorder, or surgical treatment for hydrocephalus. Exclusion criteria were studies only reporting on one specific subgroup or one specific cause of hydrocephalus. We also excluded conference and meetings abstracts, grey literature, editorials, commentaries, historical reviews, systematic reviews, case reports and clinical guidelines, as well as studies on non-humans, fetuses, or post-mortem reports. The proportions of postinfectious hydrocephalus, non-postinfectious hydrocephalus, and hydrocephalus related to spinal dysraphism were calculated using a random-effects model. Additionally, we included a category for unclear cases. Diagnostic methods were described qualitatively. To assess methodological study quality, we applied critical appraisal checklists provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The study was registered in Prospero (CRD42020219038).
FINDINGS
Our search yielded 3783 results, of which 1880 (49·7%) were duplicates and were removed. The remaining 1903 abstracts were screened and 122 (6·4%) full articles were sought for retrieval; of these, we included 38 studies from 18 African countries that studied a total of 6565 children. The pooled proportion of postinfectious hydrocephalus was 28% (95% CI 22-36), non-postinfectious hydrocephalus was 21% (95% CI 13-30), and of spinal dysraphism was 16% (95% CI 12-20), with substantial heterogeneity. The pooled proportion of hydrocephalus of unclear aetiology was 20% (95% CI 13-28).
INTERPRETATION
Our findings suggest that postinfectious hydrocephalus is the single most common cause of paediatric hydrocephalus in Africa. For targeted investments to be optimal, there is a need for consensus regarding the aetiological classification of hydrocephalus and improved access to diagnostic services.
FUNDING
Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Topics: Pregnancy; Child; Humans; Female; Prevalence; Causality; Hydrocephalus; Africa; Global Health; Neural Tube Defects
PubMed: 36400085
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00430-2 -
BMJ Open Nov 2023This study aims to estimate the prevalence of neural tube defects (NTDs) and to identify potential risk factors in the Ethiopian context. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to estimate the prevalence of neural tube defects (NTDs) and to identify potential risk factors in the Ethiopian context.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
STUDY PARTICIPANTS
A total of 611 064 participants were included in the review obtained from 42 studies.
METHODS
PubMed (Medline), Embase and Cochrane Library databases in combination with other potential sources of literature were systematically searched, whereby studies conducted between January 2010 and December 2022 were targeted in the review process. All observational studies were included and heterogeneity between studies was verified using Cochrane Q test statistics and I test statistics. Small study effects were checked using Egger's statistical test at a 5% significance level.
RESULT
The pooled prevalence of all NTDs per 10 000 births in Ethiopia was 71.48 (95% CI 57.80 to 86.58). The between-study heterogeneity was high (I= 97.49%, p<0.0001). Birth prevalence of spina bifida (33.99 per 10 000) was higher than anencephaly (23.70 per 10 000), and encephalocele (4.22 per 10 000). Unbooked antenatal care (AOR 2.26, 95% CI (1.30 to 3.94)), preconception intake of folic acid (AOR 0.41, 95% CI (0.26 to 0.66)), having chronic medical illness (AOR 2.06, 95% CI (1.42 to 2.99)), drinking alcohol (AOR 2.70, 95% CI (1.89 to 3.85)), smoking cigarette (AOR 2.49, 95% CI (1.51 to 4.11)), chewing khat (AOR 3.30, 95% CI (1.88 to 5.80)), exposure to pesticides (AOR 3.87, 95% CI (2.63 to 5.71)), maternal age ≥35 (AOR 1.90, 95% CI (1.13 to 3.25)), maternal low educational status (AOR 1.60, 95% CI (1.13 to 2.24)), residing in urban areas (AOR 0.75, 95% CI (0.58 to 0.97))and family history of NTDs (AOR 2.51, 95% CI (1.36 to 4.62)) were associated with NTD cases.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of NTDs in Ethiopia is seven times as high as in other Western countries where prevention measures are put in place. Heredity, maternal and environmental factors are associated with a high prevalence of NTDs. Mandatory fortification of staple food with folic acid should be taken as a priority intervention to curb the burden of NTDs. To smoothen and overlook the pace of implementation of mass fortification, screening, and monitoring surveillance systems should be in place along with awareness-raising measures.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42023413490.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Prevalence; Ethiopia; Neural Tube Defects; Folic Acid; Risk Factors; Food, Fortified
PubMed: 37940152
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077685 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jun 2021Neural tube defects (NTDs) are a group of disorders that arise from the failure of the neural tube close between 21 and 28 days after conception. About 90% of neural... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neural tube defects (NTDs) are a group of disorders that arise from the failure of the neural tube close between 21 and 28 days after conception. About 90% of neural tube defects and 95% of death due to these defects occurs in low-income countries. Since these NTDs cause considerable morbidity and mortality, this study aimed to determine the prevalence and associated factors of NTDs in Africa.
METHODS
The protocol of this study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO number: CRD42020149356). All major databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, African Journals Online (AJOL), and Google Scholar search engine were systematically searched. A random-effect model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of NTDs in Africa, and Cochran's Q-statistics and I tests were used to assess heterogeneity between included studies. Publication bias was assessed using Begg 's tests, and the association between determinant factors and NTDs was estimated using a random-effect model.
RESULTS
Of the total 2679 articles, 37 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of NTDs in Africa was 50.71 per 10,000 births (95% CI: 48.03, 53.44). Folic acid supplementation (AOR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.19-0.85), maternal exposure to pesticide (AOR: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.04-10.39), mothers with a previous history of stillbirth (AOR: 3.35, 95% CI: 1.99-5.65) and maternal exposure to x-ray radiation (AOR 2.34; 95% CI: 1.27-4.31) were found to be determinants of NTDs.
CONCLUSIONS
The pooled prevalence of NTDs in Africa was found to be high. Maternal exposure to pesticides and x-ray radiation were significantly associated with NTDs. Folic acid supplementation before and within the first month of pregnancy was found to be a protective factor for NTDs.
Topics: Africa; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Male; Neural Tube Defects; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Prevalence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34126936
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-021-03848-9 -
SAGE Open Medicine 2022Various trial and epidemiological studies consistently documented the association between maternal folic acid supplementations and neural tube defects. However, existing...
INTRODUCTION
Various trial and epidemiological studies consistently documented the association between maternal folic acid supplementations and neural tube defects. However, existing literatures revealed inconclusive findings about maternal periconceptional folic acid supplementations and the risk of congenital heart defects. Thus, the current systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to estimate the pooled association between maternal periconceptional folic acid supplementations and congenital heart defects.
METHODS
Electronic searches of PubMed, Web of Science/Scopus, Cochrane library and Google Scholar databases were conducted to access the required studies published up to March 2021. Predetermined eligibility criteria were used for study selections. Data extraction were independently done on excel. STATA version 14 software was used to calculate the pooled effect size with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of maternal periconceptional folic acid supplementations on congenital heart defects using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects meta-analysis (random effects model). Statistical heterogeneity was checked using the Cochran Q test (chi-squared statistic), I statistic, and by visual inspection of the funnel plot.
RESULTS
A total of 37 studies of case-control, cohort and randomized controlled trial in nature were included in the review. The finding of the present systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that periconceptional folic acid supplementation significantly decreases the risk of congenital heart defects (risk ratio (RR), 0.79; CI, 0.71, 0.89). Both Cochrane Q test statistic (χ = 19.33, p = 0.962) and I test statistic (I = 0.0%, p = 0.962) did not reveal statistically significant heterogeneity among included studies. In this meta-analysis, traditional funnel plot, Begg's funnel plot, Egger's weighted regression (p = 0.13) as well as Begg's rank correlation statistic (p = 0.676) revealed no evidence of publication bias.
CONCLUSION
The present systematic review and meta-analysis found that maternal periconception folic acid supplementation was significantly associated with the risk of congenital heart defects. The risk of congenital heart defects was significantly reduced by 21% among those children of mothers who use periconceptional folic acid supplementations in high-income countries. We recommend that a large prospective study be conducted to investigate the association between maternal periconceptional folic acid supplementation and occurrence of congenital heart defect of various types, especially in the developing countries.
PubMed: 35284077
DOI: 10.1177/20503121221081069 -
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Dec 2022We studied associations between prenatal and early postnatal choline intake, brain development, and neurocognitive function of children. We conducted a systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We studied associations between prenatal and early postnatal choline intake, brain development, and neurocognitive function of children. We conducted a systematic review followed by a meta-analysis and critical appraisal of human studies published from 1997 to 2021. Thirty publications were identified. The meta-analysis included 5 of 7 case-control studies studying neural tube defects (NTDs) in relation to maternal choline intakes/circulating concentrations. Low maternal choline intake/circulating concentrations were associated with a higher OR for NTDs among 1131 mothers of newborns with NTDs and 4439 control mothers (pooled estimate = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.67). The 95% prediction intervals were 0.78, 2.36. Findings and critical evaluation of 10 publications with interventional designs showed that higher maternal choline intakes during the second half of pregnancy and early postnatal period (550 mg up to 1 g/d on top of the diet) or a child intake of 513 to 625 mg/d from supplements were safe and likely to demonstrate favorable effects on several domains of child neurocognition, such as memory, attention, and visuospatial learning versus the comparators. Findings from observational studies (n = 13) partly supported the association between maternal choline intake/serum concentrations and child neurocognition, but there was low confidence in the use of plasma choline concentrations as a choline intake marker. In conclusion, low maternal choline intakes were associated with a higher OR for NTDs. The risk could be up to 2.36-fold in some populations. Despite limitations of available trials and observational studies, higher maternal choline intake was likely to be associated with better child neurocognition/neurodevelopment. The results should be used to guide choline intake recommendations in pregnancy and lactation, especially because most young women are not achieving the reference intake of choline. This meta-analysis is registered at PROSPERO as CRD42021233790.
Topics: Pregnancy; Humans; Child; Infant, Newborn; Female; Choline; Dietary Supplements; Vitamins; Diet; Neural Tube Defects; Brain; Child Development
PubMed: 36041182
DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmac082 -
Environmental Health Perspectives Aug 2023Neural tube defects (NTDs) affect pregnancies worldwide annually. Few nongenetic factors, other than folate deficiency, have been identified that may provide... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neural tube defects (NTDs) affect pregnancies worldwide annually. Few nongenetic factors, other than folate deficiency, have been identified that may provide intervenable solutions to reduce the burden of NTDs. Prenatal exposure to toxic metals [arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), manganese (Mn) and lead (Pb)] may increase the risk of NTDs. Although a growing epidemiologic literature has examined associations, to our knowledge no systematic review has been conducted to date.
OBJECTIVE
Through adaptation of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology, we aimed to answer the question "does exposure to As, Cd, Hg, Mn, or Pb during gestation increase the risk of NTDs?" and to assess challenges to evaluating this question given the current evidence.
METHODS
We selected available evidence on prenatal As, Cd, Hg, Mn, or Pb exposure and risk of specific NTDs (e.g., spina bifida, anencephaly) or all NTDs via a comprehensive search across MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and TOXLINE databases and applied inclusion/exclusion criteria. We rated the quality and strength of the evidence for each metal. We applied a customized risk of bias protocol and evaluated the sufficiency of evidence of an effect of each metal on NTDs.
RESULTS
We identified 30 studies that met our criteria. Risk of bias for confounding and selection was high in most studies, but low for missing data. We determined that, although the evidence was limited, the literature supported an association between prenatal exposure to Hg or Mn and increased risk of NTDs. For the remaining metals, the evidence was inadequate to establish or rule out an effect.
CONCLUSION
The role of gestational As, Cd, or Pb exposure in the etiology of NTDs remains unclear and warrants further investigation in high-quality studies, with a particular focus on controlling confounding, mitigating selection bias, and improving exposure assessment. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11872.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Cadmium; Lead; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Neural Tube Defects; Mercury; Manganese; Arsenic
PubMed: 37647124
DOI: 10.1289/EHP11872 -
PloS One 2021A systematic review was conducted in high-income country settings to analyse: (i) spina bifida neonatal and IMRs over time, and (ii) clinical and socio-demographic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review was conducted in high-income country settings to analyse: (i) spina bifida neonatal and IMRs over time, and (ii) clinical and socio-demographic factors associated with mortality in the first year after birth in infants affected by spina bifida.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched from 1st January, 1990 to 31st August, 2020 to review evidence.
STUDY SELECTION
Population-based studies that provided data for spina bifida infant mortality and case fatality according to clinical and socio-demographical characteristics were included. Studies were excluded if they were conducted solely in tertiary centres. Spina bifida occulta or syndromal spina bifida were excluded where possible.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed their quality using MOOSE guideline. Pooled mortality estimates were calculated using random-effects (+/- fixed effects) models meta-analyses. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the Cochrane Q test and I2 statistics. Meta-regression was performed to examine the impact of year of birth cohort on spina bifida infant mortality.
RESULTS
Twenty studies met the full inclusion criteria with a total study population of over 30 million liveborn infants and approximately 12,000 spina bifida-affected infants. Significant declines in spina bifida associated infant and neonatal mortality rates (e.g. 4.76% decrease in IMR per 100, 000 live births per year) and case fatality (e.g. 2.70% decrease in infant case fatality per year) were consistently observed over time. Preterm birth (RR 4.45; 2.30-8.60) and low birthweight (RR 4.77; 2.67-8.55) are the strongest risk factors associated with increased spina bifida infant case fatality.
SIGNIFICANCE
Significant declines in spina bifida associated infant/neonatal mortality and case fatality were consistently observed, advances in treatment and mandatory folic acid food fortification both likely play an important role. Particular attention is warranted from clinicians caring for preterm and low birthweight babies affected by spina bifida.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Spinal Dysraphism
PubMed: 33979363
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250098 -
Neurology India 2022The culprit of trigeminal neuralgia (TGN) may occur at any point between the nerve's root entry zone (REZ) and Meckel's cave. Meckel's cave meningoencephaloceles are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The culprit of trigeminal neuralgia (TGN) may occur at any point between the nerve's root entry zone (REZ) and Meckel's cave. Meckel's cave meningoencephaloceles are rare middle cranial fossa defects that usually remain asymptomatic but may contain prolapsed trigeminal nerve rootlets and result in TGN. Their management and surgical outcomes remain poorly understood.
OBJECTIVES
To perform a systematic review of clinical presentation and surgical outcomes of middle fossa defects presenting with trigeminal nerve-related symptoms.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for all reports of middle cranial fossa defects causing trigeminal nerve-related symptoms. The pathophysiology, presentation, surgical management, and outcomes are discussed and illustrated with a case.
RESULTS
Initial search from inception to March 2021 identified 33 articles for screening. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 6 articles were included representing a total of 8 cases in addition to our case (n = 9). All 9 patients were females and 33.3% (n = 3) presented with classic trigeminal neuralgia. "Empty sella" syndrome and radiologic signs of intracranial hypertension were present in 40%-62%. No patient presented with cerebrospinal fluid leak. The preferred treatment modality was surgical with subtemporal extradural repairs using combinations of autologous fat and muscle grafts and synthetic dura. Postoperative outcomes were only available in 55.5% (n = 5) of the cases, and nearly all reported complete symptom resolution, except for one case in which the meningoencephalocele wall was incised, along with trigeminal rootlets adhered to it. Our patient had immediate and durable symptom relief after a 4-year follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
MEC containing prolapsed trigeminal nerve rootlets can cause typical trigeminal neuralgia from chronic pulsatile stress. This supports the hypothesis that the compressive or demyelinating culprit can locate more ventrally on the course of the trigeminal nerve. Subtemporal extradural surgical repairs can be safe, effective, and durable. Incising the MEC wall should be avoided as it may have trigeminal rootlets adhered to it.
Topics: Cranial Fossa, Middle; Dura Mater; Encephalocele; Female; Humans; Male; Meningocele; Trigeminal Nerve; Trigeminal Neuralgia
PubMed: 35864609
DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.349629