-
Frailty and mortality associations in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Internal Medicine Journal May 2022Observational data during the pandemic have demonstrated mixed associations between frailty and mortality. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Observational data during the pandemic have demonstrated mixed associations between frailty and mortality.
AIM
To examine associations between frailty and short-term mortality in patients hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase and the COVID-19 living systematic review from 1 December 2019 to 15 July 2021. Studies reporting mortality and frailty scores in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (age ≥18 years) were included. Data on patient demographics, short-term mortality (in hospital or within 30 days), intensive care unit (ICU) admission and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were extracted. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies reporting 34 628 patients were included. Overall, 26.2% (n = 9061) died. Patients who died were older (76.7 ± 9.6 vs 69.2 ± 13.4), more likely male (risk ratio (RR) = 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.11) and had more comorbidities. Fifty-eight percent of patients were frail. Adjusting for age, there was no difference in short-term mortality between frail and non-frail patients (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.84-1.28). The non-frail patients were commonly admitted to ICU (27.2% (4256/15639) vs 29.1% (3567/12274); P = 0.011) and had a higher mortality risk (RR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.30-2.03) than frail patients. Among patients receiving IMV, there was no difference in mortality between frail and non-frail (RR = 1.62; 95% CI 0.93-2.77).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review did not demonstrate an independent association between frailty status and short-term mortality in patients with COVID-19. Patients with frailty were less commonly admitted to ICU and non-frail patients were more likely to receive IMV and had higher mortality risk. This finding may be related to allocation decisions for patients with frailty amidst the pandemic.
Topics: Adolescent; Aged; COVID-19; Frail Elderly; Frailty; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Male; Pandemics
PubMed: 35066970
DOI: 10.1111/imj.15698 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021The development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune response. Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory medicine and is thought to improve disease outcomes in COVID-19 through a wide range of anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Patients and healthcare systems need more and better treatment options for COVID-19 and a thorough understanding of the current body of evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of Colchicine as a treatment option for COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard care alone in any setting, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 21 May 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials evaluating colchicine for the treatment of people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating the prophylactic effects of colchicine for people without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to assess bias in included studies and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following prioritised outcome categories considering people with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, worsening and improvement of clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events and for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease: all-cause mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, duration to symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs with 11,525 hospitalised participants (8002 male) and one RCT with 4488 (2067 male) non-hospitalised participants. Mean age of people treated in hospital was about 64 years, and was 55 years in the study with non-hospitalised participants. Further, we identified 17 ongoing studies and 11 studies completed or terminated, but without published results. Colchicine plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo) Treatment of hospitalised people with moderate to severe COVID-19 All-cause mortality: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to 28 days compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 11,445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Worsening of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in worsening of clinical status assessed as new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death compared to standard care alone (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 10,916 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in improvement of clinical status, assessed as number of participants discharged alive up to day 28 without clinical deterioration or death compared to standard care alone (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; 1 RCT, 11,340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.78; 1 RCT, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine plus standard care on serious adverse events compared to standard care alone (0 events observed in 1 RCT of 105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment of non-hospitalised people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 All-cause mortality: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality at 28 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.62; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; low-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital or death within 28 days: colchicine probably slightly reduces the need for hospitalisation or death within 28 days compared to placebo (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Symptom resolution: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo . Results are from one RCT reporting treatment-related events only in 4412 participants (low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: colchicine probably slightly reduces serious adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 4412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Colchicine versus another active treatment (e.g. corticosteroids, anti-viral drugs, monoclonal antibodies) No studies evaluated this comparison. Different formulations, doses, or schedules of colchicine No studies assessed this.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current evidence, in people hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 the use of colchicine probably has little to no influence on mortality or clinical progression in comparison to placebo or standard care alone. We do not know whether colchicine increases the risk of (serious) adverse events. We are uncertain about the evidence of the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. However, colchicine probably results in a slight reduction of hospital admissions or deaths within 28 days, and the rate of serious adverse events compared with placebo. None of the studies reported data on quality of life or compared the benefits and harms of colchicine versus other drugs, or different dosages of colchicine. We identified 17 ongoing and 11 completed but not published RCTs, which we expect to incorporate in future versions of this review as their results become available. Editorial note: due to the living approach of this work, we monitor newly published results of RCTs on colchicine on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.
Topics: COVID-19; Cause of Death; Colchicine; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Quality of Life; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34658014
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015045 -
Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal =... May 2023Maternal mortality is an indication of the health status of women in the society. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Maternal mortality is an indication of the health status of women in the society.
AIMS
To investigate the maternal mortality ratio, causes of maternal mortality, and related risk factors among Iranian women.
METHODS
Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) guideline, we systematically searched electronic databases, and the grey literature, for publications in Farsi and English from 1970 to January 2022 for studies that reported the number of maternal deaths and/or maternal mortality ratio and their related factors. Data analysis was conducted using Stata 16 and 2-sided P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant, if not otherwise specified.
RESULTS
A subgroup meta-analysis of studies conducted since 2000 estimated the maternal mortality ratio as 45.03 per 100 000 births during 2000-2004, 36.05 during 2005-2009, and 23.71 after 2010. The most frequent risk factors for maternal mortality were caesarean section, poor antenatal and delivery care, unskilled birth attendance, age, low maternal education level, lower human development index, and residence in rural or remote areas.
CONCLUSION
There has been a significant decrease in maternal mortality in the Islamic Republic of Iran during the last few decades. Mothers in the country need to be monitored more carefully by trained healthcare workers during the pregnancy, delivery and postpartum periods so they can effectively handle postpartum complications, such as haemorrhage and infection, thereby further reducing maternal mortality.
Topics: Pregnancy; Humans; Female; Maternal Mortality; Iran; Cesarean Section; Checklist; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 37306175
DOI: 10.26719/emhj.23.063 -
PloS One 2021Morbidity and mortality amongst extremely low birth weight (ELBW) and extremely low gestational age neonates (ELGANs) in developing nations has not been well studied. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Morbidity and mortality amongst extremely low birth weight (ELBW) and extremely low gestational age neonates (ELGANs) in developing nations has not been well studied.
OBJECTIVES
Evaluate survival until discharge, short- and long-term morbidities of ELBW and ELGANs in LMICs.
DATA SOURCES
CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science.
STUDY SELECTION
Prospective and retrospective observational studies were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Four authors extracted data independently. Random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was used to synthesize data, modified QUIPS scale to evaluate quality of studies and GRADE approach to ascertain the certainty of evidence (CoE).
RESULTS
192 studies enrolling 22,278 ELBW and 18,338 ELGANs were included. Survival was 34% (95% CI: 31% - 37%) (CoE-low) for ELBW and 39% (34% - 44%) (CoE-moderate) for ELGANs. For ELBW neonates, the survival for low-income (LI), lower middle-income (LMI) and upper middle income (UMI) countries was 18% (11% - 28%), 28% (21% - 35%) and 39% (36% - 42%), respectively. For ELGANs, it was 13% (8% - 20%) for LI, 28% (21% - 36%) for LMI and 48% (42% - 53%) for UMI countries. There was no difference in survival between two epochs: 2000-2009 and 2010-2020. Except for necrotising enterocolitis [ELBW and ELGANs-8% (7% - 10%)] and periventricular leukomalacia [ELBW-7% (4% - 11%); ELGANs-6% (5%-7%)], rates of all other morbidities were higher compared to developed nations. Rates of neurodevelopmental impairment was 17% (7% - 34%) in ELBW neonates and 29% (23% - 37%) in ELGANs.
LIMITATIONS
CoE was very low to low for all secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Mortality and morbidity amongst ELBW and ELGANs is still a significant burden in LMICs. CoE was very low to low for all the secondary outcomes, emphasizing the need for high quality prospective cohort studies.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42020222873).
Topics: Developing Countries; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Extremely Low Birth Weight; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Male; Observational Studies as Topic; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 34352883
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255352 -
BioMed Research International 2022Preventing the life of the newborn and reducing the entrenched disparity of childhood mortality across different levels is one of the crucial public health problems,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Preventing the life of the newborn and reducing the entrenched disparity of childhood mortality across different levels is one of the crucial public health problems, especially in underdeveloped and developing countries in the world. Sustainable development goals (SDGs)-3.2 is aimed at terminating all preventable under-five child mortality and shrinking it to 25 per 1000 live births or lower than this by 2030. Several factors have been shown to be linked with childhood mortality.
OBJECTIVE
This review is aimed at pointing out the significant determinants related to under-five child mortality by a systematic review of the literature.
METHODS
EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus database, and Google Scholar search engine were used for the systematic search of the literature. Special keywords and Boolean operators were used to point out the relevant studies for the review. Original research articles and peer-reviewed papers published in the English language till August 10, 2022, were included in the analysis and synthesis of the results. As per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, out of 299 studies identified from different sources, only 22 articles were ascertained for this study. Eligible articles were appraised in detail, and relevant information was extracted and then integrated into the systematic review.
RESULTS
Mother's education, size of child at birth, age of mother at childbirth, place of residence, birth interval, sex of child, type of birth (single or multiple), and birth order, along with other socioeconomic, maternal, child, health facility utilization, and community level variables, were observed as important covariates of under-five mortality.
CONCLUSION
Women's education and easy access to quality healthcare facilities should be the apex priority to lessen childhood mortality.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Child Mortality; Educational Status; Health Facilities; Infant; Child, Preschool; Male
PubMed: 36518629
DOI: 10.1155/2022/1181409 -
Intensive Care Medicine Apr 2024The aim of this study is to provide a summary of the existing literature on the association between hypotension during intensive care unit (ICU) stay and mortality and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The aim of this study is to provide a summary of the existing literature on the association between hypotension during intensive care unit (ICU) stay and mortality and morbidity, and to assess whether there is an exposure-severity relationship between hypotension exposure and patient outcomes.
METHODS
CENTRAL, Embase, and PubMed were searched up to October 2022 for articles that reported an association between hypotension during ICU stay and at least one of the 11 predefined outcomes. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Results were gathered in a summary table and studies designed to investigate the hypotension-outcome relationship were included in the meta-analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 122 studies (176,329 patients) were included, with the number of studies varying per outcome between 0 and 82. The majority of articles reported associations in favor of 'no hypotension' for the outcomes mortality and acute kidney injury (AKI), and the strength of the association was related to the severity of hypotension in the majority of studies. Using meta-analysis, a significant association was found between hypotension and mortality (odds ratio: 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.88; based on 13 studies and 34,829 patients), but not for AKI.
CONCLUSION
Exposure to hypotension during ICU stay was associated with increased mortality and AKI in the majority of included studies, and associations for both outcomes increased with increasing hypotension severity. The meta-analysis reinforced the descriptive findings regarding mortality but did not yield similar support for AKI.
Topics: Humans; Critical Care; Morbidity; Hospital Mortality; Hypotension; Acute Kidney Injury; Intensive Care Units
PubMed: 38252288
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-023-07304-4 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; COVID-19; Cause of Death; Humans; Middle Aged; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34679203
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015025 -
Blood Dec 2021Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is a severe complication that is relatively common among patients with hemophilia. This systematic review aimed to obtain more precise... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is a severe complication that is relatively common among patients with hemophilia. This systematic review aimed to obtain more precise estimates of ICH incidence and mortality in hemophilia, which may be important for patients, caregivers, researchers, and health policy makers. PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched using terms related to "hemophilia" and "intracranial hemorrhage" or "mortality." Studies that allowed calculation of ICH incidence or mortality rates in a hemophilia population ≥50 patients were included. We summarized evidence on ICH incidence and calculated pooled ICH incidence and mortality in 3 age groups: persons of all ages with hemophilia, children and young adults younger than age 25 years with hemophilia, and neonates with hemophilia. Incidence and mortality were pooled with a Poisson-Normal model or a Binomial-Normal model. We included 45 studies that represented 54 470 patients, 809 151 person-years, and 5326 live births of patients with hemophilia. In persons of all ages, the pooled ICH incidence and mortality rates were 2.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-4.8) and 0.8 (95% CI 0.5-1.2) per 1000 person-years, respectively. In children and young adults, the pooled ICH incidence and mortality rates were 7.4 (95% CI, 4.9-11.1) and 0.5 (95% CI, 0.3-0.9) per 1000 person-years, respectively. In neonates, the pooled cumulative ICH incidence was 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5-2.8) per 100 live births. ICH was classified as spontaneous in 35% to 58% of cases. Our findings suggest that ICH is an important problem in hemophilia that occurs among all ages, requiring adequate preventive strategies.
Topics: Age Factors; Hemophilia A; Humans; Incidence; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Mortality
PubMed: 34411236
DOI: 10.1182/blood.2021011849 -
International Journal of Environmental... Nov 2021Despite significant improvement in survival, rheumatic diseases (RD) are associated with premature mortality rates comparable to cardiovascular and neoplastic disorders....
Despite significant improvement in survival, rheumatic diseases (RD) are associated with premature mortality rates comparable to cardiovascular and neoplastic disorders. The aim of our study was to assess mortality, causes of death, and life expectancy in an inflammatory RD retrospective cohort and compare those with the general population as well as with the results of previously published studies in a systematic literature review. Patients with the first-time diagnosis of inflammatory RD during 2012-2019 were identified and cross-checked for their vital status and the date of death. Sex- and age-standardized mortality ratios (SMR) as well as life expectancy for patients with inflammatory RDs were calculated. The results of a systematic literature review were included in meta-standardized mortality ratio calculations. 11,636 patients with newly diagnosed RD were identified. During a total of 43,064.34 person-years of follow-up, 950 death cases occurred. The prevailing causes of death for the total cohort were cardiovascular diseases and neoplasms. The age- and sex-adjusted SMR for the total cohort was calculated to be 1.32 (1.23; 1.40). Patients with rheumatoid arthritis if diagnosed at age 18-19 tend to live for 1.63 years less than the general population, patients with spondyloarthritis-for 2.7 years less, patients with connective tissue diseases-for almost nine years less than the general population. The findings of our study support the hypothesis that patients with RD have a higher risk of mortality and lower life expectancy than the general population.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Cause of Death; Humans; Life Expectancy; Mortality; Registries; Retrospective Studies; Rheumatic Diseases; Young Adult
PubMed: 34886062
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182312338