-
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes Jun 2020End-stage renal disease (ESRD) leads to renal replacement therapy and certainly has an impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) leads to renal replacement therapy and certainly has an impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to review and compare the HRQoL between peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) patients using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), EuroQoL-5-dimension (EQ-5D) and the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument (KDQOL).
METHODOLOGY
Systematic review was conducted by identify relevant studies through MEDLINE and SCOPUS up to April 2017. Studies were eligible with following criteria: studied in ESRD patients, compare any pair of renal replacement modalities, and reported HRQoL. The unstandardized mean differences (USMD) of HRQoL among modalities were calculated and pooled using a random-effect models if heterogeneity was present, otherwise a fixed-effect model was applied.
RESULTS
A total of twenty-one studies were included with 29,000 participants. Of them, mean age and percent male were 48.1 years and 45.1, respectively. The pooled USMD (95% CI) of SF-36 between PD and HD (base) were 1.86 (0.47, 3.24) and 0.42 (- 1.99, 2.82) for mental component and physical component summary scores, respectively. For EQ-5D, the pooled USMD of utility and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were 0.02 (- 0.06, 0.10) and 3.56 (1.73, 5.39), respectively. The pooled USMD of KDQOL were 9.67 (5.67, 13.68), 6.71 (- 5.92, 19.32) 6.30 (- 0.41, 12.18), 2.35 (- 4.35, 9.04), 2.10 (0.07, 4.13), and 1.21 (- 2.98, 5.40) for burden of kidney disease, work status, effects of kidney disease, quality of social interaction, symptoms, and cognitive function.
CONCLUSION
Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 5 or ESRD treated with PD had better generic HRQoL measured by SF-36 and EQ-5D than HD patients. In addition, PD had higher specific HRQoL by KDQOL than HD patients in subdomain of physical functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, effects and burden of kidney disease.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Disease Progression; Female; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Male; Middle Aged; Peritoneal Dialysis; Quality of Life; Renal Dialysis; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32552800
DOI: 10.1186/s12955-020-01449-2 -
Environment International Oct 2020As new scientific evidence on health effects of air pollution is generated, air quality guidelines need to be periodically updated. The objective of this review is to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
As new scientific evidence on health effects of air pollution is generated, air quality guidelines need to be periodically updated. The objective of this review is to support the derivation of updated guidelines by the World Health Organization (WHO) by performing a systematic review of evidence of associations between long-term exposure to particulate matter with diameter under 2.5 µm (PM) and particulate matter with diameter under 10 µm (PM), in relation to all-cause and cause-specific mortality. As there is especially uncertainty about the relationship at the low and high end of the exposure range, the review needed to provide an indication of the shape of the concentration-response function (CRF). We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from database inception to 9 October 2018. Articles were checked for eligibility by two reviewers. We included cohort and case-control studies on outdoor air pollution in human populations using individual level data. In addition to natural-cause mortality, we evaluated mortality from circulatory diseases (ischemic heart disease (IHD) and cerebrovascular disease (stroke) also specifically), respiratory diseases (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI) also specifically) and lung cancer. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed when at least three studies were available for a specific exposure-outcome pair. Risk of bias was assessed for all included articles using a specifically developed tool coordinated by WHO. Additional analyses were performed to assess consistency across geographic region, explain heterogeneity and explore the shape of the CRF. An adapted GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) assessment of the body of evidence was made using a specifically developed tool coordinated by WHO. A large number (N = 107) of predominantly cohort studies (N = 104) were included after screening more than 3000 abstracts. Studies were conducted globally with the majority of studies from North America (N = 62) and Europe (N = 25). More studies used PM (N = 71) as the exposure metric than PM (N = 42). PM was significantly associated with all causes of death evaluated. The combined Risk Ratio (RR) for PM and natural-cause mortality was 1.08 (95%CI 1.06, 1.09) per 10 µg/m. Meta analyses of studies conducted at the low mean PM levels (<25, 20, 15, 12, 10 µg/m) yielded RRs that were similar or higher compared to the overall RR, consistent with the finding of generally linear or supra-linear CRFs in individual studies. Pooled RRs were almost identical for studies conducted in North America, Europe and Western Pacific region. PM was significantly associated with natural-cause and most but not all causes of death. Application of the risk of bias tool showed that few studies were at a high risk of bias in any domain. Application of the adapted GRADE tool resulted in an assessment of "high certainty of evidence" for PM with all assessed endpoints except for respiratory mortality (moderate). The evidence was rated as less certain for PM and cause-specific mortality ("moderate" for circulatory, IHD, COPD and "low" for stroke mortality. Compared to the previous global WHO evaluation, the evidence base has increased substantially. However, studies conducted in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) are still limited. There is clear evidence that both PM and PM were associated with increased mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and lung cancer. Associations remained below the current WHO guideline exposure level of 10 µg/m for PM. Systematic review registration number (PROSPERO ID): CRD42018082577.
Topics: Air Pollutants; Air Pollution; Cause of Death; Environmental Exposure; Europe; Humans; North America; Particulate Matter
PubMed: 32703584
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105974 -
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 -
Neurogenetics Oct 2022C-terminal binding proteins (CtBP1/2) are transcriptional coregulators that play a significant role during vertebrate neurodevelopment. This systematic review aims to... (Review)
Review
C-terminal binding proteins (CtBP1/2) are transcriptional coregulators that play a significant role during vertebrate neurodevelopment. This systematic review aims to identify case reports with genetic variants in CTBP1 and CTBP2 associated with brain development syndromes.We screened different databases (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, LILACS) by systematically searching journals and checking reference lists and citations of background papers. We found fourteen cases (10 males) from five papers carrying two pathogenic, heterozygous variants in the CTBP1 gene (13 individuals carried the missense mutation c.991C T, p.Arg342Trp, and one subject carrying the 2-base pair deletion c.1315_1316delCA, p.Gln439ValfsTer84). These mutations were de novo in 13 cases and one case of maternal germinal mosaicism. Two variants are in the same domain of the protein: Pro-Leu-Asp-Leu-Ser (PLDLS) C terminal. Patients with these mutations exhibit a phenotype with intellectual disability, HADDTS syndrome (hypotonia, ataxia, developmental delay, and tooth enamel defects), and cerebellar volume loss. We did not identify reported cases associated with homozygous mutations harbored in CTBP1. We did not identify any report of neurodevelopment phenotypes associated with heterozygous or homozygous CTBP2 mutations. Due to CTBP2/RIBEYE being a gene with dual function, identifying and interpreting the potential pathogenic variants is challenging.Further, homozygous mutations in the CTBP2 gene may be lethal. The mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of neurodevelopment due to variants of these proteins have not yet been elucidated, despite some functional evidence. Further studies should be conducted to understand these transcription factors and their interaction with each other and their partners.
Topics: Humans; Alcohol Oxidoreductases; Ataxia; Co-Repressor Proteins; Muscle Hypotonia; Mutation; Mutation, Missense; Transcription Factors
PubMed: 36331689
DOI: 10.1007/s10048-022-00700-w -
Arab Journal of Urology 2019: To review and present the most distinct concepts on the association of reactive oxygen species (ROS) with male reproduction. : The Preferred Reporting Items for... (Review)
Review
: To review and present the most distinct concepts on the association of reactive oxygen species (ROS) with male reproduction. : The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to search PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane electronic databases for studies investigating the role of oxidative stress (OS) on sperm function. : The literature search yielded 1857 studies, of which 1791 articles were excluded because of irrelevance of data, non-English language, non-human nature or because they were case reports or commentaries. All included studies were reviews (46), meta-analyses (one), original research studies (18) and guideline articles (one). The studies were published between 1984 and 2018. Under normal physiological conditions, ROS are vital for sperm maturation, hyperactivation, capacitation, acrosome reaction, as well as fertilisation. However, a number of endogenous and exogenous causes may induce supra-physiological levels of ROS resulting in lipid peroxidation, sperm DNA fragmentation and apoptosis, and consequently infertility. Several laboratory testing methods can be used in infertile men to diagnose OS. Treatment usually involves antioxidant supplementation and, when possible, elimination of the causative factor. : OS is an important cause of male factor infertility. Its assessment provides essential information that can guide treatment strategies aimed at improving the male's reproductive potential. bp: base-pair; CAT: catalase; LPO: lipid peroxidation; MDA: malondialdehyde; MiOXSYS: Male Infertility Oxidative System; mtDNA: mitochondrial DNA; NAD(PH): nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (phosphate); NO: nitric oxide; 8-OHdG: 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine; ORP: oxidation-reduction potential; OS: oxidative stress; PKA: protein kinase A; PLA2: phospholipase A2; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PUFA: poly-unsaturated fatty acid; ROS: reactive oxygen species; SOD: superoxide dismutase; TAC: total antioxidant capacity; TBA: thiobarbituric acid.
PubMed: 31285919
DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2019.1599624 -
Molecular Therapy. Nucleic Acids Sep 2023The year 2023 marks the 25th anniversary of the discovery of RNAi. RNAi-based therapeutics enable sequence-specific gene knockdown by eliminating target RNA molecules... (Review)
Review
The year 2023 marks the 25th anniversary of the discovery of RNAi. RNAi-based therapeutics enable sequence-specific gene knockdown by eliminating target RNA molecules through complementary base-pairing. A systematic review of published and ongoing clinical trials was performed. Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase were searched from January 1, 1998, to December 30, 2022 for clinical trials using RNAi. Following inclusion, data from the articles were extracted according to a predefined protocol. A total of 90 trials published in 81 articles were included. In addition, ongoing clinical trials were retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov, resulting in the inclusion of 48 trials. We investigated how maturation of RNAi-based therapeutics and developments in delivery platforms, administration routes, and potential targets shape the current landscape of clinically applied RNAi. Notably, most contemporary clinical trials used either -acetylgalactosamine delivery and subcutaneous administration or lipid nanoparticle delivery and intravenous administration. In conclusion, RNAi therapeutics have gained great momentum during the past decade, resulting in five approved therapeutics targeting the liver for treatment of severe diseases, and the trajectory depicted by the ongoing trials emphasizes that even more RNAi-based medicines also targeting extra-hepatic tissues are likely to be available in the years to come.
PubMed: 37583575
DOI: 10.1016/j.omtn.2023.07.018 -
International Journal of Environmental... Aug 2022Beta-blockers are often used during pregnancy to treat cardiovascular diseases. The described neonatal side effects of maternal beta-blocker use are hypoglycemia and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Beta-blockers are often used during pregnancy to treat cardiovascular diseases. The described neonatal side effects of maternal beta-blocker use are hypoglycemia and bradycardia, but the evidence base for these is yet to be evaluated comprehensively. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the potential increased risk for hypoglycemia and bradycardia in neonates exposed to beta-blockers in utero or during lactation. A systematic search of English-language human studies was conducted until 21 April 2021. Both observational studies and randomized controlled trials investigating hypoglycemia and/or bradycardia in neonates following beta-blocker exposure during pregnancy and lactation were included. All articles were screened by two authors independently and eligible studies were included. Pair-wise and proportion-based meta-analysis was conducted and the certainty of evidence (CoE) was performed by standard methodologies. Of the 1.043 screened articles, 55 were included in this systematic review. Our meta-analysis showed a probable risk of hypoglycemia (CoE-Moderate) and possible risk of bradycardia (CoE-Low) in neonates upon fetal beta-blocker exposure. Therefore, we suggest the monitoring of glucose levels in exposed neonates until 24 h after birth. Due to the limited clinical implication, monitoring of the heart rate could be considered for 24 h. We call for future studies to substantiate our findings.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Bradycardia; Female; Humans; Hypoglycemia; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Newborn, Diseases; Lactation; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35954977
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159616 -
BMC Public Health Oct 2022Knowing what facilitates and hinders physical activity behaviour across domains (leisure, travel, work or education, and household) is central for the development of...
BACKGROUND
Knowing what facilitates and hinders physical activity behaviour across domains (leisure, travel, work or education, and household) is central for the development of actions for more active lifestyles. Thus, the aim of this systematic review of reviews was to summarize the evidence on barriers and facilitators of domain-specific physical activity.
METHODS
We included systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that investigated the association between modifiable barriers and facilitators and levels of domain-specific physical activity. Reviews published until September 2020 were retrieved from PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, Regional Library of Medicine (BIREME), and PsycNET, and from the reference list of selected articles. Each review was screened by two independent reviewers for eligibility. Data extracted from selected papers included methodological aspects (number of primary studies, study designs, and age groups); physical activity domains and barriers and facilitators investigated; and direction of association. For each pair of barrier/facilitator and domain-specific physical activity, we recorded the number of positive, negative, and null associations reported across reviews. Quality assessment of each systematic review was performed using the AMSTAR-2 tool.
RESULTS
Forty-four systematic reviews were selected. The evidence base was largest for leisure-time followed by travel-related physical activity. A very small number of reviews included physical activity in work, educational and domestic settings. Across all physical activity domains, factors related to the built environment were more abundant in the reviews than intra and interpersonal factors. Very consistent positive associations were observed between a range of intrapersonal factors and leisure-time physical activity, as well as moderately consistent evidence of positive association for general social support and support from family members. Evidence of moderate consistency was found for the positive association between transport-related physical activity and positive beliefs about consequences, walkability, and existence of facilities that support active travel. Evidence on barriers and facilitators for physical activity at work, educational, and domestic settings was limited in volume and consistency.
CONCLUSIONS
Efforts and resources are required to diversify and strength the evidence base on barriers and facilitators of domain-specific physical activity, as it is still limited and biased towards the leisure domain and built environment factors.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020209710.
Topics: Humans; Travel; Travel-Related Illness; Exercise; Leisure Activities; Life Style
PubMed: 36289461
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14385-1 -
European Urology May 2012Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 2-3% of adult malignancies. There remain uncertainties over the oncological outcomes for the surgical management of localised RCC. (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 2-3% of adult malignancies. There remain uncertainties over the oncological outcomes for the surgical management of localised RCC.
OBJECTIVE
Systematically review relevant literature comparing oncological outcomes of surgical management of localised RCC (T1-2N0M0).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Relevant databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to October 2010, and an updated scoping search was performed up to January 2012. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, prospective observational studies with controls, retrospective matched-pair studies, and comparative studies from well-defined registries/databases were included. The main outcomes were overall survival, cancer-specific survival, recurrence, and metastases. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs, and an extended version was used to assess nonrandomised studies (NRSs). The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 4580 abstracts and 389 full-text articles were assessed. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria (6 RCTs and 28 NRSs). Meta-analyses were planned but were deemed inappropriate due to data heterogeneity. There were high risks of bias and low-quality evidence across the evidence base. Open radical nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy showed similar cancer-specific and overall survival, but when both open and laparoscopic approaches are considered together, the evidence showed improved survival for partial nephrectomy for tumours ≤4cm. The overall evidence suggests either equivalent or better survival with partial nephrectomy. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy offered equivalent survival to open radical nephrectomy, and all laparoscopic approaches achieved equivalent survival. Open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy achieved equivalent survival. The issue of ipsilateral adrenalectomy or complete lymph node dissection with radical nephrectomy or partial nephrectomy remains unresolved.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence base suggests localised RCCs are best managed by nephron-sparing surgery where technically feasible. However, the current evidence base has significant limitations due to studies of low methodological quality marked by high risks of bias.
Topics: Adrenalectomy; Bias; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Female; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Lymph Node Excision; Male; Nephrectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 22405593
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.039 -
Frontiers in Allergy 2023Epigenetics facilitates insights on the impact of host environment on the genesis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) through modulations of host gene expression and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epigenetics facilitates insights on the impact of host environment on the genesis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) through modulations of host gene expression and activity. Epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation cause reversible but heritable changes in gene expression over generations of progeny, without altering the DNA base-pair sequences. These studies offer a critical understanding of the environment-induced changes that result in host predisposition to disease and may help in developing novel biomarkers and therapeutics. The goal of this systematic review is to summarize the current evidence on epigenetics of CRS with a focus on chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and highlight gaps that merit further research.
METHODS
A systematic review of the English language literature was performed to identify investigations related to epigenetic studies in subjects with CRS.
RESULTS
The review identified 65 studies. These have focused on DNA methylation and non-coding RNAs, with only a few on histone deacetylation, alternative polyadenylation, and chromatin accessibility. Studies include those investigating and changes or both. Studies also include animal models of CRS. Almost all have been conducted in Asia. The genome-wide studies of DNA methylation found differences in global methylation between CRSwNP and controls, while others specifically found significant differences in methylation of the CpG sites of the thymic stromal lymphopoietin (), , and . In addition, DNA methyltransferase inhibitors and histone deacetylase inhibitors were studied as potential therapeutic agents. Majority of the studies investigating non-coding RNAs focused on micro-RNAs (miRNA) and found differences in global expression of miRNA levels. These studies also revealed some previously known as well as novel targets and pathways such as tumor necrosis factor alpha, TGF beta-1, IL-10, , aryl hydrocarbon receptor, PI3K/AKT pathway, mucin secretion, and vascular permeability. Overall, the studies have found a dysregulation in pathways/genes involving inflammation, immune regulation, tissue remodeling, structural proteins, mucin secretion, arachidonic acid metabolism, and transcription.
CONCLUSIONS
Epigenetic studies in CRS subjects suggest that there is likely a major impact of the environment. However, these are association studies and do not directly imply pathogenesis. Longitudinal studies in geographically and racially diverse population cohorts are necessary to quantify genetic vs. environmental risks for CRSwNP and CRS without nasal polyps and assess heritability risk, as well as develop novel biomarkers and therapeutic agents.
PubMed: 37284022
DOI: 10.3389/falgy.2023.1165271