FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

HBV prevalence in Sub-continental countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

by Sam Hogan, Andrew Page, Sameer Dixit, Kate A. McBride

Background

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is a major source of disease burden worldwide, with an estimated 296 million individuals living with infections worldwide. Although vaccine programs exist to control infections, certain sub-populations around the world continue to have very high prevalence of HBV infection.

Methods

A systematic search of studies of HBV published after 2010 was conducted for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan. Each paper was independently screened for risk of bias and inclusion. Data were extracted from included studies before being analysed to estimate pooled prevalence, and to conduct sub-group analyses. Random-effects models were used for estimating summary prevalence due to a high level of heterogeneity between studies, and funnel plots were combined with Egger’s test to assess publication bias. Meta-regression was conducted to investigate sources of between-study heterogeneity.

Results

The pooled prevalence of HBV across all studies was 3% (95% CI 0.02, 0.05). For countries with multiple studies, the pooled prevalence in India was 3% (95% CI 0.02, 0.04), in Pakistan 6% (95% CI 0.03, 0.09), in Bangladesh 5% (95% CI of 0.02, 0.12), and in Nepal 1% (95% CI 0.00, 0.08). There was some evidence of publication bias, and a high level of heterogeneity across studies. Risk of bias analysis found most studies to be of fair or moderate quality.

Conclusions

The prevalence of HBV among countries in the sub-continent was higher than the global average, but was not as high as some other regions. Countries with greater numbers of displaced persons had higher prevalence of HBV, with a wide range of prevalence between subpopulations likely reflecting differential uptake, and implementation, of vaccination programs.

Maternal exposure to SSRIs or SNRIs and the risk of congenital abnormalities in offspring: A systematic review and meta-analysis

by Weiyi Huang, Robin L. Page, Theresa Morris, Susan Ayres, Alva O. Ferdinand, Samiran Sinha

Background

The association of maternal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) with the risk of system-specific congenital malformations in offspring remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine this association and the risk difference between these two types of inhibitors.

Methods

A literature search was performed from January 2000 to May 2023 using PubMed and Web of Science databases. Cohort and case-control studies that assess the association of maternal exposure to SSRIs or SNRIs with the risk of congenital abnormalities were eligible for the study.

Results

Twenty-one cohort studies and seven case-control studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to non-exposure, maternal exposure to SNRIs is associated with a higher risk of congenital cardiovascular abnormalities (pooled OR: 1.64 with 95% CI: 1.36, 1.97), anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract (pooled OR: 1.63 with 95% CI: 1.21, 2.20), malformations of nervous system (pooled OR: 2.28 with 95% CI: 1.50, 3.45), anomalies of digestive system (pooled OR: 2.05 with 95% CI: 1.60, 2.64) and abdominal birth defects (pooled OR: 2.91 with 95%CI: 1.98, 4.28), while maternal exposure to SSRIs is associated with a higher risk of congenital cardiovascular abnormalities (pooled OR: 1.25 with 95%CI: 1.20, 1.30), anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract (pooled OR: 1.14 with 95%CI: 1.02, 1.27), anomalies of digestive system (pooled OR: 1.11 with 95%CI: 1.01, 1.21), abdominal birth defects (pooled OR: 1.33 with 95%CI: 1.16, 1.53) and musculoskeletal malformations (pooled OR: 1.44 with 95%CI: 1.32, 1.56).

Conclusions

SSRIs and SNRIs have various teratogenic risks. Clinicians must consider risk-benefit ratios and patient history when prescribing medicines.

Prevalence and clinical implications of respiratory viruses in asthma during stable disease state and acute attacks: Protocol for a meta-analysis

by Gioulinta S. Alimani, Sachin Ananth, Cristina Boccabella, Ekaterina Khaleva, Graham Roberts, Nikolaos G. Papadopoulos, Chris Kosmidis, Jørgen Vestbo, Effie Papageorgiou, Apostolos Beloukas, Alexander G. Mathioudakis

Introduction

Viruses are detected in over 50% of acute asthma attacks and in a notable proportion of patients with asthma during stable disease state They are associated with worse outcomes. We will conduct a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to quantify the prevalence and clinical burden of various respiratory viruses in stable asthma and acute asthma attacks. In addition, we will assess the viral loads of respiratory viruses during stable and acute asthma, to explore whether viral load could differentiate attacks triggered by viruses versus those where viruses are present as “innocent bystanders”.

Materials and methods

Based on a prospectively registered protocol (PROSPERO, ID: CRD42023375108) and following standard methodology recommended by Cochrane, we will systematically search Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and relevant conference proceedings for studies assessing the prevalence or clinical burden of respiratory viruses in asthma. Methodological rigour of the included studies will be appraised using a tool specific for prevalence studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale respectively. In anticipation of significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we will conduct random effect meta-analyses. For evaluating the prevalence of viruses, we will perform meta-analyses of proportions using the inverse variance method, and the Freeman-Tukey transformation. We will conduct meta-regression analyses for exploring heterogeneity.

Conclusion

We envisage that these systematic reviews and meta-analyses will quantify the prevalence and burden of respiratory viruses in stable and acute asthma and will drive future research and clinical practice.

❌