ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Early detection and diagnosis of acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease are key to preventing progression, and echocardiography has an important diagnostic role. Standard echocardiography might not be feasible in high-prevalence regions due to its high cost, complexity, and time requirement. Handheld echocardiography might be an easy-to-use, low-cost alternative, but its performance in screening for and diagnosing acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease needs further investigation. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, MEDLINE, LILACS, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science up to Feb 9, 2024, for studies on the screening and diagnosis of acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease using handheld echocardiography (index test) or standard echocardiography or auscultation (reference tests) in high-prevalence areas. We included all studies with useable data in which the diagnostic performance of the index test was assessed against a reference test. Data on test accuracy in diagnosing rheumatic heart disease, acute rheumatic fever, or carditis with acute rheumatic fever (primary outcomes) were extracted from published articles or calculated, with authors contacted as necessary. Quality of evidence was appraised using GRADE and QUADAS-2 criteria. We summarised diagnostic accuracy statistics (including sensitivity and specificity) and estimated 95% CIs using a bivariate random-effects model (or univariate random-effects models for analyses including three or fewer studies). Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated from summary receiver operating characteristic curves. Heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of plots. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022344081). FINDINGS: Out of 4868 records we identified 11 studies, and two additional reports, comprising 15â578 unique participants. Pooled data showed that handheld echocardiography had high sensitivity (0·87 [95% CI 0·76-0·93]), specificity (0·98 [0·71-1·00]), and overall high accuracy (AUC 0·94 [0·84-1·00]) for diagnosing rheumatic heart disease when compared with standard echocardiography (two studies; moderate certainty of evidence), with better performance for diagnosing definite compared with borderline rheumatic heart disease. High sensitivity (0·79 [0·73-0·84]), specificity (0·85 [0·80-0·89]), and overall accuracy (AUC 0·90 [0·85-0·94]) for screening rheumatic heart disease was observed when pooling data of handheld echocardiography versus standard echocardiography (seven studies; high certainty of evidence). Most studies had a low risk of bias overall. Some heterogeneity was observed for sensitivity and specificity across studies, possibly driven by differences in the prevalence and severity of rheumatic heart disease, and level of training or expertise of non-expert operators. INTERPRETATION: Handheld echocardiography has a high accuracy and diagnostic performance when compared with standard echocardiography for diagnosing and screening of rheumatic heart disease in high-prevalence areas. FUNDING: World Health Organization. TRANSLATIONS: For the Chinese, French, Italian, Persian, Portuguese, Spanish and Urdu translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Subject(s)
Echocardiography , Rheumatic Heart Disease , Humans , Rheumatic Heart Disease/diagnostic imaging , Echocardiography/statistics & numerical data , Echocardiography/methods , Mass Screening/methods , World Health Organization , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
Background: People who have had a stroke or a Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA) can experience psychological and/or cognitive difficulties. The body of research for psychological and neuropsychological interventions after stroke is growing, however, published systematic reviews vary in scope and methodology, with different types and severity of strokes included, and at times, diverse conclusions drawn about the effectiveness of the interventions evaluated. In this umbrella review, we aim to systematically summarise the existing systematic reviews evaluating psychological interventions for mood and cognition post-stroke/TIA. Methods: We will conduct this umbrella review according to the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The following databases will be searched from inception: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Epistemonikos. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis published until the search date will be included. Reviews including psychological interventions addressing mood and/or cognition outcomes for any stroke type or severity will be screened for eligibility. A narrative synthesis, including content analysis, will be used. Each stage of the review will be processed by two independent reviewers and a third reviewer will be considered to resolve disagreements. The methodological quality of the included reviews will be assessed using AMSTAR 2. Discussion: Existing systematic reviews provide varied evidence on the effectiveness of psychological interventions post-stroke/TIA. This umbrella review aims to summarise knowledge and evidence on different types of psychological and neuropsychological interventions targeting mood and cognition. Findings will highlight important knowledge gaps and help prioritise future research questions. Systematic Review Registration: This protocol was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on November 15, 2022; PROSPERO CRD42022375947.
Subject(s)
Affect , Cognition , Ischemic Attack, Transient , Stroke , Humans , Ischemic Attack, Transient/psychology , Ischemic Attack, Transient/complications , Ischemic Attack, Transient/therapy , Psychosocial Intervention/methods , Stroke/psychology , Stroke/complications , Stroke/therapy , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
Secondary prevention with penicillin aims to prevent further episodes of acute rheumatic fever and subsequent development of rheumatic heart disease (RHD). Penicillin allergy, self-reported by 10% of the population, can affect secondary prevention programs. We aimed to assess the role for (i) routine penicillin allergy testing and the (ii) safety of penicillin allergy delabeling approaches in this context. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, ISRCTN, and CPCI-S to identify the relevant reports. We found 2419 records, but no studies addressed our initial question. Following advice from the WHO-Guideline committee and experts, we identified 6 manuscripts on allergy testing focusing on other populations showing that the prevalence of allergy confirmed by testing was low and the incidence of life-threatening reactions to BPG was very low (< 1-3/1000 individuals treated). A subsequent search addressed penicillin allergy delabeling. This found 516 records, and 5 studies addressing the safety of direct oral drug challenge vs. skin testing followed by drug administration in patients with suspected penicillin allergy. Immediate allergic reactions of minor severity were observed for a minority of patients and occurred less frequently in the direct drug challenge group: 2.3% vs. 11.5%; RR = 0.25, 95%CI 0.15-0.45, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%. No anaphylaxis or deaths were observed. Severe allergic reactions to penicillin are extremely rare and can be recognized and dealt by trained healthcare workers. Confirmation of penicillin allergy diagnosis or delabeling using direct oral drug challenge or penicillin skin testing seems to be safe and is associated with a low rate of adverse reactions.
Subject(s)
Drug Hypersensitivity , Penicillins , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Skin Tests , World Health Organization , Humans , Drug Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Drug Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Penicillins/adverse effects , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effectsABSTRACT
Background: Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD) is the most common cause of valvular heart disease worldwide. Undiagnosed or untreated RHD can complicate pregnancy and lead to poor maternal and fetal outcomes and is a significant factor in non-obstetric morbidity. Echocardiography has an emerging role in screening for RHD. We aimed to critically analyse the evidence on the use of echocardiography for screening pregnant women for RHD in high-prevalence areas. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase to identify the relevant reports. Two independent reviewers assessed the reports against the eligibility criteria in a double-blind process. Results: The searches (date: 4 April 2023) identified 432 records for screening. Ten non-controlled observational studies were identified, five using portable or handheld echocardiography, comprising data from 23,166 women. Prevalence of RHD varied across the studies, ranging from 0.4 to 6.6% (I2, heterogeneity >90%). Other cardiac abnormalities (e.g., congenital heart disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction) were also detected <1% to 2% of cases. Certainty of evidence was very low. Conclusion: Echocardiography as part of antenatal care in high-prevalence areas may detect RHD or other cardiac abnormalities in asymptomatic pregnant women, potentially reducing the rates of disease progression and adverse labor-associated outcomes. However, this evidence is affected by the low certainty of evidence, and lack of studies comparing echocardiography versus standard antenatal care. Prospective Registration: PROSPERO 2022 July 4; CRD42022344081 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=344081. Research question: 'In areas with a high prevalence of rheumatic heart disease, should handheld echocardiography be added to routine antenatal care?'