Aims The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate the prevalence and incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Materials and methods We searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, EMBASE and LILACS databases of published observational studies in LAC up to December 2020. Meta-analyses of proportions were performed using random-effects models using Stata Program 15.1. Heterogeneity was evaluated through sensitivity, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses. Evidence certainty was performed with the GRADE approach. Results Twenty-nine studies from eight countries were included. The estimated prevalence of DPN was 46.5% (95%CI: 38.0–55.0) with a significant heterogeneity (I2 = 98.2%; p<0.01). Only two studies reported incidence, and the pooled effect size was 13.7% (95%CI: 10.6–17.2). We found an increasing trend of cumulative DPN prevalence over time. The main sources of heterogeneity associated with higher prevalence were diagnosis criteria, higher A1c (%), and inadequate sample size. We judge the included evidence as very low certainty. Conclusion The overall prevalence of DPN is high in LAC with significant heterogeneity between and within countries that could be explained by population type and methodological aspects. Significant gaps (e.g., under-representation of most countries, lack of incidence studies, and heterogenous case definition) were identified. Standardized and population-based studies of DPN in LAC are needed.

Objective This study was undertaken to perform an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis to estimate the pooled prevalence and incidence of epilepsy in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), describing trends over time, and exploring potential clinical and epidemiological factors explaining the heterogeneity in the region. Methods Observational studies assessing the incidence or prevalence of epilepsy in LAC countries up to March 2020 were systematically reviewed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) guidelines. Meta‐analyses and cumulative analyses were performed using random‐effects models. We assessed between‐study heterogeneity with sensitivity, subgroup, and meta‐regression analyses. Moreover, the quality of the included studies and the certainty of evidence were evaluated using the GRADE (grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation) approach. Results Overall, 40 studies (from 42 records) were included, 37 for prevalence analyses and six for incidence (312 387 inhabitants; 410 178 person‐years). The lifetime prevalence was 14.09 per 1000 inhabitants (95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.72–16.67), for active epilepsy prevalence was 9.06 per 1000 individuals (95% CI = 6.94–11.44), and the incidence rate was 1.11 per 1000 person‐years (95% CI = .65–1.70). These high estimates have been constant in the region since 1990. However, substantial statistical heterogeneity between studies and publication bias were found. The overall certainty of evidence was low. Methodological aspects (sample size) and countries’ epidemiological characteristics such as access to sanitation services and child and adult mortality rates explained the high heterogeneity. Finally, the prevalence of epilepsy associated with neurocysticercosis (NCC) in the general population was high, and the proportion of NCC diagnosis among people living with epilepsy was 17.37%. Significance The epilepsy prevalence and incidence in LAC are higher than worldwide estimates, being constant since 1990 and strongly influenced by NCC. We identified high between‐study heterogeneity and significant methodological limitations (e.g., heterogeneous definitions, lack of longitudinal studies). The region needs upgraded research using standardized definitions and diagnostic methods, and urgent action against preventable causes.

Introduction: Only 3 types of coronavirus cause aggressive respiratory disease in humans (MERS-Cov, SARS-Cov-1, and SARS-Cov-2). It has been reported higher infection rates and severe manifestations (ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and death) in patients with comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus (DM). For this reason, this study aimed to determine the prevalence of diabetes comorbidity and its associated unfavorable health outcomes in patients with acute respiratory syndromes for coronavirus disease according to virus types. Methods: Systematic review of literature in Pubmed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scielo until April of 2020. We included cohort and cross-sectional studies with no restriction by language or geographical zone. The selection and extraction were undertaken by 2 reviewers, independently. The study quality was evaluated with Loney’s instrument and data were synthesized by random effects model meta-analysis. The heterogeneity was quantified using an I2 statistic. Funnel plot, Egger, and Begg tests were used to evaluate publication biases, and subgroups and sensitivity analyses were performed. Finally, we used the GRADE approach to assess the evidence certainty (PROSPERO: CRD42020178049). Results: We conducted the pooled analysis of 28 studies (n = 5960). The prevalence analysis according to virus type were 451.9 diabetes cases per 1000 infected patients (95% CI: 356.74-548.78; I2 = 89.71%) in MERS-Cov; 90.38 per 1000 (95% CI: 67.17-118.38) in SARS-Cov-1; and 100.42 per 1000 (95% CI: 77.85, 125.26 I2 = 67.94%) in SARS-Cov-2. The mortality rate were 36%, 6%, 10% and for MERS-Cov, SARS-Cov-1, and SARS-Cov-2, respectively. Due to the high risk of bias (75% of studies had very low quality), high heterogeneity ( I2 higher than 60%), and publication bias (for MERS-Cov studies), we down rate the certainty to very low. Conclusion: The prevalence of DM in patients with acute respiratory syndrome due to coronaviruses is high, predominantly with MERS-Cov infection. The unfavorable health outcomes are frequent in this subset of patients. Well-powered and population-based studies are needed, including detailed DM clinical profile (such as glycemic control, DM complications, and treatment regimens), comorbidities, and SARS-Cov-2 evolution to reevaluate the worldwide prevalence of this comorbidity and to typify clinical phenotypes with differential risk within the subpopulation of DM patients.

No abstract

BackgroundIn anterior circulation large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the extended time window, the guidelines recommend advanced imaging (ADVI) to select patients for endovascular therapy (EVT). However, questions remain regarding its availability and applicability in the real world. It is unclear whether an approach to the extended window EVT that does not use ADVI would be equivalent.MethodsIn April 2022, a literature search was performed to identified randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies describing 90-day outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of the proportion of aggregate using a random effect to estimate rates of functional independence, defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score ≤2 at 90 days, mean mRS, mortality and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) stratified by imaging modality.ResultsFour RCTs and 28 observational studies were included. The pooled proportion of functional independence among patients selected by ADVI was 44% (95% CI 39% to 48%; I2=80%) and 48% (95% CI 41% to 55%; I2=75%) with non-contrast CT/CT angiography (NCCT/CTA) (p=0.36). Mean mRS with ADVI was 2.88 (95% CI 2.36 to 3.41; I2=0.0%) and 2.79 (95% CI 2.31 to 3.27; I2=0.0%) with NCCT (p=0.79). Mortality in patients selected by ADVI was 13% (95% CI 10% to 17%; I2=81%) and 16% (95% CI 12% to 22%; I2=69%) with NCCT (p=0.29). sICH with ADVI was 4% (95% CI 3% to 7%; I2=73%) and 6% with NCCT/CTA (95% CI 4% to 8%; I2=6%, p=0.27).ConclusionsOur study suggests that, in anterior circulation LVO, the rates of functional independence may be similar when patients are selected using ADVI or NCCT for EVT in the extended time window. A simplified triage protocol does not seem to increase mortality or sICH.Protocol registration number(PROSPERO ID: CRD42021236092).