Background Tuberculosis (TB) is the second most common cause of death due to a single infectious agent worldwide after COVID-19. Up to 15% of the cases are extrapulmonary, and if it is located in the central nervous system (CNS-TB), it presents high morbidity and mortality. Still, the global epidemiology of CNS-TB remains unknown. Aim To estimate the global prevalence and incidence of CNS-TB based on the available literature. Methods We systematically searched in MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and LILACS databases (April 2020) and included observational studies evaluating the epidemiology of CNS-TB. Two independent researchers selected and assessed the quality of the studies and extracted relevant data. We performed random-effects model meta-analysis of proportions to estimate the pooled prevalence. The protocol of this study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42018103946). Results We included 53 studies from 28 countries, representing 12,621 patients with CNS-TB. The prevalence of CNS-TB was 2 per 100,000 inhabitants. According to the clinical setting, the prevalence of CNS-TB represented the 13.91% of all cases of meningitis and 4.55% of all cases of TB. The mortality was calculated by tuberculous meningitis due to the lack of data of other presentation, and it rose up to 42.12% in hospitalized patients. The burden of countries’ TB, Human Development Index (HDI), and the prevalence of HIV were the most important prevalence moderators, especially in patients with TB. No data on incidence were found. Conclusion The prevalence and mortality of CNS-TB remain high, and TB meningitis is the most frequent presentation. The highest prevalence was reported in developing countries, and its main moderators were the countries’ HDI and HIV infection. Our study was limited by high heterogeneity, risk of bias, and potential data under registration from developing countries. The integration of CNS-TB early detection and management into national TB programs and population-based studies from developing countries are needed for better global estimation and response. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00415-022-11052-8.

Background Cardiovascular prognostic models guide treatment allocation and support clinical decisions. Whether there are valid models for Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) populations is unknown. Objective This study sought to identify and critically appraise cardiovascular prognostic models developed, tested, or recalibrated in LAC populations. Methods The systematic review followed the CHARMS (CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies) framework (PROSPERO [International Prospective Register of Systemic Reviews]: CRD42018096553). Reports were included if they followed a prospective design and presented a multivariable prognostic model; reports were excluded if they studied symptomatic individuals or patients. The following search engines were used: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, SciELO, and LILACS. Risk of bias assessment was conducted with PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). No quantitative summary was conducted due to large heterogeneity. Results From 2,506 search results, 8 studies (N = 130,482 participants) were included for qualitative synthesis. We could not identify any cardiovascular prognostic model developed for LAC populations; reviewed reports evaluated available models or conducted a recalibration analysis. Only 1 study included a Caribbean population (Puerto Rico); 3 studies were retrieved from Chile; 2 from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay; and 1 from Mexico. Four studies included population-based samples, and the other 4 included people affiliated to a health facility (e.g., prevention clinics). Most studied participants were older than 50 years, and there were more women in 5 reports. The Framingham model was assessed 6 times, and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association pooled equation was assessed twice. Across the prognostic models assessed, calibration varied widely from one population to another, showing great overestimation particularly in some subgroups (e.g., highest risk). Discrimination (e.g., C-statistic) was acceptable for most models; for Framingham it ranged from 0.66 to 0.76. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association pooled equation showed the best discrimination (0.78). That there were few outcome events was the most important methodological limitation of the identified studies. Conclusions No cardiovascular prognostic models have been developed in LAC, hampering key evidence to inform public health and clinical practice. Validation studies need to improve methodological issues.

We aimed to study time trends and levels of mean total cholesterol and lipid fractions, and dyslipidaemias prevalence in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Systematic-review and meta-analysis of population-based studies in which lipid (total cholesterol [TC; 86 studies; 168,553 people], HDL-Cholesterol [HDL-C; 84 studies; 121,282 people], LDL-Cholesterol [LDL-C; 61 studies; 86,854 people], and triglycerides [TG; 84 studies; 121,009 people]) levels and prevalences were laboratory-based. We used Scopus, LILACS, Embase, Medline and Global Health; studies were from 1964 to 2016. Pooled means and prevalences were estimated for lipid biomarkers from ≥2005. The pooled means (mg/dl) were 193 for TC, 120 for LDL-C, 47 for HDL-C, and 139 for TG; no strong trends. The pooled prevalence estimates were 21% for high TC, 20% for high LDL-C, 48% for low HDL-C, and 21% for high TG; no strong trends. These results may help strengthen programs for dyslipidaemias prevention/management in LAC.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Carta al editor ( Sin resumen )