Adenosine deaminase and tuberculous meningitis-A systematic review with meta-analysis

Tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is a severe infection of the central nervous system, particularly in developing countries. Prompt diagnosis and treatment are necessary to decrease the high rates of disability and death associated with TBM. The diagnosis is often time and labour intensive; thus, a simple, accurate and rapid diagnostic test is needed. The adenosine deaminase (ADA) activity test is a rapid test that has been used for the diagnosis of the pleural, peritoneal and pericardial forms of tuberculosis. However, the usefulness of ADA in TBM is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate ADA as a diagnostic test for TBM in a systematic review. A systematic search was performed of the medical literature (MEDLINE, LILACS, Web of Science and EMBASE). The ADA values from TBM cases and controls (diagnosed with other types of meningitis) were necessary to calculate the sensitivity and specificity. Out of a total of 522 studies, 13 were included in the meta-analysis (380 patients with TBM). The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) were calculated based on arbitrary ADA cut-off values from 1 to 10 U/l. ADA values from 1 to 4 U/l (sensitivity > 93% and specificity < 80%) helped to exclude TBM; values between 4 and 8 U/l were insufficient to confirm or exclude the diagnosis of TBM (p = 0.07), and values > 8 U/l (sensitivity < 59% and specificity > 96%) improved the diagnosis of TBM (p < 0.001). None of the cut-off values could be used to discriminate between TBM and bacterial meningitis. In conclusion, ADA cannot distinguish between bacterial meningitis and TBM, but using ranges of ADA values could be important to improve TBM diagnosis, particularly after bacterial meningitis has been ruled out. The different methods used to measure ADA and the heterogeneity of data do not allow standardization of this test as a routine.

Quantitative myocardial contrast echocardiography during pharmacological stress for diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies

Aims We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of quantitative stress myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) in coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods and results Database search was performed through January 2008. We included studies evaluating accuracy of quantitative stress MCE for detection of CAD compared with coronary angiography or single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and measuring reserve parameters of A, beta, and A beta. Data from studies were verified and supplemented by the authors of each study. Using random effects meta-analysis, we estimated weighted mean difference (WMD), likelihood ratios (LRs), diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), and summary area under curve (AUC), all with 95% confidence interval (0). Of 1443 studies, 13 including 627 patients (age range, 38-75 years) and comparing MCE with angiography (n = 10), SPECT (n = 1), or both (n = 2) were eligible. WMD (95% CI) were significantly less in CAD group than no-CAD group: 0.12 (0.06-0.18) (P < 0.001), 1.38 (1.28-1.52) (P < 0.001), and 1.47 (1.18-1.76) (P < 0.001) for A, beta, and A beta reserves, respectively. Pooled LRs for positive test were 1.33 (1.13-1.57), 3.76 (2.43-5.80), and 3.64 (2.87-4.78) and LRs for negative test were 0.68 (0.55-0.83), 0.30 (0.24-0.38), and 0.27 (0.22-0.34) for A, beta, and A beta reserves, respectively. Pooled DORs were 2.09 (1.42-3.07), 15.11 (7.90-28.91), and 14.73 (9.61-22.57) and AUCs were 0.637 (0.594-0.677), 0.851 (0.828-0.872), and 0.859 (0.842-0.750) for A, beta, and A beta reserves, respectively. Conclusion Evidence supports the use of quantitative MCE as a non-invasive test for detection of CAD. Standardizing MCE quantification analysis and adherence to reporting standards for diagnostic tests could enhance the quality of evidence in this field.

To treat or not to treat? A meta-analysis of the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in mild cognitive impairment for delaying progression to Alzheimer`s disease

Individual randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) aiming to delay the progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer`s disease (AD) have not found significant benefit of their use for this purpose. The objective of this study is to meta-analyze the RCTs conducted with ChEIs in order to assess whether pooled analysis could show the benefit of these drugs in delaying the progression from MCI to AD. We searched for references of published and unpublished studies on electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Clinical Trial Database Registry, particularly the Clinicaltrials.gov-http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). We retrieved 173 references, which yielded three references for data extraction. A total of 3.574 subjects from four RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Among 1,784 subjects allocated in the ChEI-treatment group, 275 (15.4%) progressed to AD/dementia, as opposed to 366 (20.4%) out of 1,790 subjects in the placebo group. The relative risk (RR) for progression to AD/dementia in the ChEI-treated group was 0.75 [CI(95%) 0.66-0.87], z = -3.89, P < 0.001. The patients on the ChEI group had a significantly higher all-cause dropout risk than the patients on the placebo group (RR = 1.36 CI(95%) [1.24-1.49]; z = 6.59, P < 0.001). The RR for serious adverse events (SAE) in the ChEI-treated group showed no significantly statistical difference from the placebo group (RR = 0.95 [CI(95%) 0.83-1.09], z = -0.72, P = 0.47). The subjects in the ChEI-treated group had a marginally, non-significant, higher risk of death due to any cause than those in the placebo-treated group (RR = 1.04, CI(95%) 0.63-1.70, z = 0.16, P = 0.86). The long-term use of ChEIs in subjects with MCI may attenuate the risk of progression to AD/dementia. This finding may have a significant impact on public health and pharmaco-economic policies.