OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the relationship between stillbirth and various perinatal outcomes in subsequent pregnancy. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI databases were searched up to July 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Cohort studies that reported the association between stillbirth and perinatal outcomes in subsequent pregnancies were included. METHODS: We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using Rand Stata software. We used random-effects models to pool each outcome of interest. We performed a meta-regression analysis to explore the potential heterogeneity. The certainty (quality) of evidence assessment was performed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Nineteen cohort studies were included, involving 4,855,153 participants. From these studies, we identified 28,322 individuals with previous stillbirths who met the eligibility criteria. After adjusting for confounders, evidence of low to moderate certainty indicated that compared with women with previous live births, women with previous stillbirths had higher risks of recurrent stillbirth (odds ratio, 2.68; 95% confidence interval, 2.01-3.56), preterm birth (odds ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.07-4.80), neonatal death (odds ratio, 4.24; 95% confidence interval, 2.65-6.79), small for gestational age/intrauterine growth restriction (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.8), low birthweight (odds ratio, 3.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-7.52), placental abruption (odds ratio, 3.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-8.98), instrumental delivery (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-3.11), labor induction (odds ratio, 4.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-8.88), cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-4.73), elective cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.82-3.23), and emergency cesarean delivery (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-3.06) in subsequent pregnancies, but had a lower rate of spontaneous labor (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.36). However, there was no association between previous stillbirth and preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-4.70) in subsequent pregnancies. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis provide a more comprehensive understanding of adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with previous stillbirth. These findings could be used to inform counseling for couples who are considering pregnancy after a previous stillbirth.

COVID-19 is not only associated with substantial acute liver and kidney injuries, but also with an elevated risk of post-acute sequelae involving the kidney and liver system. We aimed to investigate whether COVID-19 exposure increases the long-term risk of kidney and liver disease, and what are the magnitudes of these associations. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, , and the Living Overview of the Evidence COVID-19 Repository for cohort studies estimating the association between COVID-19 and kidney and liver outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to combine the results of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Fifteen cohort studies with more than 32 million participants were included in the systematic review COVID-19 was associated with a 35% greater risk of kidney diseases (10 more per 1000 persons; low certainty evidence) and 54% greater risk of liver disease (3 more per 1000 persons; low certainty evidence). The absolute increases due to COVID-19 for acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and liver test abnormality were 3, 8, and 3 per 1000 persons, respectively. Subgroup analyses found no differences between different type of kidney and liver diseases. The findings provide further evidence for the association between COVID-19 and incident kidney and liver conditions. The absolute magnitude of the effect of COVID-19 on kidney and liver outcomes was, however, relatively small.

Background: The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. Results: We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI - 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI - 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68-1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09-1.28). Conclusion: Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted

Background: HVPG measurement is the gold standard for assessing portal hypertension. Many patients decline HVPG measurements due to associated pain. According to previous studies, propofol sedation during HVPG measurements potentially alters HVPG readings. However, opioid analgesics' effects on HVPG await full elucidation. This study aimed to evaluate fentanyl analgesia's effects on HVPG measurement accuracy in patients with cirrhosis. Methods: This prospective, multicenter study included patients with cirrhosis undergoing HVPG measurements, which were performed preanalgesia and under analgesia with fentanyl injection (1.0 or 1.5 μg/kg). Results: Of the 48 enrolled patients with cirrhosis, 23 were administered 1.0 μg/kg fentanyl analgesia during HVPG measurement. The HVPG was 13.4±4.9 mm Hg in preanalgesia and 13.5±5.2 mm Hg under analgesia. HVPG measurement accuracy was not altered after fentanyl analgesia (p = 0.801). The following measures also did not change: heart rate (p = 0.132), mean arterial pressure (p = 0.348), and blood oxygen saturation (p = 0.748); however, respiratory rate (p = 0.001) changes occurred. The Verbal Numerical Rating Score for comfort under analgesia was higher than that in preanalgesia (p = 0.001). Twenty-five patients were administered 1.5 μg/kg fentanyl analgesia during HVPG measurement. The HVPG was 19.5±5.7 mm Hg in preanalgesia and 19.6±5.6 mm Hg under analgesia. HVPG measurement accuracy did not alter after fentanyl analgesia (p = 0.469). Similarly, the following measures did not change: mean arterial pressure (p = 0.871) and oxygen saturation (p = 0.327); nevertheless, respiratory rate (p = 0.015) and heart rate (p = 0.019) changes occurred. The Verbal Numerical Rating Score for comfort under analgesia was higher than that in preanalgesia (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Fentanyl analgesia did not alter HVPG measurement accuracy, and fentanyl improved comfort in patients with cirrhosis during HVPG measurements.

Background: Essential medicines are the backbone of healthcare and meet the priority healthcare needs of the population. However, approximately one-third of the global population does not have access to essential medicines. Although China formulated essential medicine policies in 2009, the progress of availability of essential medicines and regional variations remains unknown. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the availability of essential medicines, their progress, and regional distribution in China in the last decade. Methods: We searched eight databases from their inception to February 2022, relevant websites, and reference lists of included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias independently. Meta-analyses were performed to quantify the availability of essential medicines, their progress, and regional distribution. Results: Overall 36 cross-sectional studies conducted from 2009 to 2019 were included, with regional data for 14 provinces. The availability of essential medicines in 2015-2019 [28.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 26.4-29.9%] was similar to that in 2009-2014 (29.4%, 95% CI: 27.5-31.3%); lower in the Western region (19.8%, 95% CI: 18.1-21.5%) than Eastern (33.8%, 95% CI: 31.6-36.1%) and Central region (34.5%, 95% CI: 30.6-38.5%); very low for 8 Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) categories (57.1%), and low for 5 categories (35.7%) among all ATC groups. Conclusion: The availability of essential medicines in China is low compared with the World Health Organization goal, has not changed much in the last decade, is unequal across regions, and lacks data for half of provinces. For policy-making, the monitoring system of the availability of essential medicines is to be strengthened to enable long-term surveillance, especially in provinces where the data has been missing. Meanwhile, Joint efforts from all stakeholders are warranted to improve the availability of essential medicines in China toward the universal health coverage target. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=315267, identifier: PROSPERO CRD42022315267.