Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your
feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
估计的家族性肌萎缩侧索硬化症比例:文献综述和荟萃分析
Neurology Genetics
(
IF
3.0
)
Pub Date : 2023-12-01
, DOI:
10.1212/nxg.0000000000200109
Julie Barberio
1
,
Cathy Lally
1
,
Varant Kupelian
1
,
Orla Hardiman
1
,
W Dana Flanders
1
Affiliation
- From the Epidemiologic Research and Methods LLC (J.B., C.L., W.D.F.); Rollins School of Public Health (J.B., W.D.F.), Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Biogen (V.K.), Cambridge, MA; and Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute (O.H.), Dublin, Ireland.
背景和目标
肌萎缩侧索硬化症(ALS)是一种罕见的神经退行性疾病。据报道,家族性 (fALS) 病例通常占所有 ALS 病例的 5%–10%;然而,最近没有对该比例(通篇称为“比例fALS”)进行文献综述或荟萃分析。我们的目标是按地理区域估计 fALS 的比例,并评估研究特征对估计值的影响。
方法
我们进行了全面的文献综述,以确定报告 ALS 队列中 fALS 病例数量的所有原始研究。结果按地理区域、研究设计(案例系列或基于人群)和研究发表的十年进行分层。根据用于定义 fALS 的家族史标准进行亚组分析。当有 > 2 项研究可用且 I 2 < 90% 时,我们报告了随机效应荟萃分析中 fALS 比例的汇总估计值;加权平均值和范围另有说明。
结果
基于总共 165 项研究的 fALS 总体汇总比例为 8%(0%、71%)。在 107 个病例系列中,fALS 的比例为 9%(0%、71%),在 58 个基于人群的研究中,fALS 的比例为 5%(4%、6%)。在基于人群的研究中,按地理区域划分的 fALS 比例:欧洲为 6%(5%、7%;N = 37),拉丁美洲为 5%(3%、7%;N = 5),拉丁美洲为 5%(4%)。 %, 7%;N = 12) 北美。 21 项基于人群的研究 (36%) 报告了用于定义 fALS 的标准,一级亲属的 fALS 比例为 5% (4%, 5%; N = 9),7% (4%, 11%; N = 9)。 N = 4) 对于一级或二级亲属,11% (N = 1) 对于更远的 ALS 家族史。 2000 年代或更早发表的基于人群的研究产生的 fALS 合并比例低于 2010 年代或更晚发表的研究。
讨论
结果表明,文献中报道的 fALS 比例的差异可能部分是由于地理位置、研究设计、fALS 定义和十年案例确定的差异造成的。除了欧洲祖先群体之外,几乎没有可用的研究。与基于人群的研究相比,病例系列中的 fALS 比例略高,这可能是由于转诊偏倚。用于定义 fALS 的标准基本上没有报道。需要就 fALS 达成共识,并在非欧洲祖先人群中进行更多基于人群的研究。
"点击查看英文标题和摘要"
Estimated Familial Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Proportion: A Literature Review and Meta-analysis
Background and Objectives
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a rare neurodegenerative disorder. Familial (fALS) cases are usually reported to constitute 5%–10% of all ALS cases; however, no recent literature review or meta-analysis of this proportion (referred to throughout as "proportion fALS") has been conducted. Our objective was to estimate the proportion fALS by geographic region and to assess the effect of study characteristics on the estimates.
Methods
A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify all original studies reporting the number of fALS cases in an ALS cohort. The results were stratified by geographic region, study design (case series or population-based), and decade of study publication. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to family history criteria used to define fALS. We report pooled estimates of the proportion fALS from random-effects meta-analyses when >2 studies are available and I2 is < 90%; weighted averages and ranges are otherwise presented.
Results
The overall pooled proportion fALS based on a total 165 studies was 8% (0%, 71%). The proportion fALS was 9% (0%, 71%) among 107 case series and 5% (4%, 6%) among 58 population-based studies. Among population-based studies, proportion fALS by geographic region was 6% (5%, 7%; N = 37) for Europe, 5% (3%, 7%; N = 5) for Latin America, and 5% (4%, 7%; N = 12) for North America. Criteria used to define fALS were reported by 21 population-based studies (36%), and proportion fALS was 5% (4%, 5%; N = 9) for first-degree relative, 7% (4%, 11%; N = 4) for first or second-degree relative, and 11% (N = 1) for more distant ALS family history. Population-based studies published in the 2000s or earlier generated a lower pooled proportion fALS than studies published in the 2010s or later.
Discussion
The results suggest that variability in the reported proportion fALS in the literature may be, in part, due to the differences in geography, study design, fALS definition, and decade of case ascertainment. Few studies outside of European ancestral populations were available. The proportion fALS was marginally higher among case series compared with population-based studies, likely because of referral bias. Criteria used to define fALS were largely unreported. Consensus criteria for fALS and additional population-based studies in non-European ancestral populations are needed.
更新日期:2023-12-01