Singh, Ambrish

Evidence from preclinical studies suggests a preventive effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in preeclampsia. Recently, several epidemiological studies have described a conflicting association between the use of PPIs during pregnancy and preeclampsia risk. This study aimed to evaluate the association between PPI use and the risk of preeclampsia. We searched databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Emcare, CINAHL, and the relevant grey literature from inception until 13 September 2021. Studies reporting the preeclampsia risk with the use of PPIs were eligible for inclusion. Literature screening, data extraction, and the risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two investigators. Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to generate relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of preeclampsia and preterm preeclampsia among women receiving PPIs during pregnancy were the primary outcomes of interest. This meta-analysis comprised three studies involving 4,877,565 pregnant women, of whom 119,017 were PPI users. The included studies were judged to have a low risk of bias. The risk of preeclampsia among pregnant women who received PPIs anytime during pregnancy was significantly increased (RR 1.27 (95% CI: 1.23–1.31)), although the increase was trivial in absolute terms (2 per 1000). The subgroup analysis revealed that the risk was increased in each of the three trimesters. The risk of preterm preeclampsia among pregnant women receiving PPIs anytime during pregnancy was not significantly increased (RR 1.04 (95% CI: 0.70–1.55)). The certainty evaluated by GRADE in these estimates was low. PPI use may be associated with a trivial increase in the risk of preeclampsia in pregnant women. There is no evidence supporting that PPI use decreases the risk of preeclampsia or preterm preeclampsia.

Background While there is a long history of measuring death and disability from injuries, modern research methods must account for the wide spectrum of disability that can occur in an injury, and must provide estimates with sufficient demographic, geographical and temporal detail to be useful for policy makers. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study used methods to provide highly detailed estimates of global injury burden that meet these criteria. Methods In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced. Results GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes. Conclusions GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future.