Objectives: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), its subsequent recurrences (rCDIs), and severe CDI (sCDI) provide a significant burden for both patients and the healthcare system. Identifying... Show moreObjectives: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), its subsequent recurrences (rCDIs), and severe CDI (sCDI) provide a significant burden for both patients and the healthcare system. Identifying patients diagnosed with initial CDI who are at increased risk of developing sCDI/rCDI could lead to more cost-effective therapeutic choices. In this systematic review we aimed to identify clinical prognostic factors associated with an increased risk of developing sCDI or rCDI.Methods: PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Web of Science and COCHRANE Library databases were searched from database inception through March, 2021. The study eligibility criteria were cohort and caseecontrol studies. Participants were patients >= 18 years old diagnosed with CDI, in which clinical or laboratory factors were analysed to predict sCDI/rCDI. Risk of bias was assessed by using the Quality in Prognostic Research (QUIPS) tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool modified for prognostic studies. Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers. Overview tables of prognostic factors were constructed to assess the number of studies and the respective effect direction and statistical significance of an association.Results: 136 studies were included for final analysis. Greater age and the presence of multiple comorbidities were prognostic factors for sCDI. Identified risk factors for rCDI were greater age, healthcareassociated CDI, prior hospitalization, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) started during or after CDI diagnosis, and previous rCDI.Conclusions: Prognostic factors for sCDI and rCDI could aid clinicians to make treatment decisions based on risk stratification. We suggest that future studies use standardized definitions for sCDI/rCDI and systematically collect and report the risk factors assessed in this review, to allow for meaningful metaanalysis of risk factors using data of high-quality trials. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Show less
With increasing age, associations between traditional risk factors (TRFs) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) shift. It is unknown which mid-life risk factors remain relevant predictors for CVD in... Show moreWith increasing age, associations between traditional risk factors (TRFs) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) shift. It is unknown which mid-life risk factors remain relevant predictors for CVD in older people.We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE on August 16th 2019 for studies assessing predictive ability of > 1 of fourteen TRFs for fatal and non-fatal CVD, in the general population aged 60 + .We included 12 studies, comprising 11 unique cohorts. TRF were evaluated in 2 to 11 cohorts, and retained in 0-70% of the cohorts: age (70%), diabetes (64%), male sex (57%), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (50%), smoking (36%), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) (33%), left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) (33%), total cholesterol (22%), diastolic blood pressure (20%), antihypertensive medication use (AHM) (20%), body mass index (BMI) (0%), hypertension (0%), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (0%). In studies with low to moderate risk of bias, systolic blood pressure (SBP) (80%), smoking (80%) and HDL cholesterol (60%) were more often retained. Model performance was moderate with C-statistics ranging from 0.61 to 0.77.Compared to middle-aged adults, in people aged 60 + different risk factors predict CVD and current prediction models perform only moderate at best. According to most studies, age, sex and diabetes seem valuable predictors of CVD in old-age. SBP, HDL cholesterol and smoking may also have predictive value. Other blood pressure and cholesterol related variables, BMI, and LVH seem of very limited or no additional value. Without competing risk analysis, predictors are overestimated. Show less
