Suppr超能文献

对5个人类发展指数极高国家的410万例单胎出生进行的跨国个体参与者分析证实了已知关联,但未对所有早产病例的三分之二提供生物学解释。

Cross-Country Individual Participant Analysis of 4.1 Million Singleton Births in 5 Countries with Very High Human Development Index Confirms Known Associations but Provides No Biologic Explanation for 2/3 of All Preterm Births.

作者信息

Ferrero David M, Larson Jim, Jacobsson Bo, Di Renzo Gian Carlo, Norman Jane E, Martin James N, D'Alton Mary, Castelazo Ernesto, Howson Chris P, Sengpiel Verena, Bottai Matteo, Mayo Jonathan A, Shaw Gary M, Verdenik Ivan, Tul Nataša, Velebil Petr, Cairns-Smith Sarah, Rushwan Hamid, Arulkumaran Sabaratnam, Howse Jennifer L, Simpson Joe Leigh

机构信息

Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA, United States of America.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute for the Health of Women and Children, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2016 Sep 13;11(9):e0162506. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162506. eCollection 2016.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth is the most common single cause of perinatal and infant mortality, affecting 15 million infants worldwide each year with global rates increasing. Understanding of risk factors remains poor, and preventive interventions have only limited benefit. Large differences exist in preterm birth rates across high income countries. We hypothesized that understanding the basis for these wide variations could lead to interventions that reduce preterm birth incidence in countries with high rates. We thus sought to assess the contributions of known risk factors for both spontaneous and provider-initiated preterm birth in selected high income countries, estimating also the potential impact of successful interventions due to advances in research, policy and public health, or clinical practice.

METHODS

We analyzed individual patient-level data on 4.1 million singleton pregnancies from four countries with very high human development index (Czech Republic, New Zealand, Slovenia, Sweden) and one comparator U.S. state (California) to determine the specific contribution (adjusting for confounding effects) of 21 factors. Both individual and population-attributable preterm birth risks were determined, as were contributors to cross-country differences. We also assessed the ability to predict preterm birth given various sets of known risk factors.

FINDINGS

Previous preterm birth and preeclampsia were the strongest individual risk factors of preterm birth in all datasets, with odds ratios of 4.6-6.0 and 2.8-5.7, respectively, for individual women having those characteristics. In contrast, on a population basis, nulliparity and male sex were the two risk factors with the highest impact on preterm birth rates, accounting for 25-50% and 11-16% of excess population attributable risk, respectively (p<0.001). The importance of nulliparity and male sex on population attributable risk was driven by high prevalence despite low odds ratios for individual women. More than 65% of the total aggregated risk of preterm birth within each country lacks a plausible biologic explanation, and 63% of difference between countries cannot be explained with known factors; thus, research is necessary to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of preterm birth and, hence, therapeutic intervention. Surprisingly, variation in prevalence of known risk factors accounted for less than 35% of the difference in preterm birth rates between countries. Known risk factors had an area under the curve of less than 0.7 in ROC analysis of preterm birth prediction within countries. These data suggest that other influences, as yet unidentified, are involved in preterm birth. Further research into biological mechanisms is warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

We have quantified the causes of variation in preterm birth rates among countries with very high human development index. The paucity of explicit and currently identified factors amenable to intervention illustrates the limited impact of changes possible through current clinical practice and policy interventions. Our research highlights the urgent need for research into underlying biological causes of preterm birth, which alone are likely to lead to innovative and efficacious interventions.

摘要

背景

早产是围产期和婴儿死亡最常见的单一原因,全球每年有1500万婴儿受其影响,且全球早产率呈上升趋势。对危险因素的认识仍然不足,预防性干预措施的益处也很有限。高收入国家的早产率存在很大差异。我们假设,了解这些巨大差异的原因可能会带来降低高早产率国家早产发生率的干预措施。因此,我们试图评估选定高收入国家中已知危险因素对自发性早产和医源性早产的贡献,并估计由于研究、政策、公共卫生或临床实践的进步而成功干预可能产生的潜在影响。

方法

我们分析了来自人类发展指数非常高的四个国家(捷克共和国、新西兰、斯洛文尼亚、瑞典)和一个对照美国州(加利福尼亚州)的410万例单胎妊娠的个体患者水平数据,以确定21个因素的具体贡献(调整混杂效应)。确定了个体和人群归因的早产风险以及国家间差异的影响因素。我们还评估了根据各种已知危险因素集预测早产的能力。

结果

在所有数据集中,既往早产和子痫前期是早产最强的个体危险因素,具有这些特征的个体女性的比值比分别为4.6 - 6.0和2.8 - 5.7。相比之下,从人群角度来看,初产和男性是对早产率影响最大的两个危险因素,分别占人群归因额外风险的25% - 50%和11% - 16%(p<0.0)。初产和男性对人群归因风险的重要性是由其高患病率驱动的,尽管个体女性的比值比很低。每个国家内早产总聚集风险的65%以上缺乏合理的生物学解释,国家间63%的差异无法用已知因素解释;因此,有必要进行研究以阐明早产的潜在机制,从而进行治疗干预。令人惊讶的是,已知危险因素患病率的差异占国家间早产率差异的比例不到35%。在各国早产预测的ROC分析中,已知危险因素的曲线下面积小于0.7。这些数据表明,早产还涉及其他尚未明确的影响因素。有必要对生物学机制进行进一步研究。

结论

我们已经量化了人类发展指数非常高的国家之间早产率差异的原因。适合干预的明确且目前已确定的因素较少,这说明当前临床实践和政策干预可能带来的变化影响有限。我们的研究突出了迫切需要对早产的潜在生物学原因进行研究,这可能是带来创新和有效干预措施的唯一途径。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fff9/5021369/5a1d08350c21/pone.0162506.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验