Pulmonary hypertension survival and hospitalisations in people living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People living with HIV (PLHIV) have a higher risk of developing pulmonary hypertension (PH) with subsequent poorer prognosis. This review aimed to determine the (1) survival outcomes and (2) proportion of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalisations of PLHIV and PH. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies reporting survival outcomes for PLHIV and PH. Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Global Index Medicus and Cochrane Library), trial registries and conference proceedings were searched until 22 July 2023. We pooled similar measures of effect, assessed apriori subgroups and used meta-regression to determine mortality and associated variables. RESULTS: 5248 studies were identified; 28 studies were included with a total of 5459 PLHIV and PH. The mean survival (95% CI) of PLHIV and PH was 37.4 months (29.9 to 44.8). Participants alive at 1, 2 and 3 years were 85.8% (74.1% to 95.0%), 75.2% (61.9% to 86.7%) and 61.9% (51.8% to 71.6%), respectively. ED visits and hospitalisation rates were 73.3% (32.5% to 99.9%) and 71.2% (42.4% to 94.2%), respectively. More severe disease, measured by echocardiogram, was associated with poorer prognosis (β -0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.00, p=0.009). Survival was higher in high-income countries compared with lower-income countries (β 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.73, p<0.001) and in Europe compared with the America (β 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.75, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms poor prognosis and high healthcare utilisation for PLHIV and PH. Prognosis is associated with country income level, geographic region and PH severity. This highlights the importance of screening in this population. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023395023.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".