4.6 Review

Peripheral biomarkers to diagnose obstructive sleep apnea in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE REVIEWS
卷 64, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101659

关键词

Obstructive sleep apnea; Biomarkers; Diagnosis; Prognosis; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), through the Centro 2020 Regional Operational Programme [CENTRO-01-0145-FEDER-000012]
  2. European Social Fund through the Human Capital Operational Programme (POCH)
  3. Portuguese national funds via FCT [PD/BD/135497/2018, COVID/BD/152507/2022, 2020.04499.BD, 2021.05334.BD]
  4. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), through Operational Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalisation (COMPETE 2020)
  5. Portuguese national funds via Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-029002, PTDC/MEC-MCI/29002/2017, UIDB/04539/2020, UIDP/04539/2020, LA/P/0058/2020]
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/MEC-MCI/29002/2017, 2020.04499.BD, PD/BD/135497/2018, COVID/BD/152507/2022, 2021.05334.BD] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to explore potential biomarkers for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. The findings identified several potential biomarkers that might be used for the diagnosis and prognosis of OSA.
Background: Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) has been recognized as a major health concern worldwide, given its increasing prevalence, difficulties in diagnosis and treatment, and impact on health, economy, and society. Clinical guidelines highlight the need of biomarkers to guide OSA clinical decision-making, but so far, without success. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (ID CRD42020132556), we proposed to gather and further explore candidates identified in the literature as potential OSA biomarkers. Methods: Search strategies for eight different databases (PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Biblioteca Virtual da Saude, Web of Science, EMBASE, World Intellectual Property Organization database, and bioRxiV and medRxiV Preprint Servers) were developed. We identified studies exploring potential biomarkers of OSA, in peripheral samples of adults, with and without OSA, with no comorbidities defined in study inclusion criteria, published after the last systematic review and meta-analysis conducted on OSA biomarkers, until May 31st, 2020. Risk of bias was assessed through the 14-item Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Demographic, clinical, and candidate biomarkers' data were collected and analyzed via random effects meta-analyses. Findings: Among the 1512 unique studies screened, 120 met the inclusion criteria and 16 studies with low risk of bias were selected for meta-analyses. The selected 16 studies enrolled a total of 2156 participants, from which 1369 were diagnosed with OSA and 787 were disease-free controls. The assessed variables showed high heterogeneity. From the 38 biomarker candidates evaluated, only two were evaluated in more than one study. Most studies pinpointed candidates with more potential for OSA prognosis. ADAM29, FLRT2 and SLC18A3 mRNA levels in PBMCs, Endocan and YKL-40 levels in serum, and IL-6 and Vimentin levels in plasma revealed the most promising candidates for OSA diagnosis. Interpretation: Although the current systematic review and meta-analysis allowed us to identify candidates to further explore as potential biomarkers in future studies, it is evident that OSA biomarkers research is still at an early stage. Most findings derive from small-size single-center study cohorts and single-candidate studies. We point several gaps in current OSA biomarker research that may guide into new directions and approaches towards the identification of OSA biomarkers. (c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据