SynthesisInternational archives of allergy and immunology2026
Prevalence and Incidence of Hereditary Angioedema: A Systematic Literature Review.
Synthesis in International archives of allergy and immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrior reports on the global prevalence of hereditary angioedema (HAE) have varied widely, and it remains uncertain as to what extent such variation can be attributed to regional differences. More accurate estimates of HAE prevalence can potentially raise awareness among clinicians and reduce diagnostic delay. This systematic literature review identified studies reporting on HAE prevalence, with the aim of generating pooled global/regional estimates.
methodsRelevant studies were identified through a systematic search of MEDLINE® and Embase (inception to June 21, 2024). Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed in duplicate by two independent reviewers; 5,225 studies were screened, with 41 publications (pertaining to 40 unique studies) being included.
resultsMost studies were conducted in Europe (n = 22); other regions included Northern Eurasia (n = 1), North (n = 3) and South America (n = 1), Africa (n = 1), Middle East (n = 1), East Asia (n = 6), and Oceania (n = 1). Diagnostic methodology varied greatly, with a minority of studies citing an established guideline. Pooled diagnosed annual prevalence estimates (95% confidence interval) were 1.31 per 100,000 (0.83-2.08; type I HAE), 0.20 per 100,000 (0.14-0.29; type II HAE), 0.06 per 100,000 (0.01-0.40; HAE with normal C1-inhibitor [INH]), and 1.70 per 100,000 (1.58-1.83; combined types). Pooled estimates by region were 1.43 per 100,000 (0.99-2.08) and 1.64 per 100,000 (1.02-2.64) in North America and Europe, respectively, which were higher than individual estimates from the other regions.
conclusionThis review determined pooled, minimal diagnosed annual prevalence estimates for type I HAE, type II HAE, HAE-nC1-INH, and type I/II/nC1-INH combined. The pooled estimate for European countries was relatively higher than that for North American countries, as well as individually reported estimates in other regions. Nevertheless, valid comparisons across countries were hindered by a large degree of heterogeneity in data sources and diagnostic methodology. Additional, high-quality studies using standardized diagnostic methods are required to elucidate whether regional differences can be truly attributed to ethnic differences in phenotypic and genotypic variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.