Background The world faces severe challenges from migraine and tension-type headache (TTH), which cause grave disability to patients and place a heavy burden on their caregivers. However, headaches in specific individual regions have rarely been investigated. Therefore, we aimed to fully analyse and describe the current status and changing trends in migraine and TTH in non-high-income East and Southeast Asia to provide more detailed real-world information for policy-making. Methods The migraine and TTH data used for analysis were all extracted from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) database. We adopted three major indicators of disease burden, including prevalence, incidence, and years lived with disability (YLD), and two major metrics, including the absolute number and the age-standardized rate, in our present study for further evaluation by age and sex. The results are presented in the form of mean values and 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). In addition, the differences between non-high-income East and Southeast Asia and other regions, as well as the potential associations between headache burden and socioeconomic background, were explored. Results In 2019, approximately 195,702,169 migraine patients and 291,924,564 TTH patients lived in non-high-income East Asia, and 113,401,792 migraine patients and 179,938,449 TTH patients lived in non-high-income Southeast Asia. In terms of specific countries and regions, the highest age-standardized YLD rate (ASYR) of migraine was in Thailand [645 (95% UI: 64 to 1,554)]. The highest ASYR of TTH was in Indonesia [54 (95% UI: 15 to 197)]. Furthermore, people between the ages of 40 and 44, especially females, were identified as the main population that suffered from migraine and TTH. Unfortunately, we did not observe a significant association between headache burden and socioeconomic background. Conclusions To date, the threats from migraine and TTH in non-high-income East and Southeast Asia are still serious and ongoing, leading to prominently negative impacts on the daily life and work of local residents. Therefore, full attention and sound guidelines are urgently needed to obtain greater advantages in fighting against the burden of headache disorders in the future.

Purpose This meta-analysis aimed to clarify the clinical effects and safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan (Sac/Val) administration in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods This analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022364008). Researchers performed a systematic search of English and Chinese databases to identify available randomized controlled trials from inception to September 30, 2022. The experimental group was given Sac/Val, while the control group was given conventional angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). Study screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent researchers. Cochrane Handbook 6.3 was used for quality evaluation and bias assessment. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidential interval (95% CI) were adopted for enumeration data. Mean difference (MD) and 95% CI were adopted for measurement data. Results A total of 7 studies with 964 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The outcomes of clinical effects, including rehospitalization for heart failure (HF), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration at 24 weeks, were respectively RR = 0.45 (95% CI: 0.35 to 0.66), MD = 3.44 (95% CI: 2.66 to 4.22), RR = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.62), and MD=-155.55 (95% CI: -226.35 to -84.75). Meanwhile, the outcomes of adverse side effects, including hypotension, hyperkalemia, cough, and worsening renal function, were respectively RR = 1.81 (95% CI: 1.09 to 3.02), RR = 0.58 (95% CI: 0.17 to 1.93), RR = 0.84 (95% CI: 0.26 to 2.72), and RR = 0.55 (95% CI: 0.23 to 1.33). Conclusions Compared with conventional ACEI/ARB, Sac/Val was found to improve cardiac function, decrease the risk of HF, and reduce MACEs incidence in patients after STEMI. However, in terms of adverse side effects, Sac/Val did not show a significant advantage over ACEI/ARB.