-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a progressive or relapsing and remitting paralysing illness probably due to an autoimmune response... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a progressive or relapsing and remitting paralysing illness probably due to an autoimmune response which should benefit from corticosteroids. Non-randomised studies suggest that corticosteroids are beneficial. Two commonly used corticosteroids are prednisone and prednisolone. Both are usually given as oral tablets. Prednisone is converted into prednisolone in the liver so that the effect of the two drugs is usually the same. Another corticosteroid, called dexamethasone, is more potent and is used in smaller doses.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of corticosteroid treatment compared to placebo or no treatment for CIDP and to compare the effects of different corticosteroid regimes.
SEARCH METHODS
On 27 October 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised trials of corticosteroids for CIDP. We searched three other databases for information to include in the Discussion, and clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials of treatment with any form of corticosteroids or adrenocorticotrophic hormone for CIDP, diagnosed by an internationally accepted definition.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted the data and assessed risk of bias independently. The primary outcome was intended to be change in disability, with change in impairment after 12 weeks as a secondary outcome, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
In one non-blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 35 eligible participants, the primary outcome for this review was not available. The trial had a high risk of bias. Twelve of 19 participants treated with prednisone, compared with five of 16 participants randomised to no treatment, had improved neuropathy impairment scores after 12 weeks; the risk ratio (RR) for improvement was 2.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 4.52). Adverse events were not reported in detail, but one prednisone-treated participant died.In a double-blind RCT comparing daily standard-dose oral prednisolone with monthly high-dose oral dexamethasone in 40 participants, none of the outcomes for this review were available. The trial had a low risk of bias. There were no significant differences in remission (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45 in favour of monthly dexamethasone) or change in disability or impairment after one year. Eight of 16 in the prednisolone, and seven of 24 in the dexamethasone group deteriorated. Adverse events were similar with each regimen, except that sleeplessness and moon facies (moon-shaped appearance of the face) were significantly less common with monthly dexamethasone.Experience from large non-randomised studies suggests that corticosteroids are beneficial, but long-term use causes serious side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low quality evidence from one small, randomised trial did not show a statistically significant benefit from oral prednisone compared with no treatment. Nevertheless, corticosteroids are commonly used in practice. According to moderate quality evidence from one RCT, the efficacy of high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone was not statistically different from that of daily standard-dose oral prednisolone. Most adverse events occurred with similar frequencies in both groups, but sleeplessness and moon facies were significantly less common with monthly dexamethasone. Further research is needed to identify factors which predict response.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Dexamethasone; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating; Prednisolone; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25561247
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002062.pub3 -
European Urology Oct 2021Urethral stricture disease (USD) is initially managed with minimally invasive techniques such as urethrotomy and urethral dilatation. Minimally invasive techniques are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Urethral stricture disease (USD) is initially managed with minimally invasive techniques such as urethrotomy and urethral dilatation. Minimally invasive techniques are associated with a high recurrence rate, especially in recurrent USD. Adjunctive measures, such as local drug injection, have been used in an attempt to reduce recurrence rates.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review evidence for the efficacy and safety of adjuncts used alongside minimally invasive treatment of USD.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review of the literature published between 1990 and 2020 was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA checklist.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 26 studies were included in the systematic review, from which 13 different adjuncts were identified, including intralesional injection (triamcinolone, n = 135; prednisolone, n = 58; mitomycin C, n = 142; steroid-mitomycin C-hyaluronidase, n = 103, triamcinolone-mitomycin C-N-acetyl cysteine, n = 50; platelet-rich plasma, n = 44), intraluminal instillation (mitomycin C, n = 20; hyaluronic acid and carboxymethylcellulose, n = 70; captopril, n = 37; 192-iridium brachytherapy, n = 10), application via a lubricated catheter (triamcinolone, n = 124), application via a coated balloon (paclitaxel, n = 106), and enteral application (tamoxifen, n = 30; deflazacort, n = 36). Overall, 13 randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Use of any adjunct was associated with a lower rate of USD recurrence (odds ratio [OR] 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.50; p < 0.001) compared to no adjunct use. Of all the adjuncts, mitomycin C was associated with the lowest rate of USD recurrence (intralesional injection: OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11-0.48; p < 0.001; intraluminal injection: OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02-0.61; p = 0.01). Urinary tract infection (2.9-14%), bleeding (8.8%), and extravasation (5.8%) were associated with steroid injection; pruritis of the urethra (61%) occurred after instillation of captopril; mild gynaecomastia (6.7%) and gastrointestinal side effects (6.7%) were associated with oral tamoxifen.
CONCLUSIONS
Adjuncts to minimally invasive treatment of USD appear to lower the recurrence rate and are associated with a low adjunct-specific complication rate. However, the studies included were at high risk of bias. Mitomycin C is the adjunct supported by the highest level of evidence.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We reviewed studies on additional therapies (called adjuncts) to minimally invasive treatments for narrowing of the urethra in men. Adjuncts such as mitomycin C injection result in a lower recurrence rate compared to no adjunct use. The use of adjuncts appeared to be safe and complications are uncommon; however, the studies were small and of low quality.
Topics: Captopril; Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Male; Mitomycin; Recurrence; Tamoxifen; Triamcinolone; Urethra; Urethral Stricture
PubMed: 34275660
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.06.022 -
Biomedicines Sep 2023The clinical response to classical immunosuppressant drugs (cIMDs) is highly variable among individuals. We performed a systematic review of published evidence... (Review)
Review
The clinical response to classical immunosuppressant drugs (cIMDs) is highly variable among individuals. We performed a systematic review of published evidence supporting the hypothesis that gut microorganisms may contribute to this variability by affecting cIMD pharmacokinetics, efficacy or tolerability. The evidence that these drugs affect the composition of intestinal microbiota was also reviewed. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched using specific keywords without limits of species (human or animal) or time from publication. One thousand and fifty five published papers were retrieved in the initial database search. After screening, 50 papers were selected to be reviewed. Potential effects on cIMD pharmacokinetics, efficacy or tolerability were observed in 17/20 papers evaluating this issue, in particular with tacrolimus, cyclosporine, mycophenolic acid and corticosteroids, whereas evidence was missing for everolimus and sirolimus. Only one of the papers investigating the effect of cIMDs on the gut microbiota reported negative results while all the others showed significant changes in the relative abundance of specific intestinal bacteria. However, no unique pattern of microbiota modification was observed across the different studies. In conclusion, the available evidence supports the hypothesis that intestinal microbiota could contribute to the variability in the response to some cIMDs, whereas data are still missing for others.
PubMed: 37761003
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11092562 -
Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology Sep 2023Glucocorticoids (GCs) remain a cornerstone of the initial management of anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV), but have several... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of low- versus high-dose glucocorticoid regimens for induction of remission of anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Glucocorticoids (GCs) remain a cornerstone of the initial management of anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV), but have several dose-dependent side effects, in particular infections. The optimal dosing and tapering of oral GCs for remission induction are unknown. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to determine the efficacy and safety of low- versus high-dose GC regimens.
METHOD
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases was conducted. Clinical studies using a GC-based induction protocol were selected. A daily dose of 0.5 mg/kg or < 30 mg/day oral prednisolone equivalent by the start of week 4 of the induction tapering schedule marked the threshold between high- and low-dose GCs. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated by the random effects model for outcomes of remission and infection. Relapse events were summarized using risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
In total, 1145 participants were included in three randomized controlled trials and two observational studies, of whom 543 were assigned to the low-dose GC group and 602 to the high-dose GC group. A low-dose GC regimen was non-inferior to high-dose GCs with respect to outcomes of remission (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-1.02, p = 0.37; I = 0%) and relapse (risk difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.06, p = 0.15; I = 12%), while significantly reducing the incidence of infection (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39-0.91, p = 0.02; I = 65%).
CONCLUSION
Studies with low-dose GC regimens in AAV are associated with fewer infections while obtaining equivalent efficacy.
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis; Remission Induction; Recurrence; Cytoplasm; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37339385
DOI: 10.1080/03009742.2023.2211387 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Collagenous colitis is a cause of chronic diarrhea. This updated review was performed to identify therapies for collagenous colitis that have been assessed in randomized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Collagenous colitis is a cause of chronic diarrhea. This updated review was performed to identify therapies for collagenous colitis that have been assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to assess the benefits and harms of treatments for collagenous colitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to 7 November 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing a therapy with placebo or active comparator for the treatment of active or quiescent collagenous colitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were independently extracted by two authors. The primary outcome was clinical response or maintenance of response as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcome measures included histological response, quality of life and the occurrence of adverse events. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess bias. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve RCTs (476 participants) were included. These studies assessed bismuth subsalicylate, Boswellia serrata extract, mesalamine, cholestyramine, probiotics, prednisolone and budesonide therapy. Four studies were low risk of bias. One study assessing mesalamine and cholestyramine was judged to be high risk of bias due to no blinding. The other studies had an unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (five studies) allocation concealment (six studies), blinding (one study), incomplete outcome data (one study) and selective outcome reporting (one study). Clinical response occurred in 100% (4/4) of patients who received bismuth subsalicylate (nine 262 mg tablets daily for 8 weeks) compared to 0% (0/5) of patients who received placebo (1 study; 9 participants; RR 10.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 155.93; GRADE = very low). Clinical response occurred in 44% (7/16) of patients who received Boswellia serrata extract (three 400 mg/day capsules for 8 weeks) compared to 27% (4/15) of patients who received placebo (1 study; 31 participants; RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.49; GRADE = low). Clinical response occurred in 80% (24/30) of budesonide patients compared to 44% (11/25) of mesalamine patients (1 study; 55 participants; RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.93; GRADE = low). Histological response was observed in 87% (26/30) of budesonide patients compared to 44% (11/25) of mesalamine patients (1 study, 55 participants; RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.13; GRADE = low). There was no difference between the two treatments with respect to adverse events (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.10; GRADE = low), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.65; GRADE = low) and serious adverse events (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.21; GRADE = low). Clinical response occurred in 44% (11/25) of mesalamine patients (3 g/day) compared to 59% (22/37) of placebo patients (1 study; 62 participants; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.24; GRADE = low). Histological response was observed in 44% (11/25) and 51% (19/37) of patients receiving mesalamine and placebo, respectively (1 study; 62 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.47; GRADE = low). There was no difference between the two treatments with respect to adverse events (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.88; GRADE = low), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 5.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 49.90; GRADE = low) and serious adverse events (RR 4.44, 95% CI 0.49 to 40.29; GRADE = low). Clinical response occurred in 63% (5/8) of prednisolone (50 mg/day for 2 weeks) patients compared to 0% (0/3) of placebo patients (1 study, 11 participants; RR 4.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 68.83; GRADE = very low). Clinical response occurred in 29% (6/21) of patients who received probiotics (2 capsules containing 0.5 x 10 CFU each of L. acidophilus LA-5 and B. animalis subsp. lactis strain BB-12 twice daily for 12 weeks) compared to 13% (1/8) of placebo patients (1 study, 29 participants, RR 2.29, 95% CI 0.32 to 16.13; GRADE = very low). Clinical response occurred in 73% (8/11) of patients who received mesalamine (800 mg three times daily) compared to 100% (12/12) of patients who received mesalamine + cholestyramine (4 g daily) (1 study, 23 participants; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.08; GRADE = very low). Clinical response occurred in 81% (38/47) of patients who received budesonide (9 mg daily in a tapering schedule for 6 to 8 weeks) compared to 17% (8/47) of placebo patients (3 studies; 94 participants; RR 4.56, 95% CI 2.43 to 8.55; GRADE = low). Histological response was higher in budesonide participants (72%, 34/47) compared to placebo (17%, 8/47) (RR 4.15, 95% CI 2.25 to 7.66; GRADE = low). Clinical response was maintained in 68% (57/84) of budesonide patients compared to 20% (18/88) of placebo patients (3 studies, 172 participants, RR 3.30 95% CI 2.13 to 5.09; GRADE = low). Histological response was maintained in 48% (19/40) of budesonide patients compared to 15% (6/40) of placebo patients (2 studies; 80 participants; RR 3.17, 95% CI 1.44 to 6.95; GRADE = very low). No difference was found between budesonide and placebo for adverse events (5 studies; 290 participants; RR 1.18, o95% CI 0.92 to 1.51; GRADE = low), withdrawals due to adverse events (5 studies, 290 participants; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.17; GRADE = very low) or serious adverse events (4 studies, 175 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.15 to 8.01; GRADE = very low). Adverse effects reported in the budesonide studies include nausea, vomiting, neck pain, abdominal pain, excessive sweating and headache. Adverse effects reported in the mesalamine studies included nausea and skin rash. Adverse effects in the prednisolone study included abdominal pain, headache, sleep disturbance, mood change and weight gain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low quality evidence suggests that budesonide may be effective for inducing and maintaining clinical and histological response in patients with collagenous colitis. We are uncertain about the benefits and harms of therapy with bismuth subsalicylate, Boswellia serrata extract, mesalamine with or without cholestramine, prednisolone and probiotics. These agents and other therapies require further study.
Topics: Bismuth; Boswellia; Budesonide; Cholestyramine Resin; Chronic Disease; Colitis, Collagenous; Diarrhea; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Mesalamine; Organometallic Compounds; Plant Extracts; Prednisolone; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salicylates
PubMed: 29127772
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003575.pub6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2022Cataract surgery is the most common ambulatory incisional surgery performed in the USA. Cystoid macular edema (CME), the accumulation of fluid in the central retina due... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cataract surgery is the most common ambulatory incisional surgery performed in the USA. Cystoid macular edema (CME), the accumulation of fluid in the central retina due to leakage from dilated capillaries, is the most common cause of vision impairment following cataract surgery. Acute CME, defined as CME of less than four months' duration, often resolves spontaneously. CME that persists for four months or longer is termed chronic CME. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been used to treat CME. This update adds new evidence and analyses to the previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of NSAIDs in the treatment of CME following cataract surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL (2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase; PubMed; LILACS; mRCT (discontinued in 2014, last searched August 2011), ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP databases. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 20 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of NSAIDs for CME following cataract surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts, reviewed full-text publications against eligibility criteria, independently extracted data from newly included trials and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. We contacted trial authors for clarification or to request missing information. We provided a narrative synthesis of all included trials and their results. For continuous and dichotomous outcomes, we separately performed pooled analysis and reported mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) as well as the associated 95% confidence interval (CI) whenever feasible. Two review authors independently graded the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials with a total of 390 participants (393 eyes). Study participants' mean age was 72.2 years (interquartile range [IQR] 68.8 to 73.6) and 72% were women (IQR 69% to 74%). Three trials included participants with acute CME, and four included participants with chronic CME; the remaining two trials enrolled both participants with acute and chronic CME or participants with unknown CME duration. We assessed trials as having unclear (33%) or high risk of bias (67%). Visual improvement of two or more lines at the end of treatment Data from one trial in participants with acute CME show no treatment effect of topical ketorolac compared to placebo (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 8.76; 22 participants). Data from a three-arm trial in participants with acute CME demonstrate that, when compared with topical prednisolone, topical ketorolac (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.07; 17 participants) or topical ketorolac and prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.69; 17 participants) may have little or no effect on visual improvement. Results of subgroup analysis from two studies in participants with chronic CME suggest that, after treatment for 90 days or longer, NSAIDs may increase participants' likelihood of visual improvement by 1.87 fold (RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.58 to 5.22; I = 33%; 2 trials, 121 participants) relative to placebo. However, there was no evidence of treatment effects in the subgroup with two months of treatment or less (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.73; P = 0.19, I = 41%; 2 trials, 34 participants). Overall, this evidence is very low certainty. A single-study estimate in patients with mixed CME indicates that topical diclofenac may increase the likelihood of visual improvement by 40% when compared to topical ketorolac (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.94; 68 participants). However, the same trial reported no difference between the groups in mean final visual acuity in Snellen lines (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.93 to 1.73). A three-arm trial in patients with mixed CME reporting visual changes in ETDRS letters in comparisons between ketorolac and diclofenac (34 participants) or bromfenac (34 participants) suggests no evidence of effects. Overall, NSAIDs may slightly improve visual acuity in participants with mixed CME but the evidence is very uncertain. Persistence of improvement of vision one month after discontinuation of treatment One trial of participants with chronic CME tested oral indomethacin (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.60; 20 participants) and the other compared topical ketorolac to placebo (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 31.1; 26 participants). While there is no evidence of treatment effects, evidence suggests substantial between-group heterogeneity (P = 0.07, I = 69.9%; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials in patients with acute or mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improvement in leakage on fundus fluorescein angiography One three-arm trial in participants with acute CME shows that, when compared with topical prednisolone, there is no treatment benefit of topical ketorolac (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75; 17 participants) or topical ketorolac and topical prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.38; 17 participants). This evidence is very low certainty. The combined estimate from two trials in participants with chronic CME indicates NSAIDs have little to no effect over placebo on improving leakage (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.02; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the trials in patients with mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improved contrast sensitivity Very low-certainty evidence from one trial in participants with acute CME shows no treatment benefit of ketorolac (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75; 17 participants) or ketorolac and prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.69; 17 participants) compared with topical prednisolone. None of the trials in patients with chronic or mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improved central macular thickness on optical coherence tomography; measures of quality of life No included trial reported these outcomes. Adverse effects Most trials observed no differences in ocular adverse events, such as corneal toxicity or elevated intraocular pressure, between comparison groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence on effects of NSAIDs in patients with CME is very uncertain and further investigation is warranted. Our findings are limited by small sample sizes, and heterogeneity in interventions, assessments, and reporting of clinically important outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Female; Aged; Male; Macular Edema; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Ketorolac; Diclofenac; Quality of Life; Cataract; Prednisolone
PubMed: 36520144
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004239.pub4 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022A close association between psoriasis and anti-p200 pemphigoid has been demonstrated by numerous studies. However, the clinical characteristics of patients suffering...
BACKGROUND
A close association between psoriasis and anti-p200 pemphigoid has been demonstrated by numerous studies. However, the clinical characteristics of patients suffering from these two entities have not yet been well-elucidated.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to review the case reports and case series, summarizing clinical features and therapeutic strategies in patients suffering from anti-p200 pemphigoid and psoriasis.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for studies published in English involving patients with psoriasis and anti-p200 pemphigoid on 6 September 2021. All case reports and case series reporting patients diagnosed with anti-p200 pemphigoid and psoriasis were included in this systematic review.
RESULTS
A total of 21 eligible studies comprising 26 anti-p200 pemphigoid patients with preceding psoriasis were included in the qualitative synthesis. The average age at blisters eruption was 62.5 years, and the mean duration between the two entities was 15.6 years. Twenty-four percent of patients developed bullous lesions during UV therapy. Clinical manifestation of bullae and/or vesicles was recorded in all patients, and the trunk (94.7%) was most frequently involved, with only 15.8% reporting mucosal involvement. Epitope spreading was detected by immunoblotting in 33.3% of patients. All the patients reached completed remission during the course of disease, with 36.8% experiencing at least one relapse. Monotherapy of prednisolone was the leading therapeutic approach (n=6, 31.6%) required for disease control, but 5 (83.3%) of them suffered from blister recurrence after tapering or ceasing corticosteroid.
CONCLUSION
Most of the clinical aspects of patients with anti-p200 pemphigoid and psoriasis were similar to what was demonstrated in previous articles on anti-p200 pemphigoid. Nevertheless, compared with other anti-p200 pemphigoid cases without psoriasis, a clinical manifestation pattern with more frequent involvement of the trunk and less mucosal involvement was illustrated in those with psoriasis. Generally, monotherapy is sufficient for a complete remission for such patients. However, one or more relapses have been recorded in a considerable portion of patients, especially those prescribed with prednisolone. It reminded us to be more cautious during a tapering of medication.
Topics: Autoantibodies; Blister; Humans; Laminin; Middle Aged; Pemphigoid, Bullous; Prednisolone; Psoriasis
PubMed: 35317170
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.839094 -
International Journal of Surgery... Nov 2014The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if adjunct steroids affect jaundice-free, cholangitis, and survival rates after Kasai... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if adjunct steroids affect jaundice-free, cholangitis, and survival rates after Kasai portoenterostomy.
METHODS
The literature was searched using the following terms: biliary atresia, portoenterostomy, steroids, glucocorticoids, dexamethasone, prednisolone, and hydrocortisone. The primary outcome was the jaundice-free rate. Secondary outcomes were cholangitis and survival rates.
RESULTS
Ten studies were included in the systematic review and 8 in the meta-analyses. Steroid treatment regimens were inconsistent between studies. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for the jaundice-free rate did not significantly favor steroid over non-steroid treatment (1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-4.11; P = 0.087), nor did the pooled OR for the cholangitis rate (0.75; 95% CI: 0.48-1.17; P = 0.202). Overall survival ranged from 58 to 95% in the steroid group and from 36 to 96% in the control group. Native liver survival ranged from 30 to 56% in the steroid group and from 31 to 48% in the control group. The survival data were not suitable for meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Although these results imply that adjunct steroids after Kasai portoenterostomy for BA may not improve jaundice-free or cholangitis rates, the quality of available evidence is limited and therefore not definitive. Additional high quality studies are needed.
Topics: Biliary Atresia; Cholangitis; Dexamethasone; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Jaundice; Portoenterostomy, Hepatic; Postoperative Care; Prednisolone; Survival Rate
PubMed: 25224699
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.08.407 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Oct 2021The objective of this study was to identify and summarize the efficacy and safety of systemic glucocorticoids (GCs) and local injections of GC in SpA.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to identify and summarize the efficacy and safety of systemic glucocorticoids (GCs) and local injections of GC in SpA.
METHODS
PubMed (Medline) and EMBASE were searched with pre-defined keywords for relevant articles in English reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized interventional studies and non-randomized observational studies of the efficacy of GC in SpA, with five or more patients, for inclusion in a systematic literature review. Local injections of GC included IA and entheseal injections, but excluded SI joint injections.
RESULTS
Out of 9657 records identified, there were 14 studies on the use of systemic GCs in SpA (364 patients), including two RCTs of oral prednisolone. On pooling data from two placebo-controlled RCTs (≤24 weeks), BASDAI 50 was 4.2 times more likely (95% CI: 1.5, 11.5) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Assessment Group (ASAS) 20 was twice more likely (95% CI: 1.1, 3.64) to occur in patients on high-dose oral prednisolone (± taper). Pulsed GCs led to dramatic improvements that lasted a few weeks to a few months. There were no deaths or major adverse events. There were 10 studies (560 patients) on local GCs in SpA. IA injection was effective in achieving a sustained response in 51.5-90% of joints at 6 months. Entheseal injections led to reduced pain and improved US parameters.
CONCLUSION
There were limited studies on either systemic or local injections of GCs in SpA. However, there was good evidence of efficacy with the use of high-dose systemic GCs in the short term (≤6 months) in SpA. Both IA and entheseal injections seemed safe and effective.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Injections, Intra-Articular; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Prednisolone; Spondylarthritis; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 33748829
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab275 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a progressive or relapsing and remitting paralysing illness, probably due to an autoimmune response,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a progressive or relapsing and remitting paralysing illness, probably due to an autoimmune response, which should benefit from corticosteroid treatment. Non-randomised studies suggest that corticosteroids are beneficial. Two commonly used corticosteroids are prednisone and prednisolone. Both are usually given as oral tablets. Prednisone is converted into prednisolone in the liver so that the effect of the two drugs is usually the same. Another corticosteroid, dexamethasone, is more potent and is used in smaller doses. The review was first published in 2001 and last updated in 2015; we undertook this update to identify any new evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of corticosteroid treatment for CIDP compared to placebo or no treatment, and to compare the effects of different corticosteroid regimens.
SEARCH METHODS
On 8 November 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised trials of corticosteroids for CIDP. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of treatment with any corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone for CIDP, diagnosed by an internationally accepted definition.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted data from included studies and assessed the risk of bias independently. The intended primary outcome was change in disability, with change in impairment after 12 weeks and side effects as secondary outcomes. We assessed strength of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
One non-blinded RCT comparing prednisone with no treatment in 35 eligible participants did not measure the primary outcome for this systematic review. The trial had a high risk of bias. Neuropathy Impairment Scale scores after 12 weeks improved in 12 of 19 participants randomised to prednisone, compared with five of 16 participants randomised to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) for improvement 2.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 4.52; very low-quality evidence). The trial did not report side effects in detail, but one prednisone-treated participant died.A double-blind RCT comparing daily standard-dose oral prednisolone with monthly high-dose oral dexamethasone in 40 participants reported none of the prespecified outcomes for this review. The trial had a low risk of bias, but the quality of evidence was limited as it came from a single small study. There was little or no difference in number of participants who achieved remission (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45 in favour of monthly dexamethasone; moderate-quality evidence), or change in disability or impairment after one year (low-quality evidence). Change of grip strength or Medical Research Council (MRC) scores demonstrated little or no difference between groups (moderate-quality to low-quality evidence). Eight of 16 people in the prednisolone group and seven of 24 people in the dexamethasone group deteriorated. Side effects were similar with each regimen, except that sleeplessness was less common with monthly dexamethasone (low-quality evidence) as was moon facies (moon-shaped appearance of the face) (moderate-quality evidence).Experience from large non-randomised studies suggests that corticosteroids are beneficial, but long-term use causes serious side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are very uncertain about the effects of oral prednisone compared with no treatment, because the quality of evidence from the only RCT that exists is very low. Nevertheless, corticosteroids are commonly used in practice, supported by very low-quality evidence from observational studies. We also know from observational studies that corticosteroids carry the long-term risk of serious side effects. The efficacy of high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone is probably little different from that of daily standard-dose oral prednisolone. Most side effects occurred with similar frequencies in both groups, but with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone moon facies is probably less common and sleeplessness may be less common than with oral prednisolone. We need further research to identify factors that predict response.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Dexamethasone; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating; Prednisolone; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29185258
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002062.pub4