-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Sepsis occurs when an infection is complicated by organ failures as defined by a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score of two or higher. Sepsis may be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sepsis occurs when an infection is complicated by organ failures as defined by a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score of two or higher. Sepsis may be complicated by impaired corticosteroid metabolism. Giving corticosteroids may benefit patients. The original review was published in 2004 and was updated in 2010 and again in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects of corticosteroids on death at one month in patients with sepsis, and to examine whether dose and duration of corticosteroids influence patient response to this treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (October 2014), EMBASE (October 2014), Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS; October 2014) and reference lists of articles, and we contacted trial authors. The original searches were performed in August 2003 and in October 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials of corticosteroids versus placebo or supportive treatment in patients with sepsis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All review authors agreed on the eligibility of trials. One review author extracted data, which were checked by the other review authors, and by the primary author of the paper when possible. We obtained some missing data from trial authors. We assessed the methodological quality of trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified nine additional studies since the last update, for a total of 33 eligible trials (n = 4268 participants). Twenty-three of these 33 trials were at low risk of selection bias, 22 were at low risk of performance and detection bias, 27 were at low risk of attrition bias and 14 were at low risk of selective reporting.Corticosteroids reduced 28-day mortality (27 trials; n = 3176; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.00; P value = 0.05, random-effects model). The quality of evidence for this outcome was downgraded from high to low for imprecision (upper limit of 95% CI = 1) and for inconsistency (significant heterogeneity across trial results). Heterogeneity was related in part to the dosing strategy. Treatment with a long course of low-dose corticosteroids significantly reduced 28-day mortality (22 trials; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97; P value = 0.01, fixed-effect model). The quality of evidence was downgraded from high to moderate for inconsistency (owing to non-significant effects shown by one large trial). Corticosteroids also reduced mortality rate in the intensive care unit (13 trials; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; P value = 0.04, random-effects model) and at the hospital (17 trials; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98; P value = 0.03, random-effects model). Quality of the evidence for in-hospital mortality was downgraded from high to moderate for inconsistency and imprecision (upper limit of 95% CI for RR approaching 1). Corticosteroids increased the proportion of shock reversal by day seven (12 trials; RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.51; P value = 0.0001) and by day 28 (seven trials; n = 1013; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21; P value = 0.01) and reduced the SOFA score by day seven (eight trials; mean difference (MD) -1.53, 95% CI -2.04 to -1.03; P value < 0.00001, random-effects model) and survivors' length of stay in the intensive care unit (10 trials; MD -2.19, 95% CI -3.93 to -0.46; P value = 0.01, fixed-effect model) without inducing gastroduodenal bleeding (19 trials; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0. 92 to 1.67; P value = 0.15, fixed-effect model), superinfection (19 trials; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; P value = 0.81, fixed-effect model) or neuromuscular weakness (three trials; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.88; P value = 0.40, fixed-effect model). Corticosteroid increased the risk of hyperglycaemia (13 trials; RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.37; P value < 0.00001, fixed-effect model) and hypernatraemia (three trials; RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.09; P value < 0.0001, fixed-effect model).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, low-quality evidence indicates that corticosteroids reduce mortality among patients with sepsis. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that a long course of low-dose corticosteroids reduced 28-day mortality without inducing major complications and led to an increase in metabolic disorders.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Child; Critical Care; Dexamethasone; Fludrocortisone; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Methylprednisolone; Organ Dysfunction Scores; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sepsis; Shock, Septic; Time Factors
PubMed: 26633262
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002243.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Vitiligo is a chronic skin disorder characterised by patchy loss of skin colour. Some people experience itching before the appearance of a new patch. It affects people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Vitiligo is a chronic skin disorder characterised by patchy loss of skin colour. Some people experience itching before the appearance of a new patch. It affects people of any age or ethnicity, more than half of whom develop it before the age of 20 years. There are two main types: generalised vitiligo, the common symmetrical form, and segmental, affecting only one side of the body. Around 1% of the world's population has vitiligo, a disease causing white patches on the skin. Several treatments are available. Some can restore pigment but none can cure the disease.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of all therapeutic interventions used in the management of vitiligo.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to October 2013: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 10), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS. We also searched five trials databases, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of treatments for vitiligo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and methodological quality, and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
This update of the 2010 review includes 96 studies, 57 from the previous update and 39 new studies, totalling 4512 participants. Most of the studies, covering a wide range of interventions, had fewer than 50 participants. All of the studies assessed repigmentation, however only five reported on all of our three primary outcomes which were quality of life, > 75% repigmentation and adverse effects. Of our secondary outcomes, six studies measured cessation of spread but none assessed long-term permanence of repigmentation resulting from treatment at two years follow-up.Most of the studies assessed combination therapies which generally reported better results. New interventions include seven new surgical interventions.We analysed the data from 25 studies which assessed our primary outcomes. We used the effect measures risk ratio (RR), and odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and where N is the number of participants in the study.We were only able to analyse one of nine studies assessing quality of life and this showed no statistically significant improvement between the comparators.Nine analyses from eight studies reported >75% repigmentation. In the following studies the repigmentation was better in the combination therapy group: calcipotriol plus PUVA (psoralen with UVA light) versus PUVA (paired OR 4.25, 95% CI 1.43 to 12.64, one study, N = 27); hydrocortisone-17-butyrate plus excimer laser versus excimer laser alone (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.50, one study, N = 84); oral minipulse of prednisolone (OMP) plus NB-UVB (narrowband UVB) versus OMP alone (RR 7.41, 95% CI 1.03 to 53.26, one study, N = 47); azathioprine with PUVA versus PUVA alone (RR 17.77, 95% CI 1.08 to 291.82, one study, N = 58) and 8-Methoxypsoralen (8-MOP ) plus sunlight versus psoralen (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.91, one study, N = 168). In these three studies ginkgo biloba was better than placebo (RR 4.40, 95% CI 1.08 to 17.95, one study, N = 47); clobetasol propionate was better than PUVAsol (PUVA with sunlight) (RR 4.70, 95% CI 1.14 to 19.39, one study, N = 45); split skin grafts with PUVAsol was better than minipunch grafts with PUVAsol (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.85, one study, N = 64).We performed one meta-analysis of three studies, in which we found a non-significant 60% increase in the proportion of participants achieving >75% repigmentation in favour of NB-UVB compared to PUVA (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.45; I² = 0%).Studies assessing topical preparations, in particular topical corticosteroids, reported most adverse effects. However, in combination studies it was difficult to ascertain which treatment caused these effects. We performed two analyses from a pooled analysis of three studies on adverse effects. Where NB-UVB was compared to PUVA, the NB-UVB group reported less observations of nausea in three studies (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.69; I² = 0% three studies, N = 156) and erythema in two studies (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I² = 0%, two studies, N = 106), but not itching in two studies (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.60; I² = 0%, two studies, N = 106).Very few studies only assessed children or included segmental vitiligo. We found one study of psychological interventions but we could not include the outcomes in our statistical analyses. We found no studies evaluating micropigmentation, depigmentation, or cosmetic camouflage.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review has found some evidence from individual studies to support existing therapies for vitiligo, but the usefulness of the findings is limited by the different designs and outcome measurements and lack of quality of life measures. There is a need for follow-up studies to assess permanence of repigmentation as well as high- quality randomised trials using standardised measures and which also address quality of life.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Ginkgo biloba; Humans; Lasers, Excimer; PUVA Therapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Phototherapy; Plant Extracts; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Pigmentation; Skin Transplantation; Steroids; Vitiligo
PubMed: 25710794
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003263.pub5 -
BMC Infectious Diseases May 2023The preferred agent of glucocorticoids in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The preferred agent of glucocorticoids in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19.
METHODS
By searching the electronic literature database including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science, the clinical studies comparing methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in the treatment of severe COVID-19 were selected according to the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. Relevant data were extracted and literature quality was assessed. The primary outcome was short-term mortality. The secondary outcomes were the rates of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation, PaO/FiO ratio, plasma levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, hospital stay, and the incidence of severe adverse events. Statistical pooling applied the fixed or random effects model and reported as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1.0.
RESULTS
Twelve clinical studies were eligible, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine non-RCTs. A total of 2506 patients with COVID-19 were analyzed, of which 1242 (49.6%) received methylprednisolone and 1264 (50.4%) received dexamethasone treatment. In general, the heterogeneity across studies was significant, and the equivalent doses of methylprednisolone were higher than that of dexamethasone. Our meta-analysis showed that methylprednisolone treatment in severe COVID-19 patients was related to significantly reduced plasma ferritin and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio compared with dexamethasone, and that no significant difference in other clinical outcomes between the two groups was found. However, subgroup analyses of RCTs demonstrated that methylprednisolone treatment was associated with reduced short-term mortality, and decreased CRP level compared with dexamethasone. Moreover, subgroup analyses observed that severe COVID-19 patients treated with a moderate dose (2 mg/kg/day) of methylprednisolone were related to a better prognosis than those treated with dexamethasone.
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed that compared with dexamethasone, methylprednisolone could reduce the systemic inflammatory response in severe COVID-19, and its effect was equivalent to that of dexamethasone on other clinical outcomes. It should be noted that the equivalent dose of methylprednisolone used was higher. Based on the evidence of subgroup analyses of RCTs, methylprednisolone, preferably at a moderate dose, has an advantage over dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19.
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; Methylprednisolone; COVID-19; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 37147596
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08280-2 -
Neurology. Clinical Practice Feb 2021To provide an evidence-based approach to the use of therapies that are prescribed to improve the natural history of HTLV-1-associated myelopathy/tropical spastic... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
To provide an evidence-based approach to the use of therapies that are prescribed to improve the natural history of HTLV-1-associated myelopathy/tropical spastic paraparesis (HAM/TSP)-a rare disease.
RECENT FINDINGS
All 41 articles on the clinical outcome of disease-modifying therapy for HAM/TSP were included in a systematic review by members of the International Retrovirology Association; we report here the consensus assessment and recommendations. The quality of available evidence is low, based for the most part on observational studies, with only 1 double-masked placebo-controlled randomized trial.
SUMMARY
There is evidence to support the use of both high-dose pulsed methyl prednisolone for induction and low-dose (5 mg) oral prednisolone as maintenance therapy for progressive disease. There is no evidence to support the use of antiretroviral therapy. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of interferon-α as a first-line therapy.
PubMed: 33968472
DOI: 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000832 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Glucocorticoids are commonly used for croup in children. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 1999 and previously updated in 2004 and 2011. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Glucocorticoids are commonly used for croup in children. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 1999 and previously updated in 2004 and 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects of glucocorticoids for the treatment of croup in children aged 0 to 18 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2018), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 3 April 2018), and Embase (Ovid) (1996 to 3 April 2018, week 14), and the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov (3 April 2018) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 3 April 2018). We scanned the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and of the included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated children aged 0 to 18 years with croup and measured the effects of glucocorticoids, alone or in combination, compared to placebo or another pharmacologic treatment. The studies needed to report at least one of our primary or secondary outcomes: change in croup score; return visits, (re)admissions or both; length of stay; patient improvement; use of additional treatments; and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
One author extracted data from each study and another verified the extraction. We entered the data into Review Manager 5 for meta-analysis. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the certainty of the body of evidence for the primary outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We added five new RCTs with 330 children. This review now includes 43 RCTs with a total of 4565 children. We assessed most (98%) studies as at high or unclear risk of bias. Compared to placebo, glucocorticoids improved symptoms of croup at two hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.13 to -0.18; 7 RCTs; 426 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and the effect lasted for at least 24 hours (SMD -0.86, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.31; 8 RCTs; 351 children; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, glucocorticoids reduced the rate of return visits or (re)admissions or both (risk ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.75; 10 RCTs; 1679 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Glucocorticoid treatment reduced the length of stay in hospital by about 15 hours (mean difference -14.90, 95% CI -23.58 to -6.22; 8 RCTs; 476 children). Serious adverse events were infrequent. Publication bias was not evident. Uncertainty remains with regard to the optimal type, dose, and mode of administration of glucocorticoids for reducing croup symptoms in children.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Glucocorticoids reduced symptoms of croup at two hours, shortened hospital stays, and reduced the rate of return visits to care. Our conclusions have changed, as the previous version of this review reported that glucocorticoids reduced symptoms of croup within six hours.
Topics: Adolescent; Beclomethasone; Betamethasone; Budesonide; Child; Child, Preschool; Croup; Dexamethasone; Epinephrine; Fluticasone; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30133690
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001955.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Recurrent corneal erosion is a common cause of disabling ocular symptoms and predisposes the cornea to infection. It may follow corneal trauma. Measures to prevent the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recurrent corneal erosion is a common cause of disabling ocular symptoms and predisposes the cornea to infection. It may follow corneal trauma. Measures to prevent the development of recurrent corneal erosion following corneal trauma have not been firmly established. Once recurrent corneal erosion develops, simple medical therapy (standard treatment) may lead to resolution of the episode. However, some people continue to suffer when such therapy fails and repeated episodes of erosion develop. A number of treatment and prophylactic options are then available but there is no agreement as to the best option. This review version is an update to the original version published in 2007 and a previous update published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of regimens for the prophylaxis of further recurrent corneal erosion episodes, the treatment of recurrent corneal erosion and prophylaxis of the development of recurrent corneal erosion following trauma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 14 December 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared a prophylactic or treatment regimen with another prophylaxis/treatment or no prophylaxis/treatment for people with recurrent corneal erosion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias. We considered the following outcome measures: resolution of symptoms after treatment; recurrence after complete or partial resolution; symptoms (pain); adverse effects (corneal haze, astigmatism). We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE for the three most clinically relevant comparisons.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight randomised and two quasi-randomised controlled trials in the review, encompassing 505 participants. Seven studies were from Europe (Germany, Sweden and the UK), two from East Asia (Hong Kong and Japan) and one from Australia. Nine of the studies examined treatments for episodes of recurrent corneal erosions and one study considered prophylaxis to prevent development of recurrent corneal erosions after injury. Two of the nine treatment studies also enrolled participants in a study of prophylaxis to prevent further episodes of recurrent corneal erosions. The studies were poorly reported; we judged only one study low risk of bias on all domains.Two studies compared therapeutic contact lens with topical lubrication but one of these studies was published over 30 years ago and used a therapeutic contact lens that is no longer in common use. The more recent study was a two-centre UK study with 29 participants. It provided low-certainty evidence on resolution of symptoms after treatment with similar number of participants in both groups experiencing resolution of symptoms at four months (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.53). There was very low-certainty evidence on recurrence after partial or total resolution at seven months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.54). There was no evidence of an important difference in pain score (score of 3 in the contact lens group and score of 2 in the topical lubrication group, low-certainty evidence) and no adverse effects were reported. The older study, using a contact lens no longer in common use, found an increased risk of pain and complications with the contact lens compared with hypromellose drops and paraffin ointment at night.A single-centre, Australian study, with 33 participants, provided low-certainty evidence of an increased risk of recurrence with phototherapeutic keratectomy compared with alcohol delamination but with wide confidence intervals, compatible with increased or decreased risk (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.37). Time to recurrence was similar in both groups (6.5 and 6 months, low-certainty evidence). On average people receiving phototherapeutic keratectomy reported less pain but confidence intervals included no difference or greater pain (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -2.23 to 0.83, low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported.A 48-participant study in Hong Kong found recurrences were less common in people given diamond burr superficial keratectomy after epithelial debridement compared with sham diamond burr treatment after epithelial debridement (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.50, moderate-certainty evidence). The study did not report pain scores but adverse effects such as corneal haze (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.87, low-certainty evidence) and astigmatism (0.88 versus 0.44 dioptres, moderate-certainty evidence) were similar between the groups.A study comparing transepithelial versus subepithelial excimer laser ablation in 100 people found low-certainty evidence of a small increased risk of recurrence of corneal erosion at one-year follow-up in people given the transepithelial compared with subepithelial technique, however, the confidence intervals were wide and compatible with increased or decreased risk (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.48, low-certainty evidence). Other outcomes were not reported.Other treatment comparisons included in this review were only addressed by studies published two decades or more ago. The results of these studies were inconclusive: excimer laser ablation (after epithelial debridement) versus no excimer laser ablation (after epithelial debridement), epithelial debridement versus anterior stromal puncture, anterior stromal puncture versus therapeutic contact lens, oral oxytetracycline and topical prednisolone (in addition to 'standard therapy') versus oral oxytetracycline (in addition to 'standard therapy') versus 'standard therapy'.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Well-designed, masked, randomised controlled trials using standardised methods are needed to establish the benefits of new and existing prophylactic and treatment regimes for recurrent corneal erosion. Studies included in this review have been of insufficient size and quality to provide firm evidence to inform the development of management guidelines. International consensus is also needed to progress research efforts towards evaluation of the major effective treatments for recurrent corneal erosions.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Contact Lenses; Corneal Diseases; Corneal Injuries; Debridement; Eye Infections; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Keratectomy; Lubricant Eye Drops; Pain Measurement; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention; Tetracycline
PubMed: 29985545
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001861.pub4 -
BMJ Open Nov 2019Topical steroids are the cornerstone in controlling the inflammation after cataract surgery. Prednisolone acetate and difluprednate are the two main products for this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Topical steroids are the cornerstone in controlling the inflammation after cataract surgery. Prednisolone acetate and difluprednate are the two main products for this purpose. However, it is unclear which one should be used in terms of effectiveness and safety.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of science and clinicaltrials.gov were searched through 10 January 2018, and updated on 20 July 2019, in addition to researching the references' lists of the relevant articles.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing difluprednate and prednisolone acetate regardless of the dosing regimen used.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent authors assessed the included RCTs regarding the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. Relevant data were extracted, and meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to appraise the evidence quality.
RESULTS
We included six RCTs with 883 patients: 441 received difluprednate and 442 received prednisolone acetate. The evidence quality was graded as moderate for corneal oedema and intraocular pressure and low for anterior chamber (AC) clearance. After small incision cataract surgery, difluprednate was superior in clearing AC cells at 1 week (OR=2.5, p>0.00001) and at 2 weeks (OR=2.5, p=0.04), as well as clearing the AC flare at 2 weeks (OR=6.7, p=0.04). After phacoemulsification, difluprednate was superior in terms of corneal clarity at 1 day (OR=2.6, p=0.02) and 1 week after surgery (OR=1.96, p=0.0007). No statistically significant difference was detected between both agents at 1 month in effectiveness. Also, both agents were safe, evaluated by the ocular hypertension (OR=1.23, p=0.8).
CONCLUSION
With low-to-moderate certainty, difluprednate and prednisolone acetate are safe agents for controlling the inflammation after cataract surgery. Difluprednate showed significant superiority in terms of AC cells and AC flare at 2 weeks postoperatively.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Cataract Extraction; Fluprednisolone; Humans; Postoperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Prednisolone
PubMed: 31678934
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026752 -
Medical Science Monitor : International... Jun 2016BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between glucocorticoids (GCs) and insulin resistance (IR) in healthy individuals by conducting a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between glucocorticoids (GCs) and insulin resistance (IR) in healthy individuals by conducting a systematic meta-analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted using 9 electronic databases. Only case-control studies investigating fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and IR were enrolled based on strictly established selection criteria. Statistical analyses were performed by Stata software, version 12.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA). RESULTS Among 496 initially retrieved articles, only 6 papers published in English were eventually included in this meta-analysis. A total of 201 healthy individuals (105 in GC group and 96 in control group) were included in the 6 studies. In 4 of these 6 studies, dexamethasone was used, and in the other 2 studies prednisolone was given. This meta-analysis revealed that the FPG, fasting insulin (FINS), and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) levels in the GC group were all significantly higher than that in the control group (FPG: SMD=2.65, 95%CI=1.42~3.88, P<0.001; FINS: SMD=2.48, 95%CI=1.01~3.95, P=0.001; HOMA-IR: SMD=38.30, 95%CI=24.38~52.22, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, our present study revealed that therapies using GCs might result in elevated FPG, FINS, and HOMA-IR, and thereby contribute to IR in healthy individuals.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Case-Control Studies; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Fasting; Female; Glucocorticoids; Glucose Tolerance Test; Humans; Insulin; Insulin Resistance; Male
PubMed: 27258456
DOI: 10.12659/msm.895251 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015In cystic fibrosis (CF) airway obstruction and recurrent respiratory infection lead to inflammation, long-term lung damage, respiratory failure and death.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In cystic fibrosis (CF) airway obstruction and recurrent respiratory infection lead to inflammation, long-term lung damage, respiratory failure and death. Anti-inflammatory agents, e.g. oral corticosteroids are used since inflammation occurs early in disease. This is an update of a previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of oral corticosteroids in respiratory complications in CF, particularly lung function and adverse events. We examined long-term use (over 30 days) only.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane CF and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Most recent search: 28 August 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing oral corticosteroids given for more than 30 days with placebo or no additional therapy in people with CF.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and quality.
MAIN RESULTS
Of eleven studies identified, three (354 participants) were included: two with four-year follow up and one with 12-weeks follow up. Data were lacking on predefined outcomes; common outcomes were examined at different time-points and presented differently. Meta-analyses were not possible.In one study, oral corticosteroids at prednisolone-equivalent dose of 1 mg/kg alternate days slowed progression of lung disease; at two and four years, % predicted FEV1 in the 1 mg/kg group changed significantly more than in the placebo group (P < 0.02). During the first two years, the 2 mg/kg group was not significantly different from the placebo group. Linear growth retardation was observed from six months in the 2 mg/kg alternate days prednisolone group and from 24 months in the 1 mg/kg alternate days prednisolone group.Adverse events terminated one four-year study early. Year 10 follow up showed catch-up growth started two years after treatment ceased. Alternate-day treatment with oral corticosteroids may have impaired growth until adulthood in boys.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oral corticosteroids at prednisolone-equivalent dose of 1 to 2 mg/kg alternate days appear to slow progression of lung disease in CF; benefit should be weighed against occurrence of adverse events. Risk-benefit analysis of low-dose alternate days corticosteroids is important. No further trials of this intervention are anticipated, and hence the review will no longer be regularly updated. However, if any new data are published, these will be incorporate when available.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Child; Cystic Fibrosis; Early Termination of Clinical Trials; Female; Glucocorticoids; Growth; Humans; Male; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Diseases; Sex Factors
PubMed: 26649765
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000407.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Uveitis is a term used to describe a heterogeneous group of intraocular inflammatory diseases of the anterior, intermediate, and posterior uveal tract (iris, ciliary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Uveitis is a term used to describe a heterogeneous group of intraocular inflammatory diseases of the anterior, intermediate, and posterior uveal tract (iris, ciliary body, choroid). Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, accounting for 5% to 20% of legal blindness, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population.Corticosteroids are the mainstay of acute treatment for all anatomical subtypes of non-infectious uveitis and can be administered orally, topically with drops or ointments, by periocular (around the eye) or intravitreal (inside the eye) injection, or by surgical implantation.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of steroid implants in people with chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, and panuveitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 10, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2015), PubMed (1948 to November 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to November 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 15 April 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for studies. We last searched the electronic databases on 6 November 2015.We also searched reference lists of included study reports, citation databases, and abstracts and clinical study presentations from professional meetings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy with at least six months of follow-up after treatment. We included studies that enrolled participants of all ages who had chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, or panuveitis with vision that was better than hand-motion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed studies for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each study.
MAIN RESULTS
We included data from two studies (619 eyes of 401 participants) that compared FA implants with standard-of-care therapy. Both studies used similar standard-of-care therapy that included administration of prednisolone and, if needed, immunosuppressive agents. The studies included participants from Australia, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We assessed both studies at high risk of performance and detection bias.Only one study reported our primary outcome, recurrence of uveitis at any point during the study through 24 months. The evidence, judged as moderate-quality, showed that a FA implant probably prevents recurrence of uveitis compared with standard-of-care therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.59; 132 eyes). Both studies reported safety outcomes, and moderate-quality evidence showed increased risks of needing cataract surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 371 eyes) and surgery to lower intraocular pressure (RR 7.48, 95% CI 3.94 to 14.19; 599 eyes) in the implant group compared with standard-of-care therapy through two years of follow-up. No studies compared dexamethasone implants with standard-of-care therapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
After considering both benefits and harms reported from two studies in which corticosteroids implants were compared with standard-of-care therapy, we are unable to conclude that the implants are superior to traditional systemic therapy for the treatment of non-infectious uveitis. These studies exhibited heterogeneity in design and outcomes that measured efficacy. Pooled findings regarding safety outcomes suggest increased risks of post-implant surgery for cataract and high intraocular pressure compared with standard-of-care therapy.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Chronic Disease; Drug Implants; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Standard of Care; Uveitis
PubMed: 26866343
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010469.pub2