-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is the most common muscular dystrophy of childhood. Untreated, this incurable disease, which has an X-linked recessive inheritance, is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is the most common muscular dystrophy of childhood. Untreated, this incurable disease, which has an X-linked recessive inheritance, is characterised by muscle wasting and loss of walking ability, leading to complete wheelchair dependence by 13 years of age. Prolongation of walking is a major aim of treatment. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicates that corticosteroids significantly improve muscle strength and function in boys with DMD in the short term (six months), and strength at two years (two-year data on function are very limited). Corticosteroids, now part of care recommendations for DMD, are largely in routine use, although questions remain over their ability to prolong walking, when to start treatment, longer-term balance of benefits versus harms, and choice of corticosteroid or regimen.We have extended the scope of this updated review to include comparisons of different corticosteroids and dosing regimens.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of corticosteroids on prolongation of walking ability, muscle strength, functional ability, and quality of life in DMD; to address the question of whether benefit is maintained over the longer term (more than two years); to assess adverse events; and to compare efficacy and adverse effects of different corticosteroid preparations and regimens.
SEARCH METHODS
On 16 February 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, and LILACS. We wrote to authors of published studies and other experts. We checked references in identified trials, handsearched journal abstracts, and searched trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered RCTs or quasi-RCTs of corticosteroids (e.g. prednisone, prednisolone, and deflazacort) given for a minimum of three months to patients with a definite DMD diagnosis. We considered comparisons of different corticosteroids, regimens, and corticosteroids versus placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The review authors followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 12 studies (667 participants) and two new ongoing studies for inclusion. Six RCTs were newly included at this update and important non-randomised cohort studies have also been published. Some important studies remain unpublished and not all published studies provide complete outcome data.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE
one two-year deflazacort RCT (n = 28) used prolongation of ambulation as an outcome measure but data were not adequate for drawing conclusions.
SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES
meta-analyses showed that corticosteroids (0.75 mg/kg/day prednisone or prednisolone) improved muscle strength and function versus placebo over six months (moderate quality evidence from up to four RCTs). Evidence from single trials showed 0.75 mg/kg/day superior to 0.3 mg/kg/day on most strength and function measures, with little evidence of further benefit at 1.5 mg/kg/day. Improvements were seen in time taken to rise from the floor (Gowers' time), timed walk, four-stair climbing time, ability to lift weights, leg function grade, and forced vital capacity. One new RCT (n = 66), reported better strength, function and quality of life with daily 0.75 mg/kg/day prednisone at 12 months. One RCT (n = 28) showed that deflazacort stabilised muscle strength versus placebo at two years, but timed function test results were too imprecise for conclusions to be drawn.One double-blind RCT (n = 64), largely at low risk of bias, compared daily prednisone (0.75 mg/kg/day) with weekend-only prednisone (5 mg/kg/weekend day), finding no overall difference in muscle strength and function over 12 months (moderate to low quality evidence). Two small RCTs (n = 52) compared daily prednisone 0.75 mg/kg/day with daily deflazacort 0.9 mg/kg/day, but study methods limited our ability to compare muscle strength or function.
ADVERSE EFFECTS
excessive weight gain, behavioural abnormalities, cushingoid appearance, and excessive hair growth were all previously shown to be more common with corticosteroids than placebo; we assessed the quality of evidence (for behavioural changes and weight gain) as moderate. Hair growth and cushingoid features were more frequent at 0.75 mg/kg/day than 0.3 mg/kg/day prednisone. Comparing daily versus weekend-only prednisone, both groups gained weight with no clear difference in body mass index (BMI) or in behavioural changes (low quality evidence for both outcomes, one study); the weekend-only group had a greater linear increase in height. Very low quality evidence suggested less weight gain with deflazacort than with prednisone at 12 months, and no difference in behavioural abnormalities. Data are insufficient to assess the risk of fractures or cataracts for any comparison.Non-randomised studies support RCT evidence in showing improved functional benefit from corticosteroids. These studies suggest sustained benefit for up to 66 months. Adverse effects were common, although generally manageable. According to a large comparative longitudinal study of daily or intermittent (10 days on, 10 days off) corticosteroid for a mean period of four years, a daily regimen prolongs ambulation and improves functional scores over the age of seven, but with a greater frequency of side effects than an intermittent regimen.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate quality evidence from RCTs indicates that corticosteroid therapy in DMD improves muscle strength and function in the short term (twelve months), and strength up to two years. On the basis of the evidence available for strength and function outcomes, our confidence in the effect estimate for the efficacy of a 0.75 mg/kg/day dose of prednisone or above is fairly secure. There is no evidence other than from non-randomised trials to establish the effect of corticosteroids on prolongation of walking. In the short term, adverse effects were significantly more common with corticosteroids than placebo, but not clinically severe. A weekend-only prednisone regimen is as effective as daily prednisone in the short term (12 months), according to low to moderate quality evidence from a single trial, with no clear difference in BMI (low quality evidence). Very low quality evidence indicates that deflazacort causes less weight gain than prednisone after a year's treatment. We cannot evaluate long-term benefits and hazards of corticosteroid treatment or intermittent regimens from published RCTs. Non-randomised studies support the conclusions of functional benefits, but also identify clinically significant adverse effects of long-term treatment, and a possible divergence of efficacy in daily and weekend-only regimens in the longer term. These benefits and adverse effects have implications for future research and clinical practice.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Male; Muscle Strength; Muscular Dystrophy, Duchenne; Prednisolone; Prednisone; Pregnenediones; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Walking
PubMed: 27149418
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003725.pub4 -
Integrated disease management interventions for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) show considerable variation in symptoms, limitations, and well-being; this often complicates medical care. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) show considerable variation in symptoms, limitations, and well-being; this often complicates medical care. A multi-disciplinary and multi-component programme that addresses different elements of care could improve quality of life (QoL) and exercise tolerance, while reducing the number of exacerbations.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness of integrated disease management (IDM) programmes versus usual care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in terms of health-related quality of life (QoL), exercise tolerance, and exacerbation-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for potentially eligible studies. Searches were current as of September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IDM programmes for COPD versus usual care were included. Interventions consisted of multi-disciplinary (two or more healthcare providers) and multi-treatment (two or more components) IDM programmes of at least three months' duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. If required, we contacted study authors to request additional data. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects modelling. We carried out sensitivity analyses for the quality of included studies and performed subgroup analyses based on setting, study design, dominant intervention components, and region.
MAIN RESULTS
Along with 26 studies included in the 2013 Cochrane Review, we added 26 studies for this update, resulting in 52 studies involving 21,086 participants for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Follow-up periods ranged between 3 and 48 months and were classified as short-term (up to 6 months), medium-term (6 to 15 months), and long-term (longer than 15 months) follow-up. Studies were conducted in 19 different countries. The mean age of included participants was 67 years, and 66% were male. Participants were treated in all types of healthcare settings, including primary (n =15), secondary (n = 22), and tertiary care (n = 5), and combined primary and secondary care (n = 10). Overall, the level of certainty of evidence was moderate to high. We found that IDM probably improves health-related QoL as measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at medium-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.16 to -1.63; 18 RCTs, 4321 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A comparable effect was observed at short-term follow-up (MD -3.78, 95% CI -6.29 to -1.28; 16 RCTs, 1788 participants). However, the common effect did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of 4 points. There was no significant difference between IDM and control for long-term follow-up and for generic QoL. IDM probably also leads to a large improvement in maximum and functional exercise capacity, as measured by six-minute walking distance (6MWD), at medium-term follow-up (MD 44.69, 95% CI 24.01 to 65.37; 13 studies, 2071 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect exceeded the MCID of 35 metres and was even greater at short-term (MD 52.26, 95% CI 32.39 to 72.74; 17 RCTs, 1390 participants) and long-term (MD 48.83, 95% CI 16.37 to 80.49; 6 RCTs, 7288 participants) follow-up. The number of participants with respiratory-related admissions was reduced from 324 per 1000 participants in the control group to 235 per 1000 participants in the IDM group (odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.81; 15 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 4207 participants; high-certainty evidence). Likewise, IDM probably results in a reduction in emergency department (ED) visits (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.50 to 0.93; 9 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 8791 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), a slight reduction in all-cause hospital admissions (OR 0.75, 95%CI 0.57 to 0.98; 10 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 9030 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and fewer hospital days per person admitted (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.98 to -0.56; 14 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 3563 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Statistically significant improvement was noted on the Medical Research Council (MRC) Dyspnoea Scale at short- and medium-term follow-up but not at long-term follow-up. No differences between groups were reported for mortality, courses of antibiotics/prednisolone, dyspnoea, and depression and anxiety scores. Subgroup analysis of dominant intervention components and regions of study suggested context- and intervention-specific effects. However, some subgroup analyses were marked by considerable heterogeneity or included few studies. These results should therefore be interpreted with caution.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review shows that IDM probably results in improvement in disease-specific QoL, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and hospital days per person. Future research should evaluate which combination of IDM components and which intervention duration are most effective for IDM programmes, and should consider contextual determinants of implementation and treatment effect, including process-related outcomes, long-term follow-up, and cost-effectiveness analyses.
Topics: Aged; Disease Management; Dyspnea; Exercise Tolerance; Humans; Male; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34495549
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009437.pub3 -
Cancer Science Jul 2021Chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the hemodialysis (HD) patient is a challenging situation. Because many drugs are predominantly eliminated by the kidneys,...
Chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the hemodialysis (HD) patient is a challenging situation. Because many drugs are predominantly eliminated by the kidneys, chemotherapy in the HD patient requires special considerations concerning dose adjustments to avoid overdose and toxicities. Conversely, some drugs are removed by HD and may expose the patient to undertreatment, therefore the timing of drug administration in relation to HD sessions must be carefully planned. Also, the metabolites of some drugs show different toxicities and dialysability as compared with the parent drug, therefore this must also be catered for. However, the pharmacokinetics of many chemotherapeutics and their metabolites in HD patients are unknown, and the fact that NHL patients are often treated with distinct multiagent chemotherapy regimens makes the situation more complicated. In a realm where uncertainty prevails, case reports and case series reporting on actual treatment and outcomes are extremely valuable and can aid physicians in decision making from drug selection to dosing. We carried out an exhaustive review of the literature and adopted 48 manuscripts consisting of 66 HD patients undergoing 71 chemotherapy regimens for NHL, summarized the data, and provide recommendations concerning dose adjustments and timing of administration for individual chemotherapeutics where possible. The chemotherapy regimens studied in this review include, but are not limited to, rituximab, cyclophosphamide + vincristine + prednisolone (CVP) and cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin + vincristine + prednisolone (CHOP)-like regimens, chlorambucil, ibrutinib, bendamustine, methotrexate, platinum compounds, cytarabine, gemcitabine, etoposide, ifosfamide, melphalan, busulfan, fludarabine, mogamulizumab, brentuximab vedotin, and Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Child; Cyclophosphamide; Doxorubicin; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Kidney; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Prednisone; Renal Dialysis; Rituximab; Vincristine; Young Adult
PubMed: 33938097
DOI: 10.1111/cas.14933 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Kawasaki disease (KD) is an acute systemic vasculitis (inflammation of the blood vessels) that mainly affects children. Symptoms include fever, chapped lips, strawberry... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Kawasaki disease (KD) is an acute systemic vasculitis (inflammation of the blood vessels) that mainly affects children. Symptoms include fever, chapped lips, strawberry tongue, red eyes (bulbar conjunctival injection), rash, redness, swollen hands and feet or skin peeling; and enlarged cervical lymph nodes. High fevers and systemic inflammation characterise the acute phase. Inflammation of the coronary arteries causes the most serious complication of the disease, coronary artery abnormalities (CAAs). The primary treatment is intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA/aspirin), with doses and regimens differing between institutions. It is important to know which regimens are the safest and most effective in preventing complications.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of IVIG in treating and preventing cardiac consequences of Kawasaki disease.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 26 April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of IVIG for the treatment of KD. We included studies involving treatment for initial or refractory KD, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence of CAAs and incidence of any adverse effects after treatment. Our secondary outcomes were acute coronary syndromes, duration of fever, need for additional treatment, length of hospital stay, and mortality. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 31 RCTs involving a total of 4609 participants with KD. Studies compared IVIG with ASA, another dose or regimen of IVIG, prednisolone, or infliximab. The majority of studies reported on primary treatment, so those results are reported below. A limited number of studies investigated secondary or tertiary treatment in IVIG-resistant patients. Doses and regimens of IVIG infusion varied between studies, and all studies had some concerns related to risk of bias. Primary treatment with IVIG compared to ASA for people with KD Compared to ASA treatment, IVIG probably reduces the incidence of CAAs in people with KD up to 30 days (odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.87; 11 studies, 1437 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The individual studies reported a range of adverse effects, but there was little to no difference in numbers of adverse effects between treatment groups (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.89; 10 studies, 1376 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was limited evidence for the incidence of acute coronary syndromes, so we are uncertain of any effects. Duration of fever days from treatment onset was probably shorter in the IVIG group (mean difference (MD) -4.00 days, 95% CI -5.06 to -2.93; 3 studies, 307 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little or no difference between groups in need for additional treatment (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.57; 3 studies, 272 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported length of hospital stay, and no deaths were reported in either group. Primary treatment with IVIG compared to different infusion regimens of IVIG for people with KD Higher-dose regimens of IVIG probably reduce the incidence of CAAs compared to medium- or lower-dose regimens of IVIG up to 30 days (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89; 8 studies, 1824 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in the number of adverse effects between groups (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.37; 6 studies, 1659 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on acute coronary syndromes. Higher-dose IVIG may reduce the duration of fever compared to medium- or lower-dose regimens (MD -0.71 days, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.06; 4 studies, 992 participants; low-certainty evidence). Higher-dose regimens may reduce the need for additional treatment (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; 4 studies, 1125 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not detect a clear difference in length of hospital stay between infusion regimens (MD -0.24, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.30; 3 studies, 752 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported mortality, and there was little to no difference detected between regimens (moderate-certainty evidence). Primary treatment with IVIG compared to prednisolone for people with KD The evidence comparing IVIG with prednisolone on incidence of CAA is very uncertain (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.48; 2 studies, 140 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and there was little to no difference between groups in adverse effects (OR 4.18, 95% CI 0.19 to 89.48; 1 study; 90 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain of the impact on duration of fever, as two studies reported this outcome differently and showed conflicting results. One study reported on acute coronary syndromes and mortality, finding little or no difference between groups (low-certainty evidence). No study reported the need for additional treatment or length of hospital stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The included RCTs investigated a variety of comparisons, and the small number of events observed during the study periods limited detection of effects. The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low due to concerns related to risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. The available evidence indicated that high-dose IVIG regimens are probably associated with a reduced risk of CAA formation compared to ASA or medium- or low-dose IVIG regimens. There were no clinically significant differences in incidence of adverse effects, which suggests there is little concern about the safety of IVIG. Compared to ASA, high-dose IVIG probably reduced the duration of fever, but there was little or no difference detected in the need for additional treatment. Compared to medium- or low-dose IVIG, there may be reduced duration of fever and reduced need for additional treatment. We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding acute coronary syndromes, mortality, or length of hospital stay, or for the comparison IVIG versus prednisolone. Our findings are in keeping with current guideline recommendations and evidence from long-term epidemiology studies.
Topics: Child; Humans; Mucocutaneous Lymph Node Syndrome; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Prednisolone; Aspirin; Inflammation; Fever
PubMed: 36695415
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014884.pub2 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Feb 2019Although corticosteroids are widely used for adults with sepsis, both the overall benefit and potential risks remain unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Although corticosteroids are widely used for adults with sepsis, both the overall benefit and potential risks remain unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until March 20, 2018, and updated on August 10, 2018. The terms corticosteroids, sepsis, septic shock, hydrocortisone, controlled trials, and randomized controlled trial were searched alone or in combination. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included that compared administration of corticosteroids with placebo or standard supportive care in adults with sepsis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% CIs. Two independent reviewers completed citation screening, data abstraction, and risk assessment.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Twenty-eight-day mortality.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 37 RCTs (N = 9564 patients). Eleven trials were rated as low risk of bias. Corticosteroid use was associated with reduced 28-day mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; I2 = 27%) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.94; I2 = 0%) and in-hospital mortality (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99; I2 = 38%). Corticosteroids were significantly associated with increased shock reversal at day 7 (MD, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.80-3.11) and vasopressor-free days (MD, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.80-3.11) and with ICU length of stay (MD, -1.16; 95% CI, -2.12 to -0.20), the sequential organ failure assessment score at day 7 (MD, -1.38; 95% CI, -1.87 to -0.89), and time to resolution of shock (MD, -1.35; 95% CI, -1.78 to -0.91). However, corticosteroid use was associated with increased risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.30) and hypernatremia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.24-1.99).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings suggest that administration of corticosteroids is associated with reduced 28-day mortality compared with placebo use or standard supportive care. More research is needed to associate personalized medicine with the corticosteroid treatment to select suitable patients who are more likely to show a benefit.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Intensive Care Units; Organ Dysfunction Scores; Prednisolone; Sepsis; Shock, Septic; Time Factors
PubMed: 30575845
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5849 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory loss. The symptoms are due to autoimmune inflammation of peripheral nerves. CIPD affects about 2 to 3 per 100,000 of the population. More than half of affected people cannot walk unaided when symptoms are at their worst. CIDP usually responds to treatments that reduce inflammation, but there is disagreement about which treatment is most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of any treatment for CIDP and to compare the effects of treatments.
METHODS
We considered all systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment for any form of CIDP. We reported their primary outcomes, giving priority to change in disability after 12 months.Two overview authors independently identified published systematic reviews for inclusion and collected data. We reported the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. Two other review authors independently checked review selection, data extraction and quality assessments.On 31 October 2016, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (in theCochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus for systematic reviews of CIDP. We supplemented the RCTs in the existing CSRs by searching on the same date for RCTs of any treatment of CIDP (including treatment of fatigue or pain in CIDP), in the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus.
MAIN RESULTS
Five CSRs met our inclusion criteria. We identified 23 randomised trials, of which 15 had been included in these CSRs. We were unable to compare treatments as originally planned, because outcomes and outcome intervals differed. CorticosteroidsIt is uncertain whether daily oral prednisone improved impairment compared to no treatment because the quality of the evidence was very low (1 trial, 28 participants). According to moderate-quality evidence (1 trial, 41 participants), six months' treatment with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone did not improve disability more than daily oral prednisolone. Observational studies tell us that prolonged use of corticosteroids sometimes causes serious side-effects. Plasma exchangeAccording to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 59 participants), twice-weekly plasma exchange produced more short-term improvement in disability than sham exchange. In the largest observational study, 3.9% of plasma exchange procedures had complications. Intravenous immunoglobulinAccording to high-quality evidence (5 trials, 269 participants), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) produced more short-term improvement than placebo. Adverse events were more common with IVIg than placebo (high-quality evidence), but serious adverse events were not (moderate-quality evidence, 3 trials, 315 participants). One trial with 19 participants provided moderate-quality evidence of little or no difference in short-term improvement of impairment with plasma exchange in comparison to IVIg. There was little or no difference in short-term improvement of disability with IVIg in comparison to oral prednisolone (moderate-quality evidence; 1 trial, 29 participants) or intravenous methylprednisolone (high-quality evidence; 1 trial, 45 participants). One unpublished randomised open trial with 35 participants found little or no difference in disability after three months of IVIg compared to oral prednisone; this trial has not yet been included in a CSR. We know from observational studies that serious adverse events related to IVIg do occur. Other immunomodulatory treatmentsIt is uncertain whether the addition of azathioprine (2 mg/kg) to prednisone improved impairment in comparison to prednisone alone, as the quality of the evidence is very low (1 trial, 27 participants). Observational studies show that adverse effects truncate treatment in 10% of people.According to low-quality evidence (1 trial, 60 participants), compared to placebo, methotrexate 15 mg/kg did not allow more participants to reduce corticosteroid or IVIg doses by 20%. Serious adverse events were no more common with methotrexate than with placebo, but observational studies show that methotrexate can cause teratogenicity, abnormal liver function, and pulmonary fibrosis.According to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 77 participants), interferon beta-1a (IFN beta-1a) in comparison to placebo, did not allow more people to withdraw from IVIg. According to moderate-quality evidence, serious adverse events were no more common with IFN beta-1a than with placebo.We know of no other completed trials of immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory agents for CIDP. Other treatmentsWe identified no trials of treatments for fatigue or pain in CIDP. Adverse effectsNot all trials routinely collected adverse event data; when they did, the quality of evidence was variable. Adverse effects in the short, medium, and long term occur with all interventions. We are not able to make reliable comparisons of adverse events between the interventions included in CSRs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We cannot be certain based on available evidence whether daily oral prednisone improves impairment compared to no treatment. However, corticosteroids are commonly used, based on widespread availability, low cost, very low-quality evidence from observational studies, and clinical experience. The weakness of the evidence does not necessarily mean that corticosteroids are ineffective. High-dose monthly oral dexamethasone for six months is probably no more or less effective than daily oral prednisolone. Plasma exchange produces short-term improvement in impairment as determined by neurological examination, and probably produces short-term improvement in disability. IVIg produces more short-term improvement in disability than placebo and more adverse events, although serious side effects are probably no more common than with placebo. There is no clear difference in short-term improvement in impairment with IVIg when compared with intravenous methylprednisolone and probably no improvement when compared with either oral prednisolone or plasma exchange. According to observational studies, adverse events related to difficult venous access, use of citrate, and haemodynamic changes occur in 3% to17% of plasma exchange procedures.It is uncertain whether azathioprine is of benefit as the quality of evidence is very low. Methotrexate may not be of benefit and IFN beta-1a is probably not of benefit.We need further research to identify predictors of response to different treatments and to compare their long-term benefits, safety and cost-effectiveness. There is a need for more randomised trials of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents, routes of administration, and treatments for symptoms of CIDP.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Azathioprine; Dexamethasone; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Immunosuppressive Agents; Interferon beta-1a; Methotrexate; Methylprednisolone; Plasma Exchange; Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28084646
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010369.pub2 -
European Annals of Allergy and Clinical... Sep 2017As anaphylaxis is a medical emergency, there are no randomized controlled clinical trials on its emergency management. Therefore, current guidelines are mostly based on...
As anaphylaxis is a medical emergency, there are no randomized controlled clinical trials on its emergency management. Therefore, current guidelines are mostly based on data from observational studies, animal and laboratory studies. Although epinephrine is the mainstay of recommended treatment, corticosteroids are also frequently used. This review evaluates the evidence on the use of corticosteroids in emergency management of anaphylaxis from published human and animal or laboratories studies. Thirty original research papers were found with 22 human studies and eight animal or laboratory studies. The average rate of corticosteroid use in emergency treatment was 67.99% (range 48% to 100%). Corticosteroids appear to reduce the length of hospital stay, but did not reduce revisits to the emergency department. There was no consensus on whether corticosteroids reduce biphasic anaphylactic reactions. None of the human studies had sufficient data to compare the response to treatment in different treatment groups (i.e. corticosteroids, epinephrine, antihistamines). Animal studies demonstrated that corticosteroids act through multiple mechanisms. These modulate gene expression, with effects becoming evident 4 to 24 hours after administration. A much quicker response has been detected within 5 to 30 minutes, through blockade of signal activation of glucocorticoid receptors independent of their genomic effects. Therefore, we conclude that there is no compelling evidence to support or oppose the use of corticosteroid in emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. However, based on the available data, it appears to be beneficial and there was no evidence of adverse outcomes related to the use of corticosteroids in emergency treatment of anaphylaxis.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anaphylaxis; Animals; Emergency Service, Hospital; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Length of Stay; Patient Safety; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28884986
DOI: 10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.15 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Asthma affects 350 million people worldwide including 45% to 70% with mild disease. Treatment is mainly with inhalers containing beta₂-agonists, typically taken as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Asthma affects 350 million people worldwide including 45% to 70% with mild disease. Treatment is mainly with inhalers containing beta₂-agonists, typically taken as required to relieve bronchospasm, and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as regular preventive therapy. Poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. Fixed-dose combination inhalers containing both a steroid and a fast-acting beta₂-agonist (FABA) in the same device simplify inhalers regimens and ensure symptomatic relief is accompanied by preventative therapy. Their use is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined (fast-onset beta₂-agonist plus an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)) inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. We contacted trial authors for further information and requested details regarding the possibility of unpublished trials. The most recent search was conducted on 19 March 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials with at least one week washout period. We included studies of a single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA. We planned to include cluster-randomised trials if the data had been or could be adjusted for clustering. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD). We reported 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures of meta-analysis. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, hospital admissions/emergency department or urgent care visits for asthma, and measures of asthma control.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies of which five contributed results to the meta-analyses. All five used budesonide 200 μg and formoterol 6 μg in a dry powder formulation as the combination inhaler. Comparator fast-acting bronchodilators included terbutaline and formoterol. Two studies included children aged 12+ and adults; two studies were open-label. A total of 9657 participants were included, with a mean age of 36 to 43 years. 2.3% to 11% were current smokers. FABA / ICS as required versus FABA as required Compared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with as-required FABA alone, any changes in asthma control or spirometry, though favouring as-required FABA/ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically-important differences. We did not find evidence of differences in asthma-associated quality of life or mortality. For other secondary outcomes FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reduces the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95, 2 RCTs, 3002 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (MD -9.90, 95% CI -19.38 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 443 participants, low-certainty evidence), and with an increase in the daily inhaled steroid dose (MD 77 μg beclomethasone equiv./day, 95% CI 69 to 84, 2 RCTs, 2554 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). FABA/ICS as required versus regular ICS plus FABA as required There may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroid with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 FABA/ICS as required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with regular ICS, any changes in asthma control, spirometry, peak flow rates (PFR), or asthma-associated quality of life, though favouring regular ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Adverse events, serious adverse events, total systemic corticosteroid dose and mortality were similar between groups, although deaths were rare, so confidence intervals for this analysis were wide. We found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials involving 7180 participants that FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to inhaled corticosteroids than those on regular ICS (MD -154.51 μg/day, 95% CI -207.94 to -101.09).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found FABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. Their use instead of FABA as required alone reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely to be associated with an increase in adverse events. Further research is needed to explore use of FABA/ICS as required in children under 12 years of age, use of other FABA/ICS preparations, and long-term outcomes beyond 52 weeks.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Beclomethasone; Budesonide; Child; Disease Progression; Drug Combinations; Formoterol Fumarate; Hospitalization; Humans; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Prednisolone; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Terbutaline
PubMed: 33945639
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013518.pub2 -
Developmental Medicine and Child... Nov 2022We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to obtain comparative effectiveness estimates and rankings of non-surgical interventions used to treat... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to obtain comparative effectiveness estimates and rankings of non-surgical interventions used to treat infantile spasms.
METHOD
All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including children 2 months to 3 years of age with infantile spasms (with hypsarrhythmia or hypsarrhythmia variants on electroencephalography) receiving appropriate first-line medical treatment were included. Electroclinical and clinical remissions within 1 month of starting treatment were analyzed.
RESULTS
Twenty-two RCTs comparing first-line treatments for infantile spasms were reviewed; of these, 17 were included in the NMA. Both frequentist and Bayesian network rankings for electroclinical remission showed that high dose adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), methylprednisolone, low dose ACTH and magnesium sulfate (MgSO ) combination, low dose ACTH, and high dose prednisolone were most likely to be the 'best' interventions, although these were not significantly different from each other. For clinical remission, low dose ACTH/MgSO combination, high dose ACTH (with/without vitamin B ), high dose prednisolone, and low dose ACTH were 'best'.
INTERPRETATION
Treatments including ACTH and high dose prednisolone are more effective in achieving electroclinical and clinical remissions for infantile spasms.
WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS
Adrenocorticotropic hormone and high dose prednisolone are more effective than other medications for infantile spasms. Symptomatic etiology decreases the likelihood of remission even after adjusting for treatment lag.
Topics: Adrenocorticotropic Hormone; Anticonvulsants; Child; Humans; Infant; Magnesium Sulfate; Methylprednisolone; Network Meta-Analysis; Spasms, Infantile; Treatment Outcome; Vitamins
PubMed: 35765990
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.15330 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017People with diabetes mellitus (DM) sometimes present with acute or subacute, progressive, asymmetrical pain and weakness of the proximal lower limb muscles. The various... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
People with diabetes mellitus (DM) sometimes present with acute or subacute, progressive, asymmetrical pain and weakness of the proximal lower limb muscles. The various names for the condition include diabetic amyotrophy, diabetic lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathies, diabetic femoral neuropathy or Bruns-Garland syndrome. Some studies suggest that diabetic amyotrophy may be an immune-mediated inflammatory microvasculitis causing ischaemic damage of the nerves. Immunotherapies would therefore be expected to be beneficial. This is the second update of a review first published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence from randomised trials for the efficacy of any form of immunotherapy in the treatment of diabetic amyotrophy.
SEARCH METHODS
On 5 September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We also contacted authors of relevant publications and other experts to obtain additional references, unpublished trials, and ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We intended to include all randomised and quasi-randomised trials of any immunotherapy in participants with the condition fulfilling all the following: diabetes mellitus as defined by internationally recognised criteria; acute or subacute onset of pain and lower motor neuron weakness involving predominantly the proximal muscles of the lower limbs; weakness that is not confined to one nerve or nerve root distribution; and exclusion of other causes of lumbosacral radiculopathies and plexopathy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently examined all references retrieved by the search to select those meeting the inclusion criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We found only one completed placebo-controlled trial (N = 75) using intravenous methylprednisolone in diabetic amyotrophy (Dyck 2006). The results have not been fully published and were not available for analysis. The risk of bias was unclear because there was too little information to make a judgement, but we considered the trial at high risk of selective reporting. The published abstract did not report adverse events. We found no additional trials when the searches were updated in September 2016.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is presently no evidence from randomised trials to support a positive or negative effect of any immunotherapy in the treatment in diabetic amyotrophy.
Topics: Diabetic Neuropathies; Humans; Immunotherapy; Injections, Intravenous; Methylprednisolone; Neuroprotective Agents
PubMed: 28746752
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006521.pub4