-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Angiostrongylus cantonensis (A. cantonensis) is the major cause of infectious eosinophilic meningitis. Dead larvae of this parasite cause inflammation and exacerbate... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Angiostrongylus cantonensis (A. cantonensis) is the major cause of infectious eosinophilic meningitis. Dead larvae of this parasite cause inflammation and exacerbate symptoms of meningitis. Corticosteroids are drugs used to reduce the inflammation caused by this parasite.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for the treatment of eosinophilic meningitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1950 to November Week 3, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to December 2014), Scopus (1960 to December 2014), Web of Science (1955 to December 2014), LILACS (1982 to December 2014) and CINAHL (1981 to December 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroids versus placebo for eosinophilic meningitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (SiT, SaT) independently collected and extracted study data. We graded the methodological quality of the RCTs. We identified and analysed outcomes and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identifiy any new trials for inclusion or exclusion in this 2014 update. One study involving 110 participants (55 participants in each group) met our inclusion criteria. The corticosteroid (prednisolone) showed a benefit in shortening the median time to resolution of headaches (five days in the treatment group versus 13 days in the control group, P value < 0.0001). Corticosteroids were also associated with smaller numbers of participants who still had headaches after a two-week course of treatment (9.1% versus 45.5%, P value < 0.0001). The number of patients who needed repeat lumbar puncture was also smaller in the treatment group (12.7% versus 40%, P value = 0.002). There was a reduction in the median time of analgesic use in participants receiving corticosteroids (10.5 versus 25.0, P value = 0.038). There were no reported adverse effects from prednisolone in the treatment group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids significantly help relieve headache in patients with eosinophilic meningitis, who have a pain score of four or more on a visual analogue scale. However, there is only one RCT supporting this benefit and this trial did not clearly mention allocation concealment and stratification. Therefore, we agreed to grade our included study as a moderate quality trial. Future well-designed RCTs are necessary.
Topics: Animals; Central Nervous System Parasitic Infections; Eosinophilia; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Meningitis; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25687750
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009088.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Corticosteroids used in addition to antituberculous therapy have been reported to benefit people with tuberculous pleurisy. However, research findings are inconsistent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Corticosteroids used in addition to antituberculous therapy have been reported to benefit people with tuberculous pleurisy. However, research findings are inconsistent and raise doubt as to whether such treatment is worthwhile. There is also concern regarding the potential adverse effects of corticosteroids, especially in HIV-positive people.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of adding corticosteroids to drug regimens for tuberculous pleural effusion.
SEARCH METHODS
In April 2016, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Current Controlled Trials, and the reference lists of articles identified by the literature search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared any corticosteroid with no treatment, placebo, or other active treatment (both groups should have received the same antituberculous drug regimen) in people diagnosed with tuberculous pleurisy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results, extracted data from the included trials, and assessed trial methodological quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed the data using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We applied the fixed-effect model in the absence of statistically significant heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
Six trials with 590 participants met the inclusion criteria, which were conducted in Asia (three trials), Africa (two trials), and Europe (one trial). Two trials were in HIV-negative people, one trial was in HIV-positive people, and three trials did not report HIV status.Corticosteroids may reduce the time to resolution of pleural effusion. Risk of residual pleural effusion on chest X-ray was reduced by 45% at eight weeks (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.78; 237 participants, 2 trials, low certainty evidence), and 65% at 24 weeks (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66; 237 participants, 2 trials, low certainty evidence).Compared with control, corticosteroids may reduce the risk of having pleural changes (such as pleural thickening or pleural adhesions), on chest X-ray at the end of follow-up by almost one third (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92; 393 participants, 5 trials,low certainty evidence), which translates to an absolute risk reduction of 16%.One trial reported deaths in people that were HIV-positive, with no obvious difference between the groups; the trial authors' analysis suggests that the deaths observed in this trial were related to HIV disease rather than pleural TB (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.31; 197 participants, 1 trial).We found limited data on long-term functional respiratory impairment on 187 people in two trials, which reported that average percentage predicted forced vital capacity was similar in the group receiving prednisolone and in the control group (very low certainty evidence).The risk of adverse events that led to discontinuation of the trial drug was higher in people with pleural TB receiving corticosteroids (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.11 to 6.94; 587 participants, 6 trials, low certainty evidence). The trial in HIV-positive people reported on six different HIV-related infections, with no obvious differences. However, cases of Kaposi's sarcoma were only seen in the corticosteroid group (with 6/99 cases in the steroid group compared to 0/98 in the control group) (very low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Long-term respiratory function is potentially the most important outcome for assessing the effects of adjunctive treatments for people with pleural TB. However, the information on the impact of pleural TB on long-term respiratory function is unknown and could be eclipsed by other risk factors, such as concurrent pulmonary TB, smoking, and HIV. This probably needs to be quantified to help decide whether further trials of corticosteroids for pleural TB would be worthwhile.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Antitubercular Agents; HIV Seronegativity; HIV Seropositivity; Humans; Pleura; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tuberculosis, Pleural; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary
PubMed: 28290161
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001876.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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by inflammation of the peripheral nerves, which corticosteroids would be expected to benefit. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by inflammation of the peripheral nerves, which corticosteroids would be expected to benefit.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the ability of corticosteroids to hasten recovery and reduce the long-term morbidity from GBS.
SEARCH METHODS
On 12 January 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of any form of corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone versus placebo or supportive care alone in GBS. Our primary outcome was change in disability grade on a seven-point scale after four weeks. Secondary outcomes included time from randomisation until recovery of unaided walking, time from randomisation until discontinuation of ventilation (for those ventilated), death, death or disability (inability to walk without aid) after 12 months, relapse, and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The review authors used standard methods expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
The review authors discovered no new trials in the new searches in June 2009, November 2011, or January 2016. Six trials with 587 participants provided data for the primary outcome. According to moderate quality evidence, the disability grade change after four weeks in the corticosteroid groups was not significantly different from that in the control groups, mean difference (MD) 0.36 less improvement (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.16 more to 0.88 less improvement). In four trials of oral corticosteroids with 120 participants in total, there was very low quality evidence of less improvement after four weeks with corticosteroids than without corticosteroids, MD 0.82 disability grades less improvement (95% CI 0.17 to 1.47 grades less). In two trials with a combined total of 467 participants, there was moderate quality evidence of no significant difference of a disability grade more improvement after four weeks with intravenous corticosteroids (MD 0.17, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.39). According to moderate quality evidence, there was also no significant difference between the corticosteroid treated and control groups for improvement by one or more grades after four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.24) or for death or disability after one year (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.5). We found high quality evidence that the occurrence of diabetes was more common (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.12) and hypertension less common (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41) in the corticosteroid-treated participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
According to moderate quality evidence, corticosteroids given alone do not significantly hasten recovery from GBS or affect the long-term outcome. According to very low quality evidence, oral corticosteroids delay recovery. Diabetes requiring insulin was more common and hypertension less common with corticosteroids based on high quality evidence.
Topics: Adrenocorticotropic Hormone; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Child; Glucocorticoids; Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Humans; Methylprednisolone; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27775812
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001446.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Leprosy causes nerve damage that can result in nerve function impairment and disability. Corticosteroids are commonly used for treating nerve damage, although their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Leprosy causes nerve damage that can result in nerve function impairment and disability. Corticosteroids are commonly used for treating nerve damage, although their long-term effect is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2007, and previously updated in 2009 and 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nerve damage in leprosy.
SEARCH METHODS
On 16 June 2015, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, and LILACS. We also checked clinical trials registers and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of corticosteroids for nerve damage in leprosy. The comparators were no treatment, placebo treatment, or a different corticosteroid regimen.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The primary outcome was improvement in nerve function after one year. Secondary outcomes were change in nerve pain, limitations in activities of daily living, limitations in participation, and adverse events. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. When data were lacking, we contacted trial authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs involving 576 people. The trials were largely at low risk of bias, but we considered the quality of the evidence from these trials as moderate to low, largely due to imprecision from small sample sizes. Two out of the five trials reported on improvement in nerve function at one year. These two trials compared prednisolone with placebo. One trial, with 84 participants, treated mild sensory impairment of less than six months' duration, and the other, with 95 participants, treated nerve function impairment of 6 to 24 months' duration. There was no significant difference in nerve function improvement after 12 months between people treated with prednisolone and those treated with placebo. Adverse events were not reported significantly more often with corticosteroids than with placebo. The other three trials did not report on the primary outcome measure. One (334 participants) compared three corticosteroid regimens for severe type 1 reactions. No serious side effects of steroids were reported in any participant during the follow-up period. Another trial (21 participants) compared low-dose prednisone with high-dose prednisone for ulnar neuropathy. Two participants on the higher dose of prednisone reported adverse effects. The last (42 participants) compared intravenous methylprednisolone and oral prednisolone with intravenous normal saline and oral prednisolone. The trial found no significant differences between the groups in the occurrence of adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids are used for treating acute nerve damage in leprosy, but moderate-quality evidence from two RCTs treating either longstanding or mild nerve function impairment did not show corticosteroids to have a superior effect to placebo on nerve function improvement. A third trial showed significant benefit from a five-month steroid regimen over a three-month regimen in terms of response to treatment (need for additional corticosteroids). Further RCTs are needed to establish optimal corticosteroid regimens and to examine the efficacy and safety of adjuvant or new therapies for treating nerve damage in leprosy. Future trials should address non-clinical aspects, such as costs and impact on quality of life, which are highly relevant indicators for both policymakers and participants.
Topics: Glucocorticoids; Humans; Leprosy; Methylprednisolone; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Somatosensory Disorders
PubMed: 27210895
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005491.pub3 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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