-
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jan 2024Since the publication of the EULAR recommendations for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) in 2016, several...
BACKGROUND
Since the publication of the EULAR recommendations for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) in 2016, several randomised clinical trials have been published that have the potential to change clinical care and support the need for an update.
METHODS
Using EULAR standardised operating procedures, the EULAR task force undertook a systematic literature review and sought opinion from 20 experts from 16 countries. We modified existing recommendations and created new recommendations.
RESULTS
Four overarching principles and 17 recommendations were formulated. We recommend biopsies and ANCA testing to assist in establishing a diagnosis of AAV. For remission induction in life-threatening or organ-threatening AAV, we recommend a combination of high-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) in combination with either rituximab or cyclophosphamide. We recommend tapering of the GC dose to a target of 5 mg prednisolone equivalent/day within 4-5 months. Avacopan may be considered as part of a strategy to reduce exposure to GC in granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or microscopic polyangiitis (MPA). Plasma exchange may be considered in patients with rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis. For remission maintenance of GPA/MPA, we recommend rituximab. In patients with relapsing or refractory eosinophilic GPA, we recommend the use of mepolizumab. Azathioprine and methotrexate are alternatives to biologics for remission maintenance in AAV.
CONCLUSIONS
In the light of recent advancements, these recommendations provide updated guidance on AAV management. As substantial data gaps still exist, informed decision-making between physicians and patients remains of key relevance.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis; Antibodies, Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic; Azathioprine; Cyclophosphamide; Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis; Microscopic Polyangiitis; Remission Induction; Rituximab; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 36927642
DOI: 10.1136/ard-2022-223764 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease leading to nonscarring hair loss on the scalp or body. There are different treatments including immunosuppressants, hair growth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease leading to nonscarring hair loss on the scalp or body. There are different treatments including immunosuppressants, hair growth stimulants, and contact immunotherapy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of the treatments for alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), and alopecia universalis (AU) in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched up to July 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated classical immunosuppressants, biologics, small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants, and other therapies in paediatric and adult populations with AA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard procedures expected by Cochrane including assessment of risks of bias using RoB2 and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcomes were short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks of follow-up), and incidence of serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks of follow-up) and health-related quality of life. We could not perform a network meta-analysis as very few trials compared the same treatments. We presented direct comparisons and made a narrative description of the findings.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 63 studies that tested 47 different treatments in 4817 randomised participants. All trials used a parallel-group design except one that used a cross-over design. The mean sample size was 78 participants. All trials recruited outpatients from dermatology clinics. Participants were between 2 and 74 years old. The trials included patients with AA (n = 25), AT (n = 1), AU (n = 1), mixed cases (n = 31), and unclear types of alopecia (n = 4). Thirty-three out of 63 studies (52.3%) reported the proportion of participants achieving short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks). Forty-seven studies (74.6%) reported serious adverse events and only one study (1.5%) reported health-related quality of life. Five studies (7.9%) reported the proportion of participants with long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks). Amongst the variety of interventions found, we prioritised some groups of interventions for their relevance to clinical practice: systemic therapies (classical immunosuppressants, biologics, and small molecule inhibitors), and local therapies (intralesional corticosteroids, topical small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants and cryotherapy). Considering only the prioritised interventions, 14 studies from 12 comparisons reported short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% and 22 studies from 10 comparisons reported serious adverse events (18 reported zero events and 4 reported at least one). One study (1 comparison) reported quality of life, and two studies (1 comparison) reported long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%. For the main outcome of short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral prednisolone or cyclosporine versus placebo (RR 4.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 38.27; 79 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), intralesional betamethasone or triamcinolone versus placebo (RR 13.84, 95% CI 0.87 to 219.76; 231 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), oral ruxolitinib versus oral tofacitinib (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.52; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutil ester versus placebo (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very-low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutyl ester versus topical minoxidil (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone plus topical minoxidil versus diphencyprone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.44; 30 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), topical minoxidil 1% and 2% versus placebo (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.96; 202 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and cryotherapy versus fractional CO2 laser (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.86; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests oral betamethasone may increase short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to prednisolone or azathioprine (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.88; 80 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between subcutaneous dupilumab and placebo in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (RR 3.59, 95% CI 0.19 to 66.22; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) as well as between topical ruxolitinib and placebo (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.89; 78 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). However, baricitinib results in an increase in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% when compared to placebo (RR 7.54, 95% CI 3.90 to 14.58; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence). For the incidence of serious adverse events, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical ruxolitinib versus placebo (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.94; 78 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib and apremilast may result in little to no difference in the incidence of serious adverse events versus placebo (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.60; 1224 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). The same result is observed for subcutaneous dupilumab compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.07 to 36.11; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). For health-related quality of life, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral cyclosporine compared to placebo (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.07; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib results in an increase in long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to placebo (RR 8.49, 95% CI 4.70 to 15.34; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence). Regarding the risk of bias, the most relevant issues were the lack of details about randomisation and allocation concealment, the limited efforts to keep patients and assessors unaware of the assigned intervention, and losses to follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that treatment with baricitinib results in an increase in short- and long-term hair regrowth compared to placebo. Although we found inconclusive results for the risk of serious adverse effects with baricitinib, the reported small incidence of serious adverse events in the baricitinib arm should be balanced with the expected benefits. We also found that the impact of other treatments on hair regrowth is very uncertain. Evidence for health-related quality of life is still scant.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Child, Preschool; Adolescent; Young Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Alopecia Areata; Minoxidil; Network Meta-Analysis; Immunosuppressive Agents; Prednisolone; Betamethasone; Cyclosporins; Biological Products
PubMed: 37870096
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013719.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune blistering disease. Oral steroids are the standard treatment. We have updated this review, which was first... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune blistering disease. Oral steroids are the standard treatment. We have updated this review, which was first published in 2002, because several new treatments have since been tried.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of treatments for bullous pemphigoid.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated searches of the following databases to November 2021: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched five trial databases to January 2022, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs of treatments for immunofluorescence-confirmed bullous pemphigoid.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors, working independently, evaluated the studies against the review's inclusion criteria and extracted data from included studies. Using GRADE methodology, we assessed the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in each comparison. Our primary outcomes were healing of skin lesions and mortality.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 RCTs (1442 participants). The main treatment modalities assessed were oral steroids, topical steroids, and the oral anti-inflammatory antibiotic doxycycline. Most studies reported mortality but adverse events and quality of life were not well reported. We decided to look at the primary outcomes 'disease control' and 'mortality'. Almost all studies investigated different comparisons; two studies were placebo-controlled. The results are therefore based on a single study for each comparison except azathioprine. Most studies involved only small numbers of participants. We assessed the risk of bias for all key outcomes as having 'some concerns' or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information. Clobetasol propionate cream versus oral prednisone Compared to oral prednisone, clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body probably increases skin healing at day 21 (risk ratio (RR 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.13; 1 study, 341 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Skin healing at 21 days was seen in 99.8% of participants assigned to clobetasol and 92.4% of participants assigned to prednisone. Clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body compared to oral prednisone may reduce mortality at one year (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.01; 1 study, 341 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death occurred in 26.5% (45/170) of participants assigned to clobetasol and 36.3% (62/171) of participants assigned to oral prednisone. This study did not measure quality of life. Clobetasol propionate cream may reduce risk of severe complications by day 21 compared with oral prednisone (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86; 1 study, 341 participants; low-certainty evidence). Mild clobetasol propionate cream regimen (10 to 30 g/day) versus standard clobetasol propionate cream regimen (40 g/day) A mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen probably does not change skin healing at day 21 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03; 1 study, 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Both groups showed complete healing of lesions at day 21 in 98% participants. A mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen may not change mortality at one year (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.32; 1 study, 312 participants; low-certainty evidence), which occurred in 118/312 (37.9%) participants. This study did not measure quality of life. A mild regimen of topical clobetasol propionate applied over the whole body compared to the standard regimen may not change adverse events at one year (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 309 participants; low-certainty evidence). Doxycycline versus prednisolone Compared to prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg/day), doxycycline (200 mg/day) induces less skin healing at six weeks (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92; 1 study, 213 participants; high-certainty evidence). Complete skin healing was reported in 73.8% of participants assigned to doxycycline and 91.1% assigned to prednisolone. Doxycycline compared to prednisolone probably decreases mortality at one year (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 14; 1 study, 234 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mortality occurred in 2.4% (3/132) of participants with doxycycline and 9.7% (11/121) with prednisolone. Compared to prednisolone, doxycycline improved quality of life at one year (mean difference 1.8 points lower, which is more favourable on the Dermatology Life Quality Index, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.58 lower; 1 study, 234 participants; high-certainty evidence). Doxycycline compared to prednisolone probably reduces severe or life-threatening treatment-related adverse events at one year (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99; 1 study, 234 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Prednisone plus azathioprine versus prednisone It is unclear whether azathioprine plus prednisone compared to prednisone alone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from two trials (98 participants). These studies did not measure quality of life. Adverse events were reported in a total of 20/48 (42%) participants assigned to azathioprine plus prednisone and 15/44 (34%) participants assigned to prednisone. Nicotinamide plus tetracycline versus prednisone It is unclear whether nicotinamide plus tetracycline compared to prednisone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from one trial (18 participants). This study did not measure quality of life. Fewer adverse events were reported in the nicotinamide group. Methylprednisolone plus azathioprine versus methylprednisolone plus dapsone It is unclear whether azathioprine plus methylprednisolone compared to dapsone plus methylprednisolone affects skin healing or mortality because there was only very low-certainty evidence from one trial (54 participants). This study did not measure quality of life. A total of 18 adverse events were reported in the azathioprine group and 13 in the dapsone group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body is probably similarly effective as, and may cause less mortality than, oral prednisone for treating bullous pemphigoid. Lower-dose clobetasol propionate cream applied over the whole body is probably similarly effective as standard-dose clobetasol propionate cream and has similar mortality. Doxycycline is less effective but causes less mortality than prednisolone for treating bullous pemphigoid. Other treatments need further investigation.
Topics: Humans; Azathioprine; Prednisone; Clobetasol; Pemphigoid, Bullous; Doxycycline; Methylprednisolone; Dapsone; Niacinamide
PubMed: 37572360
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002292.pub4 -
Biomedicines Sep 2023The clinical response to classical immunosuppressant drugs (cIMDs) is highly variable among individuals. We performed a systematic review of published evidence... (Review)
Review
The clinical response to classical immunosuppressant drugs (cIMDs) is highly variable among individuals. We performed a systematic review of published evidence supporting the hypothesis that gut microorganisms may contribute to this variability by affecting cIMD pharmacokinetics, efficacy or tolerability. The evidence that these drugs affect the composition of intestinal microbiota was also reviewed. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched using specific keywords without limits of species (human or animal) or time from publication. One thousand and fifty five published papers were retrieved in the initial database search. After screening, 50 papers were selected to be reviewed. Potential effects on cIMD pharmacokinetics, efficacy or tolerability were observed in 17/20 papers evaluating this issue, in particular with tacrolimus, cyclosporine, mycophenolic acid and corticosteroids, whereas evidence was missing for everolimus and sirolimus. Only one of the papers investigating the effect of cIMDs on the gut microbiota reported negative results while all the others showed significant changes in the relative abundance of specific intestinal bacteria. However, no unique pattern of microbiota modification was observed across the different studies. In conclusion, the available evidence supports the hypothesis that intestinal microbiota could contribute to the variability in the response to some cIMDs, whereas data are still missing for others.
PubMed: 37761003
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11092562 -
Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology Sep 2023Glucocorticoids (GCs) remain a cornerstone of the initial management of anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV), but have several... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of low- versus high-dose glucocorticoid regimens for induction of remission of anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Glucocorticoids (GCs) remain a cornerstone of the initial management of anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV), but have several dose-dependent side effects, in particular infections. The optimal dosing and tapering of oral GCs for remission induction are unknown. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to determine the efficacy and safety of low- versus high-dose GC regimens.
METHOD
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases was conducted. Clinical studies using a GC-based induction protocol were selected. A daily dose of 0.5 mg/kg or < 30 mg/day oral prednisolone equivalent by the start of week 4 of the induction tapering schedule marked the threshold between high- and low-dose GCs. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated by the random effects model for outcomes of remission and infection. Relapse events were summarized using risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
In total, 1145 participants were included in three randomized controlled trials and two observational studies, of whom 543 were assigned to the low-dose GC group and 602 to the high-dose GC group. A low-dose GC regimen was non-inferior to high-dose GCs with respect to outcomes of remission (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-1.02, p = 0.37; I = 0%) and relapse (risk difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.06, p = 0.15; I = 12%), while significantly reducing the incidence of infection (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39-0.91, p = 0.02; I = 65%).
CONCLUSION
Studies with low-dose GC regimens in AAV are associated with fewer infections while obtaining equivalent efficacy.
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis; Remission Induction; Recurrence; Cytoplasm; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37339385
DOI: 10.1080/03009742.2023.2211387 -
Rheumatology International Sep 2023The current systematic review aimed to document published cases of femoral head avascular necrosis (FHAVN) post-COVID-19, to report the COVID-19 disease characteristics...
The current systematic review aimed to document published cases of femoral head avascular necrosis (FHAVN) post-COVID-19, to report the COVID-19 disease characteristics and management patients received, and to evaluate how the FHAVN were diagnosed and treated among various reports. A systematic literature review was performed per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines through a comprehensive English literature search on January 2023 through four databases (Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus), including studies reporting on FHAVN post-COVID-19. Fourteen articles were included, ten (71.4%) were case reports, and four (28.6%) case series reported on 104 patients having a mean age of 42.2 ± 11.7 (14:74) years, in which 182 hip joints were affected. In 13 reports, corticosteroids were used during the COVID-19 management plan for a mean of 24.8 ± 11 (7:42) days, with a mean prednisolone equivalent dose of 1238.5 ± 492.8 (100:3520) mg. A mean of 142.1 ± 107.6 (7:459) days passed between COVID-19 diagnosis and FHAVN detection, and most of the hips were stage II (70.1%), and concomitant septic arthritis was present in eight (4.4%) hips. Most hips (147, 80.8%) were treated non-surgically, of which 143 (78.6%) hips received medical treatment, while 35 (19.2%) hips were surgically managed, 16 (8.8%) core decompression, 13 (7.1%) primary THA, five (2.7%) staged THA and three (1.6%) had first stage THA (debridement and application of antibiotic-loaded cement spacer). The outcomes were acceptable as regards hip function and pain relief. Femoral head avascular necrosis post-COVID-19 infection is a real concern, primarily attributed to corticosteroid usage, besides other factors. Early suspicion and detection are mandatory, as conservative management lines are effective during early stages with acceptable outcomes. However, surgical intervention was required for progressive collapse or patients presented in the late stage.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Middle Aged; Treatment Outcome; Femur Head; COVID-19 Testing; COVID-19; Femur Head Necrosis; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Decompression, Surgical
PubMed: 37338665
DOI: 10.1007/s00296-023-05373-8 -
Clinical and Investigative Medicine.... Dec 2023Glucocorticoids are often used to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Glucocorticoids are often used to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in the treatment of ARDS caused by COVID-19 are still controversial; therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis of the literature on this topic.
METHODS
Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched from the establishment of the databases to August 16, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared glucocorticoid versus standard treatment for ARDS caused by COVID-19 were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias. Review Manager 5.4 software and STATA 17.0 were used for meta-analy-sis, and the relative risk (RR), mean difference, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were then determined. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 8592 patients were evaluated, including 14 retrospective studies and 3 RCTs. Sixteen studies reported data on all-cause mortality. The results of the meta-analysis showed that glucocorticoids did not reduce all-cause (RR, 0.96; 95% CI 0.82-1.13, P = .62) or 28-day (RR, 1.01; 95% CI 0.78-1.32, P = .93) mortality. Subgroup analysis showed that only methylprednisolone reduced all-cause mortality. No matter whether glucocorticoid use was early or delayed, high-dose or low-dose, long-term or short-term, no regimen reduced all-cause mortality. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay, hyperglycemia, and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP); how-ever, glucocorticoids increased the number of ventilator-free days.
CONCLUSIONS
Although methylprednisolone may reduce all-cause mortality from ARDS caused by COVID-19, this effect was not found with other types of glucocorticoids. At the same time, glucocorticoid use was associ-ated with more ventilator-free days, without increasing the incidence of hyperglycemic events or VAP. Con-sidering that almost all of the included studies were retrospective cohort studies, more RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Glucocorticoids; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Methylprednisolone
PubMed: 38330183
DOI: 10.3138/cim.v46i4e03 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Dec 2023Currently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Currently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive ventilation, and improve the prognosis of patients. However, optimal regimen and dosages of glucocorticoid remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this network meta-analysis is to analyze the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in treating COVID-19 at regimens.
METHODS
This meta-analysis retrieved randomized controlled trials from the earliest records to December 30, 2022, published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI Database and Wanfang Database, which compared glucocorticoids with placebos for their efficacy and safety in the treatment of COVID-19, Effects of different treatment regimens, types and dosages (high-dose methylprednisolone, very high-dose methylprednisolone, Pulse therapy methylprednisolone, medium-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose dexamethasone, very high-dose dexamethasone and placebo) on 28-day all-caused hospitalization mortality, hospitalization duration, mechanical ventilation requirement, ICU admission and safety outcome were compared.
RESULTS
In this network meta-analysis, a total of 10,544 patients from 19 randomized controlled trials were finally included, involving a total of 9 glucocorticoid treatment regimens of different types and dosages. According to the analysis results, the 28-day all-cause mortality rate was the lowest in the treatment with pulse therapy methylprednisolone (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02, 0.42), but the use of high-dose methylprednisolone (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59, 1.22), very high-dose dexamethasone (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.67, 1.35), high-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.34, 1.22), medium-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49, 1.31) showed no benefit in prolonging the 28-day survival of patient. Compared with placebo, the treatment with very high-dose methylprednisolone (MD = -3.09;95%CI: -4.10, -2.08) had the shortest length of hospital stay, while high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.55;95%CI: -3.13,0.03) and very high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.06;95%CI: -2.78,0.67) did not benefit patients in terms of length of stay.
CONCLUSIONS
Considering the available evidence, this network meta‑analysis suggests that the prognostic impact of glucocorticoids in patients with COVID-19 may depend on the regimens of glucocorticoids. It is suggested that pulse therapy methylprednisolone is associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality, very high-dose methylprednisolone had the shortest length of hospital stay in patients with COVID-19.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022350407 (22/08/2022).
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; COVID-19; Hydrocortisone; Network Meta-Analysis; Methylprednisolone; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 38124031
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08874-w -
Ophthalmic Epidemiology Jun 2024Herpes stromal keratitis (HSK) is an immune-mediated corneal inflammation that occurs after a herpes simplex virus infection. This paper aims to systematically identify... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Herpes stromal keratitis (HSK) is an immune-mediated corneal inflammation that occurs after a herpes simplex virus infection. This paper aims to systematically identify and compare interventions for treating HSK and their patient outcomes.
METHODS
This systematic review followed the PRISMA methodology. Online databases were searched to obtain all relevant papers. Two independent reviewers screened through 168 records. Seven papers were included and used for data extraction. A qualitative analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
HSK patients receiving prednisolone phosphate and acyclovir showed a higher treatment success rate and significantly longer time to failure compared to patients receiving only acyclovir ( < .001). No difference in resolution time was found between oral and topical acyclovir. Between groups receiving dexamethasone and flurbiprofen, resolution occurred in 93% and 67% of patients, and BCVA (LogMAR) improved from 1.0 to 0.30 and 0.48, respectively. BCVA improved in both cyclosporine-A ( < .001) and its control (prednisolone) groups ( = .002). A tacrolimus treatment group showed greater improvement in BCVA compared to its control (prednisolone) group ( < .001).
CONCLUSION
Corticosteroids and antivirals managed HSK most effectively only when used concurrently. Oral acyclovir showed similar effectiveness to its ointment counterpart, a preferable alternative for easier administration. Corticosteroid use could induce greater therapeutic benefits when tapered in concentration and frequency and administrated for at least 10 weeks. Anti-inflammatory drugs including flurbiprofen, cyclosporine-A, and tacrolimus could be safe and effective for treating HSK. Future long-term follow-up and RCTs could provide insights on the therapeutic benefits of these potential alternatives.
Topics: Humans; Keratitis, Herpetic; Antiviral Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Glucocorticoids; Acyclovir; Corneal Stroma
PubMed: 37184084
DOI: 10.1080/09286586.2023.2213324 -
The Journal of Asthma : Official... Aug 2023Acute asthmatic exacerbation is a common condition for pediatric emergency visits. Recently, dexamethasone has increasingly been used as an alternative to prednisone.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Acute asthmatic exacerbation is a common condition for pediatric emergency visits. Recently, dexamethasone has increasingly been used as an alternative to prednisone. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone (DEX) against prednisone/prednisolone (PRED) in managing pediatric patients with acute asthmatic exacerbation.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for articles from their inception to August 2022 by two independent reviewers using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) system. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42022353462).
STUDY SELECTIONS
From 316 studies screened, seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria, with 5967 pediatric patients experiencing an asthma exacerbation requiring treatment with either DEX ( = 2865) or PRED ( = 3102). Baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, PRAM (pediatric respiratory assessment measure), previous corticosteroid and beta-agonist inhaler) were comparable between groups.
RESULTS
After treatment administration, the DEX group had fewer vomiting incidents (OR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.51, I = 58%) and reduced noncompliance events (OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.34, I = 0%) when compared to the PRED group. Regarding emergency-department (ED)-related outcomes, there were no differences in hospital admission rates (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.58, 1.19, I = 15%), time spent in the ED (MD= -0.11 h, 95% CI: -0.52; 0.30, I = 82%) or relapse occurrences (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.30, 1.49, I = 52%) between both groups.
CONCLUSION
Although there were no differences between the DEX and PRED groups in terms of hospital admission rates, time spent in the ED or relapse events, pediatric patients receiving DEX experienced lower noncompliance and vomiting rates.
Topics: Humans; Child; Asthma; Prednisolone; Prednisone; Dexamethasone; Acute Disease; Vomiting; Recurrence; Anti-Asthmatic Agents
PubMed: 36461938
DOI: 10.1080/02770903.2022.2155189