-
Journal of Neuromuscular Diseases 2024The objective of this study was to describe predictors of loss of ambulation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to describe predictors of loss of ambulation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD).
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis included searches of MEDLINE ALL, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2022, for predictors of loss of ambulation in DMD. Search terms included "Duchenne muscular dystrophy" as a Medical Subject Heading or free text term, in combination with variations of the term "predictor". Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We performed meta-analysis pooling of hazard ratios of the effects of glucocorticoids (vs. no glucocorticoid therapy) by fitting a common-effect inverse-variance model.
RESULTS
The bibliographic searches resulted in the inclusion of 45 studies of children and adults with DMD from 17 countries across Europe, Asia, and North America. Glucocorticoid therapy was associated with delayed loss of ambulation (overall meta-analysis HR deflazacort/prednisone/prednisolone: 0.44 [95% CI: 0.40-0.48]) (n = 25 studies). Earlier onset of first signs or symptoms, earlier loss of developmental milestones, lower baseline 6MWT (i.e.,<350 vs. ≥350 metres and <330 vs. ≥330 metres), and lower baseline NSAA were associated with earlier loss of ambulation (n = 5 studies). Deletion of exons 3-7, proximal mutations (upstream intron 44), single exon 45 deletions, and mutations amenable of skipping exon 8, exon 44, and exon 53, were associated with prolonged ambulation; distal mutations (intron 44 and downstream), deletion of exons 49-50, and mutations amenable of skipping exon 45, and exon 51 were associated with earlier loss of ambulation (n = 13 studies). Specific single-nucleotide polymorphisms in CD40 gene rs1883832, LTBP4 gene rs10880, SPP1 gene rs2835709 and rs11730582, and TCTEX1D1 gene rs1060575 (n = 7 studies), as well as race/ethnicity and level of family/patient deprivation (n = 3 studies), were associated with loss of ambulation. Treatment with ataluren (n = 2 studies) and eteplirsen (n = 3 studies) were associated with prolonged ambulation. Magnetic resonance biomarkers (MRI and MRS) were identified as significant predictors of loss of ambulation (n = 6 studies). In total, 33% of studies exhibited some risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Our synthesis of predictors of loss of ambulation in DMD contributes to the understanding the natural history of disease and informs the design of new trials of novel therapies targeting this heavily burdened patient population.
Topics: Muscular Dystrophy, Duchenne; Humans; Glucocorticoids; Walking; Pregnenediones; Latent TGF-beta Binding Proteins
PubMed: 38669554
DOI: 10.3233/JND-230220 -
Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease Jan 2024Lichen sclerosus (LS) is a chronic, inflammatory process affecting predominantly anogenital skin, with extragenital involvement in up to 20% of cases. The mainstay of...
BACKGROUND
Lichen sclerosus (LS) is a chronic, inflammatory process affecting predominantly anogenital skin, with extragenital involvement in up to 20% of cases. The mainstay of therapy for anogenital LS is topical immunosuppression. However, in treatment-refractory cases, severe, or hypertrophic disease, systemic modalities may be used. Currently, there are no guidelines for systemic therapy in LS.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to provide a review of the current literature on use of systemic therapies for LS, including demographic and clinical features of LS, as well as reported outcomes.
METHODS
A primary literature search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science, from the year the journal was published until June 2022.
RESULTS
Ultimately, 71 studies consisting of 392 patients were included. Of these, 65% (n = 254) had anogenital disease, 9% (n = 36) had extragenital disease, and 19% (n = 73) had both anogenital and extragenital disease, and in 7% (n = 29) of cases, location was not specified. The most frequent therapies, stratified by total cases, included oral retinoids (n = 227), methotrexate (n = 59), hydroxychloroquine (n = 36), and systemic steroids (prednisone, methylprednisolone, prednisolone, oral triamcinolone, and other systemic steroids) (n = 60). Overall, 76% (n = 194) of anogenital, 94% (n = 34) of extragenital, and 81% (n = 59) of patients with both anogenital and extragenital involvement were reported to have clinical or symptomatic improvement.
CONCLUSION
Overall, we found many therapies that have been used with reported success for extragenital and genital LS. However, future studies are needed to better define treatment outcomes and directly compare efficacy of different therapies for LS.
Topics: Humans; Lichen Sclerosus et Atrophicus; Methotrexate; Treatment Outcome; Skin; Steroids
PubMed: 37924260
DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000775 -
Headache Jan 2021Primary headaches (migraine, tension headache, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalgias) are common in pregnancy and postpartum. It is unclear how to...
BACKGROUND
Primary headaches (migraine, tension headache, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalgias) are common in pregnancy and postpartum. It is unclear how to best and most safely manage them.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review (SR) of interventions to prevent or treat primary headaches in women who are pregnant, attempting to become pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Database of SRs, and Epistemonikos for primary studies of pregnant women with primary headache and existing SRs of harms in pregnant women regardless of indication. No date or language restrictions were applied. We assessed strength of evidence (SoE) using standard methods.
RESULTS
We screened 8549 citations for studies and 2788 citations for SRs. Sixteen studies (mostly high risk of bias) comprising 14,185 patients (total) and 26 SRs met the criteria. For prevention, we found no evidence addressing effectiveness. Antiepileptics, venlafaxine, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, β-blockers, prednisolone, and oral magnesium may be associated with fetal/child adverse effects, but calcium channel blockers and antihistamines may not be (1 single-group study and 11 SRs; low-to-moderate SoE). For treatment, combination metoclopramide and diphenhydramine may be more effective than codeine for migraine or tension headache (1 randomized controlled trial; low SoE). Triptans may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects (8 nonrandomized comparative studies; low SoE). Acetaminophen, prednisolone, indomethacin, ondansetron, antipsychotics, and intravenous magnesium may be associated with fetal/child adverse effects, but low-dose aspirin may not be (indirect evidence; low-to-moderate SoE). We found insufficient evidence regarding non-pharmacologic treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
For prevention of primary headache, calcium channel blockers and antihistamines may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects. For treatment, combination metoclopramide and diphenhydramine may be more effective than codeine. Triptans and low-dose aspirin may not be associated with fetal/child adverse effects. Future research should identify effective and safe interventions in pregnancy and postpartum.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Female; Headache Disorders, Primary; Humans; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 33433020
DOI: 10.1111/head.14041 -
Acta Neurochirurgica Sep 2023To determine existing trends concerning in-hospital mortality in patients with traumatic subaxial cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) over the last four decades. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To determine existing trends concerning in-hospital mortality in patients with traumatic subaxial cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) over the last four decades.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE to assess the role of the following factors on in-hospital mortality over the last four decades: neurological deficit, age, surgical decompression, use of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), use of methylprednisolone in the acute post-injury period, and study location (developing versus developed countries).
RESULTS
Among 3333 papers after deduplication, 21 studies met the eligibility criteria. The mortality rate was 17.88% [95% confidence interval (CI): 12.9-22.87%]. No significant trend in mortality rate was observed over the 42-year period (meta-regression coefficient = 0.317; p = 0.372). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant association between acute subaxial cervical SCI-related mortality when stratified by use of surgery, administration of methylprednisolone, use of MRI and CT imaging, study design (prospective versus retrospective study), and study location. The mortality rate was significantly higher in complete SCI (20.66%, p = 0.002) and American Spinal Injury Association impairment scale (AIS) A (20.57%) and B (9.28%) (p = 0.028).
CONCLUSION
A very low level of evidence showed that in-hospital mortality in patients with traumatic subaxial cervical SCI did not decrease over the last four decades despite diagnostic and therapeutic advancements. The overall acute mortality rate following subaxial cervical SCI is 17.88%. We recommend reporting a stratified mortality rate according to key factors such as treatment paradigms, age, and severity of injury in future studies.
Topics: Humans; Hospital Mortality; Cervical Cord; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Neck Injuries; Spinal Cord Injuries; Methylprednisolone
PubMed: 37480505
DOI: 10.1007/s00701-023-05720-5 -
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and... Dec 2023Greater occipital nerve (GON) blockade is a short-term preventive therapy for cluster headache (CH). We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and...
BACKGROUND
Greater occipital nerve (GON) blockade is a short-term preventive therapy for cluster headache (CH). We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of GON blockade in patients with CH.
METHODS
On 23 October 2020, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Web of Science databases from their inception date. Studies included participants with a CH diagnosis who received corticosteroid and local anaesthetic suboccipital region injections. Outcomes were change in the frequency/severity/duration of attacks; proportion of participants responding to treatment, time to attack freedom from an attack, change in attack bout length and/or the presence of adverse effects after GON blockade. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias V.2.0 (RoB2)/Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS- I) tools and a specific tool for case reports/series.
RESULTS
Two RCTs, eight prospective and eight retrospective studies, and four case reports were included in the narrative synthesis. Every effectiveness study found a significant response in one or more of frequency/severity/duration of individual attacks or proportion of patients responding to treatment (47.8%-100.0%). There were five instances of potentially irreversible adverse effects. A higher injectate volume and use of concurrent prophylaxis may be associated with an increased likelihood of response. Methylprednisolone may have the best safety profile of available corticosteroids.
DISCUSSION
GON blockade is safe and effective for CH prevention. Higher injectate volumes may improve likelihood of response, and the likelihood of serious adverse events may be reduced by using methylprednisolone.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020208435.
Topics: Humans; Cluster Headache; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Methylprednisolone; Nerve Block
PubMed: 36948579
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2023-331066 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jun 2020Delayed pressure urticaria (DPU) is characterized by recurrent erythematous and often painful swelling after the skin is exposed to sustained pressure. Treatment is...
BACKGROUND
Delayed pressure urticaria (DPU) is characterized by recurrent erythematous and often painful swelling after the skin is exposed to sustained pressure. Treatment is challenging. Antihistamines, the first-line and only approved treatment, are often not effective.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the treatment options for DPU.
METHOD
A literature search of electronic databases for all relevant articles published till April 29, 2019, was conducted using the search terms "delayed pressure urticaria" and "pressure urticaria." This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies (8 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 10 retrospective cohort studies, and 3 open-label prospective studies) were included. Second-generation H antihistamines (sgAHs) were effective in 3 RCTs. The combination of an sgAH and montelukast (2 RCTs) or an sgAH and theophylline (1 non-RCT) was more effective than the sgAH alone. The disease improved with omalizumab (4 non-RCTs), sulphones (3 non-RCTs), oral prednisolone (1 RCT and 2 non-RCTs), intravenous immunoglobulin (1 non-RCT), and gluten-free diet (1 non-RCT). There are no studies on updosing of antihistamines over standard dosage in DPU.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the quality of studies on DPU is low. Because of the lack of other evidence, antihistamines remain the first-line therapy. Updosing of sgAHs could be considered in patients with uncontrolled symptoms on the basis of the extrapolation of evidence from chronic spontaneous urticaria, even though there is no evidence of its efficacy over standard dosage. Addition of montelukast may be considered. Omalizumab or sulphones may be used in treatment-resistant patients. High-quality DPU studies should be conducted.
Topics: Anti-Allergic Agents; Chronic Disease; Chronic Urticaria; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Omalizumab; Urticaria
PubMed: 32179196
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.03.004 -
Clinical Rheumatology Nov 2021The pharmacotherapy of Takayasu arteritis (TAK) with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is an evolving area. A systematic review of Scopus, Web of Science,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The pharmacotherapy of Takayasu arteritis (TAK) with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is an evolving area. A systematic review of Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed Central, clinical trial databases and recent international rheumatology conferences for interventional and observational studies reporting the effectiveness of DMARDs in TAK identified four randomized controlled trials (RCTs, with another longer-term follow-up of one RCT) and 63 observational studies. The identified trials had some concern or high risk of bias. Most observational studies were downgraded on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale due to lack of appropriate comparator groups. Studies used heterogenous outcomes of clinical responses, angiographic stabilization, normalization of inflammatory markers, reduction in vascular uptake on positron emission tomography, reduction in prednisolone doses and relapses. Tocilizumab showed benefit in a RCT compared to placebo in a secondary per-protocol analysis but not the primary intention-to-treat analysis. Abatacept failed to demonstrate benefit compared to placebo for preventing relapses in another RCT. Pooled data from uncontrolled observational studies demonstrated beneficial clinical responses and angiographic stabilization in nearly 80% patients treated with tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors, tocilizumab or leflunomide. Certainty of evidence for outcomes from RCTs ranged from moderate to very low and was low to very low for all observational studies. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence to guide the pharmacotherapy of TAK. Future observational studies should attempt to include appropriate comparator arms. Multicentric, adequately powered RCTs assessing both clinical and angiographic responses are necessary in TAK.
Topics: Abatacept; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antirheumatic Agents; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Takayasu Arteritis
PubMed: 33932173
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-021-05743-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Methylprednisolone; Dexamethasone; Invasive Fungal Infections; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 36385229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014963.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Advanced chronic liver disease is characterised by a long compensated phase followed by a rapidly progressive 'decompensated' phase, which is marked by the development... (Review)
Review
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors infusion for people with compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease.
BACKGROUND
Advanced chronic liver disease is characterised by a long compensated phase followed by a rapidly progressive 'decompensated' phase, which is marked by the development of complications of portal hypertension and liver dysfunction. Advanced chronic liver disease is considered responsible for more than one million deaths annually worldwide. No treatment is available to specifically target fibrosis and cirrhosis; liver transplantation remains the only curative option. Researchers are investigating strategies to restore liver functionality to avoid or slow progression towards end-stage liver disease. Cytokine mobilisation of stem cells from the bone marrow to the liver could improve liver function. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a 175-amino-acid protein currently available for mobilisation of haematopoietic stem cells from the bone marrow. Multiple courses of G-CSF, with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors (erythropoietin or growth hormone) infusion, might be associated with accelerated hepatic regeneration, improved liver function, and survival.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of G-CSF with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors (erythropoietin or growth hormone) infusion, compared with no intervention or placebo in people with compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registers (October 2022) together with reference-checking and web-searching to identify additional studies. We applied no restrictions on language and document type.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We only included randomised clinical trials comparing G-CSF, independent of the schedule of administration, as a single treatment or combined with stem or progenitor cell infusion, or with other medical co-interventions, with no intervention or placebo, in adults with chronic compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease or acute-on-chronic liver failure. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, outcomes reported, or language.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane procedures. All-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life were our primary outcomes, and liver disease-related morbidity, non-serious adverse events, and no improvement of liver function scores were our secondary outcomes. We undertook meta-analyses, based on intention-to-treat, and presented results using risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I statistic values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE, evaluated the risk of small-study effects in regression analyses, and conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 trials (1419 participants; sample size ranged from 28 to 259), which lasted between 11 and 57 months. Nineteen trials included only participants with decompensated cirrhosis; in one trial, 30% had compensated cirrhosis. The included trials were conducted in Asia (15), Europe (four), and the USA (one). Not all trials provided data for our outcomes. All trials reported data allowing intention-to-treat analyses. The experimental intervention consisted of G-CSF alone or G-CSF plus any of the following: growth hormone, erythropoietin, N-acetyl cysteine, infusion of CD133-positive haemopoietic stem cells, or infusion of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells. The control group consisted of no intervention in 15 trials and placebo (normal saline) in five trials. Standard medical therapy (antivirals, alcohol abstinence, nutrition, diuretics, β-blockers, selective intestinal decontamination, pentoxifylline, prednisolone, and other supportive measures depending on the clinical status and requirement) was administered equally to the trial groups. Very low-certainty evidence suggested a decrease in mortality with G-CSF, administered alone or in combination with any of the above, versus placebo (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.72; I = 75%; 1419 participants; 20 trials). Very low-certainty evidence suggested no difference in serious adverse events (G-CSF alone or in combination versus placebo: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.61; I = 66%; 315 participants; three trials). Eight trials, with 518 participants, reported no serious adverse events. Two trials, with 165 participants, used two components of the quality of life score for assessment, with ranges from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate better quality of life, with a mean increase from baseline of the physical component summary of 20.7 (95% CI 17.4 to 24.0; very low-certainty evidence) and a mean increase from baseline of the mental component summary of 27.8 (95% CI 12.3 to 43.3; very low-certainty evidence). G-CSF, alone or in combination, suggested a beneficial effect on the proportion of participants who developed one or more liver disease-related complications (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92; I = 62%; 195 participants; four trials; very low-certainty evidence). When we analysed the occurrences of single complications, there was no suggestion of a difference between G-CSF, alone or in combination, versus control, in participants in need of liver transplantation (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.85; 692 participants; five trials), in the development of hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.30; 520 participants; six trials), in the occurrence of variceal bleeding (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.23; 614 participants; eight trials), and in the development of encephalopathy (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.01; 605 participants; seven trials) (very low-certainty evidence). The same comparison suggested that G-CSF reduces the development of infections (including sepsis) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.84; 583 participants; eight trials) and does not improve liver function scores (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86; 319 participants; two trials) (very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
G-CSF, alone or in combination, seems to decrease mortality in people with decompensated advanced chronic liver disease of whatever aetiology and with or without acute-on-chronic liver failure, but the certainty of evidence is very low because of high risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. The results of trials conducted in Asia and Europe were discrepant; this could not be explained by differences in participant selection, intervention, and outcome measurement. Data on serious adverse events and health-related quality of life were few and inconsistently reported. The evidence is also very uncertain regarding the occurrence of one or more liver disease-related complications. We lack high-quality, global randomised clinical trials assessing the effect of G-CSF on clinically relevant outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Quality of Life; Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Liver Cirrhosis; Stem Cells; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins; Erythropoietin; Growth Hormone
PubMed: 37278488
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013532.pub2 -
BMJ Open Respiratory Research Jan 2024Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the effects of corticosteroids on the treatment of severe community-acquired... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the effects of corticosteroids on the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of different corticosteroids on patients who were hospitalised for severe CAP.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to May 2023. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Data analysis was performed using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 10 RCTs comprising 1962 patients were included. Corticosteroids were associated with a lower rate of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.70 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.90); I=0.00%). When stratified into different corticosteroid types, hydrocortisone was associated with an approximately 50% lower mortality risk (RR, 0.48 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.72); I=0.00%). However, dexamethasone, methylprednisolone or prednisolone were not associated with an improvement in mortality. Furthermore, hydrocortisone was associated with a reduction in the rate of mechanical ventilation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, shock and duration of intensive care unit stay. These trends were not observed for dexamethasone, methylprednisolone or prednisolone. Corticosteroids were not associated with an increased risk of adverse events including gastrointestinal bleeding, secondary infection or hyperglycaemia.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of hydrocortisone, but not other types of corticosteroids, was associated with a reduction in mortality and improvement in pneumonia outcomes among patients hospitalised with severe CAP.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42023431360.
Topics: Humans; Hydrocortisone; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Methylprednisolone; Community-Acquired Infections; Pneumonia; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 38262670
DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002141