-
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Sep 2023This study aimed (1) to systematically review controlled trials of solid food diets for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); and (2) to grade the overall... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
This study aimed (1) to systematically review controlled trials of solid food diets for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); and (2) to grade the overall quality of evidence.
METHODS
Systematic review of prospective controlled trials of solid food diets for the induction or maintenance of remission in IBD. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessment of certainty of evidence. Meta-analyses were performed on studies with quantitative data on response, remission, and relapse.
RESULTS
There were 27 studies for meta-analysis. For induction of remission in Crohn's disease (CD), low refined carbohydrate diet and symptoms-guided diet outperformed controls, but studies had serious imprecision and very low certainty of evidence. The Mediterranean diet was similar to the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (low certainty of evidence), and partial enteral nutrition (PEN) was similar to exclusive enteral nutrition (very low certainty of evidence). PEN reduced risk of relapse (very low certainty of evidence), whereas reduction of red meat or refined carbohydrates did not (low certainty of evidence). For ulcerative colitis, diets were similar to controls (very low and low certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
Among the most robust dietary trials in IBD currently available, certainty of evidence remains very low or low. Nonetheless, emerging data suggest potential benefit with PEN for induction and maintenance of remission in CD. Reduction of red meat and refined carbohydrates might not reduce risk of CD relapse. As more dietary studies become available, the certainty of evidence could improve, thus allowing for more meaningful recommendations for patients.
Topics: Humans; Prospective Studies; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Crohn Disease; Remission Induction; Carbohydrates; Recurrence
PubMed: 36470529
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.11.026 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune subepidermal bullous disease of the skin. First-line treatment of systemic corticosteroids may cause serious...
BACKGROUND
Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune subepidermal bullous disease of the skin. First-line treatment of systemic corticosteroids may cause serious adverse events. Rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab should be explored as alternative treatment options to improve outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab treatment outcomes in bullous pemphigoid.
METHODS
A PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library search were conducted on March 10, 2022. A total of 75 studies were included using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.
RESULTS
Use of rituximab (n=122), omalizumab (n=53) and dupilumab (n=36) were reported in 211 patients with BP. Rituximab led to complete remission in 70.5% (n=86/122) and partial remission in 23.8% (n=29/122) of patients within 5.7 months, with a recurrence rate of 20.5% (n=25/122). 9.0% (n=11/122) of patients died and infection (6.6%, n=8/122) was the most common adverse event. Omalizumab led to complete remission in 67.9% (n=36/53) and partial remission in 20.8% (n=11/53) of patients within 6.6 months, with a recurrence rate of 5.7% (n=3/53). 1.9% (n=1/53) of patients died and thrombocytopenia (1.9%, n=1/53) was observed as the most common adverse event. Dupilumab led to complete remission in 66.7% (n=24/36) and partial remission in 19.4% (n=7/36) of patients within 4.5 months of treatment without any reported adverse events, with a recurrence rate of 5.6% (n=2/36).
CONCLUSIONS
Rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab have similar clinical benefits for BP patients. However, rituximab resulted in higher recurrence rates, adverse events, and mortality rates.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022316454.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; Omalizumab; Pemphigoid, Bullous; Rituximab; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35769474
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.928621 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) can be separated into primary, genetic or secondary causes. Primary disease results in nephrotic syndrome while genetic and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) can be separated into primary, genetic or secondary causes. Primary disease results in nephrotic syndrome while genetic and secondary forms may be associated with asymptomatic proteinuria or with nephrotic syndrome. Overall only about 20% of patients with FSGS experience a partial or complete remission of nephrotic syndrome with treatment. FSGS progresses to kidney failure in about half of the cases. This is an update of a review first published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive and non-immunosuppressive treatment regimens in adults with FSGS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies to 21 June 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention for FSGS in adults were included. Studies comparing different types, routes, frequencies, and duration of immunosuppressive agents and non-immunosuppressive agents were assessed.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and results were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, or mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen studies (560 participants) were included. No studies specifically evaluating corticosteroids compared with placebo or supportive therapy were identified. Studies evaluated participants with steroid-resistant FSGS. Five studies (240 participants) compared cyclosporin with or without prednisone with different comparators (no specific treatment, prednisone, methylprednisolone, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), dexamethasone). Three small studies compared monoclonal antibodies (adalimumab, fresolimumab) with other agents or placebo. Six single small studies compared rituximab with tacrolimus, cyclosporin plus valsartan with cyclosporin alone, MMF with prednisone, chlorambucil plus methylprednisolone and prednisone with no specific treatment, different regimens of dexamethasone and CCX140-B (an antagonist of the chemokine receptor CCR2) with placebo. The final study (109 participants) compared sparsentan, a dual inhibitor of endothelin Type A receptor and of the angiotensin II Type 1 receptor, with irbesartan. In the risk of bias assessment, seven and five studies were at low risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment, respectively. Four studies were at low risk of performance bias and 14 studies were at low risk of detection bias. Thirteen, six and five studies were at low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias, respectively. Of five studies evaluating cyclosporin, four could be included in our meta-analyses (231 participants). Cyclosporin with or without prednisone compared with different comparators may increase the likelihood of complete remission (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.73; I² = 1%; low certainty evidence) and of complete or partial remission (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.44; I² = 19%) but not of partial remission (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.39, I² = 22%). In Individual studies, cyclosporin with prednisone versus prednisone may increase the likelihood of partial (49 participants: RR 7.96, 95% CI 1.09 to 58.15) or complete or partial remission (49 participants: RR 8.85, 95% CI 1.22 to 63.92) but not of complete remission. The remaining individual comparisons may make little or no difference to the likelihood of complete remission, partial remission or complete or partial remission compared with no treatment, methylprednisolone, MMF, or dexamethasone. Individual study data and combined data showed that cyclosporin may make little or no difference to the outcomes of chronic kidney disease or kidney failure. It is uncertain whether cyclosporin compared with these comparators in individual or combined analyses makes any difference to the outcomes of hypertension or infection. MMF compared with prednisone may make little or no difference to the likelihood of complete remission (33 participants: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.88; low certainty evidence), partial remission, complete or partial remission, glomerular filtration rate, or infection. It is uncertain whether other interventions make any difference to outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low. It is uncertain whether sparsentan reduces proteinuria to a greater extent than irbesartan.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No RCTs, which evaluated corticosteroids, were identified although the KDIGO guidelines recommend corticosteroids as the first treatment for adults with FSGS. The studies identified included participants with steroid-resistant FSGS. Treatment with cyclosporin for at least six months was more likely to achieve complete remission of proteinuria compared with other treatments but there was considerable imprecision due to few studies and small participant numbers. In future studies of existing or new interventions, the investigators must clearly define the populations included in the study to provide appropriate recommendations for patients with primary, genetic or secondary FSGS.
Topics: Adult; Cyclosporine; Glomerulosclerosis, Focal Segmental; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Mycophenolic Acid; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35224732
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003233.pub3 -
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2022This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, eventrate, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: eventrate 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and eventrate was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or eventrate in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), eventrate 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, eventrate, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug eventrate, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and eventrate would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Child; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Phenytoin
PubMed: 35363878
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub4 -
Clinical Kidney Journal Apr 2021The efficacy and safety of rituximab (RTX) in adult frequent-relapsing (FR) or steroid-dependent (SD) nephrotic syndrome (NS), including minimal change disease (MCD) or... (Review)
Review
Efficacy and safety of rituximab in adult frequent-relapsing or steroid-dependent minimal change disease or focal segmental glomerulosclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The efficacy and safety of rituximab (RTX) in adult frequent-relapsing (FR) or steroid-dependent (SD) nephrotic syndrome (NS), including minimal change disease (MCD) or focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), are still inconclusive.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019148102) by pooling data of cohort studies or case series on adult patients with difficult-to-treat NS. Steroid-resistant NS was excluded. The primary outcomes were the complete remission (CR) rate and the relapse rate. Partial remission (PR) rate, no response (NR) rate and adverse events were the secondary outcomes. A random-effects model was performed for all the outcomes.
RESULTS
We included 21 studies involving 382 adult MCD/FSGS subjects with a median follow-up duration from 12 to 43 months. RTX treatment induced a pooled 84.2% CR rate [95% confidence interval (CI): 67.7-96.3%], while MCD patients had a high 91.6% CR rate and FSGS patients a moderate 43% CR rate. However, 27.4% (95% CI 20.7-34.5%) of the patients relapsed during the follow-up. The pooled PR and NR rates were 5.8% (95% CI 1.2-12.5%) and 5.2% (95% CI 0.0-15.0%), respectively. RTX was associated with trivial adverse events and good tolerance.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, by pooling results of current pilot studies, RTX may be an effective and relatively safe alternative for most adult FR or SD MCD/FSGS to displace calcineurin inhibitors or prednisone in the hierarchy of treatment. More clinical trials comparing RTX with other immunosuppressants and concerning the long-term adverse events are needed.
PubMed: 34094516
DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfaa191 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Primary membranous nephropathy (PMN) is a common cause of nephrotic syndrome in adults. Without treatment, approximately 30% of patients will experience spontaneous... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Primary membranous nephropathy (PMN) is a common cause of nephrotic syndrome in adults. Without treatment, approximately 30% of patients will experience spontaneous remission and one third will have persistent proteinuria. Approximately one-third of patients progress toward end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) within 10 years. Immunosuppressive treatment aims to protect kidney function and is recommended for patients who do not show improvement of proteinuria by supportive therapy, and for patients with severe nephrotic syndrome at presentation due to the high risk of developing ESKD. The efficacy and safety of different immunosuppressive regimens are unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review, first published in 2004 and updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
The aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of different immunosuppressive treatments for adult patients with PMN and nephrotic syndrome.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 1 April 2021 with support from the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating effects of immunosuppression in adults with PMN and nephrotic syndrome were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Study selection, data extraction, quality assessment, and data synthesis were performed using Cochrane-recommended methods. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-five studies (3807 patients) were included. Most studies exhibited a high risk of bias for the domains, blinding of study personnel, participants and outcome assessors, and most studies were judged unclear for randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment. Immunosuppressive treatment versus placebo/no treatment/non-immunosuppressive treatment In moderate certainty evidence, immunosuppressive treatment probably makes little or no difference to death, probably reduces the overall risk of ESKD (16 studies, 944 participants: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99; I² = 22%), probably increases total remission (complete and partial) (6 studies, 879 participants: RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.97; I² = 73%) and complete remission (16 studies, 879 participants: RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.75; I² = 43%), and probably decreases the number with doubling of serum creatinine (SCr) (9 studies, 447 participants: RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.80; I² = 21%). However, immunosuppressive treatment may increase the number of patients relapsing after complete or partial remission (3 studies, 148 participants): RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.86; I² = 0%) and may lead to a greater number experiencing temporary or permanent discontinuation/hospitalisation due to adverse events (18 studies, 927 participants: RR 5.33, 95% CI 2.19 to 12.98; I² = 0%). Immunosuppressive treatment has uncertain effects on infection and malignancy. Oral alkylating agents with or without steroids versus placebo/no treatment/steroids Oral alkylating agents with or without steroids had uncertain effects on death but may reduce the overall risk of ESKD (9 studies, 537 participants: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.74; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Total (9 studies, 468 participants: RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.82; I² = 70%) and complete remission (8 studies, 432 participants: RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.38; I² = 37%) may increase, but had uncertain effects on the number of patients relapsing, and decreasing the number with doubling of SCr. Alkylating agents may be associated with a higher rate of adverse events leading to discontinuation or hospitalisation (8 studies 439 participants: RR 6.82, 95% CI 2.24 to 20.71; I² = 0%). Oral alkylating agents with or without steroids had uncertain effects on infection and malignancy. Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) with or without steroids versus placebo/no treatment/supportive therapy/steroids We are uncertain whether CNI with or without steroids increased or decreased the risk of death or ESKD, increased or decreased total or complete remission, or reduced relapse after complete or partial remission (low to very low certainty evidence). CNI also had uncertain effects on decreasing the number with a doubling of SCr, temporary or permanent discontinuation or hospitalisation due to adverse events, infection, or malignancy. Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) with or without steroids versus alkylating agents with or without steroids We are uncertain whether CNI with or without steroids increases or decreases the risk of death or ESKD. CNI with or without steroids may make little or no difference to total remission (10 studies, 538 participants: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.15; I² = 53%; moderate certainty evidence) or complete remission (10 studies, 538 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.56; I² = 56%; low certainty evidence). CNI with or without steroids may increase relapse after complete or partial remission. CNI with or without steroids had uncertain effects on SCr increase, adverse events, infection, and malignancy. Other immunosuppressive treatments Other interventions included azathioprine, mizoribine, adrenocorticotropic hormone, traditional Chinese medicines, and monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab. There were insufficient data to draw conclusions on these treatments.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This updated review strengthened the evidence that immunosuppressive therapy is probably superior to non-immunosuppressive therapy in inducing remission and reducing the number of patients that progress to ESKD. However, these benefits need to be balanced against the side effects of immunosuppressive drugs. The number of included studies with high-quality design was relatively small and most studies did not have adequate follow-up. Clinicians should inform their patients of the lack of high-quality evidence. An alkylating agent (cyclophosphamide or chlorambucil) combined with a corticosteroid regimen had short- and long-term benefits, but this was associated with a higher rate of adverse events. CNI (tacrolimus and cyclosporin) showed equivalency with alkylating agents however, the certainty of this evidence remains low. Novel immunosuppressive treatments with the biologic rituximab or use of adrenocorticotropic hormone require further investigation and validation in large and high-quality RCTs.
Topics: Azathioprine; Cyclosporine; Glomerulonephritis, Membranous; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Nephrotic Syndrome
PubMed: 34778952
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004293.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Steroids have been used widely since the early 1970s for the treatment of adult-onset minimal change disease (MCD). Recently, newer agents have been used in adult MCD... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Steroids have been used widely since the early 1970s for the treatment of adult-onset minimal change disease (MCD). Recently, newer agents have been used in adult MCD aiming to reduce the risk of adverse effects. The response rates to immunosuppressive agents in adult MCD are more variable than in children. The optimal agent, dose, and duration of treatment for the first episode of nephrotic syndrome, or for disease relapse(s) have not been determined. This is an update of a review first published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to 1) evaluate the benefits and harms of different agents, including both immunosuppressive and non-immunosuppressive agents, in adults with MCD causing the nephrotic syndrome; and 2) evaluate the efficacy of interventions on 'time-to-remission' of nephrotic syndrome, in adults with MCD causing the nephrotic syndrome.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 21 July 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention for MCD with nephrotic syndrome in adults over 18 years were included. Studies comparing different types, routes, frequencies, and duration of immunosuppressive agents and non-immunosuppressive agents were assessed.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and results were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, or mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen RCTs (769 randomised participants) were identified; four studies evaluated different prednisolone regimens, eight studies evaluated the calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) (tacrolimus or cyclosporin), two studies evaluated enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) and one study evaluated levamisole. In all but two studies of non-corticosteroid agents, reduced-dose prednisolone was given with the treatment agent and the comparator was high-dose prednisolone. In the risk of bias assessment, 11 and seven studies were at low risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment, respectively. No studies were at low risk of performance bias and eight studies were at low risk of detection bias. Thirteen, 10 and six studies were at low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias, respectively. Compared with no specific treatment, it is uncertain whether prednisolone increases the number with complete remission (1 study, 28 participants: RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.19), complete or partial remission (1 study, 28 participants: RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.95), subsequent relapse (1 study, 28 participants: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.17), or reduces the adverse effects because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared with oral prednisolone alone, it is uncertain whether intravenous methylprednisolone and prednisolone increase the number with complete remission (2 studies, 35 participants: RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 18.32; I² = 90%), relapse (two studies, 19 participants. RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.15; I² = 0%) or adverse events because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared with prednisolone alone, CNIs with reduced-dose prednisolone or without prednisolone probably make little or no difference to the number achieving complete remission (8 studies; 492 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I² = 0%), complete or partial remission (4 studies, 269 participants: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05; I² = 0%), or relapse (7 studies; 422 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.03; I² = 0%) (moderate certainty evidence), may reduce the risk of obesity or Cushing's Syndrome (5 studies; 388 participants: RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.59; I² = 45%) and the risk of acne (4 studies; 270 participants: RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.67; I² = 0%) (low certainty evidence); and had uncertain effects on diabetes or hyperglycaemia, hypertension, and acute kidney injury (AKI) (low certainty evidence). Compared with prednisolone alone, EC-MPS with reduced-dose prednisolone probably make little or no difference to the number undergoing complete remission at 4 weeks (1 study, 114 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.50), and at 24 weeks probably make little or no difference to the number undergoing complete remission (2 studies, 134 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.38; I² = 0%) (moderate certainty evidence), complete or partial remission (2 studies 134 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.12; I² = 0%), relapse (2 studies, 83 participants: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.74; I² = 56%) (low certainty evidence); or to the adverse events of new-onset glucose intolerance, death, or AKI (low certainty evidence). One study (24 participants) compared levamisole and prednisolone with prednisolone in patients with relapsing disease. The authors identified no differences in mean relapse rate or adverse effects but no standard deviations were provided.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This updated review has identified evidence for the efficacy and adverse effects of CNIs and EC-MPS with or without reduced-dose prednisolone compared with prednisolone alone for the induction of remission in adults with MCD and nephrotic syndrome with some reductions in steroid-associated adverse events. RCT data on the efficacy and adverse effects of rituximab in adults with MCD are awaited. Further, adequately powered RCTs are required to determine the relative efficacies of CNIs and EC-MPS and to evaluate these medications in patients with relapsing or steroid-resistant disease.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Adult; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Child; Female; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Levamisole; Male; Methylprednisolone; Mycophenolic Acid; Nephrosis, Lipoid; Nephrotic Syndrome; Recurrence; Steroids
PubMed: 35230699
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001537.pub5 -
EClinicalMedicine Mar 2023Onset of effect of advanced therapies is an important parameter due to symptom load and risk of disease complications in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC), but...
BACKGROUND
Onset of effect of advanced therapies is an important parameter due to symptom load and risk of disease complications in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC), but comparative data are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to assess the comparative onset of efficacy of biological therapies and small molecules for this patient population.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 24 August 2022, for randomised controlled trials or open-label studies assessing the efficacy of biologics or small molecule drugs within the first six weeks of treatment in adults with UC. The co-primary outcomes were the induction of clinical response and clinical remission at week 2. Network meta-analyses was conducted under the Bayesian framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42021250236.
FINDINGS
The systematic literature search identified 20,406 citations, of which 25 studies comprising 11,074 patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Upadacitinib ranked highest for induction of clinical response and clinical remission at week 2 and was significantly superior to all agents but tofacitinib, which ranked second highest. Although the rankings remained consistent, no differences between upadacitinib and biological therapies were demonstrated in the sensitivity analyses of partial Mayo clinic score response or resolution of rectal bleeding at week 2. Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) inhibitors were significantly superior to vedolizumab and ustekinumab for patient-reported outcome-2 (PRO-2) remission at week 2 in bio-naïve patients. Filgotinib 100 mg, ustekinumab, and ozanimod ranked lowest across all endpoints.
INTERPRETATION
In this network meta-analysis, we found upadacitinib to be significantly superior to all agents but tofacitinib for the induction of clinical response and clinical remission two weeks after treatment initiation. In contrast, ustekinumab and ozanimod ranked lowest. Our findings help to establish the evidence regarding the onset of efficacy of advanced therapies.
FUNDING
None.
PubMed: 36864986
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101866 -
Cureus Jul 2023While the exact cause of IBD is unknown, there are a number of factors that are thought to contribute to its development, including environmental and genetic factors.... (Review)
Review
While the exact cause of IBD is unknown, there are a number of factors that are thought to contribute to its development, including environmental and genetic factors. While exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) is a promising therapy for Crohn's disease (CD), it is not yet considered a first-line treatment. Additionally, the efficacy of EEN compared to corticosteroid treatment is still being investigated. EEN is suggested as a first-line therapy by which guidelines and in which age groups, as it may differ in pediatric and adult recommendations. Another finding was that dietary changes involving an increase in anti-inflammatory foods and decreased intake of foods high in inflammatory compounds are linked to a beneficial outcome both metabolically and microbiologically in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) in remission. For relevant medical literature, we examined PubMed/Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar as examples of medical databases. The articles were identified, evaluated, and eligibility applied, and nine publications were found. The finished articles investigated the role of several diet alternatives for patients with IBD. Some others have shown that following a normal low-fat diet may be effective in reducing the occurrence of subclinical colitis. The EEN and partial enteral nutrition (PEN) indicated no significant differences between both regimens, but both had good outcomes during active IBD. Other strict diets, such as the specific carbohydrate diet (SCD) versus the Mediterranean diet (MD), demonstrate excellent outcomes in patients with IBD. Fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAP) dietary counseling improves gastrointestinal symptoms and quality of life in IBD patients. Based on the above, we concluded that more studies determining which component of the diet is not clear (proteins, carbs balanced) or diet types are required to establish a particular diet employed as a treatment intervention in these individuals.
PubMed: 37601990
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42057 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Conventional treatment techniques have limited efficacy and more side effects in the treatment of prurigo nodularis. The better alternative treatment option for better...
BACKGROUND
Conventional treatment techniques have limited efficacy and more side effects in the treatment of prurigo nodularis. The better alternative treatment option for better outcomes of the disease is dupilumab.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to systematically review dupilumab-related treatment outcomes in prurigo nodularis.
METHODS
Several databases like Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane library were searched for data acquisition on October 8, 2022. Based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, 24 publications were included in this study.
RESULTS
After 4,12,16 and more than 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment, 8.3% (n=5/60), 34.4% (n=11/32), 3.6% (n=2/56), and 45.3% (n=29/64) of patients had complete remission, respectively. In addition, 85.0% (n=51/60), 59.4% (n=19/32), 83.9% (n=47/56), and 43.8% (n=28/64) had partial remission, respectively. Moreover, 6.7% (n=4/60), 6.3% (n=2/32), 12.5% (n=7/56), and 10.9% (n=7/64) showed no remission, respectively, and significant reduction of numeric rating scale itch intensity (from 9.0 to 4.9, 2.1, 2.8, 0.9) was attained. There were no serious adverse events observed during treatment, but the most common event observed was conjunctivitis (12.6%, n=15/119).
CONCLUSIONS
Dupilumab has definite effectiveness and safety in prurigo nodularis treatment.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier (CRD42022365802).
Topics: Humans; Prurigo; Pruritus; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36742321
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1092685