-
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Apr 2017Purpose Since 2000, many new treatment options have become available for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM) after a long period in which dexamethasone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Purpose Since 2000, many new treatment options have become available for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM) after a long period in which dexamethasone and melphalan had been the standard treatment. Direct comparisons of these novel treatments, however, are lacking. This makes it extremely difficult to evaluate the relative added value of each new treatment. Our aim was to synthesize all efficacy evidence, enabling a comparison of all current treatments for R/R MM. Methods We performed a systematic literature review to identify all publicly available phase III randomized controlled trial evidence. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and the Web site www.ClinicalTrials.gov . In addition, two trials presented at two international hematology congresses (ie, ASCO 2016 and European Hematology Association 2016) were added to include the most recent evidence. In total, 17 randomized controlled trials were identified, including 18 treatment options. The evidence was synthesized using a conventional network meta-analysis. To include all treatments within one network, two treatment options were combined: (1) bortezomib monotherapy and bortezomib plus dexamethasone, and (2) thalidomide monotherapy and thalidomide plus dexamethasone. Results The combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone was identified as the best treatment. It was most favorable in terms of (1) hazard ratio for progression-free survival (0.13; 95% credible interval, 0.09 to 0.19), and (2) probability of being best (99% of the simulations). This treatment combination reduced the risk of progression or death by 87% versus dexamethasone, 81% versus bortezomib plus dexamethasone, and 63% versus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone. Conclusion Our network meta-analysis provides a complete overview of the relative efficacy of all available treatments for R/R MM. Until additional data from randomized studies are available, on the basis of this analysis, the combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone seems to be the best treatment option.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bortezomib; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Dexamethasone; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Thalidomide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28240968
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.1663 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Aug 2014We conducted a systematic review to determine the appropriate use of bortezomib alone or in combination with other agents in patients with multiple myeloma (mm). We... (Review)
Review
We conducted a systematic review to determine the appropriate use of bortezomib alone or in combination with other agents in patients with multiple myeloma (mm). We searched medline, embase, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of included studies. We analyzed randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews if they involved adult mm patients treated with bortezomib and if they reported on survival, disease control, response, quality of life, or adverse effects. Twenty-six unique studies met the inclusion criteria. For patients with previously untreated mm and for candidates for transplantation, we found a statistically significant benefit in time to progression [hazard ratio (hr): 0.48, p < 0.001; and hr: 0.63, p = 0.006, respectively] and a better response with a bortezomib than with a non-bortezomib regimen (p < 0.001). Progression-free survival was longer with bortezomib and thalidomide than with thalidomide alone (p = 0.01). In non-candidates for transplantation, a significant benefit in overall survival was observed with a bortezomib regimen (hr compared with a non-bortezomib regimen: 0.61; p = 0.008), and in transplantation candidates receiving bortezomib, the response rate was improved after induction (p = 0.004) and after a first transplant (p = 0.016). In relapsed or refractory mm, overall survival (p = 0.03), time to progression (hr: 1.82; p = 0.000004), and progression-free survival (hr: 1.69; p = 0.000026) were significantly improved with bortezomib and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (compared with bortezomib alone), and bortezomib monotherapy was better than dexamethasone alone (hr: 0.77; p = 0.027). Bortezomib combined with thalidomide and dexamethasone was better than either bortezomib monotherapy or thalidomide with dexamethasone (p < 0.001). In previously untreated or in relapsed or refractory mm patients, bortezomib-based therapy has improved disease control and, in some patients, overall survival.
PubMed: 25089109
DOI: 10.3747/co.21.1798 -
Anaesthesia Jul 2021Both perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine are used as local anaesthetic adjuncts to enhance peripheral nerve block characteristics. However, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Both perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine are used as local anaesthetic adjuncts to enhance peripheral nerve block characteristics. However, the effects of dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine based on their administration routes have not been directly compared, and the relative extent to which each adjunct prolongs sensory blockade remains unclear. This network meta-analysis sought to compare and rank the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine as supraclavicular block adjuncts. We sought randomised trials investigating the effects of adding perineural and intravenous dexamethasone or dexmedetomidine to long-acting local anaesthetics on supraclavicular block characteristics, including time to block onset and durations of sensory, motor and analgesic blockade. Data were compared and ranked according to relative effectiveness for each outcome. Our primary outcome was sensory block duration, with a 2-h difference considered clinically important. We performed a frequentist analysis, using the GRADE framework to appraise evidence. One-hundred trials (5728 patients) were included. Expressed as mean (95%CI), the control group (local anaesthetic alone) had a duration of sensory block of 401 (366-435) min, motor block duration of 369 (330-408) min and analgesic duration of 435 (386-483) min. Compared with control, sensory block was prolonged most by intravenous dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 477 (160-795) min], followed by perineural dexamethasone [411 (343-480) min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [284 (235-333) min]. Motor block was prolonged most by perineural dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 294 (236-352) min], followed by intravenous dexamethasone [289 (129-448)min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [258 (212-304)min]. Analgesic duration was prolonged most by perineural dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 518 (448-589) min], followed by intravenous dexamethasone [478 (277-679) min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [318 (266-371) min]. Intravenous dexmedetomidine did not prolong sensory, motor or analgesic block durations. No major network inconsistencies were found. The quality of evidence for intravenous dexamethasone, perineural dexamethasone and perineural dexmedetomidine for prolongation of supraclavicular sensory block duration was 'low', 'very low' and 'low', respectively. Regardless of route, dexamethasone as an adjunct prolonged the durations of sensory and analgesic blockade to a greater extent than dexmedetomidine. Differences in block characteristics between perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were not clinically important. Intravenous dexmedetomidine did not affect block characteristics.
Topics: Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Administration, Intravenous; Anesthetics, Local; Brachial Plexus Block; Dexamethasone; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 33118163
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15288 -
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Oct 2020Rhinoplasty is one of the most challenging cosmetic surgical operations. The procedure has been known to precipitate higher levels of edema and ecchymosis in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Rhinoplasty is one of the most challenging cosmetic surgical operations. The procedure has been known to precipitate higher levels of edema and ecchymosis in the periorbital and paranasal regions. The literature recommends the use of corticosteroids such as dexamethasone to alleviate these postoperative morbidities. In this review, we aim to provide a current state of evidence concerning the influence of dexamethasone together with rhinoplasty on intraoperative and postoperative morbidities.
METHODS
A systematic identification of the literature was performed according to PRISMA guidelines on four academic databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE and CENTRAL. A meta-analysis compared the influence of dexamethasone and normal saline administered during rhinoplasty on the amount of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative edema and ecchymosis.
RESULTS
Out of 1045 records, ten articles including 374 participants (mean age: 25.8 ± 2.5 years) were included in this review. This systematic review presents a 1b level of evidence supporting the use of dexamethasone during rhinoplasty to reduce the amount of intraoperative blood loss, edema and ecchymosis as compared to normal saline. The meta-analysis reveals beneficial effects for dexamethasone interventions by demonstrating medium to large effect reduction of the amount of intraoperative blood loss (Hedge's g: - 0.69), mean edema score (- 1.09) and mean ecchymosis score (- 1.03) as compared to placebo groups using normal saline.
CONCLUSION
The current systematic review and meta-analysis recommend the administration of dexamethasone with rhinoplasty. The review reports beneficial effects of dexamethasone's administration as compared to normal saline for reducing the amount of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative edema and ecchymosis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Topics: Adult; Dexamethasone; Ecchymosis; Edema; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Rhinoplasty; Young Adult
PubMed: 32383002
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-020-01743-w -
Journal of Pain Research 2017Dexamethasone is a common adjuvant for local anesthetics in regional anesthesia, but the optimal route of administration is controversial. Therefore, we did a systematic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dexamethasone is a common adjuvant for local anesthetics in regional anesthesia, but the optimal route of administration is controversial. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone on local anesthetic regional nerve-blockade outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Medline (through PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Biosis Previews databases were systematically searched (published from inception of each database to January 1, 2017) to identify randomized controlled trials. The data of the selected trials were statistically analyzed to find any significant differences between the two modalities. The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of motor block, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative analgesic dose at 24 hours. We conducted a planned subgroup analysis to compare the effects between adding epinephrine or not.
RESULTS
Ten randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria of our analysis, with a total of 749 patients. Without the addition of epinephrine, the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were equivalent concerning the duration of analgesia (mean difference 0.03 hours, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24). However, with the addition of epinephrine, the analgesic duration of perineural dexamethasone versus intravenous dexamethasone was prolonged (mean difference 3.96 hours, 95% CI 2.66-5.27). Likewise, the impact of epinephrine was the same on the duration of motor block. The two routes of administration did not show any significant differences in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, nor on postoperative analgesic consumption at 24 hours.
CONCLUSION
Our results show that perineural dexamethasone can prolong the effects of analgesic duration when compared to the intravenous route, only when epinephrine is coadministered. Without epinephrine, the two modalities show equivalent effect as adjuvants on regional anesthesia.
PubMed: 28740419
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S138212 -
Scientific Reports May 2023To better understand the efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) versus antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety profile of intravitreal dexamethasone implant versus antivascular endothelial growth factor treatment in diabetic macular edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
To better understand the efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex) versus antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). A systematic review and meta-analysis. The study included randomized control trials (RCTs) and non-randomized control trials (Non-RCTs) before December 2021 that compare the efficacy of Ozurdex-related therapyand anti-VEGF therapy. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The quality of the included studies was assessed carefully. 30 studies were included. Regarding BCVA change, the overall result revealed no significant differences between Ozurdex and anti-VEGF therapies in patients with nonresistant DME, but Ozurdex group had significantly more VA improvement than anti-VEGF therapies in patients with resistant DME (MD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02-0.21). In terms of central retinal thickness (CRT) decrease, there was a significant difference between Ozurdex therapy and anti-VEGF therapy in patients with nonresistant DME (MD 48.10, 95% CI 19.06-77.13) and resistant DME (MD 65.37, 95% CI 3.62-127.13). Overall, Ozurdex therapy resulted in significantly greater VA improvement and CRT decrease than anti-VEGF therapy in resistant DME patients. Ozurdex therapy was not inferior to anti-VEGF therapy in patients with nonresistant DME.
Topics: Humans; Macular Edema; Ranibizumab; Glucocorticoids; Endothelial Growth Factors; Bevacizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Dexamethasone; Diabetic Retinopathy; Intravitreal Injections; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 37156823
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-34673-z -
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 -
Neuro-oncology Advances 2022Checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy has not proven clinically effective in glioblastoma. This lack of effectiveness may be partially attributable to the frequent...
BACKGROUND
Checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy has not proven clinically effective in glioblastoma. This lack of effectiveness may be partially attributable to the frequent administration of dexamethasone in glioblastoma patients. In this systematic review, we assess whether dexamethasone (1) affects the glioblastoma microenvironment and (2) interferes with checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy efficacy in the treatment of glioblastoma.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for eligible articles published up to September 15, 2021. Both in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies, as well as clinical studies were selected. The following information was extracted from each study: tumor model, corticosteroid treatment, and effects on individual immune components or checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy.
RESULTS
Twenty-one preclinical studies in cellular glioma models ( = 10), animal glioma models ( = 6), and glioblastoma patient samples ( = 7), and 3 clinical studies were included. Preclinical studies show that dexamethasone decreases the presence of microglia and other macrophages as well as the number of T lymphocytes in both tumor tissue and periphery. Dexamethasone abrogates the antitumor effects of checkpoint inhibitors on T lymphocytes in preclinical studies. Although randomized studies directly addressing our research question are lacking, clinical studies suggest a negative association between corticosteroids and survival outcomes in glioblastoma patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors after adjustment for relevant prognostic factors.
CONCLUSIONS
Preclinical research shows that dexamethasone inhibits the antitumor immune response in glioma, thereby promoting a protumorigenic microenvironment. The efficacy of checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy in glioblastoma patients may therefore be negatively affected by the use of dexamethasone. Future research could investigate the potential of edema-reducing alternatives to dexamethasone.
PubMed: 35990704
DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdac087 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2009Croup leads to signs of upper airway obstruction, and must be differentiated from acute epiglottitis, bacterial tracheitis, or an inhaled foreign body. Croup affects... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Croup leads to signs of upper airway obstruction, and must be differentiated from acute epiglottitis, bacterial tracheitis, or an inhaled foreign body. Croup affects about 3% of children a year, usually between the ages of 6 months and 3 years, and 75% of infections are caused by Parainfluenza virus. Symptoms usually resolve within 48 hours, but severe infection can, rarely, lead to pneumonia, and to respiratory failure and arrest.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in children with: mild croup; moderate to severe croup; and impending respiratory failure because of severe croup? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 43 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, corticosteroids, dexamethasone (intramuscular, oral, single-dose oral, route of administration), heliox, humidification, intermittent positive pressure breathing, L-adrenaline, nebulised adrenaline (epinephrine), nebulised budesonide, nebulised short-acting beta(2) agonists, oral decongestants, oral prednisolone, oxygen, and sedatives.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Budesonide; Croup; Dexamethasone; Epinephrine; Humans; Infant
PubMed: 19445760
DOI: No ID Found -
Cureus Jul 2023Mandibular third-molar extraction is a frequently executed minor oral surgical procedure, with a subsequent recovery period lasting several days. Typically, preemptive... (Review)
Review
Mandibular third-molar extraction is a frequently executed minor oral surgical procedure, with a subsequent recovery period lasting several days. Typically, preemptive administration of non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and steroids has been employed, resulting in a notable decrease in postoperative complications like pain, facial swelling, trismus, and alveolar osteitis. This systematic review's primary goal was to investigate the efficacy of preemptive analgesia with dexamethasone and diclofenac in minimizing the post-surgical complications following the surgical extraction of the mandibular third molars. The systematic search was carried out to identify relevant literature in digital databases including PubMed®, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus, from January 1990 to January 2022. The search used specific keywords. The randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy of dexamethasone and diclofenac or dexamethasone alone compared to diclofenac or placebo as preemptive analgesics were considered inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Case reports, literature reviews, letters to the editor, and non-English publications were not included. Two authors screened the titles and abstracts, and articles fulfilling the study criteria were included. After reading the full text and data collection, analysis was performed. The included article's bias was evaluated by the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. A digital database search yielded a total of 207 articles. After excluding duplicates and articles written in languages other than English, 90 were removed. Based on the title and abstract, out of 177, 95 studies were excluded. After full-text reading of 22 articles, 17 were eliminated because they did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining five studies were found eligible and included in the systematic review. Four studies were of low risk, while one study had some concerns. Two studies evaluated the combination of dexamethasone with diclofenac, while three evaluated dexamethasone alone. Total samples included samples of 436 third-molar surgeries in 420 patients. There was a substantial decrease in the mean pain score and swelling measurement when diclofenac alone was compared with coadministration of diclofenac and dexamethasone. Preemptive administration of dexamethasone and diclofenac has been shown to effectively reduce pain and facial swelling, with the exception of trismus, in third-molar surgeries when compared to diclofenac alone. As a result, it is recommended to administer these drugs prior to the commencement of third-molar extraction. However, further research is mandatory, specifically good quality randomized controlled trials involving large cohorts, in order to assess any significant variations and validate these findings.
PubMed: 37654946
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42709