-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2011. Phantom limb pain (PLP) is pain that arises in the missing limb after amputation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2011. Phantom limb pain (PLP) is pain that arises in the missing limb after amputation and can be severe, intractable, and disabling. Various medications have been studied in the treatment of phantom pain. There is currently uncertainty in the optimal pharmacologic management of PLP.
OBJECTIVES
This review aimed to summarise the evidence of effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions in treating PLP.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and Embase for relevant studies. We ran the searches for the original review in September 2011 and subsequent searches for this update up to April 2016. We sought additional studies from clinical trials databases and reference lists of retrieved papers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials studying the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions compared with placebo, another active treatment, or no treatment, in established PLP. We considered the following outcomes: change in pain intensity, function, sleep, depression or mood, quality of life, adverse events, treatment satisfaction, and withdrawals from the study.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently assessed issues of study quality and extracted efficacy and adverse event data. Due to the wide variability in the studies, we did not perform a meta-analysis for all the interventions and outcomes, but attempted to pool the results of some studies where possible. We prepared a qualitative description and narrative summary of results. We assessed clinical heterogeneity by making qualitative comparisons of the populations, interventions, outcomes/outcome measures, and methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We added only one new study with 14 participants to this updated review. We included a 14 studies (10 with low risk of bias and 4 with unclear risk of bias overall) with a total of 269 participants. We added another drug class, botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs), in particular botulinum toxin A (BoNT/A), to the group of medications reviewed previously. Our primary outcome was change in pain intensity. Most studies did not report our secondary outcomes of sleep, depression or mood, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, or withdrawals from the study.BoNT/A did not improve phantom limb pain intensity during the six months of follow-up compared with lidocaine/methylprednisolone.Compared with placebo, morphine (oral and intravenous) was effective in decreasing pain intensity in the short term with reported adverse events being constipation, sedation, tiredness, dizziness, sweating, voiding difficulty, vertigo, itching, and respiratory problems.The N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists ketamine (versus placebo; versus calcitonin) and dextromethorphan (versus placebo), but not memantine, had analgesic effects. The adverse events of ketamine were more serious than placebo and calcitonin and included loss of consciousness, sedation, hallucinations, hearing and position impairment, and insobriety.The results for gabapentin in terms of pain relief were conflicting, but combining the results favoured treatment group (gabapentin) over control group (placebo) (mean difference -1.16, 95% confidence interval -1.94 to -0.38; 2 studies). However, gabapentin did not improve function, depression score, or sleep quality. Adverse events experienced were somnolence, dizziness, headache, and nausea.Compared with an active control benztropine mesylate, amitriptyline was not effective in PLP, with dry mouth and dizziness as the most frequent adverse events based on one study.The findings for calcitonin (versus placebo; versus ketamine) and local anaesthetics (versus placebo) were variable. Adverse events of calcitonin were headache, vertigo, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, and hot and cold flushes. Most of the studies were limited by their small sample sizes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, we identified another study that added another form of medical therapy, BoNTs, specifically BoNT/A, to the list of pharmacologic interventions being reviewed for clinical efficacy in phantom limb pain. However, the results of this study did not substantially change the main conclusions. The short- and long-term effectiveness of BoNT/A, opioids, NMDA receptor antagonists, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, calcitonins, and local anaesthetics for clinically relevant outcomes including pain, function, mood, sleep, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and adverse events remain unclear. Based on a small study, BoNT/A (versus lidocaine/methylprednisolone) does not decrease phantom limb pain. Morphine, gabapentin, and ketamine demonstrate favourable short-term analgesic efficacy compared with placebo. Memantine and amitriptyline may not be effective for PLP. However, results must be interpreted with caution, as they were based mostly on a small number of studies with limited sample sizes that varied considerably and also lacked long-term efficacy and safety outcomes. The direction of efficacy of calcitonin, local anaesthetics, and dextromethorphan needs further clarification. Overall, the efficacy evidence for the reviewed medications is thus far inconclusive. Larger and more rigorous randomised controlled trials are needed for us to reach more definitive conclusions about which medications would be useful for clinical practice.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Calcitonin; Humans; Neurotoxins; Phantom Limb; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 27737513
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006380.pub3 -
Steroids Jul 2022The roles of methylprednisolone in treatment of patients with COVID-19 remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The roles of methylprednisolone in treatment of patients with COVID-19 remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone in treatment of COVID-19 patients. PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched for studies comparing methylprednisolone and no glucocorticoids treatment in patients with COVID-19. Statistical pooling was reported as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI). Thirty-three studies were eligible, including 5 randomized trials and 28 observational studies. Meta-analysis showed that compared with no glucocorticoids, methylprednisolone in treatment of COVID-19 patients was associated with reduced short-term mortality (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.60-0.89), less need for ICU admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) and mechanical ventilation (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.84), increased 28-day ventilator-free days (MD 2.81; 95% CI 2.64-2.97), without increasing risk of secondary infections (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.82-1.32), but could prolong duration of viral shedding (MD 1.03; 95% CI 0.25-1.82). Subgroup analyses revealed that low-dose (≤2mg/kg/day) methylprednisolone treatment for ≤ 7 days in severe COVID-19 patients was associated with relatively better clinical outcomes, without increasing duration of viral shedding. Compared with no glucocorticoids, methylprednisolone treatment in COVID-19 patients is associated with reduced short-term mortality and better clinical outcomes, without increasing secondary infections, but could slightly prolong duration of viral shedding. Patients with severe COVID-19 are more likely to benefit from short-term low-dose methylprednisolone treatment (1-2 mg/kg/day for ≤ 7 days).
Topics: Coinfection; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Methylprednisolone; Respiration, Artificial; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35346661
DOI: 10.1016/j.steroids.2022.109022 -
Global Spine Journal Sep 2017Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Review)
Review
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of high-dose methylprednisolone sodium succinate (MPSS) versus no pharmacological treatment in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI).
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in PubMed and the Cochrane Collaboration Library for literature published between January 1956 and June 17, 2015. Included studies were critically appraised, and Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods were used to determine the overall quality of evidence for primary outcomes. Previous systematic reviews on this topic were collated and evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scoring system.
RESULTS
The search yielded 723 citations, 13 of which satisfied inclusion criteria. Among these, 6 were primary research articles and 7 were previous systematic reviews. Based on the included research articles, there was moderate evidence that the 24-hour NASCIS II (National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Studies) MPSS regimen has no impact on long-term neurological recovery when all postinjury time points are considered. However, there is also moderate evidence that subjects receiving the same MPSS regimen within 8 hours of injury achieve an additional 3.2 points (95% confidence interval = 0.10 to 6.33; = .04) of motor recovery compared with patients receiving placebo or no treatment.
CONCLUSION
Although safe to administer, a 24-hour NASCIS II MPSS regimen, when all postinjury time points are considered, has no impact on indices of long-term neurological recovery. When commenced within 8 hours of injury, however, a high-dose 24-hour regimen of MPSS confers a small positive benefit on long-term motor recovery and should be considered a treatment option for patients with SCI.
PubMed: 29164020
DOI: 10.1177/2192568217706366 -
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 -
Pain and Therapy Feb 2023The administration of methylprednisolone (MP) is a component of perioperative multimodal analgesia that mitigates the potentially deleterious effects of postoperative...
INTRODUCTION
The administration of methylprednisolone (MP) is a component of perioperative multimodal analgesia that mitigates the potentially deleterious effects of postoperative pain and opioid consumption. However, a systematic evaluation of the efficacy and safety of MP is lacking. The present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to quantify the potential clinical benefits and risks of perioperative MP in lung surgery.
METHODS
We searched seven electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MP with placebo. Coprimary outcomes were rest pain scores, dynamic pain scores, and cumulative morphine equivalent consumption within 24 h postoperatively.
RESULTS
A total of 11 trials including 643 participants were selected for our meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that the MP group had a significant difference in coprimary outcomes (rest pain scores, dynamic pain scores, and cumulative morphine equivalent consumption) compared with the placebo group; nevertheless, the improvement was not clinically meaningful based on minimum clinically important differences (MCID). Notably, MP administration reduced serum levels of interleukin (IL)-6 at 6 h (weighted mean difference -20.49 pg/mL; 95% CI -29.94 to -11.04), and decreased the incidence rate of acute lung injury (rate ratio 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-0.98) and cognitive dysfunction (rate ratio 0.43; 95% CI 0.21-0.88) compared with the placebo group.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that the administration of MP contributed to an insignificant relief in acute postoperative pain for lung surgery in a clinical setting. Future studies should focus on exploring the role of MP in reducing pulmonary and surgical-related complications after lung surgery.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER
PROSPERO registration number CRD42022314224.
PubMed: 36260278
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-022-00443-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory loss. The symptoms are due to autoimmune inflammation of peripheral nerves. CIPD affects about 2 to 3 per 100,000 of the population. More than half of affected people cannot walk unaided when symptoms are at their worst. CIDP usually responds to treatments that reduce inflammation, but there is disagreement about which treatment is most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of any treatment for CIDP and to compare the effects of treatments.
METHODS
We considered all systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment for any form of CIDP. We reported their primary outcomes, giving priority to change in disability after 12 months.Two overview authors independently identified published systematic reviews for inclusion and collected data. We reported the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. Two other review authors independently checked review selection, data extraction and quality assessments.On 31 October 2016, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (in theCochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus for systematic reviews of CIDP. We supplemented the RCTs in the existing CSRs by searching on the same date for RCTs of any treatment of CIDP (including treatment of fatigue or pain in CIDP), in the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus.
MAIN RESULTS
Five CSRs met our inclusion criteria. We identified 23 randomised trials, of which 15 had been included in these CSRs. We were unable to compare treatments as originally planned, because outcomes and outcome intervals differed. CorticosteroidsIt is uncertain whether daily oral prednisone improved impairment compared to no treatment because the quality of the evidence was very low (1 trial, 28 participants). According to moderate-quality evidence (1 trial, 41 participants), six months' treatment with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone did not improve disability more than daily oral prednisolone. Observational studies tell us that prolonged use of corticosteroids sometimes causes serious side-effects. Plasma exchangeAccording to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 59 participants), twice-weekly plasma exchange produced more short-term improvement in disability than sham exchange. In the largest observational study, 3.9% of plasma exchange procedures had complications. Intravenous immunoglobulinAccording to high-quality evidence (5 trials, 269 participants), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) produced more short-term improvement than placebo. Adverse events were more common with IVIg than placebo (high-quality evidence), but serious adverse events were not (moderate-quality evidence, 3 trials, 315 participants). One trial with 19 participants provided moderate-quality evidence of little or no difference in short-term improvement of impairment with plasma exchange in comparison to IVIg. There was little or no difference in short-term improvement of disability with IVIg in comparison to oral prednisolone (moderate-quality evidence; 1 trial, 29 participants) or intravenous methylprednisolone (high-quality evidence; 1 trial, 45 participants). One unpublished randomised open trial with 35 participants found little or no difference in disability after three months of IVIg compared to oral prednisone; this trial has not yet been included in a CSR. We know from observational studies that serious adverse events related to IVIg do occur. Other immunomodulatory treatmentsIt is uncertain whether the addition of azathioprine (2 mg/kg) to prednisone improved impairment in comparison to prednisone alone, as the quality of the evidence is very low (1 trial, 27 participants). Observational studies show that adverse effects truncate treatment in 10% of people.According to low-quality evidence (1 trial, 60 participants), compared to placebo, methotrexate 15 mg/kg did not allow more participants to reduce corticosteroid or IVIg doses by 20%. Serious adverse events were no more common with methotrexate than with placebo, but observational studies show that methotrexate can cause teratogenicity, abnormal liver function, and pulmonary fibrosis.According to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 77 participants), interferon beta-1a (IFN beta-1a) in comparison to placebo, did not allow more people to withdraw from IVIg. According to moderate-quality evidence, serious adverse events were no more common with IFN beta-1a than with placebo.We know of no other completed trials of immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory agents for CIDP. Other treatmentsWe identified no trials of treatments for fatigue or pain in CIDP. Adverse effectsNot all trials routinely collected adverse event data; when they did, the quality of evidence was variable. Adverse effects in the short, medium, and long term occur with all interventions. We are not able to make reliable comparisons of adverse events between the interventions included in CSRs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We cannot be certain based on available evidence whether daily oral prednisone improves impairment compared to no treatment. However, corticosteroids are commonly used, based on widespread availability, low cost, very low-quality evidence from observational studies, and clinical experience. The weakness of the evidence does not necessarily mean that corticosteroids are ineffective. High-dose monthly oral dexamethasone for six months is probably no more or less effective than daily oral prednisolone. Plasma exchange produces short-term improvement in impairment as determined by neurological examination, and probably produces short-term improvement in disability. IVIg produces more short-term improvement in disability than placebo and more adverse events, although serious side effects are probably no more common than with placebo. There is no clear difference in short-term improvement in impairment with IVIg when compared with intravenous methylprednisolone and probably no improvement when compared with either oral prednisolone or plasma exchange. According to observational studies, adverse events related to difficult venous access, use of citrate, and haemodynamic changes occur in 3% to17% of plasma exchange procedures.It is uncertain whether azathioprine is of benefit as the quality of evidence is very low. Methotrexate may not be of benefit and IFN beta-1a is probably not of benefit.We need further research to identify predictors of response to different treatments and to compare their long-term benefits, safety and cost-effectiveness. There is a need for more randomised trials of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents, routes of administration, and treatments for symptoms of CIDP.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Azathioprine; Dexamethasone; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Immunosuppressive Agents; Interferon beta-1a; Methotrexate; Methylprednisolone; Plasma Exchange; Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28084646
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010369.pub2 -
Journal of Neurology Nov 2023Acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) is a rare neurological complication related to COVID-19. Here we present a case series of six Chinese cases with ANE associated... (Review)
Review
Acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) is a rare neurological complication related to COVID-19. Here we present a case series of six Chinese cases with ANE associated with COVID-19 and review all reported cases in the literature. A total of six cases with ANE related to COVID-19 were enrolled in this study. Clinical manifestations, neuroimaging data, treatment and outcomes of these patients were analyzed. A literature review was performed in Pubmed and Embase and 25 cases with clinical and neuroimaging data were collected and analyzed. Among our six cases, the age of onset ranged from 15 to 56 years, with a male-to-female ratio of nearly 1:1. All patients presented with reduced consciousness. Elevated interleukin 6 in serum and/or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was detected in four patients. Two patients improved clinically after intravenous methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Based on the literature review, the majority of cases were from Europe and the United States (60%). Two age peaks at 10-20 years (20%) and 50-60 years (28%) were observed. Two cases were found with a heterozygous Thr585Met mutation. The mortality of ANE caused by COVID-19 was 42%. The use of IVIG in combination with other immunotherapies was related to better outcome (P = 0.041) and both two patients who received Tocilizumab survived. This is the first Chinese case series about ANE associated with COVID-19. Elevated serum and CSF interlukin-6 were found in certain cases. The mortality and morbidity rates remained high although prompt immunotherapy could improve the outcomes.
PubMed: 37695531
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-023-11915-8 -
Medicine Apr 2021Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is caused by an inflammatory injury to the lung. Dysregulated inflammation is the cardinal feature of ARDS. Methylprednisolone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is caused by an inflammatory injury to the lung. Dysregulated inflammation is the cardinal feature of ARDS. Methylprednisolone is an option for treating ARDS. However, the benefits and adverse effects of methylprednisolone have not been well assessed in patients with ARDS. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone against ARDS.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The electronic database of Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang were searched, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone for ARDS were included. Revman 5.3 and Stata 15.0 were used to conduct the analysis. The fixed-effects model was used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs).
RESULTS
Ten RCTs studies involving 692 patients with ARDS. The summary results demonstrated that, compared with placebo, methylprednisolone had a statistically significant effect on mortality (OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43-0.95, I2 = 42%); the time of mechanical ventilation (MD) = -2.70, 95% CI: -3.31 to -2.10; I2 = 0%) in patients with ARDS, but it was not associated with increased rates of adverse events (OR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.34-1.86; I2 = 58%).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that Methylprednisolone is safe against ARDS. It may reduce mortality and shorten the time of mechanical ventilation. However, well-designed and large-sample studies were required to fully characterize the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone against ARDS.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Case-Control Studies; Data Management; Humans; Inflammation; Methylprednisolone; Middle Aged; Mortality; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Safety; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33832136
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025408 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2017Aprepitant and fosaprepitant, commonly used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, alter cytochrome P450 activity. This systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Aprepitant and fosaprepitant, commonly used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, alter cytochrome P450 activity. This systematic review evaluates clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug interactions with aprepitant and fosaprepitant and describes adverse events ascribed to drug interactions with aprepitant or fosaprepitant.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed the literature to September 11, 2016, to identify articles evaluating drug interactions involving aprepitant/fosaprepitant. The clinical significance of each reported pharmacokinetic drug interaction was evaluated based on the United States Food and Drug Administration guidance document on conducting drug interaction studies. The probability of an adverse event reported in case reports being due to a drug interaction with aprepitant/fosaprepitant was determined using the Drug Interaction Probability Scale.
RESULTS
A total of 4377 publications were identified. Of these, 64 met inclusion eligibility criteria: 34 described pharmacokinetic drug interactions and 30 described adverse events ascribed to a drug interaction. Clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions between aprepitant/fosaprepitant and bosutinib PO, cabazitaxel IV, cyclophosphamide IV, dexamethasone PO, methylprednisolone IV, midazolam PO/IV, oxycodone PO and tolbutamide PO were identified, as were adverse events resulting from an interaction between aprepitant/fosaprepitant and alcohol, anthracyclines, ifosfamide, oxycodone, quetiapine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and warfarin.
CONCLUSIONS
The potential for a drug interaction with aprepitant and fosaprepitant should be considered when selecting antiemetic therapy.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C9 Inducers; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inhibitors; Drug Interactions; Ethanol; Humans; Injection Site Reaction; Morpholines; Nausea; Oxycodone; Quetiapine Fumarate; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Vomiting
PubMed: 28470980
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13322 -
Global Epidemiology Dec 2023COVID-19 is associated with severe pneumonia lung damage, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and mortality. In this study, we aimed to compare corticosteroids'... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 is associated with severe pneumonia lung damage, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and mortality. In this study, we aimed to compare corticosteroids' effect on the mortality risk in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase, were searched using a predesigned search strategy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had compared the corticosteroid drugs were included. The hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to summarize the effect size from the network meta-analysis (NMA).
RESULTS
Out of 329 retrieved references, 12 RCTs with 11,455 participants met the eligibility criteria in this review. The included RCTs formed one network with six treatments. In addition, five treatments in two RCTs were not connected to the network. Methylprednisolone + usual care (UC) versus UC decreased the risk of death by 0.65 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.90). Among treatments in the network the highest P-score (0.89) was related to Methylprednisolone + UC.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of this NMA it seems Methylprednisolone + UC to be the best treatment option in patients with COVID-ARDS and COVID pneumonia.
PubMed: 37637717
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloepi.2023.100116