-
European Journal of Endocrinology Sep 2023Anorexia nervosa is a primary psychiatric disorder characterized by self-induced negative energy balance. A number of hormonal responses and adaptations occur in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Anorexia nervosa is a primary psychiatric disorder characterized by self-induced negative energy balance. A number of hormonal responses and adaptations occur in response to starvation and low body weight including changes in adrenocortical hormones. Our objective was to systematically review adrenocortical hormone levels in anorexia nervosa.
DESIGN/METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that reported at least one adrenocortical hormone, including dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), DHEA-sulphate (DHEA-S), progesterone, 17-hydroxyprogesterone, pregnenolone, cortisol (serum, urine, cerebrospinal fluid, and hair sample), aldosterone, androstenedione, and testosterone in patients with anorexia nervosa and normal-weight healthy controls from inception until October 2021. Means and standard deviations for each hormone were extracted from the studies to calculate a mean difference (MD). A pooled MD was then calculated by combining MDs of each study using the random-effects model.
RESULTS
We included a total of 101 studies with over 2500 females with anorexia nervosa. Mean cortisol levels were significantly higher in anorexia nervosa as compared to normal-weight controls for multiple forms of measurement, including morning cortisol, 12-hour and 24-hour pooled serum cortisol, 24-hour urine cortisol, and after an overnight dexamethasone suppression test. In contrast, mean serum total testosterone and DHEA-S levels were significantly lower among patients with anorexia nervosa.
CONCLUSIONS
Women with anorexia nervosa have higher cortisol levels and lower DHEA-S and testosterone levels compared to women without anorexia nervosa. This finding is important to consider when evaluating low-weight women for disorders involving the adrenal axis, especially Cushing's syndrome.
Topics: Humans; Female; Anorexia Nervosa; Hydrocortisone; Aldosterone; Progesterone; Dehydroepiandrosterone Sulfate
PubMed: 37669399
DOI: 10.1093/ejendo/lvad123 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is the most common muscular dystrophy of childhood. Untreated, this incurable disease, which has an X-linked recessive inheritance, is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is the most common muscular dystrophy of childhood. Untreated, this incurable disease, which has an X-linked recessive inheritance, is characterised by muscle wasting and loss of walking ability, leading to complete wheelchair dependence by 13 years of age. Prolongation of walking is a major aim of treatment. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicates that corticosteroids significantly improve muscle strength and function in boys with DMD in the short term (six months), and strength at two years (two-year data on function are very limited). Corticosteroids, now part of care recommendations for DMD, are largely in routine use, although questions remain over their ability to prolong walking, when to start treatment, longer-term balance of benefits versus harms, and choice of corticosteroid or regimen.We have extended the scope of this updated review to include comparisons of different corticosteroids and dosing regimens.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of corticosteroids on prolongation of walking ability, muscle strength, functional ability, and quality of life in DMD; to address the question of whether benefit is maintained over the longer term (more than two years); to assess adverse events; and to compare efficacy and adverse effects of different corticosteroid preparations and regimens.
SEARCH METHODS
On 16 February 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, and LILACS. We wrote to authors of published studies and other experts. We checked references in identified trials, handsearched journal abstracts, and searched trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered RCTs or quasi-RCTs of corticosteroids (e.g. prednisone, prednisolone, and deflazacort) given for a minimum of three months to patients with a definite DMD diagnosis. We considered comparisons of different corticosteroids, regimens, and corticosteroids versus placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The review authors followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 12 studies (667 participants) and two new ongoing studies for inclusion. Six RCTs were newly included at this update and important non-randomised cohort studies have also been published. Some important studies remain unpublished and not all published studies provide complete outcome data.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE
one two-year deflazacort RCT (n = 28) used prolongation of ambulation as an outcome measure but data were not adequate for drawing conclusions.
SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES
meta-analyses showed that corticosteroids (0.75 mg/kg/day prednisone or prednisolone) improved muscle strength and function versus placebo over six months (moderate quality evidence from up to four RCTs). Evidence from single trials showed 0.75 mg/kg/day superior to 0.3 mg/kg/day on most strength and function measures, with little evidence of further benefit at 1.5 mg/kg/day. Improvements were seen in time taken to rise from the floor (Gowers' time), timed walk, four-stair climbing time, ability to lift weights, leg function grade, and forced vital capacity. One new RCT (n = 66), reported better strength, function and quality of life with daily 0.75 mg/kg/day prednisone at 12 months. One RCT (n = 28) showed that deflazacort stabilised muscle strength versus placebo at two years, but timed function test results were too imprecise for conclusions to be drawn.One double-blind RCT (n = 64), largely at low risk of bias, compared daily prednisone (0.75 mg/kg/day) with weekend-only prednisone (5 mg/kg/weekend day), finding no overall difference in muscle strength and function over 12 months (moderate to low quality evidence). Two small RCTs (n = 52) compared daily prednisone 0.75 mg/kg/day with daily deflazacort 0.9 mg/kg/day, but study methods limited our ability to compare muscle strength or function.
ADVERSE EFFECTS
excessive weight gain, behavioural abnormalities, cushingoid appearance, and excessive hair growth were all previously shown to be more common with corticosteroids than placebo; we assessed the quality of evidence (for behavioural changes and weight gain) as moderate. Hair growth and cushingoid features were more frequent at 0.75 mg/kg/day than 0.3 mg/kg/day prednisone. Comparing daily versus weekend-only prednisone, both groups gained weight with no clear difference in body mass index (BMI) or in behavioural changes (low quality evidence for both outcomes, one study); the weekend-only group had a greater linear increase in height. Very low quality evidence suggested less weight gain with deflazacort than with prednisone at 12 months, and no difference in behavioural abnormalities. Data are insufficient to assess the risk of fractures or cataracts for any comparison.Non-randomised studies support RCT evidence in showing improved functional benefit from corticosteroids. These studies suggest sustained benefit for up to 66 months. Adverse effects were common, although generally manageable. According to a large comparative longitudinal study of daily or intermittent (10 days on, 10 days off) corticosteroid for a mean period of four years, a daily regimen prolongs ambulation and improves functional scores over the age of seven, but with a greater frequency of side effects than an intermittent regimen.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate quality evidence from RCTs indicates that corticosteroid therapy in DMD improves muscle strength and function in the short term (twelve months), and strength up to two years. On the basis of the evidence available for strength and function outcomes, our confidence in the effect estimate for the efficacy of a 0.75 mg/kg/day dose of prednisone or above is fairly secure. There is no evidence other than from non-randomised trials to establish the effect of corticosteroids on prolongation of walking. In the short term, adverse effects were significantly more common with corticosteroids than placebo, but not clinically severe. A weekend-only prednisone regimen is as effective as daily prednisone in the short term (12 months), according to low to moderate quality evidence from a single trial, with no clear difference in BMI (low quality evidence). Very low quality evidence indicates that deflazacort causes less weight gain than prednisone after a year's treatment. We cannot evaluate long-term benefits and hazards of corticosteroid treatment or intermittent regimens from published RCTs. Non-randomised studies support the conclusions of functional benefits, but also identify clinically significant adverse effects of long-term treatment, and a possible divergence of efficacy in daily and weekend-only regimens in the longer term. These benefits and adverse effects have implications for future research and clinical practice.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Male; Muscle Strength; Muscular Dystrophy, Duchenne; Prednisolone; Prednisone; Pregnenediones; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Walking
PubMed: 27149418
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003725.pub4 -
Agri : Agri (Algoloji) Dernegi'nin... Jul 2017Migraine is a highly prevalent and disabling disorder. Because stress appears to be a prominent trigger of this condition and cortisol is a well-established stress... (Review)
Review
Migraine is a highly prevalent and disabling disorder. Because stress appears to be a prominent trigger of this condition and cortisol is a well-established stress hormone, we performed a search on Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify clinical studies that assessed cortisol levels in migraineurs. Four cross-section studies, one observational study, and three both cross-sectional and observational studies were finally included in our analysis. The heterogeneity was modest for the sample size (49.8%) but was remarkably high for a sample matrix (66.0%), thus precluding the possibility to meta-analyze the data. In six of the seven cross-sectional studies, cortisol levels did not differ between the cases and controls. With regard to the four observational trials, both nitroglycerine and human corticotropin-releasing hormone but not m-chlorophenylpiperazine were effective in generating a more prominent cortisol release in migraineurs than in controls. In a fourth observation trial, salivary cortisol did not differ during the migraine attack and during the migraine free-period. In conclusion, even if altered corticotrope responsiveness exists in migraineurs, it appears to be irrelevant in the pathogenesis of migraine.
Topics: Humans; Hydrocortisone; Migraine Disorders; Saliva
PubMed: 29039159
DOI: 10.5505/agri.2017.25348 -
Lancet (London, England) Mar 2021Preterm birth is a global health priority. Using a progestogen during high-risk pregnancy could reduce preterm birth and adverse neonatal outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Preterm birth is a global health priority. Using a progestogen during high-risk pregnancy could reduce preterm birth and adverse neonatal outcomes.
METHODS
We did a systematic review of randomised trials comparing vaginal progesterone, intramuscular 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), or oral progesterone with control, or with each other, in asymptomatic women at risk of preterm birth. We identified published and unpublished trials that completed primary data collection before July 30, 2016, (12 months before data collection began), by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Maternity and Infant Care Database, and relevant trial registers between inception and July 30, 2019. Trials of progestogen to prevent early miscarriage or immediately-threatened preterm birth were excluded. Individual participant data were requested from investigators of eligible trials. Outcomes included preterm birth, early preterm birth, and mid-trimester birth. Adverse neonatal sequelae associated with early births were assessed using a composite of serious neonatal complications, and individually. Adverse maternal outcomes were investigated as a composite and individually. Individual participant data were checked and risk of bias assessed independently by two researchers. Primary meta-analyses used one-stage generalised linear mixed models that incorporated random effects to allow for heterogeneity across trials. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42017068299.
FINDINGS
Initial searches identified 47 eligible trials. Individual participant data were available for 30 of these trials. An additional trial was later included in a targeted update. Data were therefore available from a total of 31 trials (11 644 women and 16185 offspring). Trials in singleton pregnancies included mostly women with previous spontaneous preterm birth or short cervix. Preterm birth before 34 weeks was reduced in such women who received vaginal progesterone (nine trials, 3769 women; relative risk [RR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·68-0·90), 17-OHPC (five trials, 3053 women; 0·83, 0·68-1·01), and oral progesterone (two trials, 181 women; 0·60, 0·40-0·90). Results for other birth and neonatal outcomes were consistently favourable, but less certain. A possible increase in maternal complications was suggested, but this was uncertain. We identified no consistent evidence of treatment interaction with any participant characteristics examined, although analyses within subpopulations questioned efficacy in women who did not have a short cervix. Trials in multifetal pregnancies mostly included women without additional risk factors. For twins, vaginal progesterone did not reduce preterm birth before 34 weeks (eight trials, 2046 women: RR 1·01, 95% CI 0·84-1·20) nor did 17-OHPC for twins or triplets (eight trials, 2253 women: 1·04, 0·92-1·18). Preterm premature rupture of membranes was increased with 17-OHPC exposure in multifetal gestations (rupture <34 weeks RR 1·59, 95% CI 1·15-2·22), but we found no consistent evidence of benefit or harm for other outcomes with either vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC.
INTERPRETATION
Vaginal progesterone and 17-OHPC both reduced birth before 34 weeks' gestation in high-risk singleton pregnancies. Given increased underlying risk, absolute risk reduction is greater for women with a short cervix, hence treatment might be most useful for these women. Evidence for oral progesterone is insufficient to support its use. Shared decision making with woman with high-risk singleton pregnancies should discuss an individual's risk, potential benefits, harms and practicalities of intervention. Treatment of unselected multifetal pregnancies with a progestogen is not supported by the evidence.
FUNDING
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Topics: 17-alpha-Hydroxyprogesterone; Administration, Intravaginal; Decision Making, Shared; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Injections, Intramuscular; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy, High-Risk; Premature Birth; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 33773630
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00217-8 -
Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Respiratory morbidity including respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is a serious complication of preterm birth and the primary cause of early neonatal mortality and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Respiratory morbidity including respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is a serious complication of preterm birth and the primary cause of early neonatal mortality and disability. Despite early evidence indicating a beneficial effect of antenatal corticosteroids on fetal lung maturation and widespread recommendations to use this treatment in women at risk of preterm delivery, some uncertainty remains about their effectiveness particularly with regard to their use in lower-resource settings, different gestational ages and high-risk obstetric groups such as women with hypertension or multiple pregnancies. This updated review (which supersedes an earlier review Crowley 1996) was first published in 2006 and subsequently updated in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of administering a course of corticosteroids to women prior to anticipated preterm birth (before 37 weeks of pregnancy) on fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, maternal mortality and morbidity, and on the child in later life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (3 September 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov, the databases that contribute to the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 September 2020), and reference lists of the retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all randomised controlled comparisons of antenatal corticosteroid administration with placebo, or with no treatment, given to women with a singleton or multiple pregnancy, prior to anticipated preterm delivery (elective, or following rupture of membranes or spontaneous labour), regardless of other co-morbidity, for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, evaluated trustworthiness based on predefined criteria developed by Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth, extracted data and checked them for accuracy, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes included perinatal death, neonatal death, RDS, intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), birthweight, developmental delay in childhood and maternal death.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 studies (11,272 randomised women and 11,925 neonates) from 20 countries. Ten trials (4422 randomised women) took place in lower- or middle-resource settings. We removed six trials from the analysis that were included in the previous version of the review; this review only includes trials that meet our pre-defined trustworthiness criteria. In 19 trials the women received a single course of steroids. In the remaining eight trials repeated courses may have been prescribed. Fifteen trials were judged to be at low risk of bias, two had a high risk of bias in two or more domains and we ten trials had a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding (placebo was not used in the control arm. Overall, the certainty of evidence was moderate to high, but it was downgraded for IVH due to indirectness; for developmental delay due to risk of bias and for maternal adverse outcomes (death, chorioamnionitis and endometritis) due to imprecision. Neonatal/child outcomes Antenatal corticosteroids reduce the risk of: - perinatal death (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.93; 9833 infants; 14 studies; high-certainty evidence; 2.3% fewer, 95% CI 1.1% to 3.6% fewer), - neonatal death (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87; 10,609 infants; 22 studies; high-certainty evidence; 2.6% fewer, 95% CI 1.5% to 3.6% fewer), - respiratory distress syndrome (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.78; 11,183 infants; studies = 26; high-certainty evidence; 4.3% fewer, 95% CI 3.2% to 5.2% fewer). Antenatal corticosteroids probably reduce the risk of IVH (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; 8475 infants; 12 studies; moderate-certainty evidence; 1.4% fewer, 95% CI 0.8% to1.8% fewer), and probably have little to no effect on birthweight (mean difference (MD) -14.02 g, 95% CI -33.79 to 5.76; 9551 infants; 19 studies; high-certainty evidence). Antenatal corticosteroids probably lead to a reduction in developmental delay in childhood (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 600 children; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence; 3.8% fewer, 95% CI 0.2% to 5.7% fewer). Maternal outcomes Antenatal corticosteroids probably result in little to no difference in maternal death (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.89; 6244 women; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence; 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 0.1% fewer to 0.5% more), chorioamnionitis (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.08; 8374 women; 15 studies; moderate-certainty evidence; 0.5% fewer, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 0.3% more), and endometritis (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.58; 6764 women; 10 studies; moderate-certainty; 0.3% more, 95% CI 0.3% fewer to 1.1% more) The wide 95% CIs in all of these outcomes include possible benefit and possible harm.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from this updated review supports the continued use of a single course of antenatal corticosteroids to accelerate fetal lung maturation in women at risk of preterm birth. Treatment with antenatal corticosteroids reduces the risk of perinatal death, neonatal death and RDS and probably reduces the risk of IVH. This evidence is robust, regardless of resource setting (high, middle or low). Further research should focus on variations in the treatment regimen, effectiveness of the intervention in specific understudied subgroups such as multiple pregnancies and other high-risk obstetric groups, and the risks and benefits in the very early or very late preterm periods. Additionally, outcomes from existing trials with follow-up into childhood and adulthood are needed in order to investigate any longer-term effects of antenatal corticosteroids. We encourage authors of previous studies to provide further information which may answer any remaining questions about the use of antenatal corticosteroids without the need for further randomised controlled trials. Individual patient data meta-analyses from published trials are likely to provide answers for most of the remaining clinical uncertainties.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Betamethasone; Bias; Cerebral Intraventricular Hemorrhage; Developmental Disabilities; Dexamethasone; Female; Fetal Organ Maturity; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Infant, Newborn; Lung; Maternal Death; Perinatal Death; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn
PubMed: 33368142
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004454.pub4 -
European Journal of Gastroenterology &... Feb 2018The gold-standard treatment for autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a prednisone/azathioprine combination. However, subgroups of patients may be unresponsive to this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The gold-standard treatment for autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a prednisone/azathioprine combination. However, subgroups of patients may be unresponsive to this treatment. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of second-line immunosuppressive therapies for AIH through a systematic review and meta-analysis in adult patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
The systematic review was registered at the PROSPERO platform under number 42015019831. Databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Lilacs, Cochrane, and Scielo were searched. The keywords used were 'Hepatitis, Autoimmune' and descriptors terms (MeSH and DeCS). These terms were linked with each immunosuppressant of interest.
RESULTS
A total of 1532 studies were identified. Of these, 1492 were excluded on the basis of title and abstract reading. Among the 40 studies retrieved for detailed full-text analysis, a total of 15 fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the analysis. The most studied second-line immunosuppressive was mycophenolate mofetil (MM). The mean reduction of aminotransferases was observed in 94.3% with tacrolimus/prednisone, 91.3% for cyclosporine/prednisone, 85.5% for budesonide, and 78.7% MM/prednisone. For MM/prednisone, the mean rate of histological remission was 88.6%, liver transplantation was indicated in 11.4%, and the mortality rate was 7.2%. Limitations were also present, such as the lack of randomized-controlled trials and prospective studies, the small number of patients, and the heterogeneity between remission criteria.
CONCLUSION
This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the second-line imunossupressant therapy for AIH. The most studied second-line immunosuppressive is the MM, with a reasonable histological remission. The use of combined tacrolimus/prednisone was the most effective for the normalization of aminotransferases.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Budesonide; Cyclophosphamide; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hepatitis, Autoimmune; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Mycophenolic Acid; Prednisone; Retreatment; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 29227329
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001019 -
Domestic Animal Endocrinology Oct 2016Salivary cortisol is widely used as an indicator of stress and welfare in canine research. However, much remains unclear about the basic features of this hormone marker... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Salivary cortisol is widely used as an indicator of stress and welfare in canine research. However, much remains unclear about the basic features of this hormone marker in domestic dogs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine a reference range for cortisol concentration in the saliva of dogs and examine how canine characteristics, environmental effects and experimental considerations relate to salivary cortisol concentrations. A systematic review of literature databases and conference proceedings from 1992 to 2012 identified 61 peer-reviewed studies using domestic dog salivary cortisol. Researchers were contacted via email, and 31 raw data sets representing a total of 5,153 samples from 1,205 dogs were shared. Meta-analysis provided a cortisol concentration range of 0 to 33.79 μg/dL (mean 0.45 μg/dL, SEM 0.13). Significant effects (P < 0.05) were found for sex and neuter status, age, regular living environment, time in environment before testing, testing environment, owner presence during testing, and collection media. Significant effects were not found for dog breed, body weight, dog type, coat color, assay type, exercise, eating, or use of salivary stimulant. Care should be taken when using cortisol studies for dogs at a group or population level as there is a large amount of intraindividual and interindividual variability and external variables could influence salivary cortisol concentration. This analysis highlights the importance of carefully controlling experimental design to compare samples within and between individual dogs, as well as establishing and using best practices for saliva collection. Caution should be exercised in comparing different studies, as the results could be the reflection of a plethora of factors.
Topics: Animals; Dogs; Hydrocortisone; Saliva; Stress, Physiological
PubMed: 27315597
DOI: 10.1016/j.domaniend.2016.04.003 -
Psychoneuroendocrinology Sep 2018To perform a qualitative synthesis (systematic review) and quantitative analysis (meta-analysis) to summarize the evidence regarding the relationship between basal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a qualitative synthesis (systematic review) and quantitative analysis (meta-analysis) to summarize the evidence regarding the relationship between basal cortisol levels and metabolic syndrome (MetS) in adults.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases for observational studies on the association between basal cortisol levels and MetS. The quality of individual studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa score. A random effects model was used to report pooled quantitative results and the I statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. Egger's and Begg's tests were used to evaluate publication bias.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies (19 cross-sectional and seven case-control) met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The majority was classified as having a low risk of bias and used established criteria for the diagnosis of MetS. Twenty-one studies provided data on basal cortisol levels as continuous values and were included in the meta-analysis; they comprised 35 analyses and 11,808 subjects. Pooled results showed no significant difference in basal cortisol levels between subjects with and without MetS (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]=-0.11 to 0.14). There was high heterogeneity between the studies when all comparisons were considered (I = 83.1%;p < 0.001). Paradoxically, meta-analysis of studies evaluating saliva samples showed no significantly lower basal cortisol levels among subjects with MetS (SMD=-0.18, 95% CI=-0.37 to 0.01), whereas those studies that evaluated serum samples (SMD = 0.11, 95% CI=-0.02 to 0.24) and urine samples (SMD = 0.73, 95% CI=-0.40 to 1.86) showed no significantly higher basal cortisol levels among subjects with MetS. In the subgroup and meta-regression analyses, a significant difference in basal cortisol levels was observed according to study design, population base, age, gender, cortisol level assessment method, and study quality.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis does not reveal any association between basal cortisol levels and MetS based on results of observational studies. The results of a random-effect meta-analysis showed no significant difference in basal cortisol levels between subjects with and without MetS. The present findings should be considered in order to help future studies.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Case-Control Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Hypothalamo-Hypophyseal System; Male; Metabolic Syndrome; Middle Aged; Pituitary-Adrenal System
PubMed: 29800780
DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.05.023 -
BMC Infectious Diseases May 2023The preferred agent of glucocorticoids in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The preferred agent of glucocorticoids in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19.
METHODS
By searching the electronic literature database including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science, the clinical studies comparing methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in the treatment of severe COVID-19 were selected according to the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. Relevant data were extracted and literature quality was assessed. The primary outcome was short-term mortality. The secondary outcomes were the rates of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation, PaO/FiO ratio, plasma levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, hospital stay, and the incidence of severe adverse events. Statistical pooling applied the fixed or random effects model and reported as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1.0.
RESULTS
Twelve clinical studies were eligible, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine non-RCTs. A total of 2506 patients with COVID-19 were analyzed, of which 1242 (49.6%) received methylprednisolone and 1264 (50.4%) received dexamethasone treatment. In general, the heterogeneity across studies was significant, and the equivalent doses of methylprednisolone were higher than that of dexamethasone. Our meta-analysis showed that methylprednisolone treatment in severe COVID-19 patients was related to significantly reduced plasma ferritin and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio compared with dexamethasone, and that no significant difference in other clinical outcomes between the two groups was found. However, subgroup analyses of RCTs demonstrated that methylprednisolone treatment was associated with reduced short-term mortality, and decreased CRP level compared with dexamethasone. Moreover, subgroup analyses observed that severe COVID-19 patients treated with a moderate dose (2 mg/kg/day) of methylprednisolone were related to a better prognosis than those treated with dexamethasone.
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed that compared with dexamethasone, methylprednisolone could reduce the systemic inflammatory response in severe COVID-19, and its effect was equivalent to that of dexamethasone on other clinical outcomes. It should be noted that the equivalent dose of methylprednisolone used was higher. Based on the evidence of subgroup analyses of RCTs, methylprednisolone, preferably at a moderate dose, has an advantage over dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19.
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; Methylprednisolone; COVID-19; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 37147596
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08280-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease leading to nonscarring hair loss on the scalp or body. There are different treatments including immunosuppressants, hair growth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease leading to nonscarring hair loss on the scalp or body. There are different treatments including immunosuppressants, hair growth stimulants, and contact immunotherapy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of the treatments for alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), and alopecia universalis (AU) in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched up to July 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated classical immunosuppressants, biologics, small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants, and other therapies in paediatric and adult populations with AA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard procedures expected by Cochrane including assessment of risks of bias using RoB2 and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcomes were short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks of follow-up), and incidence of serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks of follow-up) and health-related quality of life. We could not perform a network meta-analysis as very few trials compared the same treatments. We presented direct comparisons and made a narrative description of the findings.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 63 studies that tested 47 different treatments in 4817 randomised participants. All trials used a parallel-group design except one that used a cross-over design. The mean sample size was 78 participants. All trials recruited outpatients from dermatology clinics. Participants were between 2 and 74 years old. The trials included patients with AA (n = 25), AT (n = 1), AU (n = 1), mixed cases (n = 31), and unclear types of alopecia (n = 4). Thirty-three out of 63 studies (52.3%) reported the proportion of participants achieving short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks). Forty-seven studies (74.6%) reported serious adverse events and only one study (1.5%) reported health-related quality of life. Five studies (7.9%) reported the proportion of participants with long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks). Amongst the variety of interventions found, we prioritised some groups of interventions for their relevance to clinical practice: systemic therapies (classical immunosuppressants, biologics, and small molecule inhibitors), and local therapies (intralesional corticosteroids, topical small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants and cryotherapy). Considering only the prioritised interventions, 14 studies from 12 comparisons reported short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% and 22 studies from 10 comparisons reported serious adverse events (18 reported zero events and 4 reported at least one). One study (1 comparison) reported quality of life, and two studies (1 comparison) reported long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%. For the main outcome of short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral prednisolone or cyclosporine versus placebo (RR 4.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 38.27; 79 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), intralesional betamethasone or triamcinolone versus placebo (RR 13.84, 95% CI 0.87 to 219.76; 231 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), oral ruxolitinib versus oral tofacitinib (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.52; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutil ester versus placebo (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very-low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutyl ester versus topical minoxidil (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone plus topical minoxidil versus diphencyprone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.44; 30 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), topical minoxidil 1% and 2% versus placebo (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.96; 202 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and cryotherapy versus fractional CO2 laser (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.86; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests oral betamethasone may increase short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to prednisolone or azathioprine (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.88; 80 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between subcutaneous dupilumab and placebo in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (RR 3.59, 95% CI 0.19 to 66.22; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) as well as between topical ruxolitinib and placebo (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.89; 78 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). However, baricitinib results in an increase in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% when compared to placebo (RR 7.54, 95% CI 3.90 to 14.58; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence). For the incidence of serious adverse events, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical ruxolitinib versus placebo (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.94; 78 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib and apremilast may result in little to no difference in the incidence of serious adverse events versus placebo (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.60; 1224 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). The same result is observed for subcutaneous dupilumab compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.07 to 36.11; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). For health-related quality of life, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral cyclosporine compared to placebo (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.07; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib results in an increase in long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to placebo (RR 8.49, 95% CI 4.70 to 15.34; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence). Regarding the risk of bias, the most relevant issues were the lack of details about randomisation and allocation concealment, the limited efforts to keep patients and assessors unaware of the assigned intervention, and losses to follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that treatment with baricitinib results in an increase in short- and long-term hair regrowth compared to placebo. Although we found inconclusive results for the risk of serious adverse effects with baricitinib, the reported small incidence of serious adverse events in the baricitinib arm should be balanced with the expected benefits. We also found that the impact of other treatments on hair regrowth is very uncertain. Evidence for health-related quality of life is still scant.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Child, Preschool; Adolescent; Young Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Alopecia Areata; Minoxidil; Network Meta-Analysis; Immunosuppressive Agents; Prednisolone; Betamethasone; Cyclosporins; Biological Products
PubMed: 37870096
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013719.pub2