-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2022Cataract surgery is the most common ambulatory incisional surgery performed in the USA. Cystoid macular edema (CME), the accumulation of fluid in the central retina due... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cataract surgery is the most common ambulatory incisional surgery performed in the USA. Cystoid macular edema (CME), the accumulation of fluid in the central retina due to leakage from dilated capillaries, is the most common cause of vision impairment following cataract surgery. Acute CME, defined as CME of less than four months' duration, often resolves spontaneously. CME that persists for four months or longer is termed chronic CME. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been used to treat CME. This update adds new evidence and analyses to the previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of NSAIDs in the treatment of CME following cataract surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL (2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase; PubMed; LILACS; mRCT (discontinued in 2014, last searched August 2011), ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP databases. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 20 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of NSAIDs for CME following cataract surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts, reviewed full-text publications against eligibility criteria, independently extracted data from newly included trials and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. We contacted trial authors for clarification or to request missing information. We provided a narrative synthesis of all included trials and their results. For continuous and dichotomous outcomes, we separately performed pooled analysis and reported mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) as well as the associated 95% confidence interval (CI) whenever feasible. Two review authors independently graded the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials with a total of 390 participants (393 eyes). Study participants' mean age was 72.2 years (interquartile range [IQR] 68.8 to 73.6) and 72% were women (IQR 69% to 74%). Three trials included participants with acute CME, and four included participants with chronic CME; the remaining two trials enrolled both participants with acute and chronic CME or participants with unknown CME duration. We assessed trials as having unclear (33%) or high risk of bias (67%). Visual improvement of two or more lines at the end of treatment Data from one trial in participants with acute CME show no treatment effect of topical ketorolac compared to placebo (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 8.76; 22 participants). Data from a three-arm trial in participants with acute CME demonstrate that, when compared with topical prednisolone, topical ketorolac (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.07; 17 participants) or topical ketorolac and prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.69; 17 participants) may have little or no effect on visual improvement. Results of subgroup analysis from two studies in participants with chronic CME suggest that, after treatment for 90 days or longer, NSAIDs may increase participants' likelihood of visual improvement by 1.87 fold (RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.58 to 5.22; I = 33%; 2 trials, 121 participants) relative to placebo. However, there was no evidence of treatment effects in the subgroup with two months of treatment or less (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.73; P = 0.19, I = 41%; 2 trials, 34 participants). Overall, this evidence is very low certainty. A single-study estimate in patients with mixed CME indicates that topical diclofenac may increase the likelihood of visual improvement by 40% when compared to topical ketorolac (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.94; 68 participants). However, the same trial reported no difference between the groups in mean final visual acuity in Snellen lines (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.93 to 1.73). A three-arm trial in patients with mixed CME reporting visual changes in ETDRS letters in comparisons between ketorolac and diclofenac (34 participants) or bromfenac (34 participants) suggests no evidence of effects. Overall, NSAIDs may slightly improve visual acuity in participants with mixed CME but the evidence is very uncertain. Persistence of improvement of vision one month after discontinuation of treatment One trial of participants with chronic CME tested oral indomethacin (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.60; 20 participants) and the other compared topical ketorolac to placebo (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 31.1; 26 participants). While there is no evidence of treatment effects, evidence suggests substantial between-group heterogeneity (P = 0.07, I = 69.9%; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials in patients with acute or mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improvement in leakage on fundus fluorescein angiography One three-arm trial in participants with acute CME shows that, when compared with topical prednisolone, there is no treatment benefit of topical ketorolac (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75; 17 participants) or topical ketorolac and topical prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.38; 17 participants). This evidence is very low certainty. The combined estimate from two trials in participants with chronic CME indicates NSAIDs have little to no effect over placebo on improving leakage (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.02; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the trials in patients with mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improved contrast sensitivity Very low-certainty evidence from one trial in participants with acute CME shows no treatment benefit of ketorolac (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75; 17 participants) or ketorolac and prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.69; 17 participants) compared with topical prednisolone. None of the trials in patients with chronic or mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improved central macular thickness on optical coherence tomography; measures of quality of life No included trial reported these outcomes. Adverse effects Most trials observed no differences in ocular adverse events, such as corneal toxicity or elevated intraocular pressure, between comparison groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence on effects of NSAIDs in patients with CME is very uncertain and further investigation is warranted. Our findings are limited by small sample sizes, and heterogeneity in interventions, assessments, and reporting of clinically important outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Female; Aged; Male; Macular Edema; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Ketorolac; Diclofenac; Quality of Life; Cataract; Prednisolone
PubMed: 36520144
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004239.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Methylprednisolone; Dexamethasone; Invasive Fungal Infections; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 36385229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014963.pub2 -
Respiratory Research Nov 2022Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an acute and critical disease among children and adults, and previous studies have shown that the administration of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an acute and critical disease among children and adults, and previous studies have shown that the administration of corticosteroids remains controversial. Therefore, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of corticosteroids.
METHODS
The RCTs investigating the safety and efficacy of corticosteroids in ARDS were searched from electronic databases (Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi square test and I with the inspection level of 0.1 and 50%, respectively.
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs (n = 1607) were included for analysis. Corticosteroids were found to reduce the risk of death in patients with ARDS (relative risk (RR) = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-0.87; P < 0.01). Moreover, no significant adverse events were observed, compared to placebo or standard support therapy. Further subgroup analysis showed that variables, such as adults (RR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.70-0.88; P < 0.01), non-COVID-19 (RR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.62-0.83; P < 0.01), methylprednisolone (RR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.56-0.88; P < 0.01), and hydrocortisone (RR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63-0.98; P = 0.03) were associated with 28-day mortality among patients who used corticosteroids. However, no association was found, regarding children (RR = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.01-4.10; P = 0.30).
CONCLUSION
The use of corticosteroids is an effective approach to reduce the risk of death in ARDS patients. However, this effect is associated with age, non-COVID-19 diseases, and methylprednisolone and hydrocortisone use. Therefore, evidence suggests patients with age ≥ 18 years and non-COVID-19 should be encouraged during the corticosteroid treatment. However, due to substantial differences in the use of corticosteroids among these studies, questions still remain regarding the dosage, optimal corticosteroid agent, and treatment duration in patients with ARDS.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Hydrocortisone; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Methylprednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36333729
DOI: 10.1186/s12931-022-02186-4 -
RMD Open Nov 2022To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) on the screening and prophylaxis of opportunistic and chronic infections in autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases... (Review)
Review
Systematic literature review informing the 2022 EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in adults with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) on the screening and prophylaxis of opportunistic and chronic infections in autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD).
METHODS
SLR (inception-12/2021) based on the following search domains: (1) infectious agents, (2) AIIRD, (3) immunosuppressives/immunomodulators used in rheumatology, (4) screening terms and (5) prophylaxis terms. Articles were retrieved having the terms from (1) AND (2) AND (3) plus terms from (4) OR(5). Databases searched: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
studies on postoperative infections, paediatric AIIRD, COVID-19, vaccinations and non-Εnglish literature. Study quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RoB-Cochrane for RCTs, AMSTAR2 for SLRs.
RESULTS
From 5641 studies were retrieved, 568 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, with 194 articles finally included. For tuberculosis, tuberculin skin test (TST) is affected by treatment with glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and its performance is inferior to interferon gamma release assay (IGRA). Agreement between TST and IGRA is moderate to low. For hepatitis B virus (HBV): risk of reactivation is increased in patients positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. Anti-HBcore positive patients are at low risk for reactivation but should be monitored periodically with liver function tests and/or HBV-viral load. Risk for Hepatitis C reactivation is existing but low in patients treated with biological DMARDs. For , prophylaxis treatment should be considered in patients treated with prednisolone ≥15-30 mg/day for >2-4 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS
Different screening and prophylaxis approaches are described in the literature, partly determined by individual patient and disease characteristics.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; COVID-19; Hepatitis B virus; Opportunistic Infections; Rheumatic Diseases
PubMed: 36323488
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002726 -
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2022The pharmacological management of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in children remains a challenge due to limited effective management options and the absence of approved... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The pharmacological management of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in children remains a challenge due to limited effective management options and the absence of approved drugs to manage the core symptoms. This review aims to describe and highlight effective pharmacological management options employed in managing the core symptoms and comorbidities of ASD from eligible studies over the past decade.
METHODS
A search of databases; PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and PsychInfo for pharmacotherapeutic options for ASD was conducted in this systematic review. Duplicate studies were removed by utilizing the EndNote citation manager. The studies were subsequently screened independently by two authors. Eligible studies from 01 January 2012 to 01 January 2022 were included based on established eligibility criteria. A narrative synthesis was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
The systematic review provides a comprehensive list of effective management options for ASD comorbidities and core symptoms from 33 included studies. The management options for ASD comorbidities; insomnia, hyperactivity, irritability and aggression, gastrointestinal disturbances, and subclinical epileptiform discharges, were reviewed. Risperidone, aripiprazole, methylphenidate, guanfacine, levetiracetam, and atomoxetine are examples of effective pharmacological drugs against ASD comorbidities. Additionally, this review identified various drugs that improve the core symptoms of ASD and include but are not limited to, bumetanide, buspirone, intranasal oxytocin, intranasal vasopressin, and prednisolone.
CONCLUSION
This review has successfully summarized the pharmacological advancements made in the past decade to manage ASD. Although there is still no pharmacological cure for ASD core symptoms or additional drugs that have obtained regulatory approval for use in ASD, the availability of promising pharmacological agents are under evaluation and study.
PubMed: 35968512
DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S371013 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022Chronic histiocytic intervillositis (CHI) is a rare placental lesion with a high recurrence rate and poor perinatal outcomes. There are currently limited guidelines... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic histiocytic intervillositis (CHI) is a rare placental lesion with a high recurrence rate and poor perinatal outcomes. There are currently limited guidelines regarding the diagnosis of this condition in the index pregnancy and treatment where recurrence is suspected.
OBJECTIVE
The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the perinatal outcomes of pregnancies affected by chronic histiocytic intervillositis and to what extent they can be improved with treatment. The secondary objective was to assess the relationship between CHI lesion severity and pregnancy loss.
METHODS
A systematic search of Ovid Embase, Web of Science, Science Direct, PubMed, Ovid Medline, Google Scholar and CINAHL was carried out. Case reports, cohort, case-control and randomised controlled trials (RCT) detailing the perinatal outcomes of CHI pregnancies, both treated and untreated, were included.
RESULTS
No RCTs were identified. However, in a review population of 659 pregnancies, with additional 7 in case reports, CHI treatments included aspirin, prednisone, prednisolone, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), hydroxychloroquine and adalimumab. A descriptive synthesis of data found mixed results for treatments in relation to live birth, miscarriage and fetal growth restriction outcomes. Furthermore, quantitative synthesis of 38 pregnancies revealed a non-significant improvement in live birth rate with CHI targeted treatment (OR 1.79 [95% CI 0.33-9.61] (p=0.50), while meta-analysis of CHI severity in line with pregnancy loss, in a sample of 231 pregnancies, revealed lower odds of pregnancy loss with less severe lesions (OR: 0.17 [0.03-0.80], p=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis reinforce notions surrounding the insufficient evidence for CHI treatment. It also strengthens previous hypotheses detailing the positive association between CHI lesion severity and odds of pregnancy loss. Aspirin, LMWH, prednisolone, hydroxychloroquine and adalimumab are candidates with varying levels of weak to moderate evidence supporting their use. Further prospective research is required to obtain robust evidence pertaining to treatment safety and efficacy and optimal drug regimes.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[website], identifier CRD42021237604.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Adalimumab; Aspirin; Female; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Prednisolone; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35937841
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.945543 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2022During the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 has ignited worldwide debate. Previous systematic reviews,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
During the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 has ignited worldwide debate. Previous systematic reviews, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective observational studies, found that corticosteroids have beneficial effects in treating COVID-19.
AIM
This systematic review and meta-analysis only included RCTs to assess the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
Comprehensive research strategies (PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Coherence Library) were used to search for RCTs from December 2019 to January 2021.
RESULTS
Five RCTs were included with 7,235 patients, of which 2,508 patients were receiving corticosteroid treatments (dexamethasone or methylprednisolone), and 4,727 received standard care. The primary outcome was mortality within 28 days. The use of corticosteroids decreased the 28-day mortality of patients with COVID-19, but the findings were not statistically significant (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06, = 0.24). The secondary outcome was the duration of hospitalization; no differences were found between the corticosteroid and standard care groups. However, corticosteroids were associated with a higher hospital discharge rate than standard treatment, but the result was not statistically significant (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.95-1.96, = 0.09).
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest that corticosteroids are comparable to standard care in terms of safety in treating COVID-19. Corticosteroids showed greater efficacy than standard care; however, the effect was minimal.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Humans; Methylprednisolone; Pandemics; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35937252
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.847695 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022The aim of this research is to discuss the research status, hotspots, frontiers and development trends in the field of adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD) based on...
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this research is to discuss the research status, hotspots, frontiers and development trends in the field of adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD) based on bibliometrics and visual analysis by CiteSpace software.
METHODS
The relevant research articles on AOSD from 1921 to 2021 were retrieved from the Scopus database. CiteSpace software was used to form a visual knowledge map and conduct analysis for the countries/regions, journals, authors, keywords, clusters, research hotspots and frontiers of the included articles.
RESULTS
There were 2,373 articles included, and the number of articles published during 1921-2021 is increasing. The country with the highest number of articles published was Japan (355, 14.96%), followed by the United States (329, 13.86%) and France (215, 9.06%). The author with the highest number of publications is Ansell, Barbara M. (30, 1.26%), and the author with the highest co-citation frequency is Yamaguchi, Masaya (703). is the journal with the highest publication frequency. The top five cluster groups were "joint", "differential diagnosis", "prednisolone", "methotrexate" and "macrophage activation syndrome". The diagnosis, treatment and pathogenesis of AOSD form the main research fields, and prognosis and complications are the research hotspots and trends.
CONCLUSIONS
The global research field in AOSD has expanded in the past 100 years. The complications and new pathogenesis of AOSD are hotspots in this field and need further study in the future.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Humans; Macrophage Activation Syndrome; Methotrexate; Prognosis; Still's Disease, Adult-Onset; United States
PubMed: 35924251
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.950641 -
Developmental Medicine and Child... Nov 2022We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to obtain comparative effectiveness estimates and rankings of non-surgical interventions used to treat... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to obtain comparative effectiveness estimates and rankings of non-surgical interventions used to treat infantile spasms.
METHOD
All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including children 2 months to 3 years of age with infantile spasms (with hypsarrhythmia or hypsarrhythmia variants on electroencephalography) receiving appropriate first-line medical treatment were included. Electroclinical and clinical remissions within 1 month of starting treatment were analyzed.
RESULTS
Twenty-two RCTs comparing first-line treatments for infantile spasms were reviewed; of these, 17 were included in the NMA. Both frequentist and Bayesian network rankings for electroclinical remission showed that high dose adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), methylprednisolone, low dose ACTH and magnesium sulfate (MgSO ) combination, low dose ACTH, and high dose prednisolone were most likely to be the 'best' interventions, although these were not significantly different from each other. For clinical remission, low dose ACTH/MgSO combination, high dose ACTH (with/without vitamin B ), high dose prednisolone, and low dose ACTH were 'best'.
INTERPRETATION
Treatments including ACTH and high dose prednisolone are more effective in achieving electroclinical and clinical remissions for infantile spasms.
WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS
Adrenocorticotropic hormone and high dose prednisolone are more effective than other medications for infantile spasms. Symptomatic etiology decreases the likelihood of remission even after adjusting for treatment lag.
Topics: Adrenocorticotropic Hormone; Anticonvulsants; Child; Humans; Infant; Magnesium Sulfate; Methylprednisolone; Network Meta-Analysis; Spasms, Infantile; Treatment Outcome; Vitamins
PubMed: 35765990
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.15330 -
International Journal of Ophthalmology 2022To investigate effects of anti-TNF biologic drugs on uveitis severity (comparing visual acuity logMAR levels) in Behçet patients.
AIM
To investigate effects of anti-TNF biologic drugs on uveitis severity (comparing visual acuity logMAR levels) in Behçet patients.
METHODS
Three databases PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science were searched for qualified papers focusing on the anti-TNF-α factors treatment in Behçet's disease (BD)-associated uveitis. Studies that were designed pre and post anti-TNF drug treatment, were selected. After determining the search strategy for this study, the relevant data were extracted.
RESULTS
The initial search was performed in the target databases and a total of about 1458 articles were found. Fifteen articles were selected for systematic review and only 12 of them had inclusion criteria for Meta-analysis (with visual acuity data). The mean dose of prednisolone before and after biological treatments was reported in 5 studies (28.56 and 7.56 mg/kg, respectively). Also, the preliminary results indicate a significant reduction in visual acuity logMAR levels (MD=-1.5 IU/L, 95%CI: -2.1, -0.01).
CONCLUSION
Biological drugs significantly reduce the dose of prednisolone and affect visual acuity values.
PubMed: 35601158
DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2022.05.19