-
BMC Anesthesiology Feb 2024To systematically review the evidence about the effect of haloperidol on postoperative delirium in elderly patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the evidence about the effect of haloperidol on postoperative delirium in elderly patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were used to find concerned studies for meta-analysis. The main outcome was the incidence of postoperative delirium, and the secondary outcomes were side effects of haloperidol and the length of hospital stay. The meta-analyses were conducted using the Review Manager Version 5.1. This study was conducted based on the PRISMA statement.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs (1569 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significant difference in the incidence of postoperative delirium between haloperidol and control groups (OR = 0.62, 95%CI 0.48-0.80, P = 0.0002, I = 20%). In addition, side effects of haloperidol and the duration of hospitalization were comparable (OR = 0.58, 95%CI 0.25-1.35, P = 0.21, I = 0%; MD =-0.01, 95%CI -0.16-0.15, P = 0.92, I = 28%). Subgroup analysis implied the effect of haloperidol on postoperative delirium might vary with the dose (5 mg daily: OR = 0.40, 95%CI 0.22-0.71, P = 0.002, I = 0%; <5 mg daily: OR = 0.72, 95%CI 0.42-1.23, P = 0.23, I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis revealed perioperative application of haloperidol could decrease the occurrence of postoperative delirium without obvious side effects in elderly people, and high-dose haloperidol (5 mg daily) possessed a greater positive effect.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Haloperidol; Antipsychotic Agents; Emergence Delirium; Delirium; Hospitalization
PubMed: 38308229
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02434-8 -
BMJ Open Respiratory Research Jan 2024Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the effects of corticosteroids on the treatment of severe community-acquired... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the effects of corticosteroids on the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of different corticosteroids on patients who were hospitalised for severe CAP.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to May 2023. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Data analysis was performed using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 10 RCTs comprising 1962 patients were included. Corticosteroids were associated with a lower rate of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.70 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.90); I=0.00%). When stratified into different corticosteroid types, hydrocortisone was associated with an approximately 50% lower mortality risk (RR, 0.48 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.72); I=0.00%). However, dexamethasone, methylprednisolone or prednisolone were not associated with an improvement in mortality. Furthermore, hydrocortisone was associated with a reduction in the rate of mechanical ventilation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, shock and duration of intensive care unit stay. These trends were not observed for dexamethasone, methylprednisolone or prednisolone. Corticosteroids were not associated with an increased risk of adverse events including gastrointestinal bleeding, secondary infection or hyperglycaemia.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of hydrocortisone, but not other types of corticosteroids, was associated with a reduction in mortality and improvement in pneumonia outcomes among patients hospitalised with severe CAP.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42023431360.
Topics: Humans; Hydrocortisone; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Methylprednisolone; Community-Acquired Infections; Pneumonia; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 38262670
DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002141 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication, that can reduce patient satisfaction and may lead to serious consequences, such as wound dehiscence....
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication, that can reduce patient satisfaction and may lead to serious consequences, such as wound dehiscence. Many strategies have been proposed to prevent PONV; however, it remains common, especially in high-risk surgeries such as gynecological surgery. In recent years, opioid-free anesthesia has been widely studied because it minimizes adverse reactions of opioids, such as nausea, vomiting, and itching; however, conclusions have been inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the effects of opioid-free anesthesia on PONV in patients undergoing gynecological surgery. A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, from inception to 28 August 2023, was performed. Keywords and other free terms were used with Boolean operators (OR and, AND) to combine searches. This review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Six studies involving 514 patients who underwent gynecological surgery were included. The forest plot revealed that the incidence of PONV (risk ratio = 0.52; < 0.00001) and consumption of postoperative antiemetics use (risk ratio = 0.64; = 0.03) were significantly lower in the opioid-free anesthesia group. In addition, opioid-free anesthesia improved the quality of recovery (mean difference = 4.69; < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in postoperative pain scores (mean difference = 0.05; = 0.85), analgesic use (risk ratio = 1.09; = 0.65), and the time of extubation (mean difference = -0.89; = 0.09) between the opioid-free anesthesia and control groups. OFA reduces PONV and the use of antiemetic drugs. In addition, it improves the quality of postoperative recovery. However, OFA can not reduce the postoperative pain scores, analgesic use and the time of extubation. Due to the strength of the evidence, we cannot support OFA as an ideal anesthesia method in gynecological surgery, and the implementation of anesthesia strategies should be case-by-case. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=462044], identifier [CRD42023462044].
PubMed: 38239201
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1330250 -
Inflammopharmacology Apr 2024This study is the first to summarize the evidence on how the use of anti-inflammatory drugs during acute pain has an impact on the development of chronic pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This study is the first to summarize the evidence on how the use of anti-inflammatory drugs during acute pain has an impact on the development of chronic pain.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials retrieved from nine databases included anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs or steroids) versus non-anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with acute pain and reported the incidence of chronic pain. No specified date, age, sex, or language restrictions. Subgroup analyses were performed according to pain classification, follow-up time, and medication. The GRADE method was used to evaluate quality of evidence.
RESULTS
A total of 29 trials (5220 patients) were included. Steroids or NSAIDs did not reduce the incidence of chronic nociceptive pain. Steroid use in acute phase significantly reduced the incidence of chronic neuropathic pain. In subgroup analysis, benefits were observed for methylprednisolone and dexamethasone, with some adverse effects. Steroids or NSAIDs were statistically significant in reducing pain intensity over 1 year, but the effect size was too small, and whether the long-term effect is clinically relevant needs to be further studied.
CONCLUSION
Quality of the evidence was low to moderate. No drug can be recommended to prevent chronic nociceptive pain. Injections of steroids (methylprednisolone or dexamethasone) during the acute phase reduce the incidence of chronic neuropathic pain, but most included studies also used local anesthetics. The results are indirect and need to be interpreted with caution. The pooled data effect sizes for pain intensity were small, so the clinical relevance was unclear. Study registration PROSPERO (CRD42022367030).
Topics: Humans; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Pain; Acute Pain; Incidence; Steroids; Neuralgia; Methylprednisolone; Nociceptive Pain; Dexamethasone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38153536
DOI: 10.1007/s10787-023-01405-8 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2023This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine,...
PURPOSE
This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.
CONCLUSION
There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT receptor antagonists or between NK receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Emetics; Antiemetics; Consensus; Olanzapine; Nausea; Vomiting; Antineoplastic Agents; Cyclophosphamide; Anthracyclines
PubMed: 38127246
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08221-4 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Dec 2023Currently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Currently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive ventilation, and improve the prognosis of patients. However, optimal regimen and dosages of glucocorticoid remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this network meta-analysis is to analyze the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in treating COVID-19 at regimens.
METHODS
This meta-analysis retrieved randomized controlled trials from the earliest records to December 30, 2022, published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI Database and Wanfang Database, which compared glucocorticoids with placebos for their efficacy and safety in the treatment of COVID-19, Effects of different treatment regimens, types and dosages (high-dose methylprednisolone, very high-dose methylprednisolone, Pulse therapy methylprednisolone, medium-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose dexamethasone, very high-dose dexamethasone and placebo) on 28-day all-caused hospitalization mortality, hospitalization duration, mechanical ventilation requirement, ICU admission and safety outcome were compared.
RESULTS
In this network meta-analysis, a total of 10,544 patients from 19 randomized controlled trials were finally included, involving a total of 9 glucocorticoid treatment regimens of different types and dosages. According to the analysis results, the 28-day all-cause mortality rate was the lowest in the treatment with pulse therapy methylprednisolone (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02, 0.42), but the use of high-dose methylprednisolone (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59, 1.22), very high-dose dexamethasone (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.67, 1.35), high-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.34, 1.22), medium-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49, 1.31) showed no benefit in prolonging the 28-day survival of patient. Compared with placebo, the treatment with very high-dose methylprednisolone (MD = -3.09;95%CI: -4.10, -2.08) had the shortest length of hospital stay, while high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.55;95%CI: -3.13,0.03) and very high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.06;95%CI: -2.78,0.67) did not benefit patients in terms of length of stay.
CONCLUSIONS
Considering the available evidence, this network meta‑analysis suggests that the prognostic impact of glucocorticoids in patients with COVID-19 may depend on the regimens of glucocorticoids. It is suggested that pulse therapy methylprednisolone is associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality, very high-dose methylprednisolone had the shortest length of hospital stay in patients with COVID-19.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022350407 (22/08/2022).
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; COVID-19; Hydrocortisone; Network Meta-Analysis; Methylprednisolone; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 38124031
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08874-w -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Feb 2024People living with dementia commonly experience anxiety, which is often challenging to manage. We investigated the effectiveness of treatments for the management of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for the management of anxiety in community dwelling people living with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
People living with dementia commonly experience anxiety, which is often challenging to manage. We investigated the effectiveness of treatments for the management of anxiety in this population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, and searched EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE and PsycInfo. We estimated standardised mean differences at follow-up between treatments relative to control groups and pooled these across studies using random-effects models where feasible. Thirty-one studies were identified. Meta-analysis demonstrated non-pharmacological interventions were effective in reducing anxiety in people living with dementia, compared to care as usual or active controls. Specifically, music therapy (SMD-1.92(CI:-2.58,-1.25)), muscular approaches (SMD-0.65(CI:-1.02,-0.28)) and stimulating cognitive and physical activities (SMD-0.31(CI:-0.53,-0.09)). Pharmacological interventions with evidence of potential effectiveness included Ginkgo biloba, probiotics, olanzapine, loxapine and citalopram compared to placebo, olanzapine compared to bromazepam and buspirone and risperidone compared to haloperidol. Meta-analyses were not performed for pharmacological interventions due to studies' heterogeneity. This has practice implications when promoting the use of more non-pharmacological interventions to help reduce anxiety among people living with dementia.
Topics: Humans; Independent Living; Olanzapine; Anxiety; Treatment Outcome; Dementia
PubMed: 38097097
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105507 -
Neurology(R) Neuroimmunology &... Jan 2024We characterize clinical and neuroimaging features of SARS-CoV-2-related acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE).
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
We characterize clinical and neuroimaging features of SARS-CoV-2-related acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE).
METHODS
Systematic review of English language publications in PubMed and reference lists between January 1, 2020, and June 30, 2023, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who fulfilled diagnostic criteria for sporadic and genetic ANE were included.
RESULTS
From 899 articles, 20 cases (17 single case reports and 3 additional cases) were curated for review (50% female; 8 were children). Associated COVID-19 illnesses were febrile upper respiratory tract infections in children while adults had pneumonia (45.6%) and myocarditis (8.2%). Children had early neurologic deterioration (median day 2 in children vs day 4 in adults), seizures (5 (62.5%) children vs 3 of 9 (33.3%) adults), and motor abnormalities (6 of 7 (85.7%) children vs 3 of 7 (42.9%) adults). Eight of 12 (66.7%) adults and 4 (50.0%) children had high-risk ANE scores. Five (62.5%) children and 12 (66.7%) adults had brain lesions bilaterally and symmetrically in the putamina, external capsules, insula cortex, or medial temporal lobes, in addition to typical thalamic lesions of ANE. Hypotension was only seen in adults (30%). Hematologic derangements were common: lymphopenia (66.7%), coagulopathy (60.0%), or elevated D-dimers (100%), C-reactive protein (91.7%), and ferritin (62.5%). A pathogenic heterozygous c/.1754 C>T variant in was present in 2 children: one known to have this before SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a patient tested because the SARS-CoV-2 infection was the second encephalopathic illness. Three other children with no prior encephalopathy or family history of encephalopathy were negative for this variant. Fifteen (75%) received immunotherapy (with IV methylprednisolone, immunoglobulins, tocilizumab, or plasma exchange): 6 (40.0%) with monotherapy and 9 (60.0%) had combination therapy. Deaths were in 8 of 17 with data (47.1%): a 2-month-old male infant and 7 adults (87.5%) of median age 56 years (33-70 years), 4 of whom did not receive immunotherapy.
DISCUSSION
Children and adults with SARS-CoV-2 ANE have similar clinical features and neuroimaging characteristics. Mortality is high, predominantly in patients not receiving immunotherapy and at the extremes of age.
Topics: Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Infant; Male; Middle Aged; Brain Diseases; COVID-19; Methylprednisolone; SARS-CoV-2; Seizures; Aged
PubMed: 38086061
DOI: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000200186 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines.
OBJECTIVES
To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Panic Disorder; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Paroxetine; Fluoxetine; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Alprazolam; Clomipramine; Reboxetine; Clonazepam; Desipramine; Network Meta-Analysis; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Benzodiazepines; Diazepam
PubMed: 38014714
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012729.pub3 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2023New reports suggest that anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used to treat respiratory tract infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. Anti-inflammatory drugs were the most... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
New reports suggest that anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used to treat respiratory tract infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. Anti-inflammatory drugs were the most frequently used treatment for the COVID-19-related cytokine storm in China. However, the efficacy of anti-inflammatory drugs has yet to be systematically analyzed, and clinicians are often uncertain which class of anti-inflammatory drug is the most effective in treating patients with respiratory tract infections caused by SARS-CoV-2, especially those with severe disease.
METHODS
From 1 October 2022, relevant studies were searched in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. A total of 16,268 publications were retrieved and collated according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and sensitivity analyses were performed using STATA 14 software. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. Study quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, and the combined advantage ratio was expressed as a 95% confidence interval (CI). In total, 19 randomized controlled trials were included in the study. STATA 14 software was used for all random effects model analyses, and the results are expressed as relative risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI.
RESULTS
Quantitative analyses were performed on 14,514 patients from 19 relevant randomized controlled clinical trials. Pooled estimates (RR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.80) revealed that the use of anti-inflammatory drugs resulted in a significant reduction in mortality in patients with respiratory tract infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 compared with controls, and methylprednisolone (RR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.56) was more effective than other anti-inflammatory drugs. Anti-inflammatory drugs were effective in reducing mortality in critically ill patients (RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-0.98) compared with non-critically ill patients (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.76); however, more clinical evidence is needed to confirm these findings.
CONCLUSION
The use of anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with respiratory infections caused by SARS-CoV-2 reduces patient mortality, especially in severe cases. In individual studies, methylprednisolone was more effective than other drugs.
Topics: Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Methylprednisolone; Respiratory Tract Infections
PubMed: 37920591
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1198987