-
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Feb 2024IgA nephropathy (IgAN) represents the most prevalent form of primary glomerulonephritis, and, on a global scale, it ranks among the leading culprits behind end-stage...
IgA nephropathy (IgAN) represents the most prevalent form of primary glomerulonephritis, and, on a global scale, it ranks among the leading culprits behind end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Presently, the primary strategy for managing IgAN revolves around optimizing blood pressure and mitigating proteinuria. This is achieved through the utilization of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, namely, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). As outlined by the KDIGO guidelines, individuals who continue to show a persistent high risk of progressive ESKD, even with comprehensive supportive care, are candidates for glucocorticoid therapy. Despite these therapies, some patients have a disease refractory to treatment, defined as individuals that present a 24 h urinary protein persistently >1 g after at least two rounds of regular steroids (methylprednisolone or prednisone) and/or immunosuppressant therapy (e.g., mycophenolate mofetil), or who do not tolerate regular steroids and/or immunosuppressant therapy. The aim of this Systematic Review is to revise the current literature, using the biomedical database PubMed, to investigate possible therapeutic strategies, including SGLT2 inhibitors, endothelin receptor blockers, targeted-release budesonide, B cell proliferation and differentiation inhibitors, fecal microbiota transplantation, as well as blockade of complement components.
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Glomerulonephritis, IGA; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Nephrologists; Antihypertensive Agents; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Steroids; Immunosuppressive Agents
PubMed: 38399561
DOI: 10.3390/medicina60020274 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2024Although corticosteroid injections are an effective treatment for musculoskeletal pathologies, they may not be suitable for all patients. The purpose of this systematic... (Review)
Review
Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Injections versus Steroid Injections in the Management of Upper and Lower Extremity Orthopedic Conditions: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Although corticosteroid injections are an effective treatment for musculoskeletal pathologies, they may not be suitable for all patients. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes between patients who received NSAID and corticosteroid injections for various orthopedic conditions.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model for outcomes presented in three or more studies. Other studies were qualitatively analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 28 articles with 2113 patients were included. A meta-analysis of five studies in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome demonstrated that there was no significant difference in the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) between subacromial NSAID injections and corticosteroid injections at 1 month [weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.244; 95% CI, -1.232 to 0.745; I, 94.5%]. For patients with knee osteoarthritis, a meta-analysis of three studies demonstrated that there was no significant difference between intraarticular NSAID injections and corticosteroid injections in pain VAS at 1 month (WMD 0.754; 95% CI, -0.413 to 1.921; I, 90.2%) and 3 months (WMD-0.089; 95% CI, -0.345 to 0.166; I, 0%). A review of the studies assessing pain outcomes for hip osteoarthritis, adhesive capsulitis, and plantar fasciitis showed no significant differences between the NSAID and corticosteroid groups.
CONCLUSION
NSAID injections may be safe and effective alternatives to steroid injections, especially in shoulder impingement syndrome and knee osteoarthritis.
PubMed: 38398445
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13041132 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) causes progressive or relapsing weakness and numbness of the limbs, which lasts for at least two months.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) causes progressive or relapsing weakness and numbness of the limbs, which lasts for at least two months. Uncontrolled studies have suggested that intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) could help to reduce symptoms. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin in people with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 8 March 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that tested any dose of IVIg versus placebo, plasma exchange, or corticosteroids in people with definite or probable CIDP.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was significant improvement in disability within six weeks after the start of treatment, as determined and defined by the study authors. Our secondary outcomes were change in mean disability score within six weeks, change in muscle strength (Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score) within six weeks, change in mean disability score at 24 weeks or later, frequency of serious adverse events, and frequency of any adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for our main outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs with 372 participants (235 male) from Europe, North America, South America, and Israel. There was low statistical heterogeneity between the trial results, and the overall risk of bias was low for all trials that contributed data to the analysis. Five trials (235 participants) compared IVIg with placebo, one trial (20 participants) compared IVIg with plasma exchange, two trials (72 participants) compared IVIg with prednisolone, and one trial (45 participants) compared IVIg with intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP). We included one new trial in this update, though it contributed no data to any meta-analyses. IVIg compared with placebo increases the probability of significant improvement in disability within six weeks of the start of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 3.36; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; 5 trials, 269 participants; high-certainty evidence). Since each trial used a different disability scale and definition of significant improvement, we were unable to evaluate the clinical relevance of the pooled effect. IVIg compared with placebo improves disability measured on the Rankin scale (0 to 6, lower is better) two to six weeks after the start of treatment (mean difference (MD) -0.26 points, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.05; 3 trials, 90 participants; high-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with placebo probably improves disability measured on the Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) scale (1 to 10, lower is better) after 24 weeks (MD 0.80 points, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.37; 1 trial, 117 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between IVIg and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.87; 3 trials, 315 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The trial comparing IVIg with plasma exchange reported none of our main outcomes. IVIg compared with prednisolone probably has little or no effect on the probability of significant improvement in disability four weeks after the start of treatment (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.68; 1 trial, 29 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and little or no effect on change in mean disability measured on the Rankin scale (MD 0.21 points, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.61; 1 trial, 24 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between IVIg and prednisolone in the frequency of serious adverse events (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.69; 1 cross-over trial, 32 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with IVMP probably increases the likelihood of significant improvement in disability two weeks after starting treatment (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.38; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with IVMP probably has little or no effect on change in disability measured on the Rankin scale two weeks after the start of treatment (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.63; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or on change in mean disability measured with the Overall Neuropathy Limitation Scale (ONLS, 1 to 12, lower is better) 24 weeks after the start of treatment (MD 0.03 points, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.97; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The frequency of serious adverse events may be higher with IVIg compared with IVMP (RR 4.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 86.78; 1 trial, 45 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from RCTs shows that IVIg improves disability for at least two to six weeks compared with placebo, with an NNTB of 4. During this period, IVIg probably has similar efficacy to oral prednisolone and IVMP. Further placebo-controlled trials are unlikely to change these conclusions. In one large trial, the benefit of IVIg compared with placebo in terms of improved disability score persisted for 24 weeks. Further research is needed to assess the long-term benefits and harms of IVIg relative to other treatments.
Topics: Male; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Methylprednisolone
PubMed: 38353301
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001797.pub4 -
Clinical and Investigative Medicine.... Dec 2023Glucocorticoids are often used to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Glucocorticoids are often used to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in the treatment of ARDS caused by COVID-19 are still controversial; therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis of the literature on this topic.
METHODS
Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched from the establishment of the databases to August 16, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared glucocorticoid versus standard treatment for ARDS caused by COVID-19 were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias. Review Manager 5.4 software and STATA 17.0 were used for meta-analy-sis, and the relative risk (RR), mean difference, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were then determined. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 8592 patients were evaluated, including 14 retrospective studies and 3 RCTs. Sixteen studies reported data on all-cause mortality. The results of the meta-analysis showed that glucocorticoids did not reduce all-cause (RR, 0.96; 95% CI 0.82-1.13, P = .62) or 28-day (RR, 1.01; 95% CI 0.78-1.32, P = .93) mortality. Subgroup analysis showed that only methylprednisolone reduced all-cause mortality. No matter whether glucocorticoid use was early or delayed, high-dose or low-dose, long-term or short-term, no regimen reduced all-cause mortality. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay, hyperglycemia, and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP); how-ever, glucocorticoids increased the number of ventilator-free days.
CONCLUSIONS
Although methylprednisolone may reduce all-cause mortality from ARDS caused by COVID-19, this effect was not found with other types of glucocorticoids. At the same time, glucocorticoid use was associ-ated with more ventilator-free days, without increasing the incidence of hyperglycemic events or VAP. Con-sidering that almost all of the included studies were retrospective cohort studies, more RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Glucocorticoids; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Methylprednisolone
PubMed: 38330183
DOI: 10.3138/cim.v46i4e03 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023This review of systematic reviews evaluated the effectiveness and safety of the preemptive use of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs in the management of...
This review of systematic reviews evaluated the effectiveness and safety of the preemptive use of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs in the management of postoperative pain, edema, and trismus in oral surgery. The databases searched included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Scopus, Web of Science, and Virtual Health Library, up to March 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and rated their methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool. All of the 19 studies reviewed had at least two critical methodological flaws. Third molar surgery was the most common procedure ( = 15) and the oral route the most frequent approach ( = 14). The use of betamethasone (10, 20, and 60 mg), dexamethasone (4 and 8 mg), methylprednisolone (16, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 125 mg), and prednisolone (10 and 20 mg) by different routes and likewise of celecoxib (200 mg), diclofenac (25, 30, 50, 75, and 100 mg), etoricoxib (120 mg), ibuprofen (400 and 600 mg), ketorolac (30 mg), meloxicam (7.5, 10, and 15 mg), nimesulide (100 mg), and rofecoxib (50 mg) administered by oral, intramuscular, and intravenous routes were found to reduce pain, edema, and trismus in patients undergoing third molar surgery. Data on adverse effects were poorly reported. Further randomized clinical trials should be conducted to confirm these findings, given the wide variety of drugs, doses, and routes of administration used.
PubMed: 38328575
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1303382 -
Journal of Clinical Nursing May 2024Few reviews have addressed delirium prevention among intermediate to high-risk older surgical patients. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Few reviews have addressed delirium prevention among intermediate to high-risk older surgical patients.
AIMS
To map preoperative delirium prevention interventions for older surgical patients at intermediate to high risk of developing delirium, assess outcomes and identify gaps in knowledge.
DESIGN
Systematic narrative review of randomised controlled trials reported following the PRISMA checklist.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted of the literature published from 1990 to October 2022 in Medline, CINAHL and Ageline and of the grey literature in Google Scholar. Randomised controlled trials were retrieved that assessed the effectiveness of preoperative delirium prevention interventions for older surgical patients at intermediate to high risk of delirium. Data were extracted using a data extraction tool, and results were tabulated. Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies met the selection criteria including N = 5096 participants. Two studies tested cognitive training, two studies tested fascia iliaca compartment block and one study assessed femoral nerve block. Ten studies tested prophylactic medications including methylprednisolone. Five studies investigated geriatric assessment and management. One study assessed transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation. In the two studies testing fascia iliaca compartment block, there was a reduction in postoperative delirium for orthopaedic patients. Methylprednisolone reduced postoperative delirium in orthopaedic patients and in those undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Results of all other interventions on the occurrence of postoperative delirium and additional outcomes including the severity and duration of delirium were inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the promising results for fascia iliaca compartment block and methylprednisolone, there is limited knowledge regarding evidence-based delirium prevention interventions. Most studies had small sample sizes indicating that the current evidence is exploratory. There is an urgent need for the funding and conduct of trials to test preventative interventions for older surgical patients at intermediate to high risk of developing delirium.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Emergence Delirium; Delirium; Preoperative Care; Methylprednisolone
PubMed: 38284498
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.17020 -
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 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Jan 2024The objective of this study was to identify the difference on pain intensity and disability between particulate and nonparticulate steroid injections in patients with... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to identify the difference on pain intensity and disability between particulate and nonparticulate steroid injections in patients with lumbar radicular pain. Subgroup analysis by study design, type of particulate steroid, and follow-up duration were performed.
DATA SOURCES
We performed the literature search in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up March, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies, that compared particulate steroid injection and nonparticulate steroid injection in patients with lumbar radicular pain were independently reviewed by 2 reviewers for eligibility for inclusion.
DATA EXTRACTION
Outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2.0) tool for RCTs and the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions Tool (ROBINS-I) for nonrandomized studies. Effect sizes were estimated using mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD).
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed no significant difference in visual analog scale, disability score and the numbers of patients with 50% pain reduction between particulate and nonparticulate steroid injection groups (P>.05). Particulate steroid injections showed significant better effect in pain scale in RCTs (MD=0.62; 95% CI 0.08-1.16, P=.02). In subgroup analysis with steroid types, methylprednisolone showed better effect compared with dexamethasone, while dexamethasone showed better effect compared with betamethasone.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis suggested no significant differences between the particulate and nonparticulate steroid groups in pain or disability score. Therefore, considering the safety profile of nonparticulate steroids, nonparticulate steroid injection may be helpful in patients with lumbar radicular pain.
PubMed: 38242297
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2024.01.002 -
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 -
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