-
Clinical Cardiology Jun 2023The advantages and disadvantages of using corticosteroids in children undergoing cardiac surgery is still contentious. To examine how perioperative corticosteroids... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The advantages and disadvantages of using corticosteroids in children undergoing cardiac surgery is still contentious. To examine how perioperative corticosteroids affect postoperative mortality and clinical outcomes in pediatric cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). We used MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database to conduct a comprehensive search up through January 2023. Children aged 0-18 undergoing cardiac surgery were included in the meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies comparing perioperative corticosteroids with other therapeutic therapies, placebo, or no treatment. All-cause hospital mortality was the primary endpoint of the study. Hospitalization duration was a secondary result. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to evaluate the research quality. Ten trials and 7798 pediatric participants were included in our analysis. Children taking corticosteroids had no significant difference in all-cause in-hospital mortality using a random-effect model with relative risk (RR) = 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.16-0.91, I = 79%, p = .03 for methylprednisolone and RR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.09-0.97, I = 80%, p = .04. For the secondary outcome, there was a significant difference between the corticosteroid and placebo groups, with pooled standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.86, 95% CI = -1.57 to -0.15, I = 85%, p = .02 for methylprednisolone and SMD = -0.97, 95% CI -1.90 to -0.04, I = 83%, p = .04 for dexamethasone. Perioperative corticosteroids may not improve mortality, but they reduce hospital stay compared to placebo. Further evidence from randomized controlled studies with larger samples is required for approaching at a valid conclusion.
Topics: Child; Humans; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Methylprednisolone
PubMed: 37101401
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24018 -
Ear, Nose, & Throat Journal Apr 2023Diabetes is associated with a risk of idiopathic sudden deafness. The main treatment of diabetic sudden deafness is systemic and topical application of steroids. Topical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetes is associated with a risk of idiopathic sudden deafness. The main treatment of diabetic sudden deafness is systemic and topical application of steroids. Topical steroid therapy reduces systemic adverse reactions compared with systemic therapy.
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis design on the improvement value and recovery rate of pure tone mean hearing threshold (PTA).To investigate whether there is difference between local and systemic steroid treatment as the initial treatment for sudden deafness patients with diabetes.
METHODS
We searched databases from publication date to October 1, 2022 including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, web of science, CNKI, Wan fang Database, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and VIP information resource system. A systematic literature review was conducted on the efficacy and safety of local and systemic steroid therapy for diabetic sudden deafness. RevMan5.4 and stata14 software were used for Meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies were included in this study, covering 1777 patients, including 885 cases in the observation group (local steroid group) and 894 cases in the control group (systemic steroid group). Meta-analysis showed that there was a significant difference in the total effective rate of local and systemic steroid treatment for diabetic sudden deafness between groups (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.11-1.22, < 0.05). The effective rate in the observation group was higher than that in the control group. For the improvement of PTA, the difference between groups was statistically significant (RR = 6.60, 95% CI = 3.07-10.14, < 0.05). The improvement of PTA in the local steroid group was higher than that in the systemic steroid group. Subgroup analysis showed that there were significant differences between groups in hormones, drug administration, follow-up time and course of disease.
CONCLUSION
Topical steroid therapy is effective in the treatment of diabetic sudden deafness. Hormone methylprednisolone has high effective rate; the shorter the course of disease and the longer the follow-up time are, the higher the total effective rate will be. Tympanic injection is more effective than post-aural injection. Topical steroid injections are safer for hormonal side effect.
PubMed: 37039340
DOI: 10.1177/01455613231170090 -
Pediatric Nephrology (Berlin, Germany) Dec 2023Acute pyelonephritis (APN) in pediatric patients may lead to kidney scarring and is one of the main causes of permanent kidney damage. The incidence of kidney scarring... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in pediatric kidney scar prevention after urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
BACKGROUND
Acute pyelonephritis (APN) in pediatric patients may lead to kidney scarring and is one of the main causes of permanent kidney damage. The incidence of kidney scarring after one febrile urinary tract infection (UTI) is reported to range from 2.8 to 15%, with the percentage rising to 28.6% after ≥ 3 febrile UTIs. Corticosteroids may have a role in the reduction of kidney scar formation and urine cytokine levels. The possible benefit of adjuvant corticosteroid administration in the reduction of kidney scar formation in children with APN has been recently examined in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a summary of the current literature about the efficacy and safety of adjuvant corticosteroid administration in the reduction of kidney scar formation in children with APN.
DATA SOURCES
An extensive literature search through major databases (PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus) was carried out for RCTs from inception until October 12, 2022, investigating the efficacy and safety of adjuvant corticosteroids in preventing kidney scarring in children with APN. A risk ratio with 95% CI was used for dichotomous outcomes.
RESULTS
In total, 5 RCTs with 918 pediatric patients with APN were included in the study. Adjuvant corticosteroid treatment revealed a statistically significant reduction in kidney scarring (95% CI 0.42-0.95, p = 0.03), without increasing the risk of adverse events like bacteremia, prolonged hospitalization, or recurrence of UTI.
LIMITATIONS
There were limitations regarding sample size (n = 498 children), different classes of corticosteroids (methylprednisolone or dexamethasone), different routes of corticosteroid administration (intravenous or oral), and different day courses (3-day or 4-day course).
CONCLUSIONS
Adjuvant corticosteroid administration seems to have a beneficial effect on kidney scar reduction in children with APN. Future studies should focus on the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in kidney scarring reduction after APN to strengthen the results of our study. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.
Topics: Child; Humans; Cicatrix; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Tract Infections; Pyelonephritis; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Kidney; Glomerulonephritis
PubMed: 36943468
DOI: 10.1007/s00467-023-05922-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023IgA vasculitis (IgAV), previously known as Henoch-Schönlein purpura, is the most common vasculitis of childhood but may also occur in adults. This small vessel... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
IgA vasculitis (IgAV), previously known as Henoch-Schönlein purpura, is the most common vasculitis of childhood but may also occur in adults. This small vessel vasculitis is characterised by palpable purpura, abdominal pain, arthritis or arthralgia and kidney involvement. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and updated in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of different agents (used singularly or in combination) compared with placebo, no treatment or any other agent for (1) the prevention of severe kidney disease in people with IgAV with or without kidney involvement at onset, (2) the treatment of established severe kidney disease (macroscopic haematuria, proteinuria, nephritic syndrome, nephrotic syndrome with or without acute kidney failure) in IgAV, and (3) the prevention of recurrent episodes of IgAV-associated kidney disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 2 February 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions used to prevent or treat kidney disease in IgAV compared with placebo, no treatment or other agents were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from each study. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model, and the results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty studies (1963 enrolled participants) were identified; one three-arm study has been assessed as two studies. Nine studies were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (selection bias), and nine studies were at low risk of bias for allocation concealment (selection bias). Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and outcome assessment (detection bias) was at low risk of bias in four and seven studies, respectively. Nine studies reported complete outcome data (attrition bias), while 10 studies reported expected outcomes, so were at low risk of reporting bias. Five studies were at low risk of other bias. Eleven studies evaluated therapy to prevent persistent kidney disease in IgAV with or without kidney involvement at presentation. There was probably no difference in the risk of persistent kidney disease any time after treatment (5 studies, 746 children: RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.32) or at one, three, six and 12 months in children given prednisone for 14 to 28 days at presentation of IgAV compared with placebo or supportive treatment (moderate certainty evidence). There may be no differences in the risk of any persistent kidney disease with antiplatelet therapy (three studies) or heparin (two studies) in children with or without any kidney disease at study entry, although heparin may reduce the risk of proteinuria by three months compared with placebo or no specific treatment (2 studies, 317 children: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.73). One study comparing montelukast with placebo found no differences in outcomes as assessed by severity scale scores. Nine studies examined the treatment of severe IgAV-associated kidney disease. In two studies (one involving 56 children and the other involving 54 adults), there may be no differences in efficacy outcomes or adverse effects with cyclophosphamide compared with placebo or supportive treatment. In two studies, there may be no differences in the numbers achieving remission of proteinuria with intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide compared with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (65 children evaluated) or tacrolimus (142 children evaluated). In three small studies comparing cyclosporin with methylprednisolone (15 children), MMF with azathioprine (26 children), or MMF with leflunomide (19 children), it is unclear whether the treatment had any effect on the numbers in remission or the degree of proteinuria between treatment groups because of small numbers of included participants. In one study comparing plasmapheresis, cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone with cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone, there may be no difference in the numbers achieving remission. One study compared fosinopril with no specific therapy and reported fosinopril reduced the number of participants with proteinuria. No studies were identified that evaluated the efficacy of therapy on kidney disease in participants with recurrent episodes of IgAV.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are no substantial changes in conclusions from this update compared with the initial review or the previous update despite the addition of five studies. From generally low to moderate certainty evidence, we found that there may be little or no benefit in the use of corticosteroids or antiplatelet agents to prevent persistent kidney disease in children with IgAV in participants with no or minimal kidney involvement at presentation. We did not find any studies which evaluated corticosteroids in children presenting with IgAV and nephritic and/or nephrotic syndrome, although corticosteroids are recommended in such children in guidelines. Though heparin may be effective in reducing proteinuria, this potentially dangerous therapy is not justified to prevent serious kidney disease when few children with IgAV develop severe kidney disease. There may be no benefit of cyclophosphamide compared with no specific treatment or corticosteroids. While there may be no benefit in the efficacy of MMF or tacrolimus compared with IV cyclophosphamide in children or adults with IgAV and severe kidney disease, adverse effects, particularly infections, may be lower in MMF or tacrolimus-treated children. Because of small patient numbers and events leading to imprecision in results, it remains unclear whether cyclosporin, MMF or leflunomide have any role in the treatment of children with IgAV and severe kidney disease. We did not identify any studies which evaluated corticosteroids.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Fosinopril; IgA Vasculitis; Kidney Diseases; Leflunomide; Proteinuria; Tacrolimus; Vasculitis
PubMed: 36853224
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005128.pub4 -
Current Fungal Infection Reports 2023Corticosteroids have a complex relationship with fungal disease - risk for many, benefit for others. This systematic review aims to address the effect of corticosteroids... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Corticosteroids have a complex relationship with fungal disease - risk for many, benefit for others. This systematic review aims to address the effect of corticosteroids on mortality and visual outcome in different fungal diseases.
RECENT FINDINGS
Corticosteroids are a risk factor of aspergillosis for patients who have COVID-19, and they also led to a worse outcome. Similarity, corticosteroids are a risk factor for candidemia and mucormycosis. Some researchers reported that using topical corticosteroid in keratitis was associated with worse visual outcome if fungal keratitis. Some studies showed that corticosteroids are linked to a negative outcome for non-HIV patients with pneumonia (PCP), in contrast to those with HIV and PCP.
SUMMARY
In 59 references, we found that corticosteroid therapy showed a worse clinical outcome in invasive aspergillosis (IA) (HR: 2.50, 95%CI: 1.89-3.31, < 0.001) and chronic pulmonary aspergillosis (CPA) (HR: 2.74, 95%CI: 1.48-5.06, = 0.001), PCP without HIV infection (OR: 1.29, 95%CI: 1.09-1.53, = 0.003), invasive candidiasis and candidaemia (OR: 2.13, 95%CI: 1.85-2.46, < 0.001), mucormycosis (OR: 4.19, 95%CI: 1.74-10.05, = 0.001) and early in the course of fungal keratitis (OR: 2.99, 95%CI: 1.14-7.84, = 0.026). There was equivocal outcome in cryptococcal meningoencephalitis in AIDS and primary coccidioidomycosis, while corticosteroid therapy showed a better outcome in PCP in HIV-infected patients (RR: 0.62, 95%CI: 0.46-0.83, =0.001) and fungal keratitis patients after keratoplasty surgery (OR: 0.01, 95%CI: 0.00-0.41, = 0.041) and probably in cryptococcal meningoencephalitis in non-immunocompromised patients. A sub-analysis in invasive aspergillosis and CPA showed that use of more than 2 mg/kg/day of prednisolone equivalents per day is a significant factor in increasing mortality (HR: 2.94, 95%CI: 2.13-4.05, < 0.001). Corticosteroid therapy during invasive fungal disease was usually associated with a slightly or greatly increased mortality or worse visual outcome (in fungal keratitis), with two disease exceptions. Avoiding the addition of corticosteroids, or minimising dose and duration in those who require them, is likely to improve the outcome of most life- and vision-threatening fungal diseases. This review provides a cornerstone for further research in exploring the accuracy of suitable dose and duration of corticosteroids treatment in fungal diseases.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12281-023-00456-2.
PubMed: 36852004
DOI: 10.1007/s12281-023-00456-2 -
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Apr 2023Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease that commonly affects joints. Although many treatment options exist, the most common, disease-modifying... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease that commonly affects joints. Although many treatment options exist, the most common, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), have been associated with pulmonary infections. These types of infections (specifically pneumonia) can be detrimental to RA patients. This leads providers to utilize other treatment modalities such as glucocorticoids (GCs). GCs are commonly utilized to treat RA; however, the role of GCs in the onset of pneumonia in RA patients is not fully understood.
OBJECTIVES
The goal of this study was to systematically review and statistically analyze pooled data documenting pneumonia as an adverse event in RA patients on DMARDs as a monotherapy vs RA patients on DMARDs and GCs as combination therapy utilizing the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) framework.
METHODS
On August 1, 2021, a search was conducted and completed on six databases: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and ClinicalTrials.gov. A total of 12 researchers were involved with the search and screening of articles (K.E., P.R.; V.A., D.P.C.; C.B., D.C.; T.A., E.S.; S.H., L.B.; K.S., C.S.). Search terms were identified utilizing Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree and included "glucocorticoids," "rheumatoid arthritis," "pneumonia," and "respiratory tract infections," Inclusion criteria included human subjects over the age of 18 with seropositive RA, on a combination of GC (prednisone, methylprednisolone, or prednisolone) with DMARD (methotrexate [MTX], hydroxychloroquine [HCQ], or sulfasalazine [SSZ]) and developed pneumonia of bacterial, viral, or fungal origin. The control groups were on a DMARD monotherapy regimen. Articles were excluded if they were not in English, had less than 20 participants, were case reports or literature reviews, included animal subjects, and did not adhere to the established PICO framework. Five teams of two researchers individually sorted through abstracts of articles based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The same teams individually sorted through full-text articles of selected abstracts based on the same criteria. Conflicts between each team were resolved by a separate researcher. Odds ratios were utilized to quantify the effect sizes of combined studies from a random effects model. Chi-square tests and I2 statistics were utilized to analyze heterogeneity.
RESULTS
A total of 3360 articles were identified from all databases, and 416 duplicate articles were removed. Thus, a total of 2944 articles abstracts were screened, of which 2819 articles either did not meet the inclusion criteria or did meet the exclusion criteria. A total of 125 articles were retrieved and assessed for full-text eligibility, of which only three observational articles were included for meta-analysis. Statistical results revealed that patients treated with DMARDs monotherapy are 95% (95% CI: 0.65-0.99) less likely to develop pneumonia compared to patients treated with a DMARD and GCs (p=0.002).
CONCLUSIONS
Our data suggest that RA patients have a higher probability of developing pneumonia on combination therapy with GCs, compared to monotherapy with DMARDs. To our knowledge, our findings are the first to systematically review and statistically evaluate the relationship between the use of GCs and show an increased chance of developing pneumonia.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Middle Aged; Glucocorticoids; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Antirheumatic Agents; Methotrexate; Pneumonia
PubMed: 36691851
DOI: 10.1515/jom-2022-0177 -
EClinicalMedicine Feb 2023Immune thrombocytopenia is an autoimmune disease characterised by decreased platelet count. In recent years, novel therapeutic regimens have been investigated in...
BACKGROUND
Immune thrombocytopenia is an autoimmune disease characterised by decreased platelet count. In recent years, novel therapeutic regimens have been investigated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different treatments in newly diagnosed adult primary immune thrombocytopenia.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs involving treatments for newly diagnosed primary immune thrombocytopenia. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched up to April 31, 2022. The primary outcomes were 6-month sustained response and early response. Secondary outcome was grade 3 or higher adverse events. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022296179).
FINDINGS
Eighteen RCTs (n = 1944) were included in this study. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that the percentage of patients achieving early response was higher in the dexamethasone-containing doublet group than in the dexamethasone group (79.7% 68.7%, odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% CI 1.10-3.02). The difference was more profound for sustained response (60.5% 37.4%, OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.95-3.40). Network meta-analysis showed that dexamethasone plus recombinant human thrombopoietin ranked first for early response, followed by dexamethasone plus oseltamivir or tacrolimus. Rituximab plus prednisolone achieved highest sustained response, followed by dexamethasone plus all-trans retinoic acid or rituximab. Rituximab plus dexamethasone showed 15.3% of grade 3 or higher adverse events, followed by prednis(ol)one (4.8%) and all-trans retinoic acid plus dexamethasone (4.7%).
INTERPRETATION
Our findings suggested that compared with monotherapy dexamethasone or prednis(ol)one, the combined regimens had better early and sustained responses. rhTPO plus dexamethasone ranked top in early response, while rituximab plus corticosteroids obtained the best sustained response, but with more adverse events. Adding oseltamivir, all-trans retinoic acid or tacrolimus to dexamethasone reached equally encouraging sustained response, without compromising safety profile. Although this network meta-analysis compared all the therapeutic regimens up to date, more head-to-head RCTs with larger sample size are warranted to make direct comparison among these strategies.
FUNDING
National Natural Science Foundation of China, Major Research Plan of National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation and Young Taishan Scholar Foundation of Shandong Province.
PubMed: 36578882
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101777 -
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 -
Pain and Therapy Feb 2023The administration of methylprednisolone (MP) is a component of perioperative multimodal analgesia that mitigates the potentially deleterious effects of postoperative...
INTRODUCTION
The administration of methylprednisolone (MP) is a component of perioperative multimodal analgesia that mitigates the potentially deleterious effects of postoperative pain and opioid consumption. However, a systematic evaluation of the efficacy and safety of MP is lacking. The present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to quantify the potential clinical benefits and risks of perioperative MP in lung surgery.
METHODS
We searched seven electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MP with placebo. Coprimary outcomes were rest pain scores, dynamic pain scores, and cumulative morphine equivalent consumption within 24 h postoperatively.
RESULTS
A total of 11 trials including 643 participants were selected for our meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that the MP group had a significant difference in coprimary outcomes (rest pain scores, dynamic pain scores, and cumulative morphine equivalent consumption) compared with the placebo group; nevertheless, the improvement was not clinically meaningful based on minimum clinically important differences (MCID). Notably, MP administration reduced serum levels of interleukin (IL)-6 at 6 h (weighted mean difference -20.49 pg/mL; 95% CI -29.94 to -11.04), and decreased the incidence rate of acute lung injury (rate ratio 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-0.98) and cognitive dysfunction (rate ratio 0.43; 95% CI 0.21-0.88) compared with the placebo group.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that the administration of MP contributed to an insignificant relief in acute postoperative pain for lung surgery in a clinical setting. Future studies should focus on exploring the role of MP in reducing pulmonary and surgical-related complications after lung surgery.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER
PROSPERO registration number CRD42022314224.
PubMed: 36260278
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-022-00443-4