-
The Spine Journal : Official Journal of... Mar 2023Spinal cord injury brings devastating consequences and huge economic burden. Different authoritative organizations have developed different guidelines for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Spinal cord injury brings devastating consequences and huge economic burden. Different authoritative organizations have developed different guidelines for pharmacological treatments of spinal cord injury, but there is a lack of a critical appraisal of them.
PURPOSE
To systematically review and appraise guidelines regarding their recommendations for pharmacological treatments for spinal cord injury.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science from January 2000 to January 2022 as well as guideline-specific databases (eg, Congress of Neurological Surgeons) and Google Scholar. We included the most updated guideline containing evidence-based recommendations or consensus-based recommendations developed by specific authoritative organizations if multiple versions were available. We appraised guidelines through the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition instrument consisting of six domains (eg, applicability). With supporting evidence, recommendations were classified as: for, against, neither for nor against. We utilized an evidence assessment system to categorize the quality of supporting evidence as poor, fair, or good.
RESULTS
Eight guidelines developed from 2008 to 2020 were included, but all of them scored lowest in the domain of applicability among all six domains. Twelve pharmacological agents (eg, methylprednisolone) were studied. For methylprednisolone, three guidelines (3/8=37.5%) recommended for (one evidence-based and two consensus-based), three (3/8=37.5%) recommended against (all evidence-based), and two (2/8=25%) recommended neither for nor against. For monosialotetrahexosylganglioside (GM-1), one guideline (1/4=25%) recommended for (consensus-based), one (1/4=25%) recommended against (evidence-based), and two (2/4=50%) recommended neither for nor against. For other agents (eg, minocycline), most guidelines (3/5=60%) recommended neither for nor against, one (1/5=20%) recommended against naloxone (evidence-based) and nimodipine (evidence-based), and one (1/5=20%) recommended for neural growth factor (consensus-based). The quality of most of the supporting evidence was poor, and the rest was fair.
CONCLUSIONS
There were inconsistencies among recommendations for methylprednisolone and GM-1. Evidence-based recommendations tended to recommend against, whereas consensus-based recommendations tended to recommend for.
Topics: Humans; Consensus; Databases, Factual; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 36182069
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.09.009 -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Dec 2022Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) antibodies mediate inflammatory demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system. This study aimed to understand the...
BACKGROUND
Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) antibodies mediate inflammatory demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system. This study aimed to understand the clinical characteristics of MOG antibody-associated aseptic meningitis (MOGAM).
METHODS
Here, we report the cases of two children with MOGAM. A systematic literature review was conducted and included patients who had MOGAM only, without neurological parenchymal lesions. The clinical characteristics that may have affected the outcome were statistically analyzed.
RESULTS
We reviewed 12 cases of MOGAM; male: female = 9: 3. Prolonged fever lasting over 7 days (11/12) was the most frequent symptom, followed by headache (10/12), vomiting (5/12), and seizures (4/12). None of the patients had focal neurological manifestations or parenchymal lesions on imaging. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leukocytosis was observed in all patients (12/12), and blood leukocytosis and elevated CSF pressure was observed in all patients who had corresponding results (9/9 and 4/4, respectively). Seizures occurrence was lower than that of MOG antibody-associated cortical encephalitis. Seven cases progressed to other MOG antibody-associated diseases (MOGADs) in the later phase of MOGAM. Patients who did not progress to other MOGADs had a shorter disease duration from onset to the initiation of intravenous methylprednisolone than those who did. All the patients achieved full recovery after steroid treatment. One patient had relapses.
CONCLUSIONS
MOGAM without inflammatory demyelination is a rare but distinct phenotype of MOGAD, with fewer clinical manifestations mimicking bacterial or viral meningitis/encephalomeningitis. Delayed diagnosis and treatment may induce the progression to other severe MOGADs. Early recognition of this unique autoimmune aseptic meningitis may contribute to early diagnosis, treatment, and better outcomes.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Autoantibodies; Encephalitis; Meningitis, Aseptic; Myelin-Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein; Seizures; Child
PubMed: 36115288
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2022.104126 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Sep 2022Third molar surgery is frequently associated with postoperative discomfort such as pain, edema and trismus. We aimed to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of...
BACKGROUND
Third molar surgery is frequently associated with postoperative discomfort such as pain, edema and trismus. We aimed to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy in improving patient-centered outcomes following third molar surgery.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This systematic review assessed and searched PubMed, Google scholar, Scopus, web of science, clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane central for controlled trials, up to May 2021. The primary outcome measures were patient-centered outcomes such as quality of life following the use of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy in third molar removal. Only randomized controlled trials published in English language were included.
RESULTS
A total of 355 studies were initially identified, and 12 studies were finally included. The results showed that both methylprednisolone and dexamethasone decreased postoperative side effects such as pain, trismus, and edema and consequently were improving patient reported outcomes. In this regard, none of the included papers reported any significant statistical difference between these two drugs (p > 0.05). The analysis regarding the route of administration for the corticosteroids showed that local and intravenous injection of dexamethasone had equivalent effects, and both methods showed better results as compared to simple oral administration.
CONCLUSIONS
Adjunctive use of corticosteroid drugs may improve patient-centered outcomes following third molar surgery. However, there is no significant difference between drugs and routs of administration. Comparing various administration routs, local submucosal injection of dexamethasone seems to be a straightforward, painless and cost-effective adjunctive therapy.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Dexamethasone; Edema; Humans; Molar, Third; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Patient-Centered Care; Quality of Life; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted; Trismus
PubMed: 35975802
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.25177 -
Reviews in Medical Virology Sep 2022The effect of corticosteroid therapy is still controversial on prevention of mortality in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this study is to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effect of corticosteroid therapy is still controversial on prevention of mortality in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of corticosteroids on mortality. This systematic review was performed as per preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. A systematic search was performed at different databases namely Medline/PubMed, Cochrane and Google scholar on 10 February 2022. A pooled estimate for effect of corticosteroid therapy on mortality was calculated as outcome of study. Risk bias analysis and Newcastle Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of randomized control trial (RCT) and cohort studies, respectively. Cochran's Q test and the I statistic were conducted for heterogeneity and accordingly study model was applied. A total 43 studies were included, having sample size of 96,852 patients. Amongst them, 19,426 and 77,426 patients received corticosteroid therapy (intervention group) or standard treatment without corticosteroid (control group), respectively. Mortality observed in the intervention and control group was 14.2% (2749) and 7.1% (5459), respectively. The pooled estimate 2.173 (95% CI: 2.0690-2.2820) showed significantly increased mortality in intervention as compared to control. The pooled estimate of methyprednisolone 1.206 (95% CI: 1.0770-1.3500) showed significantly increased mortality while the pooled estimate of dexamethasone 1.040 (95% CI: 0.9459-1.1440) showed insignificantly increased mortality as compared to control. In conclusion, corticosteroid therapy produced a negative prognosis as depicted by increased mortality among COVID-19 patients. The possible reasons might be delay in virus clearance and secondary infections due to corticosteroids initiated at high dose in the early stage of infection.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Cohort Studies; Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35971278
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2386 -
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 -
Danish Medical Journal Jun 2022Delirium is a syndrome characterised by disturbance of consciousness and is a common complication to hip fractures. This systematic review was conducted to investigate...
INTRODUCTION
Delirium is a syndrome characterised by disturbance of consciousness and is a common complication to hip fractures. This systematic review was conducted to investigate the effect of simple preoperative interventions for the prevention of delirium in patients with hip fractures. The aim was to establish an easily implementable and resource-sparring treatment for the initial admission phase of hip fracture patients aimed at reducing the incidence of delirium.
MEHODS
Five databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials comparing preoperative interventions other than geriatric assessment to placebo or usual care. Our primary outcome was incidence of delirium using a well-defined delirium-screening tool. Secondary outcomes included need for pharmacological treatment, duration of delirium and mortality.
RESULTS
A total of 13 RCTs provided data on 2,222 patients who had been exposed to 11 different interventions. Four interventions significantly reduced of the incidence of delirium: methylprednisolone (odds ratio (OR) = 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.17-1.00; p = 0.048), fascia iliaca block (OR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.84; p = 0.02), hypertonic saline (OR = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.08-0.55; p = 0.001) and rivastigmine patches (OR = 0.23; 95% CI: 0.07-0.77; p = 0.013). All studies were rated as having a high risk of overall bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Robust conclusions are precluded by study heterogeneity and high risk of bias in the included studies. However, this systematic review provides an indication of treatments that should be investigated further to establish any effect on delirium in the preoperative setting in hip fracture patients.
Topics: Aged; Delirium; Geriatric Assessment; Hip Fractures; Humans; Odds Ratio; Preoperative Care
PubMed: 35781125
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Sep 2022The ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted our lives. We conducted this systematic review to investigate the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in NMOSD... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted our lives. We conducted this systematic review to investigate the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in NMOSD patients.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase from the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination to March 1, 2022. Except for the letters, posters, and reviews, we included all related articles to answer two main questions. Our first question examined the occurrence of NMOSD onset as an adverse effect of the COVID-19 vaccine. Our second question investigated the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in NMOSD patients.
RESULTS
Out of 262 records, nine studies, including five studies for the first question and four studies for the second question, met the inclusion criteria. Out of the six patients with NMOSD onset after COVID-19 vaccination, five (83.3%) were female. The median time to NMOSD onset was 6.5 days, and the frequency of the COVID-19 vaccine type was identical in all patients. The most common presentation was longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis, significantly improved by pulse methylprednisolone with or without plasma exchange. The maintenance therapy was described only in three patients: rituximab (n=2) and azathioprine (n=1). Regarding the second question, out of 67 patients, 77.61% were female, with a mean age of 54.75 years old, a mean EDSS of 2.83, and a mean disease duration of 9.5 years. 77% reported at least one preexisting comorbidity. 88.05% were under treatment, most of which were rituximab and azathioprine. 98.50% received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. mRNA vaccines were the most commonly used vaccine(86.56%), which were well tolerated. No significant adverse event was reported, and local pain was the most frequently reported. 4.67% of the patients experienced a clinical relapse after a mean interval of 49.75 days, which was mainly mild to moderate in severity. Unfortunately, the data on the COVID-19 vaccines were missing.
CONCLUSION
The analysis suggests the safety profile of the COVID-19 vaccines. All NMOSD patients are strongly recommended to vaccinate for COVID-19. To maximize the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, further studies are needed to draw the best practice for vaccination.
Topics: Aquaporin 4; Azathioprine; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neurologists; Neuromyelitis Optica; Pandemics; Rituximab; Vaccination
PubMed: 35763914
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2022.103960 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular... Sep 2022The clinical efficacy of corticosteroids remains unclear. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the use of high-dose versus low-... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The clinical efficacy of corticosteroids remains unclear. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the use of high-dose versus low- dose corticosteroids on the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Electronic search for randomized controlled trials and observational studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL).
PARTICIPANTS
Hospitalized adults ≥ 18 years old who were SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive.
INTERVENTIONS
High-dose and low-dose corticosteroids.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
A total of twelve studies (n=2759 patients) were included in this review. The pooled analysis demonstrated no significant difference in mortality rate between the high-dose and low-dose corticosteroids groups (n=2632; OR: 1.07 [95%CI 0.67, 1.72], p=0.77, I=76%, trial sequential analysis=inconclusive). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate (n=1544; OR: 0.77[95%CI 0.43, 1.37], p=0.37, I= 72%), duration of hospital stay (n=1615; MD: 0.53[95%CI -1.36, 2.41], p=0.58, I=87%), respiratory support (n=1694; OR: 1.51[95%CI 0.77, 2.96], p=0.23, I=84%), duration of mechanical ventilation (n=419; MD: -1.44[95%CI -4.27, 1.40], p=0.32, I=93%), incidence of hyperglycemia (n=516, OR: 0.91[95%CI 0.58, 1.43], p=0.68, I=0%) and infection rate (n=1485, OR: 0.86[95%CI 0.64, 1.16], p=0.33, I=29%).
CONCLUSION
The meta-analysis demonstrated high-dose corticosteroids did not reduce mortality rate. However, high-dose corticosteroids did not pose higher risk of hyperglycemia and infection rate for COVID-19 patients. Due to the inconclusive trial sequential analysis, substantial heterogeneity and low level of evidence, future large-scale randomized clinical trials are warranted to improve the certainty of evidence for the use of high-dose compared to low-dose corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; COVID-19; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35715291
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2022.05.011 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO) is the most frequent extrathyroidal manifestation of Graves' disease, affecting up to 50% of patients. It has a great impact on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO) is the most frequent extrathyroidal manifestation of Graves' disease, affecting up to 50% of patients. It has a great impact on quality of life. Rituximab (RTX) is a human/murine chimeric monoclonal antibody that targets the CD20 receptor on B-lymphocytes. Preliminary work has shown that blocking this CD20 receptor with RTX may affect the clinical course of TAO by reducing inflammation and the degree of proptosis. OBJECTIVES: This review update, originally published in 2013, assesses the efficacy and safety of using RTX for the treatment of TAO.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2022, Issue 2), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS), the ISRCTN registry, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). There were no language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RTX administered by intravenous infusion using any dosage regimen for the treatment of active TAO in adults, compared to placebo or glucocorticoids treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently scanned titles and abstracts, and screened full-text reports of potentially relevant studies. The outcomes of interest in this review were: clinical activity score (CAS), NOSPECS severity scale, proptosis (mm), palpebral aperture (mm), extraocular motility (degrees or diplopia rating scale), quality of life and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two studies that met the inclusion criteria in this updated review. Across both studies, the mean age of participants was 55 years and 77% were women. RTX compared to intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) One study, conducted in Italy, compared RTX (n = 15 after one participant withdrew) with IVMP (n = 16) for active TAO (CAS ≥ 3 out of 7 or 4 out of 10). We judged this study to be at low risk of bias in most domains, but it was stopped early because of disease reactivation in the comparator group (5/16 participants). This study provided low-certainty evidence that RTX may result in CAS improvement at 24 weeks compared to IVMP (15/15 versus 12/16 improved by ≥ 2 points; risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.78). Only very low-certainty evidence was available for the other outcomes: NOSPECS improvement by 2 or more classes (3/15 versus 3/16; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.49); proptosis improvement by 2 mm or more (0/15 versus 1/16; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.08); palpebral aperture improvement by 3 mm or more (2/15 versus 0/16; RR 5.31, 95% CI 0.28 to 102.38); motility improvement by 1 class or more (3/15 versus 3/16; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.49); and improvement on the Graves' ophthalmopathy QoL scale by at least 6 points for "functioning" (5/14 versus 8/13; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.32), and "appearance" (9/14 versus 6/13; RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.82). Adverse events were more common in the RTX group (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.13; low-certainty evidence). Minor adverse effects (mild infusion reactions) were observed in most people receiving RTX at first infusion. Two participants experienced a major infusion reaction, likely cytokine release syndrome. RTX compared to placebo One study, conducted in the USA, enrolled 25 participants with active TAO (CAS ≥ 4 out of 7), comparing RTX (13 participants) to placebo. We judged this study to be at low risk of bias in most domains, but it was stopped early due to recruitment issues. It provided very low-certainty evidence on the following outcomes at 24 weeks: CAS improvement by 2 or more points (4/13 RTX versus 3/12 placebo; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.40); NOSPECS improvement by 2 or more classes (2/13 versus 2/12; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.15 to 5.56); proptosis improvement by 2 mm or more (2/13 versus 4/12; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.08); palpebral aperture median change (0 mm in RTX group, in both eyes separately, versus -0.5 mm and 0.5 mm in placebo group right and left eye, respectively); motility median diplopia score (3 versus 2.5); SF-12 physical component median score (45.9 versus 40.3) and mental component median score (52.8 versus 46.1). More participants in the RTX group experienced adverse effects (8/13 versus 3/12; RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.84 to 7.18). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of RTX in people with TAO. Future studies investigating RTX in people with active TAO may need to be multi-centre in order to recruit enough participants to make an adequate judgement on the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Diplopia; Female; Graves Ophthalmopathy; Humans; Male; Mice; Middle Aged; Rituximab
PubMed: 35709102
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009226.pub3