-
Frontiers in Neurology 2022The objective was to comprehensively assess the efficacy and safety of all pharmacological and physical treatments (short-term, ≤ 1 month) for patients with acute...
OBJECTIVE
The objective was to comprehensively assess the efficacy and safety of all pharmacological and physical treatments (short-term, ≤ 1 month) for patients with acute Bell's palsy.
METHODS
The electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI were searched for the randomized controlled trials comparing two or more regimens in patients with the Bell's palsy to be included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Odds ratios and CIs for the primary outcome of the House-Brackmann scale and secondary outcomes of sequelae (synkinesis and crocodile tears) and adverse events were obtained and subgroup analyses of steroids and antivirals were conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 26 studies representing 3,609 patients having undergone 15 treatments matched our eligibility criteria. For facial recovery, acupuncture plus electrical stimulation, steroid plus antiviral plus Kabat treatment, and steroid plus antiviral plus electrical stimulation were the top three options based on analysis of the treatment ranking (probability = 84, 80, and 77%, respectively). Steroid plus antiviral plus electrical stimulation had the lowest rate of sequelae but were more likely to lead to mild adverse events. Subgroup analysis revealed that methylprednisolone and acyclovir were likely to be the preferred option.
CONCLUSIONS
This network meta-analysis indicated that combined therapies, especially steroid plus antiviral plus Kabat treatment, were associated with a better facial function recovery outcome than single therapy. Other physical therapies, such as acupuncture plus electrical stimulation, may be a good alternative for people with systemic disease or allergies. More high-quality trials of physical regimens are needed in the future.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
Our registered PROSPERO number is CRD42021275486 and detailed information can be found at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.
PubMed: 35528739
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.868121 -
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis May 2022Since COVID-19 outbreak, various studies mentioned the occurrence of neurological disorders. Of these, encephalitis is known as a critical neurological complication in... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Since COVID-19 outbreak, various studies mentioned the occurrence of neurological disorders. Of these, encephalitis is known as a critical neurological complication in COVID-19 patients. Numerous case reports and case series have found encephalitis in relation to COVID-19, which have not been systematically reviewed. This study aims to evaluate the clinical symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and outcome of COVID-19-associated encephalitis.
METHODS
We used the Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases to search for reports on COVID-19-associated encephalitis from January 1, 2019, to March 7, 2021. The irrelevant studies were excluded based on screening and further evaluation. Then, the information relating diagnosis, treatment, clinical manifestations, comorbidities, and outcome was extracted and evaluated.
RESULTS
From 4455 initial studies, 45 articles met our criteria and were selected for further evaluation. Included publications reported an overall number of 53 COVID-19-related encephalitis cases. MRI showed hyperintensity of brain regions including white matter (44.68%), temporal lobe (17.02%), and thalamus (12.76%). Also, brain CT scan revealed the hypodensity of the white matter (17.14%) and cerebral hemorrhages/hemorrhagic foci (11.42%) as the most frequent findings. The IV methylprednisolone/oral prednisone (36.11%), IV immunoglobulin (27.77%), and acyclovir (16.66%) were more preferred for COVID-19 patients with encephalitis. From the 46 patients, 13 (28.26%) patients were died in the hospital.
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review, characteristics of COVID-19-associated encephalitis including clinical symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and outcome were described. COVID-19-associated encephalitis can accompany with other neurological symptoms and involve different brain. Although majority of encephalitis condition are reversible, but it can lead to life-threatening status. Therefore, further investigation of COVID-19-associated encephalitis is required.
Topics: COVID-19; Encephalitis; Encephalitis, Viral; Humans; Nervous System Diseases; Neuroimaging
PubMed: 35435264
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.24426 -
Cureus Mar 2022Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL) is a common condition characterized by hearing threshold reduction, most often of unknown causes. The patient... (Review)
Review
Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL) is a common condition characterized by hearing threshold reduction, most often of unknown causes. The patient experiences a sudden reduction of the hearing threshold in one or both ears. Steroids are the mainstream of the treatment. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of intratympanic steroid administration compared with systemic administration and the combination of the two steroid treatments in the hearing recovery of patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. We searched electronic databases such as PubMed, ScienceDirect, CINAHL, Cochrane (Central), Ovid, and Medline from August 31, 2021, to November 31, 2021, and from February 5 to 10, 2022. We included 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and performed a meta-analysis comparing the efficiency in the hearing recovery of intratympanic versus systemic steroid treatment, systemic versus combined, and intratympanic versus combined steroid treatment. The results of the intratympanic versus systemic steroid therapy comparison showed no actual difference in efficiency and no statistical significance (odds ratio: 1.07 (Mantel-Haenszel (M-H), fixed, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-1.51)). Systemic steroid treatment was inferior to combined steroid treatment and was the only outcome with statistical significance (odds ratio: 0.55 (M-H, fixed, 95% CI: 0.38-0.80)). Intratympanic steroid treatment was inferior to combined steroid treatment, although the results were not statistically significant (odds ratio: 0.65 (M-H, fixed, 95% CI: 0.37-1.16)). In conclusion, systemic steroid therapy was inferior to combined steroid therapy. The comparison of intratympanic with systemic therapy and intratympanic with combined therapy showed no statistical significance. Further research is needed with more RCTs, and side effects should be considered.
PubMed: 35399426
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.22887 -
Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical... 2022Till date, only systemic corticosteroids have demonstrated definite mortality benefit in management of COVID 19 in various studies. Still certain questions regarding the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Till date, only systemic corticosteroids have demonstrated definite mortality benefit in management of COVID 19 in various studies. Still certain questions regarding the appropriate dose, duration and timing of corticosteroids remain unanswered. For this reason, the study was planned to determine the efficacy and safety of the pulse dose methyl prednisolone in management of COVID 19 from the publicly available evidence.
METHODS
PubMed, the Cochrane library, ClinicalTrials.gov and medRxiv were searched for articles reporting the use of pulse dose methyl prednisolone in COVID 19 from inception till 31st May, 2021. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for estimation of pooled effect by using random effect model and heterogeneity was checked by using I2 statistics.
RESULTS
Twelve studies (11 observational and 1 RCT) were included in the systematic review. A total of 3110 patients from 9 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Though the use of pulse dose methyl prednisolone demonstrated statistically significant mortality benefit in comparison to usual care (OR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.97, [P=0.03]), (I2= 21%) with calculated Number needed to treat (NNT) of 23.5, there was no statistically significant difference between the use of pulse dose and low dose corticosteroid (OR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.01, [(P=0.05]), (I2= 25%) and the NNT is 23.5. Incidence of adverse events were similar across all the groups. The grade of evidence for primary outcome was of moderate certainty.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis concurs with the previous reports regarding the use of corticosteroid in COVID 19 in comparison to usual care. However, for both the primary and secondary outcome, the study did not find any statistically significant difference between the use of pulse dose methyl prednisolone and low dose corticosteroid to treat COVID 19 patients.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Humans; Methylprednisolone; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35364003
DOI: 10.18433/jpps32430 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2022The field of inflammatory disease of the heart or "cardio-immunology" is rapidly evolving due to the wider use of non-invasive diagnostic tools able to detect and...
The field of inflammatory disease of the heart or "cardio-immunology" is rapidly evolving due to the wider use of non-invasive diagnostic tools able to detect and monitor myocardial inflammation. In acute myocarditis, recent data on the use of immunomodulating therapies have been reported both in the setting of systemic autoimmune disorders and in the setting of isolated forms, especially in patients with specific histology (e.g., eosinophilic myocarditis) or with an arrhythmicburden. A role for immunosuppressive therapies has been also shown in severe cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a condition that can be associated with cardiac injury and acute myocarditis. Furthermore, ongoing clinical trials are assessing the role of high dosage methylprednisolone in the context of acute myocarditis complicated by heart failure or fulminant presentation or the role of anakinra to treat patients with acute myocarditis excluding patients with hemodynamically unstable conditions. In addition, the explosion of immune-mediated therapies in oncology has introduced new pathophysiological entities, such as immune-checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis and new basic research models to understand the interaction between the cardiac and immune systems. Here we provide a broad overview of evolving areas in cardio-immunology. We summarize the use of new imaging tools in combination with endomyocardial biopsy and laboratory parameters such as high sensitivity troponin to monitor the response to immunomodulating therapies based on recent evidence and clinical experience. Concerning pericarditis, the normal composition of pericardial fluid has been recently elucidated, allowing to assess the actual presence of inflammation; indeed, normal pericardial fluid is rich in nucleated cells, protein, albumin, LDH, at levels consistent with inflammatory exudates in other biological fluids. Importantly, recent findings showed how innate immunity plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of recurrent pericarditis with raised C-reactive protein, with inflammasome and IL-1 overproduction as drivers for systemic inflammatory response. In the era of tailored medicine, anti-IL-1 agents such as anakinra and rilonacept have been demonstrated highly effective in patients with recurrent pericarditis associated with an inflammatory phenotype.
PubMed: 35350578
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.838564 -
Steroids Jul 2022The roles of methylprednisolone in treatment of patients with COVID-19 remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The roles of methylprednisolone in treatment of patients with COVID-19 remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone in treatment of COVID-19 patients. PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched for studies comparing methylprednisolone and no glucocorticoids treatment in patients with COVID-19. Statistical pooling was reported as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI). Thirty-three studies were eligible, including 5 randomized trials and 28 observational studies. Meta-analysis showed that compared with no glucocorticoids, methylprednisolone in treatment of COVID-19 patients was associated with reduced short-term mortality (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.60-0.89), less need for ICU admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) and mechanical ventilation (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.84), increased 28-day ventilator-free days (MD 2.81; 95% CI 2.64-2.97), without increasing risk of secondary infections (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.82-1.32), but could prolong duration of viral shedding (MD 1.03; 95% CI 0.25-1.82). Subgroup analyses revealed that low-dose (≤2mg/kg/day) methylprednisolone treatment for ≤ 7 days in severe COVID-19 patients was associated with relatively better clinical outcomes, without increasing duration of viral shedding. Compared with no glucocorticoids, methylprednisolone treatment in COVID-19 patients is associated with reduced short-term mortality and better clinical outcomes, without increasing secondary infections, but could slightly prolong duration of viral shedding. Patients with severe COVID-19 are more likely to benefit from short-term low-dose methylprednisolone treatment (1-2 mg/kg/day for ≤ 7 days).
Topics: Coinfection; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Methylprednisolone; Respiration, Artificial; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35346661
DOI: 10.1016/j.steroids.2022.109022 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome are rare, severe cutaneous adverse reactions usually triggered by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome are rare, severe cutaneous adverse reactions usually triggered by medications. In addition to tertiary-level supportive care, various systemic therapies have been used including glucocorticoids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIGs), cyclosporin, N-acetylcysteine, thalidomide, infliximab, etanercept, and plasmapheresis. There is an unmet need to understand the efficacy of these interventions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic therapies (medicines delivered orally, intramuscularly, or intravenously) for the treatment of SJS, TEN, and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to March 2021: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched five clinical trial registers, the reference lists of all included studies and of key review articles, and a number of drug manufacturer websites. We searched for errata or retractions of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational comparative studies of participants of any age with a clinical diagnosis of SJS, TEN, or SJS/TEN overlap syndrome. We included all systemic therapies studied to date and permitted comparisons between each therapy, as well as between therapy and placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as specified by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were SJS/TEN-specific mortality and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of SJS/TEN therapy. Secondary outcomes included time to complete re-epithelialisation, intensive care unit length of stay, total hospital length of stay, illness sequelae, and other adverse effects attributed to systemic therapy. We rated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies with a total of 308 participants (131 males and 155 females) from seven countries. We included two studies in the quantitative meta-analysis. We included three RCTs and six prospective, controlled observational studies. Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 91. Most studies did not report study duration or time to follow-up. Two studies reported a mean SCORe of Toxic Epidermal Necrosis (SCORTEN) of 3 and 1.9. Seven studies did not report SCORTEN, although four of these studies reported average or ranges of body surface area (BSA) (means ranging from 44% to 51%). Two studies were set in burns units, two in dermatology wards, one in an intensive care unit, one in a paediatric ward, and three in unspecified inpatient units. Seven studies reported a mean age, which ranged from 29 to 56 years. Two studies included paediatric participants (23 children). We assessed the results from one of three RCTs as low risk of bias in all domains, one as high, and one as some concerns. We judged the results from all six prospective observational comparative studies to be at a high risk of bias. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of serious risk of bias concerns and for imprecision due to small numbers of participants. The interventions assessed included systemic corticosteroids, tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, cyclosporin, thalidomide, N-acetylcysteine, IVIG, and supportive care. No data were available for the main comparisons of interest as specified in the review protocol: etanercept versus cyclosporin, etanercept versus IVIG, IVIG versus supportive care, IVIG versus cyclosporin, and cyclosporin versus corticosteroids. Corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids It is uncertain if there is any difference between corticosteroids (methylprednisolone 4 mg/kg/day for two more days after fever had subsided and no new lesions had developed) and no corticosteroids on disease-specific mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 9.03; 2 studies; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to complete re-epithelialisation, length of hospital stay, and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported. IVIG versus no IVIG It is uncertain if there is any difference between IVIG (0.2 to 0.5 g/kg cumulative dose over three days) and no IVIG in risk of disease-specific mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.91); time to complete re-epithelialisation (mean difference (MD) -2.93 days, 95% CI -4.4 to -1.46); or length of hospital stay (MD -2.00 days, 95% CI -5.81 to 1.81). All results in this comparison were based on one study with 36 participants, and very low-certainty evidence. Adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported. Etanercept (TNF-alpha inhibitor) versus corticosteroids Etanercept (25 mg (50 mg if weight > 65 kg) twice weekly "until skin lesions healed") may reduce disease-specific mortality compared to corticosteroids (intravenous prednisolone 1 to 1.5 mg/kg/day "until skin lesions healed") (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.63; 1 study; 91 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, the CIs were consistent with possible benefit and possible harm. Serious adverse events, such as sepsis and respiratory failure, were reported in 5 of 48 participants with etanercept and 9 of 43 participants with corticosteroids, but it was not clear if they led to discontinuation of therapy. Time to complete re-epithelialisation and length of hospital stay were not reported. Cyclosporin versus IVIG It is uncertain if there is any difference between cyclosporin (3 mg/kg/day or intravenous 1 mg/kg/day until complete re-epithelialisation, then tapered off (10 mg/day reduction every 48 hours)) and IVIG (continuous infusion 0.75 g/kg/day for 4 days (total dose 3 g/kg) in participants with normal renal function) in risk of disease-specific mortality (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98, 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to complete re-epithelialisation, length of hospital stay, and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported. No studies measured intensive care unit length of stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When compared to corticosteroids, etanercept may result in mortality reduction. For the following comparisons, the certainty of the evidence for disease-specific mortality is very low: corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids, IVIG versus no IVIG and cyclosporin versus IVIG. There is a need for more multicentric studies, focused on the most important clinical comparisons, to provide reliable answers about the best treatments for SJS/TEN.
Topics: Acetylcysteine; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Autoimmune Diseases; Child; Cyclosporine; Etanercept; Female; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; Thalidomide; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 35274741
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013130.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Steroids have been used widely since the early 1970s for the treatment of adult-onset minimal change disease (MCD). Recently, newer agents have been used in adult MCD... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Steroids have been used widely since the early 1970s for the treatment of adult-onset minimal change disease (MCD). Recently, newer agents have been used in adult MCD aiming to reduce the risk of adverse effects. The response rates to immunosuppressive agents in adult MCD are more variable than in children. The optimal agent, dose, and duration of treatment for the first episode of nephrotic syndrome, or for disease relapse(s) have not been determined. This is an update of a review first published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to 1) evaluate the benefits and harms of different agents, including both immunosuppressive and non-immunosuppressive agents, in adults with MCD causing the nephrotic syndrome; and 2) evaluate the efficacy of interventions on 'time-to-remission' of nephrotic syndrome, in adults with MCD causing the nephrotic syndrome.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 21 July 2021 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) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention for MCD with nephrotic syndrome in adults over 18 years were included. Studies comparing different types, routes, frequencies, and duration of immunosuppressive agents and non-immunosuppressive agents were assessed.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and results were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, or mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen RCTs (769 randomised participants) were identified; four studies evaluated different prednisolone regimens, eight studies evaluated the calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) (tacrolimus or cyclosporin), two studies evaluated enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) and one study evaluated levamisole. In all but two studies of non-corticosteroid agents, reduced-dose prednisolone was given with the treatment agent and the comparator was high-dose prednisolone. In the risk of bias assessment, 11 and seven studies were at low risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment, respectively. No studies were at low risk of performance bias and eight studies were at low risk of detection bias. Thirteen, 10 and six studies were at low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias, respectively. Compared with no specific treatment, it is uncertain whether prednisolone increases the number with complete remission (1 study, 28 participants: RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.19), complete or partial remission (1 study, 28 participants: RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.95), subsequent relapse (1 study, 28 participants: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.17), or reduces the adverse effects because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared with oral prednisolone alone, it is uncertain whether intravenous methylprednisolone and prednisolone increase the number with complete remission (2 studies, 35 participants: RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 18.32; I² = 90%), relapse (two studies, 19 participants. RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.15; I² = 0%) or adverse events because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared with prednisolone alone, CNIs with reduced-dose prednisolone or without prednisolone probably make little or no difference to the number achieving complete remission (8 studies; 492 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I² = 0%), complete or partial remission (4 studies, 269 participants: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05; I² = 0%), or relapse (7 studies; 422 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.03; I² = 0%) (moderate certainty evidence), may reduce the risk of obesity or Cushing's Syndrome (5 studies; 388 participants: RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.59; I² = 45%) and the risk of acne (4 studies; 270 participants: RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.67; I² = 0%) (low certainty evidence); and had uncertain effects on diabetes or hyperglycaemia, hypertension, and acute kidney injury (AKI) (low certainty evidence). Compared with prednisolone alone, EC-MPS with reduced-dose prednisolone probably make little or no difference to the number undergoing complete remission at 4 weeks (1 study, 114 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.50), and at 24 weeks probably make little or no difference to the number undergoing complete remission (2 studies, 134 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.38; I² = 0%) (moderate certainty evidence), complete or partial remission (2 studies 134 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.12; I² = 0%), relapse (2 studies, 83 participants: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.74; I² = 56%) (low certainty evidence); or to the adverse events of new-onset glucose intolerance, death, or AKI (low certainty evidence). One study (24 participants) compared levamisole and prednisolone with prednisolone in patients with relapsing disease. The authors identified no differences in mean relapse rate or adverse effects but no standard deviations were provided.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This updated review has identified evidence for the efficacy and adverse effects of CNIs and EC-MPS with or without reduced-dose prednisolone compared with prednisolone alone for the induction of remission in adults with MCD and nephrotic syndrome with some reductions in steroid-associated adverse events. RCT data on the efficacy and adverse effects of rituximab in adults with MCD are awaited. Further, adequately powered RCTs are required to determine the relative efficacies of CNIs and EC-MPS and to evaluate these medications in patients with relapsing or steroid-resistant disease.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Adult; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Child; Female; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Levamisole; Male; Methylprednisolone; Mycophenolic Acid; Nephrosis, Lipoid; Nephrotic Syndrome; Recurrence; Steroids
PubMed: 35230699
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001537.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) can be separated into primary, genetic or secondary causes. Primary disease results in nephrotic syndrome while genetic and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) can be separated into primary, genetic or secondary causes. Primary disease results in nephrotic syndrome while genetic and secondary forms may be associated with asymptomatic proteinuria or with nephrotic syndrome. Overall only about 20% of patients with FSGS experience a partial or complete remission of nephrotic syndrome with treatment. FSGS progresses to kidney failure in about half of the cases. This is an update of a review first published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive and non-immunosuppressive treatment regimens in adults with FSGS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies to 21 June 2021 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) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention for FSGS in adults were included. Studies comparing different types, routes, frequencies, and duration of immunosuppressive agents and non-immunosuppressive agents were assessed.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and results were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, or mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen studies (560 participants) were included. No studies specifically evaluating corticosteroids compared with placebo or supportive therapy were identified. Studies evaluated participants with steroid-resistant FSGS. Five studies (240 participants) compared cyclosporin with or without prednisone with different comparators (no specific treatment, prednisone, methylprednisolone, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), dexamethasone). Three small studies compared monoclonal antibodies (adalimumab, fresolimumab) with other agents or placebo. Six single small studies compared rituximab with tacrolimus, cyclosporin plus valsartan with cyclosporin alone, MMF with prednisone, chlorambucil plus methylprednisolone and prednisone with no specific treatment, different regimens of dexamethasone and CCX140-B (an antagonist of the chemokine receptor CCR2) with placebo. The final study (109 participants) compared sparsentan, a dual inhibitor of endothelin Type A receptor and of the angiotensin II Type 1 receptor, with irbesartan. In the risk of bias assessment, seven and five studies were at low risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment, respectively. Four studies were at low risk of performance bias and 14 studies were at low risk of detection bias. Thirteen, six and five studies were at low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias, respectively. Of five studies evaluating cyclosporin, four could be included in our meta-analyses (231 participants). Cyclosporin with or without prednisone compared with different comparators may increase the likelihood of complete remission (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.73; I² = 1%; low certainty evidence) and of complete or partial remission (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.44; I² = 19%) but not of partial remission (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.39, I² = 22%). In Individual studies, cyclosporin with prednisone versus prednisone may increase the likelihood of partial (49 participants: RR 7.96, 95% CI 1.09 to 58.15) or complete or partial remission (49 participants: RR 8.85, 95% CI 1.22 to 63.92) but not of complete remission. The remaining individual comparisons may make little or no difference to the likelihood of complete remission, partial remission or complete or partial remission compared with no treatment, methylprednisolone, MMF, or dexamethasone. Individual study data and combined data showed that cyclosporin may make little or no difference to the outcomes of chronic kidney disease or kidney failure. It is uncertain whether cyclosporin compared with these comparators in individual or combined analyses makes any difference to the outcomes of hypertension or infection. MMF compared with prednisone may make little or no difference to the likelihood of complete remission (33 participants: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.88; low certainty evidence), partial remission, complete or partial remission, glomerular filtration rate, or infection. It is uncertain whether other interventions make any difference to outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low. It is uncertain whether sparsentan reduces proteinuria to a greater extent than irbesartan.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No RCTs, which evaluated corticosteroids, were identified although the KDIGO guidelines recommend corticosteroids as the first treatment for adults with FSGS. The studies identified included participants with steroid-resistant FSGS. Treatment with cyclosporin for at least six months was more likely to achieve complete remission of proteinuria compared with other treatments but there was considerable imprecision due to few studies and small participant numbers. In future studies of existing or new interventions, the investigators must clearly define the populations included in the study to provide appropriate recommendations for patients with primary, genetic or secondary FSGS.
Topics: Adult; Cyclosporine; Glomerulosclerosis, Focal Segmental; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Mycophenolic Acid; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35224732
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003233.pub3 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2022The limitations of adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) treatment for infantile spasms (ISs), such as high costs, limited availability, and adverse effects (AEs), make it...
OBJECTIVE
The limitations of adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) treatment for infantile spasms (ISs), such as high costs, limited availability, and adverse effects (AEs), make it necessary to explore whether corticosteroids are optimal alternatives. Many other compelling treatments have gone through trials due to the suboptimal effectiveness of hormonal therapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of hormonal therapy for patients with ISs.
METHODS
EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and online registers were searched through April 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
RESULTS
A total of 19 RCTs ( = 1,279) were included. There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of oral corticosteroids and ACTH in electro-clinical response (risk ratio [RR] = 0.85, 95% CI 0.41-1.76). Low-dose ACTH had similar effectiveness in electro-clinical response compared to usual-dose group (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.60-1.47) but conferred a lower risk of AEs (RR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.08-2.71). ACTH was more beneficial in controlling spasms than vigabatrin (VGB) (RR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.05-1.64) for patients without tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC). All RCTs were connected through network meta-analysis, and we found that ketogenic diet (KD), zonisamide, methylprednisolone, or combined treatment of hormonal therapy with topiramate (TPM) or pyridoxine was not different in electro-clinical response compared to usual-dose ACTH.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis showed that oral corticosteroids could be optional alternatives when ACTH is not applicable, and ACTH is more beneficial for patients without TSC. Moreover, low-dose ACTH is recommended due to comparative effectiveness but lower risk of AEs. However, due to the high heterogeneity of included patients and treatment protocols, these results must be interpreted with caution. RCTs with multicentric involvement and larger sample size are needed for solid evaluation of other alternative treatments.
PubMed: 35222241
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.772333