-
BMC Infectious Diseases Dec 2023Currently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Currently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive ventilation, and improve the prognosis of patients. However, optimal regimen and dosages of glucocorticoid remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this network meta-analysis is to analyze the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in treating COVID-19 at regimens.
METHODS
This meta-analysis retrieved randomized controlled trials from the earliest records to December 30, 2022, published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI Database and Wanfang Database, which compared glucocorticoids with placebos for their efficacy and safety in the treatment of COVID-19, Effects of different treatment regimens, types and dosages (high-dose methylprednisolone, very high-dose methylprednisolone, Pulse therapy methylprednisolone, medium-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose dexamethasone, very high-dose dexamethasone and placebo) on 28-day all-caused hospitalization mortality, hospitalization duration, mechanical ventilation requirement, ICU admission and safety outcome were compared.
RESULTS
In this network meta-analysis, a total of 10,544 patients from 19 randomized controlled trials were finally included, involving a total of 9 glucocorticoid treatment regimens of different types and dosages. According to the analysis results, the 28-day all-cause mortality rate was the lowest in the treatment with pulse therapy methylprednisolone (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02, 0.42), but the use of high-dose methylprednisolone (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59, 1.22), very high-dose dexamethasone (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.67, 1.35), high-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.34, 1.22), medium-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49, 1.31) showed no benefit in prolonging the 28-day survival of patient. Compared with placebo, the treatment with very high-dose methylprednisolone (MD = -3.09;95%CI: -4.10, -2.08) had the shortest length of hospital stay, while high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.55;95%CI: -3.13,0.03) and very high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.06;95%CI: -2.78,0.67) did not benefit patients in terms of length of stay.
CONCLUSIONS
Considering the available evidence, this network meta‑analysis suggests that the prognostic impact of glucocorticoids in patients with COVID-19 may depend on the regimens of glucocorticoids. It is suggested that pulse therapy methylprednisolone is associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality, very high-dose methylprednisolone had the shortest length of hospital stay in patients with COVID-19.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022350407 (22/08/2022).
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; COVID-19; Hydrocortisone; Network Meta-Analysis; Methylprednisolone; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 38124031
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08874-w -
Neurology(R) Neuroimmunology &... Jan 2024We characterize clinical and neuroimaging features of SARS-CoV-2-related acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE).
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
We characterize clinical and neuroimaging features of SARS-CoV-2-related acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE).
METHODS
Systematic review of English language publications in PubMed and reference lists between January 1, 2020, and June 30, 2023, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who fulfilled diagnostic criteria for sporadic and genetic ANE were included.
RESULTS
From 899 articles, 20 cases (17 single case reports and 3 additional cases) were curated for review (50% female; 8 were children). Associated COVID-19 illnesses were febrile upper respiratory tract infections in children while adults had pneumonia (45.6%) and myocarditis (8.2%). Children had early neurologic deterioration (median day 2 in children vs day 4 in adults), seizures (5 (62.5%) children vs 3 of 9 (33.3%) adults), and motor abnormalities (6 of 7 (85.7%) children vs 3 of 7 (42.9%) adults). Eight of 12 (66.7%) adults and 4 (50.0%) children had high-risk ANE scores. Five (62.5%) children and 12 (66.7%) adults had brain lesions bilaterally and symmetrically in the putamina, external capsules, insula cortex, or medial temporal lobes, in addition to typical thalamic lesions of ANE. Hypotension was only seen in adults (30%). Hematologic derangements were common: lymphopenia (66.7%), coagulopathy (60.0%), or elevated D-dimers (100%), C-reactive protein (91.7%), and ferritin (62.5%). A pathogenic heterozygous c/.1754 C>T variant in was present in 2 children: one known to have this before SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a patient tested because the SARS-CoV-2 infection was the second encephalopathic illness. Three other children with no prior encephalopathy or family history of encephalopathy were negative for this variant. Fifteen (75%) received immunotherapy (with IV methylprednisolone, immunoglobulins, tocilizumab, or plasma exchange): 6 (40.0%) with monotherapy and 9 (60.0%) had combination therapy. Deaths were in 8 of 17 with data (47.1%): a 2-month-old male infant and 7 adults (87.5%) of median age 56 years (33-70 years), 4 of whom did not receive immunotherapy.
DISCUSSION
Children and adults with SARS-CoV-2 ANE have similar clinical features and neuroimaging characteristics. Mortality is high, predominantly in patients not receiving immunotherapy and at the extremes of age.
Topics: Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Infant; Male; Middle Aged; Brain Diseases; COVID-19; Methylprednisolone; SARS-CoV-2; Seizures; Aged
PubMed: 38086061
DOI: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000200186 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2023New reports suggest that anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used to treat respiratory tract infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. Anti-inflammatory drugs were the most... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
New reports suggest that anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used to treat respiratory tract infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. Anti-inflammatory drugs were the most frequently used treatment for the COVID-19-related cytokine storm in China. However, the efficacy of anti-inflammatory drugs has yet to be systematically analyzed, and clinicians are often uncertain which class of anti-inflammatory drug is the most effective in treating patients with respiratory tract infections caused by SARS-CoV-2, especially those with severe disease.
METHODS
From 1 October 2022, relevant studies were searched in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. A total of 16,268 publications were retrieved and collated according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and sensitivity analyses were performed using STATA 14 software. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. Study quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, and the combined advantage ratio was expressed as a 95% confidence interval (CI). In total, 19 randomized controlled trials were included in the study. STATA 14 software was used for all random effects model analyses, and the results are expressed as relative risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI.
RESULTS
Quantitative analyses were performed on 14,514 patients from 19 relevant randomized controlled clinical trials. Pooled estimates (RR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.80) revealed that the use of anti-inflammatory drugs resulted in a significant reduction in mortality in patients with respiratory tract infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 compared with controls, and methylprednisolone (RR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.56) was more effective than other anti-inflammatory drugs. Anti-inflammatory drugs were effective in reducing mortality in critically ill patients (RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-0.98) compared with non-critically ill patients (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.76); however, more clinical evidence is needed to confirm these findings.
CONCLUSION
The use of anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with respiratory infections caused by SARS-CoV-2 reduces patient mortality, especially in severe cases. In individual studies, methylprednisolone was more effective than other drugs.
Topics: Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Methylprednisolone; Respiratory Tract Infections
PubMed: 37920591
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1198987 -
Biomedicines Sep 2023The clinical response to classical immunosuppressant drugs (cIMDs) is highly variable among individuals. We performed a systematic review of published evidence... (Review)
Review
The clinical response to classical immunosuppressant drugs (cIMDs) is highly variable among individuals. We performed a systematic review of published evidence supporting the hypothesis that gut microorganisms may contribute to this variability by affecting cIMD pharmacokinetics, efficacy or tolerability. The evidence that these drugs affect the composition of intestinal microbiota was also reviewed. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched using specific keywords without limits of species (human or animal) or time from publication. One thousand and fifty five published papers were retrieved in the initial database search. After screening, 50 papers were selected to be reviewed. Potential effects on cIMD pharmacokinetics, efficacy or tolerability were observed in 17/20 papers evaluating this issue, in particular with tacrolimus, cyclosporine, mycophenolic acid and corticosteroids, whereas evidence was missing for everolimus and sirolimus. Only one of the papers investigating the effect of cIMDs on the gut microbiota reported negative results while all the others showed significant changes in the relative abundance of specific intestinal bacteria. However, no unique pattern of microbiota modification was observed across the different studies. In conclusion, the available evidence supports the hypothesis that intestinal microbiota could contribute to the variability in the response to some cIMDs, whereas data are still missing for others.
PubMed: 37761003
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11092562 -
Medicine Sep 2023Methylprednisolone (MP) and dexamethasone (DXM) are commonly prescribed hormone drugs for treating coronavirus pandemic disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, but conflicting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Methylprednisolone (MP) and dexamethasone (DXM) are commonly prescribed hormone drugs for treating coronavirus pandemic disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, but conflicting results from previous studies and meta-analyses on their efficacy and safety necessitate further investigation. Therefore, in this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to enhance the level of evidence and compare the efficacy and safety of MP and DXM in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to retrieve randomized clinical trials. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality, with secondary outcomes including admission to the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, and adverse events.
RESULTS
This study analyzed six randomized controlled trials involving 1403 patients (MP group: 704; DXM group: 699). The results of the analysis showed no significant differences in mortality rates, admission to intensive care units, hospitalization time, mechanical ventilation, or adverse events between the MP and DXM groups (P > .05). However, a significant difference was observed in the incidence of hyperglycemia between these 2 groups (RR = 1.78, 95% CI [1.09, 2.89], P = .02, I2 = 78%).
CONCLUSION
The results of this meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in mortality, ICU admission rate, hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, or adverse events between MP and DXM in the treatment of COVID-19. The incidence of hyperglycemia with methylprednisolone was higher than that with dexamethasone.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Hyperglycemia; Methylprednisolone; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 37682199
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034738 -
Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics &... Sep 2023There is limited safety data on the use of everolimus during pregnancy. In this study, we present the maternal and neonatal outcomes of everolimus used throughout the...
OBJECTIVE
There is limited safety data on the use of everolimus during pregnancy. In this study, we present the maternal and neonatal outcomes of everolimus used throughout the course of pregnancy and conducted a systematic review of reports of everolimus use after organ transplantation during pregnancy.
CASE REPORT
A woman with type 1 diabetes who underwent kidney transplantation was treated with tacrolimus, everolimus, and prednisolone. Two years later, she became pregnant. At 27 weeks of gestation, an emergent cesarean delivery was performed owing to severe preeclampsia and fetal distress. No congenital malformation was noted in the baby at a corrected age of 4 months, and the maternal renal function remained stable.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review did not identify evidence of teratogenicity in babies exposed to everolimus as an immunosuppressant after transplantation. To better assess the risk of exposure to everolimus during pregnancy, all cases of new pregnancies occurring in transplant recipients receiving treatment with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor inhibitors should be reported.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Everolimus; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney; Kidney Transplantation; Sirolimus
PubMed: 37679013
DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2023.07.026 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Dec 2023There is ongoing interest in glucocorticoid treatment during oocyte stimulation to treat infertility in women who have undergone Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is ongoing interest in glucocorticoid treatment during oocyte stimulation to treat infertility in women who have undergone Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART).
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficiency and safety of adjuvant glucocorticoid therapy on pregnancy outcomes in infertile women undergoing ART cycles.
STUDY DESIGN
A literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to December 2022. To assess the efficacy and safety of additional glucocorticoid treatment during ovulation induction in women who underwent IVF or ICSI treatment, only randomized controlled trials were included.
RESULTS
Overall, glucocorticoid therapy during ovulation showed a nonsignificant effect of prednisolone improving the live birth rate (OR = 1.03, 95% CI [.75, 1.43], I = .0%, = .84), abortion rate (OR = 1.14, 95% CI [.62, 2.08], I = 31%, = .68), and implantation rate (OR = 1.1, 95% CI [.82, 1.5], I = 8%, = .52) of infertile women compared to the control group. The present meta-analysis revealed that the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle tended to increase after glucocorticoid treatment (OR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.02, 1.63], I = 8%, = .52).
CONCLUSIONS
The present meta-analysis suggested that ovarian stimulation prednisolone therapy does not significantly improve clinical outcomes in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Although the results indicated that adjuvant glucocorticoid therapy during ovarian stimulation may increase the clinical pregnancy rate, subgroup analysis showed that it was affected by infertility factors, dose schedules, and length of treatment. Therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Glucocorticoids; Infertility, Female; Ovulation Induction; Prednisolone; Adjuvants, Pharmaceutic; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 37385781
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2023.2227310 -
Rheumatology International Sep 2023The current systematic review aimed to document published cases of femoral head avascular necrosis (FHAVN) post-COVID-19, to report the COVID-19 disease characteristics...
The current systematic review aimed to document published cases of femoral head avascular necrosis (FHAVN) post-COVID-19, to report the COVID-19 disease characteristics and management patients received, and to evaluate how the FHAVN were diagnosed and treated among various reports. A systematic literature review was performed per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines through a comprehensive English literature search on January 2023 through four databases (Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus), including studies reporting on FHAVN post-COVID-19. Fourteen articles were included, ten (71.4%) were case reports, and four (28.6%) case series reported on 104 patients having a mean age of 42.2 ± 11.7 (14:74) years, in which 182 hip joints were affected. In 13 reports, corticosteroids were used during the COVID-19 management plan for a mean of 24.8 ± 11 (7:42) days, with a mean prednisolone equivalent dose of 1238.5 ± 492.8 (100:3520) mg. A mean of 142.1 ± 107.6 (7:459) days passed between COVID-19 diagnosis and FHAVN detection, and most of the hips were stage II (70.1%), and concomitant septic arthritis was present in eight (4.4%) hips. Most hips (147, 80.8%) were treated non-surgically, of which 143 (78.6%) hips received medical treatment, while 35 (19.2%) hips were surgically managed, 16 (8.8%) core decompression, 13 (7.1%) primary THA, five (2.7%) staged THA and three (1.6%) had first stage THA (debridement and application of antibiotic-loaded cement spacer). The outcomes were acceptable as regards hip function and pain relief. Femoral head avascular necrosis post-COVID-19 infection is a real concern, primarily attributed to corticosteroid usage, besides other factors. Early suspicion and detection are mandatory, as conservative management lines are effective during early stages with acceptable outcomes. However, surgical intervention was required for progressive collapse or patients presented in the late stage.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Middle Aged; Treatment Outcome; Femur Head; COVID-19 Testing; COVID-19; Femur Head Necrosis; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Decompression, Surgical
PubMed: 37338665
DOI: 10.1007/s00296-023-05373-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Advanced chronic liver disease is characterised by a long compensated phase followed by a rapidly progressive 'decompensated' phase, which is marked by the development... (Review)
Review
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors infusion for people with compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease.
BACKGROUND
Advanced chronic liver disease is characterised by a long compensated phase followed by a rapidly progressive 'decompensated' phase, which is marked by the development of complications of portal hypertension and liver dysfunction. Advanced chronic liver disease is considered responsible for more than one million deaths annually worldwide. No treatment is available to specifically target fibrosis and cirrhosis; liver transplantation remains the only curative option. Researchers are investigating strategies to restore liver functionality to avoid or slow progression towards end-stage liver disease. Cytokine mobilisation of stem cells from the bone marrow to the liver could improve liver function. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a 175-amino-acid protein currently available for mobilisation of haematopoietic stem cells from the bone marrow. Multiple courses of G-CSF, with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors (erythropoietin or growth hormone) infusion, might be associated with accelerated hepatic regeneration, improved liver function, and survival.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of G-CSF with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors (erythropoietin or growth hormone) infusion, compared with no intervention or placebo in people with compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registers (October 2022) together with reference-checking and web-searching to identify additional studies. We applied no restrictions on language and document type.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We only included randomised clinical trials comparing G-CSF, independent of the schedule of administration, as a single treatment or combined with stem or progenitor cell infusion, or with other medical co-interventions, with no intervention or placebo, in adults with chronic compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease or acute-on-chronic liver failure. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, outcomes reported, or language.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane procedures. All-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life were our primary outcomes, and liver disease-related morbidity, non-serious adverse events, and no improvement of liver function scores were our secondary outcomes. We undertook meta-analyses, based on intention-to-treat, and presented results using risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I statistic values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE, evaluated the risk of small-study effects in regression analyses, and conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 trials (1419 participants; sample size ranged from 28 to 259), which lasted between 11 and 57 months. Nineteen trials included only participants with decompensated cirrhosis; in one trial, 30% had compensated cirrhosis. The included trials were conducted in Asia (15), Europe (four), and the USA (one). Not all trials provided data for our outcomes. All trials reported data allowing intention-to-treat analyses. The experimental intervention consisted of G-CSF alone or G-CSF plus any of the following: growth hormone, erythropoietin, N-acetyl cysteine, infusion of CD133-positive haemopoietic stem cells, or infusion of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells. The control group consisted of no intervention in 15 trials and placebo (normal saline) in five trials. Standard medical therapy (antivirals, alcohol abstinence, nutrition, diuretics, β-blockers, selective intestinal decontamination, pentoxifylline, prednisolone, and other supportive measures depending on the clinical status and requirement) was administered equally to the trial groups. Very low-certainty evidence suggested a decrease in mortality with G-CSF, administered alone or in combination with any of the above, versus placebo (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.72; I = 75%; 1419 participants; 20 trials). Very low-certainty evidence suggested no difference in serious adverse events (G-CSF alone or in combination versus placebo: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.61; I = 66%; 315 participants; three trials). Eight trials, with 518 participants, reported no serious adverse events. Two trials, with 165 participants, used two components of the quality of life score for assessment, with ranges from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate better quality of life, with a mean increase from baseline of the physical component summary of 20.7 (95% CI 17.4 to 24.0; very low-certainty evidence) and a mean increase from baseline of the mental component summary of 27.8 (95% CI 12.3 to 43.3; very low-certainty evidence). G-CSF, alone or in combination, suggested a beneficial effect on the proportion of participants who developed one or more liver disease-related complications (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92; I = 62%; 195 participants; four trials; very low-certainty evidence). When we analysed the occurrences of single complications, there was no suggestion of a difference between G-CSF, alone or in combination, versus control, in participants in need of liver transplantation (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.85; 692 participants; five trials), in the development of hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.30; 520 participants; six trials), in the occurrence of variceal bleeding (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.23; 614 participants; eight trials), and in the development of encephalopathy (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.01; 605 participants; seven trials) (very low-certainty evidence). The same comparison suggested that G-CSF reduces the development of infections (including sepsis) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.84; 583 participants; eight trials) and does not improve liver function scores (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86; 319 participants; two trials) (very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
G-CSF, alone or in combination, seems to decrease mortality in people with decompensated advanced chronic liver disease of whatever aetiology and with or without acute-on-chronic liver failure, but the certainty of evidence is very low because of high risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. The results of trials conducted in Asia and Europe were discrepant; this could not be explained by differences in participant selection, intervention, and outcome measurement. Data on serious adverse events and health-related quality of life were few and inconsistently reported. The evidence is also very uncertain regarding the occurrence of one or more liver disease-related complications. We lack high-quality, global randomised clinical trials assessing the effect of G-CSF on clinically relevant outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Quality of Life; Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Liver Cirrhosis; Stem Cells; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins; Erythropoietin; Growth Hormone
PubMed: 37278488
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013532.pub2 -
TheScientificWorldJournal 2023The corticosteroids have been used for preemptive management of surgical sequelae after mandibular third molar extraction. The aim of this article was to review the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy of Preemptive Dexamethasone versus Methylprednisolone in the Management of Postoperative Discomfort and Pain after Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The corticosteroids have been used for preemptive management of surgical sequelae after mandibular third molar extraction. The aim of this article was to review the efficacy of methylprednisolone versus dexamethasone in the management of postsurgical pain, swelling, and trismus after mandibular third molar surgery. Randomized, double-blinded studies from PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, DOSS, Cochrane central, and Web of Science were identified by using a search strategy. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of use of dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for mandibular third molar extraction were only considered. The studies involving the use of any other corticosteroid agent were excluded. Outcomes assessed were postoperative pain, the number of rescue analgesics required, swelling, trismus, and adverse events. The search strategy yielded 1046 articles for title and abstract screening, out of which only seven studies were included in the systematic review after full text screening. There was considerable heterogeneity between the studies with regards to the method as well as the parameters assessed. Risk of bias was low in three studies and unclear in other four studies. On pooled analyses, there was no significant difference with respect to pain, rescue analgesics, and swelling in the test and the control group. Forest plot analysis showed that dexamethasone had lesser trismus in early postoperative period (postoperative day 2) as compared to methylprednisolone. None of the included studies reported any adverse effects. Both the corticosteroids have similar efficacy in reducing the postoperative pain and swelling; however, dexamethasone showed statistically significant difference from methylprednisolone in reducing trismus (estimated standardized mean difference of -0.69 mm; 95% CI: -1.01 to -0.38; < 0.0001) in the early postoperative period. However, due to statistical heterogeneity, quality of the evidence for the review was low to moderate. Hence, more studies with larger study sample and low risk of bias are needed to confirm these results.
Topics: Humans; Methylprednisolone; Dexamethasone; Molar, Third; Trismus; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Pain, Postoperative; Edema; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted
PubMed: 37168455
DOI: 10.1155/2023/7412026