-
Journal of Neurology Oct 2021Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) is a rare neurological disorder characterised by muscle weakness and impaired sensory function. The present... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) is a rare neurological disorder characterised by muscle weakness and impaired sensory function. The present study provides a comprehensive literature review of the burden of illness of CIDP.
METHODS
Systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and key conferences in May 2019. Search terms identified studies on the epidemiology, humanistic burden, current treatment, and economic burden of CIDP published since 2009 in English.
RESULTS
Forty-five full texts and nineteen conference proceedings were identified on the epidemiology (n = 9), humanistic burden (n = 7), current treatment (n = 40), and economic burden (n = 8) of CIDP. Epidemiological studies showed incidence and prevalence of 0.2-1.6 and 0.8-8.9 per 100,000, respectively, depending on geography and diagnostic criteria. Humanistic burden studies revealed that patients experienced physical and psychosocial burden, including impaired physical function, pain and depression. Publications on current treatments reported on six main types of therapy: intravenous immunoglobulins, subcutaneous immunoglobulins, corticosteroids, plasma exchange, immunosuppressants, and immunomodulators. Treatments may be burdensome, due to adverse events and reduced independence caused by treatment administration setting. In Germany, UK, France, and the US, CIDP economic burden was driven by direct costs of treatment and hospitalisation. CIDP was associated with indirect costs driven by impaired productivity.
CONCLUSIONS
This first systematic review of CIDP burden of illness demonstrates the high physical and psychosocial burden of this rare disease. Future research is required to fully characterise the burden of CIDP, and to understand how appropriate treatment can mitigate burden for patients and healthcare systems.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Cost of Illness; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Plasma Exchange; Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating
PubMed: 32583051
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-020-09998-8 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Mar 2018Pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections (PANDAS) are a subtype of acute-onset obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)...
Pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections (PANDAS) are a subtype of acute-onset obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) thought to be caused by an autoimmune response to group A streptococcal infection. Based on this proposed pathophysiology, alternative treatments for acute-onset OCD have been introduced, including antibiotics and immunomodulatory interventions. However, the literature on treatment of PANDAS is diverse, and clinical consensus regarding optimal treatment strategy is lacking. We conducted a systematic review of articles in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus that addressed treatment for PANDAS and related disorders. Twelve research studies involving the following treatments met inclusion criteria: penicillin, azithromycin, intravenous immunoglobulin, plasma exchange, tonsillectomy, cognitive behavior therapy, NSAID and corticosteroids. In addition, 65 case reports in which patients received immunomodulatory treatments, antibiotics, and/or psychotropics were identified. We determined that rigorously conducted research regarding treatments for PANDAS is scarce, and published studies have a high risk of bias. Further research is needed in which promising treatment strategies for PANDAS and other variants of OCD with proposed autoimmune etiology are rigorously investigated.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Autoimmune Diseases; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Plasma Exchange; Streptococcal Infections; Tonsillectomy
PubMed: 29309797
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.01.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2022Glycaemic control is a key component in diabetes mellitus (diabetes) management. Periodontitis is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting tissues... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Glycaemic control is a key component in diabetes mellitus (diabetes) management. Periodontitis is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting tissues of the teeth. Some studies have suggested a bidirectional relationship between glycaemic control and periodontitis. Treatment for periodontitis involves subgingival instrumentation, which is the professional removal of plaque, calculus, and debris from below the gumline using hand or ultrasonic instruments. This is known variously as scaling and root planing, mechanical debridement, or non-surgical periodontal treatment. Subgingival instrumentation is sometimes accompanied by local or systemic antimicrobials, and occasionally by surgical intervention to cut away gum tissue when periodontitis is severe. This review is part one of an update of a review published in 2010 and first updated in 2015, and evaluates periodontal treatment versus no intervention or usual care. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of periodontal treatment on glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus and periodontitis.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched six bibliographic databases up to 7 September 2021 and additional search methods were used to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus and a diagnosis of periodontitis that compared subgingival instrumentation (sometimes with surgical treatment or adjunctive antimicrobial therapy or both) to no active intervention or 'usual care' (oral hygiene instruction, education or support interventions, and/or supragingival scaling (also known as PMPR, professional mechanical plaque removal)). To be included, the RCTs had to have lasted at least 3 months and have measured HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently examined the titles and abstracts retrieved by the search, selected the included trials, extracted data from included trials, and assessed included trials for risk of bias. Where necessary and possible, we attempted to contact study authors. Our primary outcome was blood glucose levels measured as glycated (glycosylated) haemoglobin assay (HbA1c), which can be reported as a percentage of total haemoglobin or as millimoles per mole (mmol/mol). Our secondary outcomes included adverse effects, periodontal indices (bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, gingival index, plaque index, and probing pocket depth), quality of life, cost implications, and diabetic complications.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 studies, which randomised 3249 participants to periodontal treatment or control. All studies used a parallel-RCT design and followed up participants for between 3 and 12 months. The studies focused on people with type 2 diabetes, other than one study that included participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Most studies were mixed in terms of whether metabolic control of participants at baseline was good, fair, or poor. Most studies were carried out in secondary care. We assessed two studies as being at low risk of bias, 14 studies at high risk of bias, and the risk of bias in 19 studies was unclear. We undertook a sensitivity analysis for our primary outcome based on studies at low risk of bias and this supported the main findings. Moderate-certainty evidence from 30 studies (2443 analysed participants) showed an absolute reduction in HbA1c of 0.43% (4.7 mmol/mol) 3 to 4 months after treatment of periodontitis (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59% to -0.28%; -6.4 mmol/mol to -3.0 mmol/mol). Similarly, after 6 months, we found an absolute reduction in HbA1c of 0.30% (3.3 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.52% to -0.08%; -5.7 mmol/mol to -0.9 mmol/mol; 12 studies, 1457 participants), and after 12 months, an absolute reduction of 0.50% (5.4 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.55% to -0.45%; -6.0 mmol/mol to -4.9 mmol/mol; 1 study, 264 participants). Studies that measured adverse effects generally reported that no or only mild harms occurred, and any serious adverse events were similar in intervention and control arms. However, adverse effects of periodontal treatments were not evaluated in most studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our 2022 update of this review has doubled the number of included studies and participants, which has led to a change in our conclusions about the primary outcome of glycaemic control and in our level of certainty in this conclusion. We now have moderate-certainty evidence that periodontal treatment using subgingival instrumentation improves glycaemic control in people with both periodontitis and diabetes by a clinically significant amount when compared to no treatment or usual care. Further trials evaluating periodontal treatment versus no treatment/usual care are unlikely to change the overall conclusion reached in this review.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glycated Hemoglobin; Glycemic Control; Humans; Periodontal Index; Periodontitis
PubMed: 35420698
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004714.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Lifestyle changes are at the forefront of preventing the disease. This includes advice such as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Lifestyle changes are at the forefront of preventing the disease. This includes advice such as increasing physical activity and having a healthy balanced diet to reduce risk factors. Intermittent fasting (IF) is a popular dietary plan involving restricting caloric intake to certain days in the week such as alternate day fasting and periodic fasting, and restricting intake to a number of hours in a given day, otherwise known as time-restricted feeding. IF is being researched for its benefits and many randomised controlled trials have looked at its benefits in preventing CVD.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the role of IF in preventing and reducing the risk of CVD in people with or without prior documented CVD.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted our search on 12 December 2019; we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched three trials registers and searched the reference lists of included papers. Systematic reviews were also viewed for additional studies. There was no language restriction applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing IF to ad libitum feeding (eating at any time with no specific caloric restriction) or continuous energy restriction (CER). Participants had to be over the age of 18 and included those with and without cardiometabolic risk factors. Intermittent fasting was categorised into alternate-day fasting, modified alternate-day fasting, periodic fasting and time-restricted feeding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Five review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extraction. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Secondary outcomes include the absolute change in body weight, and glucose. Furthermore, side effects such as headaches and changes to the quality of life were also noted. For continuous data, pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) were calculated. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Our search yielded 39,165 records after the removal of duplicates. From this, 26 studies met our criteria, and 18 were included in the pooled analysis. The 18 studies included 1125 participants and observed outcomes ranging from four weeks to six months. No studies included data on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure at any point during follow-up. Of quantitatively analysed data, seven studies compared IF with ab libitum feeding, eight studies compared IF with CER, and three studies compared IF with both ad libitum feeding and CER. Outcomes were reported at short term (≤ 3 months) and medium term (> 3 months to 12 months) follow-up. Body weight was reduced with IF compared to ad libitum feeding in the short term (MD -2.88 kg, 95% CI -3.96 to -1.80; 224 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of IF when compared to CER in the short term (MD -0.88 kg, 95% CI -1.76 to 0.00; 719 participants; 10 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and there may be no effect in the medium term (MD -0.56 kg, 95% CI -1.68 to 0.56; 279 participants; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of IF on glucose when compared to ad libitum feeding in the short term (MD -0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.19; 95 participants; 3 studies; very-low-certainty of evidence) and when compared to CER in the short term: MD -0.02 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.12; 582 participants; 9 studies; very low-certainty; medium term: MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.11; 279 participants; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). The changes in body weight and glucose were not deemed to be clinically significant. Four studies reported data on side effects, with some participants complaining of mild headaches. One study reported on the quality of life using the RAND SF-36 score. There was a modest increase in the physical component summary score.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Intermittent fasting was seen to be superior to ad libitum feeding in reducing weight. However, this was not clinically significant. There was no significant clinical difference between IF and CER in improving cardiometabolic risk factors to reduce the risk of CVD. Further research is needed to understand the safety and risk-benefit analysis of IF in specific patient groups (e.g. patients with diabetes or eating disorders) as well as the effect on longer-term outcomes such as all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Blood Glucose; Body Weight; Caloric Restriction; Cardiovascular Diseases; Fasting; Feeding Behavior; Humans; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 33512717
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013496.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2014Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute, paralysing, inflammatory peripheral nerve disease. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is beneficial in other autoimmune... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute, paralysing, inflammatory peripheral nerve disease. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is beneficial in other autoimmune diseases. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and previously updated in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2012. Other Cochrane systematic reviews have shown that plasma exchange (PE) significantly hastens recovery in GBS compared with supportive treatment alone, and that corticosteroids alone are ineffective.
OBJECTIVES
We had the following four objectives.1. To examine the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) in hastening recovery and reducing the long-term morbidity from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS).2. To determine the most efficacious dose of IVIg in hastening recovery and reducing the long-term morbidity from GBS.3. To compare the efficacy of IVIg and plasma exchange (PE) or immunoabsorption in hastening recovery and reducing the long-term morbidity from GBS.4. To compare the efficacy of IVIg added to PE with PE alone in hastening recovery and reducing the long-term morbidity from GBS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (2 December 2013), CENTRAL (2013, Issue 12 in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2013) and EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2013). We checked the bibliographies in reports of the randomised trials and contacted the authors and other experts in the field to identify additional published or unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of IVIg compared with no treatment, placebo treatment, PE, or other immunomodulatory treatments in children and adults with GBS of all degrees of severity. We also included trials in which IVIg was added to another treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected papers, extracted data and assessed quality. We collected data about adverse events from the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve trials were found to be eligible for inclusion in this review. Seven trials with a variable risk of bias compared IVIg with PE in 623 severely affected participants. In five trials with 536 participants for whom the outcome was available, the mean difference (MD) of change in a seven-grade disability scale after four weeks was not significantly different between the two treatments: MD of 0.02 of a grade more improvement in the intravenous immunoglobulin than the plasma exchange group; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to -0.20. There were also no statistically significant differences in the other measures considered. Three studies including a total of 75 children suggested that IVIg significantly hastens recovery compared with supportive care. The primary outcome for this review, available for only one trial with 21 mildly affected children, showed significantly more improvement in disability grade after four weeks with IVIg than supportive treatment alone, MD 1.42, 95% CI 2.57 to 0.27.In one trial involving 249 participants comparing PE followed by IVIg with PE alone, the mean grade improvement was 0.2 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.54) more in the combined treatment group than in the PE alone group; not clinically significantly different, but not excluding the possibility of significant extra benefit. Another trial with 34 participants comparing immunoabsorption followed by IVIg with immunoabsorption alone did not reveal significant extra benefit from the combined treatment.Adverse events were not significantly more frequent with either treatment, but IVIg is significantly much more likely to be completed than PE.Small trials in children showed a trend towards more improvement with high-dose compared with low-dose IVIg, and no significant difference when the standard dose was given over two days rather than five days.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
A previous Cochrane review has shown that PE hastens recovery compared with supportive treatment alone. There are no adequate comparisons of IVIg with placebo in adults, but this review provides moderate quality evidence that, in severe disease, IVIg started within two weeks from onset hastens recovery as much as PE. Adverse events were not significantly more frequent with either treatment but IVIg is significantly much more likely to be completed than PE. Also, according to moderate quality evidence, giving IVIg after PE did not confer significant extra benefit. In children, according to low quality evidence, IVIg probably hastens recovery compared with supportive care alone. More research is needed in mild disease and in patients whose treatment starts more than two weeks after onset. Dose-ranging studies are also needed and one is in progress.
Topics: Adult; Child; Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Plasma Exchange; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function
PubMed: 25238327
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002063.pub6 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public-health problem that increases the risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), cardiovascular diseases, and other... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public-health problem that increases the risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), cardiovascular diseases, and other complications. Kidney transplantation is a renal-replacement therapy that offers better survival compared to dialysis. Antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) is a significant complication following kidney transplantation: it contributes to both short- and long-term injury. The standard-of-care (SOC) therapy combines plasmapheresis and Intravenous Immunoglobulins (IVIg) with or without steroids, with or without rituximab: however, despite this combined treatment, ABMR remains the main cause of graft loss. IL-6 is a key cytokine: it regulates inflammation, and the development, maturation, and activation of T cells, B cells, and plasma cells. Tocilizumab (TCZ) is the main humanized monoclonal aimed at IL-6R and appears to be a safe and possible strategy to manage ABMR in sensitized recipients. We conducted a literature review to assess the place of the anti-IL-6R monoclonal antibody TCZ within ABMR protocols.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We systematically reviewed the PubMed literature and reviewed six studies that included 117 patients and collected data on the utilization of TCZ to treat ABMR.
RESULTS
Most studies report a significant reduction in levels of Donor Specific Antibodies (DSAs) and reduced inflammation and microvascular lesions (as found in biopsies). Stabilization of the renal function was observed. Adverse events were light to moderate, and mortality was not linked with TCZ treatment. The main side effect noted was infection, but infections did not occur more frequently in patients receiving TCZ as compared to those receiving SOC therapy.
CONCLUSION
TCZ may be an alternative to SOC for ABMR kidney-transplant patients, either as a first-line treatment or after failure of SOC. Further randomized and controlled studies are needed to support these results.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Female; Graft Rejection; Graft Survival; HLA Antigens; Humans; Inflammation; Isoantibodies; Kidney Transplantation; Male
PubMed: 35493469
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.839380 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by peripheral nerve inflammation. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and last... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by peripheral nerve inflammation. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of plasma exchange for treating GBS.
SEARCH METHODS
On 18 January 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of plasma exchange versus sham exchange or supportive treatment, or comparing different regimens or techniques of plasma exchange.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
In the first version of this review there were six eligible trials concerning 649 participants comparing plasma exchange with supportive treatment. No new eligible trials have been identified in subsequent updates. Two other studies compared different numbers of plasma exchanges. Overall the included trials had a moderate risk of bias (in general, the studies were at low risk but all had a high risk of bias from lack of blinding).In one trial with 220 severely affected participants, the median time to recover walking with aid was significantly shorter with plasma exchange (30 days) than without plasma exchange (44 days). In another trial with 91 mildly affected participants, the median time to onset of motor recovery was significantly shorter with plasma exchange (six days) than without plasma exchange (10 days). After four weeks, moderate-quality evidence from the combined data of three trials accounting for a total of 349 patients showed that plasma exchange significantly increased the proportion of patients who recovered the ability to walk with assistance (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.15).In five trials with 623 participants in total, moderate-quality evidence showed that the RR for improvement by one or more disability grades after four weeks was 1.64 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.96) times greater with plasma exchange. Participants treated with plasma exchange also fared better, according to moderate-quality evidence, in time to recover walking without aid (three trials with 349 participants; RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.79) and requirement for artificial ventilation (five trials with 623 participants; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.74). More participants had relapses by the end of follow-up in the plasma exchange group than in the control group (six trials with 649 participants; RR 2.89, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.93; moderate-quality evidence). Despite this, according to moderate-quality evidence, the likelihood of full muscle strength recovery at one year was greater with plasma exchange than without plasma exchange (five trials with 404 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45), and the likelihood of severe motor sequelae was less (six trials with 649 participants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.96). High-quality evidence from six trials with 649 participants could not confirm or refute a lower risk of death following plasma exchange compared to control (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.65).Three trials (N = 556) provided details of serious adverse events during the hospital stay; combined analyses found no increase in serious infectious events compared to the control group (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.13), nor were there clear differences in blood pressure instability, cardiac arrhythmias or pulmonary emboli.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-quality evidence shows significantly more improvement with plasma exchange than with supportive care alone in adults with Guillain-Barré syndrome, without a significant increase in serious adverse events. According to moderate-quality evidence, there was a small but significant increase in the risk of relapse during the first six to 12 months after onset in people treated with plasma exchange compared with those who were not treated. Despite this, after one year, full recovery of muscle strength was more likely and severe residual weakness less likely with plasma exchange.
Topics: Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Humans; Muscle Strength; Plasma Exchange; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28241090
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001798.pub3 -
Journal of Translational Medicine Dec 2021Myasthenia gravis is a neuromuscular autoimmune disorder characterized by weakness and disability in the voluntary muscles. There have been several preliminary studies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Myasthenia gravis is a neuromuscular autoimmune disorder characterized by weakness and disability in the voluntary muscles. There have been several preliminary studies on the epidemiology of myasthenia gravis in different parts of the world and the effectiveness of common drugs in its treatment, but there has been no comprehensive study of the efficacy of common drugs in the treatment of myasthenia gravis. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the epidemiology of myasthenia gravis globally and the effectiveness of common drugs in its treatment using systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Research studies were extracted from IranDoc, MagIran, IranMedex, SID, ScienceDirect, Web of Sciences (WoS), ProQuest, Medline (PubMed), Scopus and Google Scholar based on Cochran's seven-step guidelines using existing keywords extracted in MeSH browser. The I test was used to calculate the heterogeneity of studies, and Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation tests were used to assess publication bias. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Version 2).
RESULTS
In the search for descriptive studies based on the research question, 7374 articles were found. After deleting articles unrelated to the research question, finally, 63 articles with a sample size of 1,206,961,907 people were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of MG worldwide was estimated to be 12.4 people (95% CI 10.6-14.5) per 100,000 population. For analytical studies on the effectiveness of common myasthenia gravis drugs, 4672 articles were found initially, and after removing articles unrelated to the research question, finally, 20 articles with a sample size of 643 people in the drug group and 619 people in the placebo group were included in the study. As a result of the combination of studies, the difference between the mean QMGS score index after taking Mycophenolate and Immunoglobulin or plasma exchange drugs in the group of patients showed a significant decrease of 1.4 ± 0.77 and 0.62 ± 0.28, respectively (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
The results of systematic review of drug evaluation in patients with myasthenia gravis showed that Mycophenolate and Immunoglobulin or plasma exchange drugs have positive effects in the treatment of MG. It also represents the positive effect of immunoglobulin or plasma exchange on reducing SFEMG index and QMGS index and the positive effect of Mycophenolate in reducing MG-ADL index, SFEMG and Anti-AChR antibodies index. In addition, based on a meta-analysis of the random-effect model, the overall prevalence of MG in the world is 12.4 people per 100,000 population, which indicates the urgent need for attention to this disease for prevention and treatment.
Topics: Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Myasthenia Gravis; Plasma Exchange; Prevalence
PubMed: 34930325
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-021-03185-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory loss. The symptoms are due to autoimmune inflammation of peripheral nerves. CIPD affects about 2 to 3 per 100,000 of the population. More than half of affected people cannot walk unaided when symptoms are at their worst. CIDP usually responds to treatments that reduce inflammation, but there is disagreement about which treatment is most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of any treatment for CIDP and to compare the effects of treatments.
METHODS
We considered all systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment for any form of CIDP. We reported their primary outcomes, giving priority to change in disability after 12 months.Two overview authors independently identified published systematic reviews for inclusion and collected data. We reported the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. Two other review authors independently checked review selection, data extraction and quality assessments.On 31 October 2016, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (in theCochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus for systematic reviews of CIDP. We supplemented the RCTs in the existing CSRs by searching on the same date for RCTs of any treatment of CIDP (including treatment of fatigue or pain in CIDP), in the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus.
MAIN RESULTS
Five CSRs met our inclusion criteria. We identified 23 randomised trials, of which 15 had been included in these CSRs. We were unable to compare treatments as originally planned, because outcomes and outcome intervals differed. CorticosteroidsIt is uncertain whether daily oral prednisone improved impairment compared to no treatment because the quality of the evidence was very low (1 trial, 28 participants). According to moderate-quality evidence (1 trial, 41 participants), six months' treatment with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone did not improve disability more than daily oral prednisolone. Observational studies tell us that prolonged use of corticosteroids sometimes causes serious side-effects. Plasma exchangeAccording to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 59 participants), twice-weekly plasma exchange produced more short-term improvement in disability than sham exchange. In the largest observational study, 3.9% of plasma exchange procedures had complications. Intravenous immunoglobulinAccording to high-quality evidence (5 trials, 269 participants), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) produced more short-term improvement than placebo. Adverse events were more common with IVIg than placebo (high-quality evidence), but serious adverse events were not (moderate-quality evidence, 3 trials, 315 participants). One trial with 19 participants provided moderate-quality evidence of little or no difference in short-term improvement of impairment with plasma exchange in comparison to IVIg. There was little or no difference in short-term improvement of disability with IVIg in comparison to oral prednisolone (moderate-quality evidence; 1 trial, 29 participants) or intravenous methylprednisolone (high-quality evidence; 1 trial, 45 participants). One unpublished randomised open trial with 35 participants found little or no difference in disability after three months of IVIg compared to oral prednisone; this trial has not yet been included in a CSR. We know from observational studies that serious adverse events related to IVIg do occur. Other immunomodulatory treatmentsIt is uncertain whether the addition of azathioprine (2 mg/kg) to prednisone improved impairment in comparison to prednisone alone, as the quality of the evidence is very low (1 trial, 27 participants). Observational studies show that adverse effects truncate treatment in 10% of people.According to low-quality evidence (1 trial, 60 participants), compared to placebo, methotrexate 15 mg/kg did not allow more participants to reduce corticosteroid or IVIg doses by 20%. Serious adverse events were no more common with methotrexate than with placebo, but observational studies show that methotrexate can cause teratogenicity, abnormal liver function, and pulmonary fibrosis.According to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 77 participants), interferon beta-1a (IFN beta-1a) in comparison to placebo, did not allow more people to withdraw from IVIg. According to moderate-quality evidence, serious adverse events were no more common with IFN beta-1a than with placebo.We know of no other completed trials of immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory agents for CIDP. Other treatmentsWe identified no trials of treatments for fatigue or pain in CIDP. Adverse effectsNot all trials routinely collected adverse event data; when they did, the quality of evidence was variable. Adverse effects in the short, medium, and long term occur with all interventions. We are not able to make reliable comparisons of adverse events between the interventions included in CSRs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We cannot be certain based on available evidence whether daily oral prednisone improves impairment compared to no treatment. However, corticosteroids are commonly used, based on widespread availability, low cost, very low-quality evidence from observational studies, and clinical experience. The weakness of the evidence does not necessarily mean that corticosteroids are ineffective. High-dose monthly oral dexamethasone for six months is probably no more or less effective than daily oral prednisolone. Plasma exchange produces short-term improvement in impairment as determined by neurological examination, and probably produces short-term improvement in disability. IVIg produces more short-term improvement in disability than placebo and more adverse events, although serious side effects are probably no more common than with placebo. There is no clear difference in short-term improvement in impairment with IVIg when compared with intravenous methylprednisolone and probably no improvement when compared with either oral prednisolone or plasma exchange. According to observational studies, adverse events related to difficult venous access, use of citrate, and haemodynamic changes occur in 3% to17% of plasma exchange procedures.It is uncertain whether azathioprine is of benefit as the quality of evidence is very low. Methotrexate may not be of benefit and IFN beta-1a is probably not of benefit.We need further research to identify predictors of response to different treatments and to compare their long-term benefits, safety and cost-effectiveness. There is a need for more randomised trials of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents, routes of administration, and treatments for symptoms of CIDP.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Azathioprine; Dexamethasone; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Immunosuppressive Agents; Interferon beta-1a; Methotrexate; Methylprednisolone; Plasma Exchange; Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28084646
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010369.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2012Multiple sclerosis is the most common cause of neurological disability in young adults. Irreversible disability can occur, but life expectancy is generally not affected. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Multiple sclerosis is the most common cause of neurological disability in young adults. Irreversible disability can occur, but life expectancy is generally not affected.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions aimed at reducing relapse rates and disability in people with multiple sclerosis? What are the effects of interventions to improve symptoms during acute relapse? What are the effects of treatments for fatigue, spasticity, and multidisciplinary care on disability in people with multiple sclerosis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 71 systematic reviews, RCTs, and observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following key interventions: amantadine, azathioprine, behaviour modification, botulinum toxin, corticosteroids, exercise, gabapentin, inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation, interferon beta, intrathecal baclofen, intravenous immunoglobulin, methotrexate, mitoxantrone, modafinil, natalizumab, oral drug treatments, parenteral glatiramer acetate, physiotherapy, and plasma exchange.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Humans; Life Expectancy; Multiple Sclerosis; Plasma Exchange; Plasmapheresis; Sex Factors
PubMed: 22321967
DOI: No ID Found