-
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2021Loss of response to antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies in inflammatory bowel disease occurs in a high proportion of patients. Our aim was to evaluate the... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Loss of response to antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies in inflammatory bowel disease occurs in a high proportion of patients. Our aim was to evaluate the loss of response to anti-TNF therapy, considered as the need for dose intensification (DI), DI effectiveness and the possible variables influencing its requirements. Bibliographical searches were performed.
SELECTION
prospective and retrospective studies assessing DI in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis patients treated for at least 12 weeks with an anti-TNF drug.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
studies using anti-TNF as a prophylaxis for the postoperative recurrence in Crohn's disease or those where DI was based on therapeutic drug monitoring.
DATA SYNTHESIS
effectiveness by intention-to-treat (random effects model). Data were stratified by medical condition (ulcerative colitis vs. Crohn's disease), anti-TNF drug and follow-up.
RESULTS
One hundred and seventy-three studies (33,241 patients) were included. Overall rate of the DI requirement after 12 months was 28% (95% CI 24-32, = 96%, 41 studies) in naïve patients and 39% (95% CI 31-47, = 86%, 18 studies) in non-naïve patients. The DI requirement rate was higher both in those with prior anti-TNF exposure ( = 0.01) and with ulcerative colitis ( = 0.02). The DI requirement rate in naïve patients after 36 months was 35% (95% CI 28-43%; = 98%; 18 studies). The overall short-term response and remission rates of empirical DI in naïve patients were 63% (95% CI 48-78%; = 99%; 32 studies) and 48% (95% CI: 39-58%; = 92%; 25 studies), respectively. The loss of response to anti-TNF agents-and, consequently, DI-occurred frequently in inflammatory bowel disease (approximately in one-fourth at one year and in one-third at 3 years). Empirical DI was a relatively effective therapeutic option.
PubMed: 34069295
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10102132 -
Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy Feb 2021To evaluate the efficacy and vision-threatening complication rate of plaque brachytherapy with iodine-125 (I), palladium-103 (Pd), and ruthenium-106 (Ru) for treatment... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the efficacy and vision-threatening complication rate of plaque brachytherapy with iodine-125 (I), palladium-103 (Pd), and ruthenium-106 (Ru) for treatment of iris and iridociliary melanoma.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A literature review was done based on results yielded from searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane database, using following key words: iris melanoma, iridociliary melanoma, brachytherapy, iodine-125 brachytherapy, palladium-103 brachytherapy, and ruthenium-106 brachytherapy. Initially, relationships between mean radiation dose to apex and local recurrence and complication rate were analyzed, and then, a comparison was performed between I, Pd, and Ru studies.
RESULTS
Twelve retrospective and prospective studies were selected, with 491 patients treated primarily with plaque brachytherapy. The range of radiation dose to tumor apex were from 84 to 151.5 Gy. Ranges of mean and median of follow-up time were from 27 to 96 months. Local recurrence rate following brachytherapy ranged from 0 to 8%. A decrease in the average study dose was not associated with an increased local recurrence or metastasis rate ( = 0.373 and 0.195, respectively); however, an increase in radiation dose was associated with higher radiation-related cataract and glaucoma ( < 0.05). The rate of post-treatment glaucoma was higher in studies with I plaque brachytherapy ( = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS
For brachytherapy of iris and iridociliary melanoma, in a range of 84 to 150 Gy, an increase in radiation dose may increase the risk of complications, while the tumor control rate does not change.
PubMed: 34025736
DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2021.103586 -
Transplant Immunology Aug 2023Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at greater risk of serious illness and death than the general population. To date, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at greater risk of serious illness and death than the general population. To date, the efficacy and safety of the fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in KTRs have not been systematically discussed.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis included articles from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Med Online published before May 15, 2022. Studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of a fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients were selected.
RESULTS
Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 727 KTRs. The overall pooled seropositivity rate after the fourth COVID-19 vaccine was 60% (95% CI, 49%-71%, I = 87.83%, p > 0.01). The pooled proportion of KTRs seronegative after the third dose that transitioned to seropositivity after the fourth dose was 30% (95% CI, 15%-48%, I = 94.98%, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
The fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccine was well tolerated in KTRs with no serious adverse effects. Some KTRs showed a reduced response even after receiving the fourth vaccine dose. Overall, the fourth vaccine dose effectively improved seropositivity in KTRs, as recommended by the World Health Organization for the general population.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Vaccines; Kidney Transplantation; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; China; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 37230397
DOI: 10.1016/j.trim.2023.101864 -
Reviews in Medical Virology Jan 2023Several phase-1 clinical trials have been performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of candidate anti-Zika vaccines. In this systematic review, we systematically... (Review)
Review
Several phase-1 clinical trials have been performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of candidate anti-Zika vaccines. In this systematic review, we systematically evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of candidate vaccines, which would aid researchers in formulating an effective vaccination strategy for phase-2 trials based on current evidence. A literature search was conducted using the electronic databases MEDLINE through Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database for relevant studies on candidate anti-zika vaccines. Studies on animal models were excluded from our study. Healthy individuals who were administered candidate Zika vaccines to evaluate the immune response and adverse events (AEs) compared to placebo were considered. Data were extracted, tabulated, and analysed using Microsoft Excel, while the risk of bias plots were generated using tidyverse and Robvis packages in R-studio. A total of five phase-1 clinical trials were included in our analysis comprising of studies on inactivated, viral vector, and DNA vaccines. Immunogenicity ranged from 10% to 100% after vaccination with the lowest seroconversion rate (10%) and geometric mean titre (GMT) (6.3; 95% confidence interval (CI):3.7-10.8) observed among recipients of single-dose inactivated anti-zika vaccine (ZPIV). For DNA vaccines, the seroconversion rate ranged from 60% to 100% with the highest seroconversion rate (100%) and GMT (2871; 95% CI:705.3-11688) observed among recipients of three shots of high dose GLS-5700 vaccine. For viral vector vaccine (Ad26.ZIKV.001) seroconversion rate (100%) and GMT peaked after two shots with both low and high-dose vaccines. In all those studies AEs were mostly local including injection site pain, erythema, and itching. The most common systemic AEs included fever, myalgia, nausea, and fatigue. In phase-1 clinical trials, all candidate vaccines were found to be highly immunogenic and relatively safe, especially when administered in higher doses and with the help of needle-free devices.
Topics: Animals; Zika Virus; Zika Virus Infection; Vaccines, DNA; Viral Vaccines; Vaccination; Antibodies, Viral
PubMed: 35986594
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2385 -
Clinical Research in Cardiology :... Oct 2022Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccination has been associated with the development of carditis, especially in children and adolescent males. However, the rates of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccination has been associated with the development of carditis, especially in children and adolescent males. However, the rates of these events in the global setting have not been explored in a systematic manner. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the rates of carditis in children and adolescents receiving COVID-19 vaccines.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase and several Latin American databases were searched for studies. The number of events, and where available, at-risk populations were extracted. Rate ratios were calculated and expressed as a rate per million doses received. Subgroup analysis based on the dose administered was performed. Subjects ≤ 19 years old who developed pericarditis or myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were included.
RESULTS
A total of 369 entries were retrieved. After screening, 39 articles were included. Our meta-analysis found that 343 patients developed carditis after the administration of 12,602,625 COVID-19 vaccination doses (pooled rate per million: 37.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 23.57, 59.19). The rate of carditis was higher amongst male patients (pooled rate ratio: 5.04; 95% CI 1.40, 18.19) and after the second vaccination dose (pooled rate ratio: 5.60; 95% CI 1.97, 15.89). In 301 cases of carditis (281 male; mean age: 15.90 (standard deviation [SD] 1.52) years old) reported amongst the case series/reports, 261 patients were reported to have received treatment. 97.34% of the patients presented with chest pain. The common findings include ST elevation and T wave abnormalities on electrocardiography. Oedema and late gadolinium enhancement in the myocardium were frequently observed in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). The mean length of hospital stay was 3.91 days (SD 1.75). In 298 out of 299 patients (99.67%) the carditis resolved with or without treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Carditis is a rare complication after COVID-19 vaccination across the globe, but the vast majority of episodes are self-limiting with rapid resolution of symptoms within days. Central illustration. Balancing the benefits of vaccines on COVID-19-caused carditis and post-vaccination carditis.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Child; Contrast Media; Gadolinium; Humans; Infant; Male; Myocarditis; Vaccination; Vaccines; Young Adult
PubMed: 35906423
DOI: 10.1007/s00392-022-02070-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of substitution treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of substitution treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of buprenorphine versus tapered doses of methadone, alpha-adrenergic agonists, symptomatic medications or placebo, or different buprenorphine regimens for managing opioid withdrawal, in terms of the intensity of the withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration and completion of treatment, and adverse effects.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 11, 2016), MEDLINE (1946 to December week 1, 2016), Embase (to 22 December 2016), PsycINFO (1806 to December week 3, 2016), and the Web of Science (to 22 December 2016) and handsearched the reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of interventions using buprenorphine to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were primarily opioid dependent. Comparison interventions involved reducing doses of methadone, alpha-adrenergic agonists (clonidine or lofexidine), symptomatic medications or placebo, and different buprenorphine-based regimens.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 studies involving 3048 participants. The main comparators were clonidine or lofexidine (14 studies). Six studies compared buprenorphine versus methadone, and seven compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction. We assessed 12 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one of seven domains of methodological quality. Six of these studies compared buprenorphine with clonidine or lofexidine and two with methadone; the other four studies compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction.For the comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in tapered doses, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of intensity of withdrawal or adverse effects. However, information reported by the individual studies was suggestive of buprenorphine and methadone having similar capacity to ameliorate opioid withdrawal, without clinically significant adverse effects. The meta-analyses that were possible support a conclusion of no difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of average treatment duration (mean difference (MD) 1.30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.11 to 10.72; N = 82; studies = 2; low quality) or treatment completion rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20; N = 457; studies = 5; moderate quality).Relative to clonidine or lofexidine, buprenorphine was associated with a lower average withdrawal score (indicating less severe withdrawal) during the treatment episode, with an effect size that is considered to be small to moderate (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.28; N = 902; studies = 7; moderate quality). Patients receiving buprenorphine stayed in treatment for longer, with an effect size that is considered to be large (SMD 0.92, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; N = 558; studies = 5; moderate quality) and were more likely to complete withdrawal treatment (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.06; N = 1264; studies = 12; moderate quality). At the same time there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects, but dropout due to adverse effects may be more likely with clonidine (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.15; N = 134; studies = 3; low quality). The difference in treatment completion rates translates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 4 (95% CI 3 to 6), indicating that for every four people treated with buprenorphine, we can expect that one additional person will complete treatment than with clonidine or lofexidine.For studies comparing different rates of reduction of the buprenorphine dose, meta-analysis was possible only for treatment completion, with separate analyses for inpatient and outpatient settings. The results were diverse, and we assessed the quality of evidence as being very low. It remains very uncertain what effect the rate of dose taper has on treatment outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine or lofexidine for managing opioid withdrawal in terms of severity of withdrawal, duration of withdrawal treatment, and the likelihood of treatment completion.Buprenorphine and methadone appear to be equally effective, but data are limited. It remains possible that the pattern of withdrawal experienced may differ and that withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine.It is not possible to draw any conclusions from the available evidence on the relative effectiveness of different rates of tapering the buprenorphine dose. The divergent findings of studies included in this review suggest that there may be multiple factors affecting the response to the rate of dose taper. One such factor could be whether or not the initial treatment plan includes a transition to subsequent relapse prevention treatment with naltrexone. Indeed, the use of buprenorphine to support transition to naltrexone treatment is an aspect worthy of further research.Most participants in the studies included in this review were male. None of the studies reported outcomes on the basis of sex, preventing any exploration of differences related to this variable. Consideration of sex as a factor influencing response to withdrawal treatment would be relevant research for selecting the most appropriate type of intervention for each individual.
Topics: Acute Disease; Buprenorphine; Clonidine; Female; Humans; Male; Methadone; Narcotic Antagonists; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 28220474
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002025.pub5 -
Urologic Oncology Jun 2023This study aimed to assess both efficacy and safety outcomes of lowering the dose of BCG compared to intravesical chemotherapies in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to assess both efficacy and safety outcomes of lowering the dose of BCG compared to intravesical chemotherapies in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients using a systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis approach. A comprehensive literature search was performed through Pubmed®, Web of Science™, and Scopus® in December 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the oncologic and/or safety outcomes of reduced dose intravesical BCG and/or intravesical chemotherapies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The outcomes of interest were risk of recurrence, progression, treatment-related adverse events, and discontinuation. Overall, 24 studies were eligible for quantitative synthesis. Among 22 studies that adopted induction followed by maintenance intravesical therapy, with reference to the lower-dose BCG, epirubicin was associated with a significantly higher risk of recurrence (Odds ratio [OR]: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.54-5.15), but not other intravesical chemotherapies. There were no significant differences in risk of progression among the intravesical therapies. On the other hand, standard-dose BCG was associated with a higher risk of any AEs (OR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.07-3.41) but other intravesical chemotherapies had a comparable risk of AEs compared to lower-dose BCG. The discontinuation rate did not significantly differ between lower-dose and standard-dose BCG (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 0.81-2.43) as well as other intravesical. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, gemcitabine, and standard-dose BCG were preferable to lower-dose BCG in terms of recurrence risk; gemcitabine was also preferable to lower-dose BCG in terms of risk of AEs. In patients with NMIBC, lowering the dose of BCG decreases the risks of AEs and discontinuation rate compared to standard-dose BCG, but there is no difference in these endpoints compared to other intravesical chemotherapies. Standard-dose of BCG is preferred for all intermediate and high-risk NMIBC patients based on oncologic efficacy; however, lower-dose BCG and intravesical chemotherapies, especially gemcitabine, could be considered a reasonable alternative to BCG in selected patients who suffer from significant AEs or in case standard-dose BCG is not available.
Topics: Humans; BCG Vaccine; Network Meta-Analysis; Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Neoplasms; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Gemcitabine; Administration, Intravesical; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
PubMed: 37137745
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2023.04.003 -
Clinical Epidemiology 2017The aim was to investigate whether coffee or caffeine consumption is associated with reproductive endpoints among women with natural fertility (ie, time to pregnancy... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim was to investigate whether coffee or caffeine consumption is associated with reproductive endpoints among women with natural fertility (ie, time to pregnancy [TTP] and spontaneous abortion [SAB]) and among women in fertility treatment (ie, clinical pregnancy rate or live birth rate).
DESIGN
This study was a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis including data from case-control and cohort studies.
METHODS
An extensive literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase, with no time and language restrictions. Also, reference lists were searched manually. Two independent reviewers assessed the manuscript quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A two-stage dose-response meta-analysis was applied to assess a potential association between coffee/caffeine consumption and the outcomes: TTP, SAB, clinical pregnancy, and live birth. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using Cochrane -test and statistics. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's regression test.
RESULTS
The pooled results showed that coffee/caffeine consumption is associated with a significantly increased risk of SAB for 300 mg caffeine/day (relative risk [RR]: 1.37, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.19; 1.57) and for 600 mg caffeine/day (RR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.62; 3.31). No association was found between coffee/caffeine consumption and outcomes of fertility treatment (based on two studies). No clear association was found between exposure to coffee/caffeine and natural fertility as measured by fecundability odds ratio (based on three studies) or waiting TTP (based on two studies).
CONCLUSION
Results from this meta-analysis support the growing evidence of an association between coffee/caffeine intake and the risk of SAB. However, viewing the reproductive capacity in a broader perspective, there seems to be little, if any, association between coffee/caffeine consumption and fecundity. In general, results from this study are supportive of a precautionary principle advised by health organizations such as European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and World Health Organization (WHO), although the advised limit of a maximum of two to three cups of coffee/200-300 mg caffeine per day may be too high.
PubMed: 29276412
DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S146496 -
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 2023FOLFIRINOX, used in metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), is highly efficacious but also toxic. Various dose modifications for FOLFIRINOX have been introduced to reduce... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
FOLFIRINOX, used in metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), is highly efficacious but also toxic. Various dose modifications for FOLFIRINOX have been introduced to reduce toxicity. However, these studies lack a unified pattern for 'planned' dose modification, and the 'actually administered' dose varied more.
OBJECTIVE
To map a 10-year trend for 'planned' and 'actual' doses of FOLFIRINOX and investigate the clinical outcomes according to dose modification.
DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
A comprehensive systematic literature search was conducted from January 2011 to September 2021. All studies for FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment in MPC were considered. Selected studies were firstly classified according to prospective retrospective research, secondly standard modified FOLFIRINOX, and thirdly 'planned' 'actual' dose. For evidence-mapping for the trend of dose modification, we developed a web-based interactive bubble-plot program (www.RDI-map.com). Objective response rate (ORR) and hematologic toxicity were set as endpoints for the comparison of clinical outcomes according to dose modification.
RESULTS
A total of 37 studies were identified for evidence-mapping (11 prospective and 26 retrospective studies). There were 12 different types of 'planned' dose modification in FOLFIRINOX ranging 75-100% oxaliplatin, 75-100% irinotecan, 0-100% 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) bolus, and 75-133% 5-FU continuous injection. The 'actual' dose further decreased to 54-96%, 61-88%, 0-92%, and 63-98%, respectively. For the standard modified FOLFIRINOX, the ORR was 28.2% (95% CI: 22.5-33.9%) and 33.8% (95% CI: 30.3-37.3%), respectively ( = 0.100), and the incidence of febrile neutropenia was 11.6% (95% CI: 0-16.0%) and 5.5% (95% CI: 0-8.9%), respectively ( = 0.030).
CONCLUSIONS
RDI-map.com enables multifactorial evidence-mapping for practical FOLFIRINOX dose reduction. The pattern of dose modification was not consistent across studies, and there was a significant gap between the 'planned' and 'actual' doses. Modified FOLFIRINOX showed similar efficacy to the standard regimen with reduced incidence of febrile neutropenia.
PubMed: 37441327
DOI: 10.1177/17588359231175441 -
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