-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2008Gout is one of the most frequently occurring rheumatic diseases, worldwide. Given the well-known drawbacks of the regular treatments for acute gout (non-steroidal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gout is one of the most frequently occurring rheumatic diseases, worldwide. Given the well-known drawbacks of the regular treatments for acute gout (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), colchicine), systemic corticosteroids might be safe alternatives.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of systemic corticosteroids in the treatment of acute gout in comparison with placebo, NSAIDs, colchicine, other active drugs, other therapies, or no therapy.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Searches were done in the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007); MEDLINE (1966 to 2007) through PubMed; EMBASE (1974 to 2007); Web of Science (1975 to 2007); LILACS (1986 to 2007); and databases of ongoing trials (up to April 2007).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials investigating the use of systemic corticosteroids in the treatment of acute gout were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors decided independently which trials to include. The same review authors also collected the data in a standardised form and assessed the methodological quality of the trial using validated criteria. When possible, continuous and dichotomous data were summarised statistically.
MAIN RESULTS
Three head to head trials involving 148 patients (74 systemic corticosteroids; 74 comparator drugs) were included. Placebo-controlled trials were not found. In the studies, different kinds of systemic corticosteroids and different kinds of control drugs were used, both administered in different routes. Intramuscular triamcinolone acetonide was compared respectively to oral indomethacine, and intramuscular adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH); oral prednisolone (together with a single intramuscular diclophenac injection) was compared to oral indomethacine (together with a single placebo injection). Outcome measurements varied: average number of days until total relief of signs, mean decrease of pain per unit of time in mm on a visual analogue scale (VAS) - during rest and activity. In the triamcinolone-indomethacine trial the clinical joint status was used as an additional outcome. Clinically relevant differences between the studied systemic corticosteroids and the comparator drugs were not found; important safety problems attributable to the used corticosteroids were not reported. The quality of the three studies was graded as very low to moderate. Statistical pooling of results was not possible.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is inconclusive evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness of systemic corticosteroids in the treatment of acute gout. Patients with gout did not report serious adverse effects from systemic corticosteroids, when used short term.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenocorticotropic Hormone; Gout; Humans; Indomethacin; Triamcinolone
PubMed: 18425920
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005521.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Optic neuritis is an inflammatory disease of the optic nerve. It usually presents with an abrupt loss of vision and recovery of vision is almost never complete. It... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Optic neuritis is an inflammatory disease of the optic nerve. It usually presents with an abrupt loss of vision and recovery of vision is almost never complete. It occurs more commonly in women than in men. Closely linked in pathogenesis, optic neuritis may be the initial manifestation for multiple sclerosis. In some people, no underlying cause can be found.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of corticosteroids on visual recovery in eyes with acute optic neuritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1950 to April 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (January 1982 to April 2015), PubMed (January 1946 to April 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) was last searched on 6 March 2014. The electronic databases were last searched on 7 April 2015. We also searched reference lists of identified trial reports for additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids, in any form, dose or route of administration, in people with acute optic neuritis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs with a total of 750 participants. Each trial was conducted in a different country: Denmark, Germany, India, Japan, UK, and United States. Additionally, we identified two ongoing trials not due to be completed until 2016. Among the six trials included in this review, we judged one to be at high risk of bias. The remaining five trials were judged to be at either low or uncertain risk of biases.Five trials compared only two intervention groups and one trial had a three-arm comparison of oral corticosteroids or intravenous corticosteroids with placebo. Of the five trials with only two intervention groups, two trials compared oral corticosteroids versus placebo, two trials compared intravenous corticosteroids with placebo, and one trial compared intravenous dexamethasone with intravenous methylprednisolone plus oral prednisolone.Three trials evaluating oral corticosteroids used varying doses of corticosteroids versus placebo. In the meta-analyses to assess visual acuity, the risk ratio (RR) was 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.23; participants = 398) at one month; 0.92 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; participants = 355) at six months; and 0.93 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.24; participants = 368) at one year. In the meta-analyses of two trials evaluating corticosteroids with total dose greater than 3000 mg administered intravenously, the RR of normal visual acuity (defined as 20/20 Snellen fraction or equivalent) in the intravenous corticosteroids group compared with the placebo group was 1.05 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; participants = 346) at six months. The RR of contrast sensitivity in the normal range for the same comparison was 1.11 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.33; participants = 346) at six months follow-up. The RR of normal visual field for this comparison was 1.08 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.21; 346 participants) at six months; and 1.01 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.19; participants = 316) at one year. Four trials reported adverse events primarily related to gastrointestinal symptoms and sleep disturbance; one trial reported minor adverse event of acne.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no conclusive evidence of benefit in terms of recovery to normal visual acuity, visual field or contrast sensitivity six months after initiation with either intravenous or oral corticosteroids at the doses evaluated in trials included in this review.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Contrast Sensitivity; Dexamethasone; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Male; Methylprednisolone; Optic Neuritis; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 26273799
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001430.pub4 -
PloS One 2021Evidence on the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticoids for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is inconclusive and is not up to date. This systematic...
Evidence on the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticoids for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is inconclusive and is not up to date. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and safety of these anti-inflammatories (AI) in the treatment of RA. COCHRANE (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Virtual Health Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) with adults which used AI (dose represented in mg/day) compared with placebo or active controls and was carried out up to December of 2019. Reviewers, in pairs and independently, selected studies, performed the data extraction and assessed the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed by GRADE. Network meta-analyses were performed using the Stata v.14.2. Twenty-six articles were selected (NSAIDs = 21 and corticoids = 5). Naproxen 1,000 improved physical function, reduced pain and the number of painful joints compared to placebo. Etoricoxib 90 reduced the number of painful joints compared to placebo. Naproxen 750 reduced the number of swollen joints, except for etoricoxib 90. Naproxen 1,000, etoricoxib 90 and diclofenac 150 were better than placebo regarding patient assessment. Assessment physician showed that NSAIDs were better than placebo. Meta-analyses were not performed for prednisolone and prednisone. Naproxen 1,000 was the most effective drug and celecoxib 200 showed fewer adverse events. However, the low quality of the evidence observed for the outcomes with NSAIDs, the absence of meta-analyses to assess the outcomes with corticoids, as well as the risk of bias observed, indicate that future RCT can confirm such findings.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 33826610
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248866 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Hyperemesis gravidarum is a severe form of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy affecting 0.3% to 1.0% of pregnancies, and is one of the most common indications for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hyperemesis gravidarum is a severe form of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy affecting 0.3% to 1.0% of pregnancies, and is one of the most common indications for hospitalization during pregnancy. While a previous Cochrane review examined interventions for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, there has not yet been a review examining the interventions for the more severe condition of hyperemesis gravidarum.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety, of all interventions for hyperemesis gravidarum in pregnancy up to 20 weeks' gestation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register and the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (20 December 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials of any intervention for hyperemesis gravidarum. Quasi-randomized trials and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion.We excluded trials on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy that were not specifically studying the more severe condition of hyperemesis gravidarum.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed the eligibility of trials, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-five trials (involving 2052 women) met the inclusion criteria but the majority of 18 different comparisons described in the review include data from single studies with small numbers of participants. The comparisons covered a range of interventions including acupressure/acupuncture, outpatient care, intravenous fluids, and various pharmaceutical interventions. The methodological quality of included studies was mixed. For selected important comparisons and outcomes, we graded the quality of the evidence and created 'Summary of findings' tables. For most outcomes the evidence was graded as low or very low quality mainly due to the imprecision of effect estimates. Comparisons included in the 'Summary of findings' tables are described below, the remaining comparisons are described in detail in the main text.No primary outcome data were available when acupuncture was compared with placebo, There was no clear evidence of differences between groups for anxiodepressive symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.40; one study, 36 women, very low-quality evidence), spontaneous abortion (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.03; one study, 57 women, low-quality evidence), preterm birth (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.26; one study, 36 women, low-quality evidence), or perinatal death (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.30; one study, 36 women, low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to identify clear differences between acupuncture and metoclopramide in a study with 81 participants regarding reduction/cessation in nausea or vomiting (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.49 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.48, respectively; very low-quality evidence).In a study with 92 participants, women taking vitamin B6 had a slightly longer hospital stay compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 0.80 days, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in other outcomes including mean number of episodes of emesis (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.40, low-quality evidence) or side effects.A comparison between metoclopramide and ondansetron identified no clear difference in the severity of nausea or vomiting (MD 1.70, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.55, and MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.63 to 1.43; one study, 83 women, respectively, very low-quality evidence). However, more women taking metoclopramide complained of drowsiness and dry mouth (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 4.69, and RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 5.11, respectively; moderate-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for other side effects.In a single study with 146 participants comparing metoclopramide with promethazine, more women taking promethazine reported drowsiness, dizziness, and dystonia (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.69, and RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90, respectively, moderate-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for other important outcomes including quality of life and other side effects.In a single trial with 30 women, those receiving ondansetron had no difference in duration of hospital admission compared to those receiving promethazine (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.39 to 1.39, very low-quality evidence), although there was increased sedation with promethazine (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.94, low-quality evidence) .Regarding corticosteroids, in a study with 110 participants there was no difference in days of hospital admission compared to placebo (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.10; very low-quality evidence), but there was a decreased readmission rate (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.94; four studies, 269 women). For other important outcomes including pregnancy complications, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth and congenital abnormalities, there was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups (very low-quality evidence for all outcomes). In other single studies there were no clear differences between groups for preterm birth or side effects (very low-quality evidence).For hydrocortisone compared with metoclopramide, no data were available for primary outcomes and there was no difference in the readmission rate (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.28;one study, 40 women).In a study with 80 women, compared to promethazine, those receiving prednisolone had increased nausea at 48 hours (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.72; low-quality evidence), but not at 17 days (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.15, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of episodes of emesis or subjective improvement in nausea/vomiting. There was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups for stillbirth and neonatal death and preterm birth.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of this review, there is little high-quality and consistent evidence supporting any one intervention, which should be taken into account when making management decisions. There was also very limited reporting on the economic impact of hyperemesis gravidarum and the impact that interventions may have.The limitations in interpreting the results of the included studies highlights the importance of consistency in the definition of hyperemesis gravidarum, the use of validated outcome measures, and the need for larger placebo-controlled trials.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Antiemetics; Female; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Hyperemesis Gravidarum; Metoclopramide; Ondansetron; Placebo Effect; Prednisolone; Pregnancy; Promethazine; Pyridoxine
PubMed: 27168518
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010607.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2008Corticosteroids remain the mainstay of treatment in idiopathic nephrotic syndrome, including focal and segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS). However, only about 20% of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Corticosteroids remain the mainstay of treatment in idiopathic nephrotic syndrome, including focal and segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS). However, only about 20% of patients with FSGS experience a partial or complete remission of nephrotic syndrome despite treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive regimes in adults with FSGS.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL and handsearched congress reports of the American Society of Nephrology and the European Dialysis and Transplantation Association. Date of search: 31 January 2007.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs which examined the effects of different doses, dose strategies and duration of treatment of steroids, alkylating agents, cyclosporin A and antimetabolites in the treatment of FSGS in adults, where included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two authors independently assessed abstracts and/or full text articles to determine which studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Information was entered onto a separate data sheet for each identified study. Data relevant to outcomes (complete or partial remission of nephrotic syndrome, doubling of serum creatinine, adverse effects) from identified studies were included. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies (108 participants) were included. Three studies investigated cyclosporin A (CSA) with or without prednisone versus prednisone or no treatment and one compared chlorambucil plus prednisone versus no treatment. Outcome data was only available for complete or partial remission and doubling of serum creatinine. There was a significant increase in the number of participants who obtained complete or partial remission with CSA plus low dose prednisone versus prednisone alone (one study, 49 participants: RR 8.85, 95% CI 1.22 to 63.92). Pooled analyses were not performed due to the heterogeneity of the data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Adult patients treated with CSA at an initial dose of 3.5-5 mg/kg/d in two divided doses perhaps in combination with oral prednisolone 0.15 mg/kg/d are more likely to achieve a partial remission of the nephrotic syndrome compared with symptomatic treatment or prednisolone alone. However, there is a probability of deterioration of kidney function due to the nephrotoxic effect of CSA in the long term. For CSA, a larger controlled trial with longer follow-up should be performed to prove the benefit of this regimen not only on proteinuria but also on the preservation of kidney function. Present available data do not support the general use of alkylating substances for the treatment of FSGS in adults.
Topics: Adult; Chlorambucil; Cyclosporine; Glomerulosclerosis, Focal Segmental; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 18646090
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003233.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2000To determine therapeutically equivalent doses of inhaled versus oral steroids for adults with chronic asthma. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To determine therapeutically equivalent doses of inhaled versus oral steroids for adults with chronic asthma.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Airways Group trials register was searched using the terms: (drug delivery systems OR ((nebuli* OR inhal* OR MDI) AND oral*)) AND ( steroid* OR corticosteroid* OR glucocorticoid* OR beclomethasone OR betamethasone OR fluticasone OR cortisone OR dexamethasone OR hydrocortisone OR prednisolone OR prednisone OR triamcinolone).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials were selected of at least 4 weeks duration and included patients over the age of 15 years with chronic asthma. Trials compared inhaled steroids and oral prednisolone or prednisone; where the maximum dose for inhaled steroids was 2000 mcg/day and prednisolone 60 mg (on alternate days).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent reviewers screened 1285 titles and abstracts from the electronic search, bibliography searches and other contacts. Of these, 10 trials met previously defined inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, and outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS
All trials were small and no data could be pooled. Carry-over effects were present in at least one cross-over trial. Data from six trials produced the same pattern, in which prednisolone 7.5-12 mg/day appeared to be as effective as inhaled steroid 300-2000 mcg/day. In two trials, inhaled steroid 300-400 mcg/day was more effective than prednisolone 5 mg/day. All doses of inhaled steroid appeared to be more effective than alternate day doses of prednisolone up to 60 mg on alternate days. Side-effect data were reported too variably to permit comparisons. A 30% incidence was reported in one study in patients receiving prednisolone 5 mg/day, none were reported in patients on inhaled steroids.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
A daily dose of prednisolone 7.5-10 mg/day appears to be equivalent to moderate-high dose inhaled corticosteroids. Side-effects may be present on low doses, so if there is no alternative to oral steroids, the lowest effective dose should be prescribed.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Adult; Asthma; Chronic Disease; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Prednisolone; Prednisone
PubMed: 10796683
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002160 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2001Inflammation plays a significant role in the pathophysiology of bronchiectasis. Two small studies have shown small benefits from inhaled corticosteroids and oral... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Inflammation plays a significant role in the pathophysiology of bronchiectasis. Two small studies have shown small benefits from inhaled corticosteroids and oral corticosteroids may be of benefit in bronchiectasis
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of oral corticosteroids in acute and stable bronchiectasis
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Airways Group clinical trials register, derived from MEDLINE, EMBASE and hand searching of major journals, was searched using the terms bronchiectasis AND corticosteroid* OR (beclomethasone, cortisone, deflazacort, hydrocortisone, methylprednisolone, prednisolone, dexamethasone and triamcinolone
SELECTION CRITERIA
Only randomised controlled trials were considered
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
No trials met the inclusion criteria for the review
MAIN RESULTS
No randomised controlled trials were identified
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
There are no randomised trials upon which to make recommendations about the use of oral corticosteroids in acute or stable bronchiectasis.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Bronchiectasis; Humans; Steroids
PubMed: 11687146
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002162 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2013Neuropsychiatric involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is complex and it is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Management of nervous system... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neuropsychiatric involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is complex and it is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Management of nervous system manifestations of SLE remains unsatisfactory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2000 and previously updated in 2006.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone in the treatment of neuropsychiatric manifestations of SLE.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCOPUS and WHO up to and including June 2012. We sought additional articles through handsearching in relevant journals as well as contact with experts. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials that compared cyclophosphamide to methylprednisolone in patients with SLE of any age and gender and presenting with any kind of neuropsychiatric manifestations.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted, assessed and cross-checked data. We produced a 'Summary of findings' table. We presented dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We did not include any new trials in this update. One randomised controlled trial of 32 patients is included. Concerning risk of bias, generation of the allocation sequence was at low risk; however, allocation concealment, blinding and selective reporting were at high risk. Treatment response, defined as 20% improvement from basal conditions by clinical, serological and specific neurological measures, was found in 94.7% (18/19) of patients using cyclophosphamide compared with 46.2% (6/13) in the methylprednisolone group at 24 months (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.73). This was statistically significant and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of treatment response is three. We found no statistically significant differences between the groups in damage index measurements (Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC)). The median SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) rating favoured the cyclophosphamide group. Cyclophosphamide use was associated with a reduction in prednisone requirements. All the patients in the cyclophosphamide group had electroencephalographic improvement but there was no statistically significant difference in decrease between groups in the number of monthly seizures. No statistically significant differences in adverse effects, including mortality, were reported between the groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review found one randomised controlled trial with a small number of patients in the different clinical subgroups of neurological manifestation. There is very low-quality evidence that cyclophosphamide is more effective in reducing symptoms of neuropsychiatric involvement in SLE compared with methylprednisolone. However, properly designed randomised controlled trials that involve large numbers of individuals, with explicit clinical and laboratory diagnostic criteria, sufficient duration of follow-up and description of all relevant outcome measures, are necessary to guide practice. As we did not find any new trials to include in this review at update, the conclusions of the review did not change.
Topics: Cyclophosphamide; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Methylprednisolone; Neurocognitive Disorders; Neuroprotective Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures
PubMed: 23450535
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002265.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2004The effect of low dose corticosteroids, equivalent to 15 mg prednisolone daily or less, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis has been questioned. We performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The effect of low dose corticosteroids, equivalent to 15 mg prednisolone daily or less, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis has been questioned. We performed a systematic review of trials which compared corticosteroids with placebo or non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether short-term (i.e. as recorded within the first month of therapy), oral low-dose corticosteroids (corresponding to a maximum of 15 mg prednisolone daily) is superior to placebo and non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
PubMed, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL ), reference lists were searched until February 2004.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised studies comparing an oral corticosteroid (not exceeding an equivalent of 15 mg prednisolone daily) with placebo or a non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug were eligible if they reported clinical outcomes within one month after start of therapy. For adverse effects, long-term trials and matched cohort studies were also selected.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Decisions on which trials to include were made independently by two observers based on the methods sections of the trials. Standardised mean difference (random effects model) was used for the statistical analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten studies, involving 320 patients, were included. Prednisolone had a marked effect over placebo on joint tenderness (standardised mean difference 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.83), pain (1.75, 0.87 to 2.64) and grip strength (0.41, 0.13 to 0.69). Measured in the original units, the differences were 12 tender joints (6 to 18) and 22 mm Hg (5 to 40) for grip strength. Prednisolone also had a greater effect than non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs on joint tenderness (0.63, 0.11 to 1.16) and pain (1.25, 0.26 to 2.24), whereas the difference in grip strength was not significant (0.31, -0.02 to 0.64). Measured in the original units, the differences were 9 tender joints (5 to 12) and 12 mm Hg (-6 to 31). The risk of adverse effects, also during moderate- and long-term use, seemed acceptable.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS
Prednisolone in low doses (not exceeding 15 mg daily) may be used intermittently in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, particularly if the disease cannot be controlled by other means. Since prednisolone is highly effective, short-term placebo controlled trials studying the clinical effect of low-dose prednisolone or other oral corticosteroids are no longer necessary.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Indomethacin; Prednisolone; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 15266426
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000189.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2013This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 1, 2006 and previously updated in 2009.Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 1, 2006 and previously updated in 2009.Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL) is a clinical diagnosis characterised by a sudden deafness of cochlear or retrocochlear origin in the absence of a clear precipitating cause. Steroids are commonly prescribed to treat this condition. There is no consensus on their effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether steroids in the treatment of ISSHL a) improve hearing (primary) and b) reduce tinnitus (secondary).To determine the incidence of significant side effects from the medication.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 22 April 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We identified all randomised controlled trials (with or without blinding) in which steroids were evaluated in comparison with either no treatment or a placebo. We considered trials including the use of steroids in combination with another treatment if the comparison control group also received the same other treatment. The two authors reviewed the full-text articles of all the retrieved trials of possible relevance and applied the inclusion criteria independently.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We graded trials for risk of bias using the Cochrane approach. The data extraction was performed in a standardised manner by one author and rechecked by the other author. Where necessary we contacted investigators to obtain the missing information. Meta-analysis was neither possible nor considered appropriate because of the heterogeneity of the populations studied and the differences in steroid formulations, dosages and duration of treatment. We analysed and reported the quality of the results of each study individually. A narrative overview of the results is presented.
MAIN RESULTS
Only three trials, involving 267 participants, satisfied the inclusion criteria and all three studies were at high risk of bias. One trial showed a lack of effect of oral steroids in improving hearing compared with the placebo control group. The second trial showed a significant improvement of hearing in 61% of the patients receiving oral steroid and in only 32% of the patients from the control group (combination of placebo-treated group and untreated control group). The third trial also showed a lack of effect of oral steroids in improving hearing compared with the placebo control. However, this trial did not follow strict inclusion criteria for participant selection and analysis of data was limited by significant exclusion of participants from the final analysis and lack of participant compliance to the treatment protocol. No clear evidence was presented in two trials about any harmful side effects of the steroids. Only one study declared that no patients suffered from adverse effects of the steroid treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The value of steroids in the treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss remains unclear since the evidence obtained from randomised controlled trials is contradictory in outcome, in part because the studies are based upon too small a number of patients.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Dexamethasone; Glucocorticoids; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Hearing Loss, Sudden; Humans; Methylprednisolone; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23818120
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003998.pub3