-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2013Traumatic optic neuropathy (TON) is an important cause of severe visual loss following blunt or penetrating head trauma. Following the initial injury, optic nerve... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Traumatic optic neuropathy (TON) is an important cause of severe visual loss following blunt or penetrating head trauma. Following the initial injury, optic nerve swelling within the optic nerve canal can result in secondary retinal ganglion cell loss. Optic nerve decompression with steroids or surgical interventions or both has therefore been advocated as a means of improving visual prognosis in TON.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to examine the effectiveness and safety of using steroids in TON.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, (January 1950 to May 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to May 2013), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S) (January 1990 to May 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 21 May 2013. We also searched the reference lists of included studies, other reviews and book chapters on TON to find references to additional trials. The Science Citation Index was used to look for papers that cited the studies included in this review. We did not manually search any journals or conference proceedings. We contacted trial investigators and experts in the field to identify additional published and unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of TON in which any steroid regime, either on its own or in combination with surgical optic nerve decompression, was compared to surgery alone or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts identified from the electronic searches.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one study that met our selection criteria; a double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of high dose intravenous steroids in patients with indirect TON diagnosed within seven days of the initial injury. A total of 31 eligible participants were randomised to receive either high dose intravenous steroids (n = 16) or placebo (n = 15), and they were all followed-up for three months. Mean final best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 1.78±1.23 Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (LogMAR) in the placebo group, and 1.11±1.14 LogMAR in the steroid group. The mean difference in BCVA between the placebo and steroid groups was 0.67 LogMAR (95% confidence interval -1.54 to 0.20), and this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.13). At three months follow-up, an improvement in BCVA of 0.40 LogMAR occurred in eight eyes (8/15, 53.3%) in the placebo group, and in 11 eyes (11/16, 68.8%) in the treatment group. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.38).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a relatively high rate of spontaneous visual recovery in TON and there is no convincing data that steroids provide any additional visual benefit over observation alone. Recent evidence also suggests a possible detrimental effect of steroids in TON and further studies are urgently needed to clarify this important issue. Each case therefore needs to be assessed on an individual basis and proper informed consent is paramount.
Topics: Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Methylprednisolone; Optic Nerve Injuries; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Steroids; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 23771729
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006032.pub4 -
Journal of Nephrology Jul 2023Acute pyelonephritis is a common infection in children that may cause renal scarring. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyse the use of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute pyelonephritis is a common infection in children that may cause renal scarring. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyse the use of corticosteroid treatment to prevent renal scarring.
METHODS
We searched the PubMED, SCOPUS, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science databases in June 2022 for (corticosteroid* or dexamethasone or prednisolone* or prednisone* or hydrocortisone*) AND pyelonephritis. Randomised controlled trials focusing on children were included. The intervention was corticosteroid treatment with antibiotics compared to antibiotics with or without a placebo. The main outcome was the presence of renal scars on dimercaptosuccinic acid scanning at follow-up. The evidence quality was assessed using the GRADE methodology and risk of bias 2.0 tool. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), absolute risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat (NNT). We applied a fixed effects model due to low heterogeneity.
RESULTS
We screened 872 abstracts and included five full texts. Renal scarring at follow-up was found in 31/220 (14.1%) patients in the corticosteroid groups and 76/278 (27.3%) in the control groups (RR 0.65, CI 0.44-0.96, RD - 13.2%, NNT 8). The evidence quality was moderate. Two studies reported adverse events with no differences between the groups. The risk of bias analysis showed some concerns in four studies.
CONCLUSION
We found moderate quality evidence that adjuvant corticosteroid treatment could prevent renal scarring. Adverse events were insufficiently reported, and more research on their effectiveness and harm is therefore needed before using corticosteroids in clinical settings.
Topics: Child; Humans; Cicatrix; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Prednisolone; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Pyelonephritis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36692666
DOI: 10.1007/s40620-022-01552-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2013Wegener's granulomatosis (WG) is a necrotizing small-vessel vasculitis that can affect any organ in the body but mainly affects the upper and lower respiratory tract,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Wegener's granulomatosis (WG) is a necrotizing small-vessel vasculitis that can affect any organ in the body but mainly affects the upper and lower respiratory tract, the kidneys, joints, skin and eyes. The current mainstay of remission induction therapy is systemic corticosteroids in combination with oral daily cyclophosphamide (CYC) which induces remission in 75% to 100% of cases. Although standard therapy is effective in inducing partial or complete remission, 50% of complete remissions are followed by at least one relapse. This is an update of a review first published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) adjuvant therapy provides a therapeutic advantage over and above treatment with systemic corticosteroids in combination with immunosuppressants for the treatment of WG.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (last searched November 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11). Trial databases were searched by the TSC for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. No date or language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or quasi RCTs, or randomized cross-over trials. Participants had to be adults with a confirmed diagnosis of WG.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Relative risk was used to analyze dichotomous variables, and mean difference (MD) was used to analyze continuous variables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one RCT with 34 participants who were randomly assigned to receive IVIg or placebo once daily in addition to azathioprine and prednisolone for remission maintenance. There were no significant differences between adjuvant IVIg and adjuvant placebo in mortality, serious adverse events, time to relapse, open-label rescue therapy, and infection rates. The fall in disease activity score, derived from patient-reported symptoms, was slightly greater in the IVIg group than in the placebo group at one month (MD 2.30; 95% Confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 3.48, P < 0.01) and three months (MD 1.80; 95% CI 0.35 to 3.25, P = 0.01). There was a significant increase in total adverse events in the IVIg group (relative risk (RR) 3.50; 95% CI 1.44 to 8.48, P < 0.01).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence from one RCT that IVIg adjuvant therapy provides a therapeutic advantage compared with the combination of steroids and immunosuppressants for patients with WG. Given the high cost of IVIg (one dose at 2 g/kg for a 70 kg patient = $8,400), it should be limited to treat WG in the context of a well conducted RCT powered to detect patient-relevant outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Azathioprine; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glucocorticoids; Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Immunologic Factors; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23440811
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007057.pub3 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Apr 2024Short courses of adjunctive systemic corticosteroids are commonly used to treat acute urticaria and chronic urticaria flares (both with and without mast cell-mediated...
BACKGROUND
Short courses of adjunctive systemic corticosteroids are commonly used to treat acute urticaria and chronic urticaria flares (both with and without mast cell-mediated angioedema), but their benefits and harms are unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treating acute urticaria or chronic urticaria flares with versus without systemic corticosteroids.
METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM databases from inception to July 8, 2023, for randomized controlled trials of treating urticaria with versus without systemic corticosteroids. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias with the Cochrane 2.0 tool. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of urticaria activity, itch severity, and adverse events. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
We identified 12 randomized trials enrolling 944 patients. For patients with low or moderate probability (17.5%-64%) to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improve urticaria activity by a 14% to 15% absolute difference (odds ratio [OR], 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-3.31; number needed to treat [NNT], 7; moderate certainty). Among patients with a high chance (95.8%) for urticaria to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improved urticaria activity by a 2.2% absolute difference (NNT, 45; moderate certainty). Corticosteroids may improve itch severity (OR, 2.44; 95% CI: 0.87-6.83; risk difference, 9%; NNT, 11; low certainty). Systemic corticosteroids also likely increase adverse events (OR, 2.76; 95% CI: 1.00-7.62; risk difference, 15%; number needed to harm, 9; moderate certainty).
CONCLUSIONS
Systemic corticosteroids for acute urticaria or chronic urticaria exacerbations likely improve urticaria, depending on antihistamine responsiveness, but also likely increase adverse effects in approximately 15% more.
PubMed: 38642709
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2024.04.016 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2005Although widely accepted as an appropriate immunosuppressive therapy, the efficacy of glucocorticosteroid treatment has only rarely been tested in controlled studies. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although widely accepted as an appropriate immunosuppressive therapy, the efficacy of glucocorticosteroid treatment has only rarely been tested in controlled studies.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of glucocorticosteroids or adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) medication in autoimmune myasthenia gravis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Register in July 2004, MEDLINE (from January 1966 to June 2004) and EMBASE (from January 1980 to June 2004). We also checked the bibliographies in reviews and the randomised trials and contacted their authors to identify additional published and unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
From the articles identified we selected those open or controlled studies which allowed us to assess the outcome of treated and untreated patients at definite endpoints. Types of studies: quasi-randomised or randomised controlled trials.
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS
patients with myasthenia gravis of all ages and all degrees of severity. Types of interventions: any form of glucocorticosteroids or adrenocorticotrophic hormone treatment. Types of outcome measures:Primary outcome(1) improvement after at least three months in either the weakest muscles or all muscles. Secondary outcomes(1) proportion of patients improved after at least six months(2) proportion of patients in remission(3) number of episodes of worsening during the first six months(4) acetylcholine receptor antibody titres after at least three months of therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors extracted the data from the selected articles and one other checked them.
MAIN RESULTS
A trial of adrenocorticotrophic hormone (43 patients) did not show any advantage compared with placebo for the treatment of ocular myasthenia gravis. Two double-blind trials compared prednisone with placebo for generalised myasthenia gravis. In the first (13 patients), the improvement was slightly greater in the prednisone group at six months. In the second (20 patients) which was a short-term trial, the improvement was significantly greater at two weeks. Two trials compared glucocorticosteroids with azathioprine (41 and 10 patients respectively). In one of these the rate of treatment failure was greater in the prednisone group. In a trial of glucocorticosteroids versus intravenous immunoglobulin (33 patients) no differences in treatment responses were encountered during a treatment period of 14 days. An open trial (39 patients) evaluating different corticosteroid doses revealed a shorter time to improvement in the high-dose group. However only limited evidence can be drawn from the available randomised controlled trials due to numerous and important methodological flaws.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Limited evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests that corticosteroid treatment offers significant short-term benefit in myasthenia gravis compared with placebo. This supports the conclusions of observational studies and expert opinion. Limited evidence from randomised controlled trials does not show any difference in efficacy between corticosteroids and either azathioprine or intravenous immunoglobulin.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenocorticotropic Hormone; Azathioprine; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Methylprednisolone; Myasthenia Gravis; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 15846640
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002828.pub2 -
Ecancermedicalscience 2020Cancer and transplant patients with COVID-19 have a higher risk of developing severe and even fatal respiratory diseases, especially as they may be treated with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer and transplant patients with COVID-19 have a higher risk of developing severe and even fatal respiratory diseases, especially as they may be treated with immune-suppressive or immune-stimulating drugs. This review focuses on the effects of these drugs on host immunity against COVID-19.
METHODS
Using Ovid MEDLINE, we reviewed current evidence for immune-suppressing or -stimulating drugs: cytotoxic chemotherapy, low-dose steroids, tumour necrosis factorα (TNFα) blockers, interlukin-6 (IL-6) blockade, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, IL-1 blockade, mycophenolate, tacrolimus, anti-CD20 and CTLA4-Ig.
RESULTS
89 studies were included. Cytotoxic chemotherapy has been shown to be a specific inhibitor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus in in vitro studies, but no specific studies exist as of yet for COVID-19. No conclusive evidence for or against the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment of COVID-19 patients is available, nor is there evidence indicating that TNFα blockade is harmful to patients in the context of COVID-19. COVID-19 has been observed to induce a pro-inflammatory cytokine generation and secretion of cytokines, such as IL-6, but there is no evidence of the beneficial impact of IL-6 inhibitors on the modulation of COVID-19. Although there are potential targets in the JAK-STAT pathway that can be manipulated in treatment for coronaviruses and it is evident that IL-1 is elevated in patients with a coronavirus, there is currently no evidence for a role of these drugs in treatment of COVID-19.
CONCLUSION
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to challenging decision-making about treatment of critically unwell patients. Low-dose prednisolone and tacrolimus may have beneficial impacts on COVID-19. The mycophenolate mofetil picture is less clear, with conflicting data from pre-clinical studies. There is no definitive evidence that specific cytotoxic drugs, low-dose methotrexate for auto-immune disease, NSAIDs, JAK kinase inhibitors or anti-TNFα agents are contraindicated. There is clear evidence that IL-6 peak levels are associated with severity of pulmonary complications.
PubMed: 32256705
DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2020.1022 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Endophthalmitis is a severe inflammation of the anterior or posterior (or both) chambers of the eye that may be sterile or associated with infection. It is a potentially... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endophthalmitis is a severe inflammation of the anterior or posterior (or both) chambers of the eye that may be sterile or associated with infection. It is a potentially vision-threatening complication of cataract surgery. Prophylactic measures for endophthalmitis are targeted against various sources of infection.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for endophthalmitis following cataract surgery compared with no prophylaxis or other form of prophylaxis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily (January 1946 to December 2016), Embase (January 1980 to December 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to December 2016),the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 6 December 2016. We also searched for additional studies that cited any included trials using the Science Citation Index.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that enrolled adults undergoing cataract surgery (any method and incision type) for lens opacities due to any origin. We included trials that evaluated preoperative antibiotics, intraoperative (intracameral, subconjunctival or systemic), or postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for acute endophthalmitis. We excluded studies that evaluated antiseptic preoperative preparations using agents such as povidone iodine or antibiotics for treating acute endophthalmitis after cataract surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias for each included study, and abstracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
Five studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, including 101,005 adults and 132 endophthalmitis cases. While the sample size was very large, the heterogeneity of the study designs and modes of antibiotic delivery made it impossible to conduct a formal meta-analysis. Interventions investigated included the utility of adding vancomycin and gentamycin to the irrigating solution compared with standard balanced saline solution irrigation alone, use of intracameral cefuroxime with or without topical levofloxacin perioperatively, periocular penicillin injections and topical chloramphenicol-sulfadimidine drops compared with topical antibiotics alone, and mode of antibiotic delivery (subconjunctival versus retrobulbar injections; fixed versus separate instillation of gatifloxacin and prednisolone). The risk of bias among studies was low to unclear due to information not being reported. We identified one ongoing study.Two studies compared any antibiotic with no antibiotic. One study, which compared irrigation with antibiotics in balanced salt solution (BSS) versus BSS alone, was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in endophthalmitis between groups (very low-certainty evidence). One study found reduced risk of endophthalmitis when combining intracameral cefuroxime and topical levofloxacin (risk ratio (RR) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.63; 8106 participants; high-certainty evidence) or using intracameral cefuroxime alone (RR 0.21, CI 0.06 to 0.74; 8110 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared with placebo, and an uncertain effect when using topical levofloxacin alone compared with placebo (RR 0.72, CI 0.32 to 1.61; 8103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Two studies found reduced risk of endophthalmitis when combining antibiotic injections during surgery and topical antibiotics compared with topical antibiotics alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.92 (periocular penicillin and topical chloramphenicol-sulfadimidine; 6618 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.91 (intracameral cefuroxime and topical levofloxacin; 8101 participants; high-certainty evidence)).One study, which compared fixed versus separate instillation of gatifloxacin and prednisolone, was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in endophthalmitis between groups (very low-certainty evidence). Another study found no evidence of a difference in endophthalmitis when comparing subconjunctival versus retrobulbar antibiotic injections (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.32; 77,015 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Two studies reported any visual acuity outcome; one study, which compared fixed versus separate instillation of gatifloxacin and prednisolone, reported only that mean visual acuity was the same for both groups at 20 days postoperation. In the other study, the difference in the proportion of eyes with final visual acuity greater than 20/40 following endophthalmitis between groups receiving intracameral cefuroxime with or without topical levofloxacin compared with no intracameral cefuroxime was uncertain (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.11; 29 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Only one study reported adverse events (1 of 129 eyes had pupillary membrane in front of the intraocular lens and 8 eyes showed posterior capsule opacity). No study reported outcomes related to quality of life or economic outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Multiple measures for preventing endophthalmitis following cataract surgery have been studied. High-certainty evidence shows that injection with cefuroxime with or without topical levofloxacin lowers the chance of endophthalmitis after surgery, and there is moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that using antibiotic eye drops in addition to antibiotic injection probably lowers the chance of endophthalmitis compared with using injections or eye drops alone. Clinical trials with rare outcomes require very large sample sizes and are quite costly to conduct; thus, it is unlikely that many additional clinical trials will be conducted to evaluate currently available prophylaxis. Practitioners should rely on current evidence to make informed decisions regarding prophylaxis choices.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cataract Extraction; Endophthalmitis; Humans; Injections, Intraocular; Ophthalmic Solutions; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Therapeutic Irrigation; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 28192644
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006364.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016Inflammation and oedema of the facial nerve are implicated in causing Bell's palsy. Corticosteroids have a potent anti-inflammatory action that should minimise nerve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Inflammation and oedema of the facial nerve are implicated in causing Bell's palsy. Corticosteroids have a potent anti-inflammatory action that should minimise nerve damage. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroid therapy in people with Bell's palsy.
SEARCH METHODS
On 4 March 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We reviewed the bibliographies of the randomised trials and contacted known experts in the field to identify additional published or unpublished trials. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials and quasi-randomised trials comparing different routes of administration and dosage schemes of corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone therapy versus a control group receiving no therapy considered effective for this condition, unless the same therapy was given in a similar way to the experimental group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology. The main outcome of interest was incomplete recovery of facial motor function (i.e. residual facial weakness). Secondary outcomes were cosmetically disabling persistent sequelae, development of motor synkinesis or autonomic dysfunction (i.e. hemifacial spasm, crocodile tears) and adverse effects of corticosteroid therapy manifested during follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified seven trials, with 895 evaluable participants for this review. All provided data suitable for the primary outcome meta-analysis. One of the trials was new since the last version of this Cochrane systematic review. Risk of bias in the older, smaller studies included some unclear- or high-risk assessments, whereas we deemed the larger studies at low risk of bias. Overall, 79/452 (17%) participants allocated to corticosteroids had incomplete recovery of facial motor function six months or more after randomisation; significantly fewer than the 125/447 (28%) in the control group (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.80, seven trials, n = 895). The number of people who need to be treated with corticosteroids to avoid one incomplete recovery was 10 (95% CI 6 to 20). The reduction in the proportion of participants with cosmetically disabling sequelae six months after randomisation was very similar in the corticosteroid and placebo groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.29, two trials, n = 75, low-quality evidence). However, there was a significant reduction in motor synkinesis during follow-up in participants receiving corticosteroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.91, three trials, n = 485, moderate-quality evidence). Three studies explicitly recorded the absence of adverse effects attributable to corticosteroids. One trial reported that three participants receiving prednisolone had temporary sleep disturbances and two trials gave a detailed account of adverse effects occurring in 93 participants, all non-serious; the combined analysis of data from these three trials found no significant difference in adverse effect rates between people receiving corticosteroids and people receiving placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.51, n = 715).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available moderate- to high-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials showed significant benefit from treating Bell's palsy with corticosteroids.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Bell Palsy; Cortisone; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Methylprednisolone; Prednisolone; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Vitamins
PubMed: 27428352
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001942.pub5 -
Danish Medical Journal Dec 2016Refractory coeliac disease (RCD) is a rare and severe malabsorptive disease. The condition has two subtypes: RCDI and RCDII. Different treatments have been tested: and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Refractory coeliac disease (RCD) is a rare and severe malabsorptive disease. The condition has two subtypes: RCDI and RCDII. Different treatments have been tested: and because RCD has a poor prognosis due to progress to enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, the aim was to review the epidemiologic aspects and the therapeutic options for RCD.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in 18 databases, and 122 records were identified. Incidence, prevalence, treatment methods and their efficacy were evaluated.
RESULTS
Among coeliac disease patients, the cumulative incidence of RCD is 1-4% per ten-year period and the prevalence is 0.31-0.38%. In the general population, the prevalence of RCD is 0.002%. Treatment of RCDI is azathioprine (effect 100%), mesalamine (effect 60%) or tioguanine (effect 83%). Treatment for RCDII is the antimetabolite cladribine (effect 81%) and autologous haematopoetic stem cell transplantation (effect 85%).
CONCLUSION
RCD is a very rare disease. The current evidence for RCDI treatment includes prednisolone in combination with the immunosuppressants azathioprine, mesalamine or tioguanine. The current evidence for RCDII treatment documents use of the antimetabolite cladribine, and if there is no effect, autologous haematopoetic stem cell transplantation may be attempted. In the future, there is a need for more effective treatments which will also prevent further progression to enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Azathioprine; Celiac Disease; Cladribine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Incidence; Mesalamine; Prednisolone; Prevalence; Thioguanine
PubMed: 27910801
DOI: No ID Found -
The Oncologist 2013CD30(+) lymphoproliferative disorders represent a spectrum of diseases with distinct clinical phenotypes ranging from reactive conditions to aggressive systemic... (Review)
Review
CD30(+) lymphoproliferative disorders represent a spectrum of diseases with distinct clinical phenotypes ranging from reactive conditions to aggressive systemic anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)(-) anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). In January 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a possible association between breast implants and ALCL, which was likened to systemic ALCL and treated accordingly. We analyzed existing data to see if implant-associated ALCL (iALCL) may represent a distinct entity, different from aggressive ALCL. We conducted a systematic review of publications regarding ALCL and breast implantation for 1990-2012 and contacted corresponding authors to obtain long-term follow-up where available. We identified 44 unique cases of iALCL, the majority of which were associated with seroma, had an ALK(-) phenotype (97%), and had a good prognosis, different from the expected 40% 5-year survival rate of patients with ALK(-) nodal ALCL (one case remitted spontaneously following implant removal; only two deaths have been reported to the FDA or in the scientific literature since 1990). The majority of these patients received cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone with or without radiation, but radiation alone also resulted in complete clinical responses. It appears that iALCL demonstrates a strong association with breast implants, a waxing and waning course, and an overall good prognosis, with morphology, cytokine profile, and biological behavior similar to those of primary cutaneous ALCL. Taken together, these data are suggestive that iALCL may start as a reactive process with the potential to progress and acquire an aggressive phenotype typical of its systemic counterpart. A larger analysis and prospective evaluation and follow-up of iALCL patients are necessary to definitively resolve the issue of the natural course of the disease and best therapeutic approaches for these patients.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Breast Implantation; Female; Humans; Ki-1 Antigen; Lymphoma, Large-Cell, Anaplastic; Lymphoproliferative Disorders; Middle Aged
PubMed: 23429741
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0238