-
Journal of Functional Morphology and... Jul 2019Achilles tendinopathy is a common musculoskeletal disorder. Athletes, runners and jumpers, and the sedentary are frequently affected. Numerous are the therapeutic... (Review)
Review
Achilles tendinopathy is a common musculoskeletal disorder. Athletes, runners and jumpers, and the sedentary are frequently affected. Numerous are the therapeutic choices to manage these kinds of disorders. The aim of this review is to analyze the available literature to document the up-to-date evidence on conservative management of Achilles tendinopathy. A systematic review of two medical electronic databases was performed by three independent authors, using the following inclusion criteria: conservative treatment consisted of pharmacologic, physical therapy without operative treatment, with more of 6 months symptoms and a minimum average of 6-months follow-up. Studies of any level of evidence, reporting clinical results, and dealing with Achilles tendinopathy and conservative treatment were searched for. A total of = 1228 articles were found. At the end of the first screening, following the previously described selection criteria, we selected = 94 articles eligible for full-text reading. Ultimately, after full-text reading and a reference list check, we selected = 29 articles. Achilles tendinopathy is a frequent musculoskeletal disorder and several conservative treatments have been proposed, but no therapy is universally accepted, except for eccentric exercise training, which is the gold standard and a commonly used protocol.
PubMed: 33467361
DOI: 10.3390/jfmk4030046 -
PloS One 2015Metamizole is used to treat pain in many parts of the world. Information on the safety profile of metamizole is scarce; no conclusive summary of the literature exists. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Metamizole is used to treat pain in many parts of the world. Information on the safety profile of metamizole is scarce; no conclusive summary of the literature exists.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether metamizole is clinically safe compared to placebo and other analgesics.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and several clinical trial registries. We screened the reference lists of included trials and previous systematic reviews. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of metamizole, administered to adults in any form and for any indication, to other analgesics or to placebo. Two authors extracted data regarding trial design and size, indications for pain medication, patient characteristics, treatment regimens, and methodological characteristics. Adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and dropouts were assessed. We conducted separate meta-analyses for each metamizole comparator, using standard inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis to pool the estimates across trials, reported as risk ratios (RRs). We calculated the DerSimonian and Laird variance estimate T2 to measure heterogeneity between trials. The pre-specified primary end point was any AE during the trial period.
RESULTS
Of the 696 potentially eligible trials, 79 trials including almost 4000 patients with short-term metamizole use of less than two weeks met our inclusion criteria. Fewer AEs were reported for metamizole compared to opioids, RR = 0.79 (confidence interval 0.79 to 0.96). We found no differences between metamizole and placebo, paracetamol and NSAIDs. Only a few SAEs were reported, with no difference between metamizole and other analgesics. No agranulocytosis or deaths were reported. Our results were limited by the mediocre overall quality of the reports.
CONCLUSION
For short-term use in the hospital setting, metamizole seems to be a safe choice when compared to other widely used analgesics. High-quality, adequately sized trials assessing the intermediate- and long-term safety of metamizole are needed.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adult; Agranulocytosis; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dipyrone; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Quality Control; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 25875821
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122918 -
Clinical Breast Cancer Dec 2023Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is a novel antibody-drug-conjugate (ADC), primarily used in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. This study aimed to conduct a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is a novel antibody-drug-conjugate (ADC), primarily used in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of T-DXd in treating breast cancer, based on clinical trials. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of T-DXd in breast cancer. Clinical trials of any phase were included. Outcome measures were any adverse events and survival. Meta-analysis was conducted where possible. Pooled prevalence for each adverse event of any grade and grade 3 or greater were estimated. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rates (ORRs) were also reported to evaluate the efficacy of T-DXd in breast cancer. A total of 1593 patients from 6 clinical trials were included. Common adverse events of any grade were nausea, anemia, neutropenia, vomiting, fatigue, constipation and diarrhea, occurring in greater than 30% of cases. In terms of adverse events of grade 3 or more, only anemia and neutropenia occurred at a relatively high rate. Median PFS ranged from 11.1 to 22.1 months. There was evidence of a benefit of T-DXd compared to controls in terms of both PFS (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.32, 0.45) and OS (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.78). ORRs ranged from 37% to 79.9%. The present systematic review shows evidence that T-DXd is a safe and effective agent in the treatment of breast cancer based on currently available data. The most common adverse events affected the blood, lymphatic and gastrointestinal systems. Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a notable and potentially serious adverse event.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Trastuzumab; Camptothecin; Neutropenia; Anemia; Receptor, ErbB-2
PubMed: 37775347
DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2023.09.005 -
Pharmacology & Therapeutics Apr 2019Atherosclerosis, the principal cause of cardiovascular death worldwide, is a pathological disease characterized by fibro-proliferation, chronic inflammation, lipid...
Atherosclerosis, the principal cause of cardiovascular death worldwide, is a pathological disease characterized by fibro-proliferation, chronic inflammation, lipid accumulation, and immune disorder in the vessel wall. As the atheromatous plaques develop into advanced stage, the vulnerable plaques are prone to rupture, which causes acute cardiovascular events, including ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction. Emerging evidence has suggested that atherosclerosis is also an epigenetic disease with the interplay of multiple epigenetic mechanisms. The epigenetic basis of atherosclerosis has transformed our knowledge of epigenetics from an important biological phenomenon to a burgeoning field in cardiovascular research. Here, we provide a systematic and up-to-date overview of the current knowledge of three distinct but interrelated epigenetic processes (including DNA methylation, histone methylation/acetylation, and non-coding RNAs), in atherosclerotic plaque development and instability. Mechanistic and conceptual advances in understanding the biological roles of various epigenetic modifiers in regulating gene expression and functions of endothelial cells (vascular homeostasis, leukocyte adhesion, endothelial-mesenchymal transition, angiogenesis, and mechanotransduction), smooth muscle cells (proliferation, migration, inflammation, hypertrophy, and phenotypic switch), and macrophages (differentiation, inflammation, foam cell formation, and polarization) are discussed. The inherently dynamic nature and reversibility of epigenetic regulation, enables the possibility of epigenetic therapy by targeting epigenetic "writers", "readers", and "erasers". Several Food Drug Administration-approved small-molecule epigenetic drugs show promise in pre-clinical studies for the treatment of atherosclerosis. Finally, we discuss potential therapeutic implications and challenges for future research involving cardiovascular epigenetics, with an aim to provide a translational perspective for identifying novel biomarkers of atherosclerosis, and transforming precision cardiovascular research and disease therapy in modern era of epigenetics.
Topics: Animals; Atherosclerosis; Epigenesis, Genetic; Humans; Immunity; RNA, Untranslated; Risk Factors
PubMed: 30439455
DOI: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2018.11.003 -
American Journal of Hematology Jul 2020COVID-19 is a systemic infection with a significant impact on the hematopoietic system and hemostasis. Lymphopenia may be considered as a cardinal laboratory finding,...
COVID-19 is a systemic infection with a significant impact on the hematopoietic system and hemostasis. Lymphopenia may be considered as a cardinal laboratory finding, with prognostic potential. Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and peak platelet/lymphocyte ratio may also have prognostic value in determining severe cases. During the disease course, longitudinal evaluation of lymphocyte count dynamics and inflammatory indices, including LDH, CRP and IL-6 may help to identify cases with dismal prognosis and prompt intervention in order to improve outcomes. Biomarkers, such high serum procalcitonin and ferritin have also emerged as poor prognostic factors. Furthermore, blood hypercoagulability is common among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Elevated D-Dimer levels are consistently reported, whereas their gradual increase during disease course is particularly associated with disease worsening. Other coagulation abnormalities such as PT and aPTT prolongation, fibrin degradation products increase, with severe thrombocytopenia lead to life-threatening disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which necessitates continuous vigilance and prompt intervention. So, COVID-19 infected patients, whether hospitalized or ambulatory, are at high risk for venous thromboembolism, and an early and prolonged pharmacological thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin is highly recommended. Last but not least, the need for assuring blood donations during the pandemic is also highlighted.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Betacoronavirus; Biomarkers; Blood Coagulation Tests; Blood Donors; C-Reactive Protein; COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Clinical Laboratory Techniques; Coronavirus Infections; Cytokine Release Syndrome; Cytokines; Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation; Early Diagnosis; Ferritins; Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products; Humans; Lymphopenia; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Risk; SARS-CoV-2; Thrombophilia; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 32282949
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.25829 -
Gut Aug 2022Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is an increasingly common cause of dysphagia in both children and adults, as well as one of the most prevalent oesophageal diseases with...
British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN) joint consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic oesophagitis in children and adults.
BACKGROUND
Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is an increasingly common cause of dysphagia in both children and adults, as well as one of the most prevalent oesophageal diseases with a significant impact on physical health and quality of life. We have provided a single comprehensive guideline for both paediatric and adult gastroenterologists on current best practice for the evaluation and management of EoE.
METHODS
The Oesophageal Section of the British Society of Gastroenterology was commissioned by the Clinical Standards Service Committee to develop these guidelines. The Guideline Development Group included adult and paediatric gastroenterologists, surgeons, dietitians, allergists, pathologists and patient representatives. The Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes process was used to generate questions for a systematic review of the evidence. Published evidence was reviewed and updated to June 2021. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the evidence and make recommendations. Two rounds of voting were held to assess the level of agreement and the strength of recommendations, with 80% consensus required for acceptance.
RESULTS
Fifty-seven statements on EoE presentation, diagnosis, investigation, management and complications were produced with further statements created on areas for future research.
CONCLUSIONS
These comprehensive adult and paediatric guidelines of the British Society of Gastroenterology and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition are based on evidence and expert consensus from a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals, including patient advocates and patient support groups, to help clinicians with the management patients with EoE and its complications.
Topics: Adult; Child; Consensus; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Gastroenterology; Humans; Quality of Life; Societies, Medical
PubMed: 35606089
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327326 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Mar 2023It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for type 2-high... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for type 2-high asthma.
OBJECTIVES
We sought to conduct an indirect comparison of tezepelumab to dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma.
METHODS
The investigators conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses. They identified randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed, Embase, or Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 1, 2000, and August 12, 2022. Outcomes included exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV, and the Asthma Control Questionnaire.
RESULTS
Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 9201) met eligibility. Tezepelumab (relative risk: 0.63; 95% credible interval [CI]: 0.46-0.86) was associated with significantly lower exacerbation rates than benralizumab and larger improvements in FEV compared to mepolizumab (mean difference [MD]: 66; 95% CI: -33 to 170) and benralizumab (MD: 62; 95% CI: -22 to 150), though the 95% CI crossed the null value of 0. Mepolizumab improved the Asthma Control Questionnaire score the most, but this improvement was not significantly different from that of tezepelumab (tezepelumab vs mepolizumab; MD: 0.14; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.38). For efficacy by clinically important thresholds, tezepelumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab achieved a >99% probability of reducing exacerbation rates by ≥50% compared to placebo, but benralizumab had only a 66% probability of doing so. Tezepelumab and dupilumab had a probability of 1.00 of improving prebronchodilator FEV by ≥100 mL above placebo. Compared to mepolizumab, dupilumab had >90% chance for improving FEV by ≥50 mL, but none of the differences between biologics exceeded 100 mL.
CONCLUSIONS
In individuals with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab and dupilumab were associated with greater improvements (although below clinical thresholds) in exacerbation rates and lung function than benralizumab or mepolizumab.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Asthma; Pulmonary Eosinophilia; Biological Products
PubMed: 36538979
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.11.021 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Nov 2022The comparative safety and efficacy of the biologics currently approved for asthma are unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The comparative safety and efficacy of the biologics currently approved for asthma are unclear.
OBJECTIVE
We compared the safety and efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with severe eosinophilic asthma.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published 2000 to 2021. We studied Bayesian network meta-analyses of exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV, the Asthma Control Questionnaire, and serious adverse events in individuals with eosinophilic asthma.
RESULTS
Eight randomized clinical trials (n = 6461) were identified. We found in individuals with eosinophils ≥300 cells/μL the following: in reducing exacerbation rates compared to placebo: dupilumab (risk ratio [RR], 0.32; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.45), mepolizumab (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.45), and benralizumab (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.55); in improving FEV: dupilumab (mean difference in milliliters [MD] 230; 95% CI, 160 to 300), benralizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 100 to 200), and mepolizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 66 to 220); and in reducing Asthma Control Questionnaire scores: mepolizumab (MD, -0.63; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.45), dupilumab (MD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.14), and benralizumab (MD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.43 to -0.21). In individuals with eosinophils 150-299 cells/μL, benralizumab (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73) and dupilumab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.95) were associated with lower exacerbation rates; and only benralizumab (MD, 81; 95% CI, 8 to 150) significantly improved FEV. These differences were minimal compared to clinically important thresholds. For serious adverse events in the overall population, mepolizumab (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92) and benralizumab (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.93) were associated with lower odds of a serious adverse event, while dupilumab was not different from placebo (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.4).
CONCLUSION
There are minimal differences in the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Asthma; Pulmonary Eosinophilia; Eosinophils; Anti-Asthmatic Agents
PubMed: 35772597
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.05.024 -
Nutrients May 2022A low fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols diet (LFD) is claimed to improve functional gastrointestinal symptoms (FGSs). However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A Low-FODMAP Diet Provides Benefits for Functional Gastrointestinal Symptoms but Not for Improving Stool Consistency and Mucosal Inflammation in IBD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
A low fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols diet (LFD) is claimed to improve functional gastrointestinal symptoms (FGSs). However, the role of LFD in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with FGSs remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically assess the efficacy of LFD in IBD patients with FGSs.
METHODS
Six databases were searched from inception to 1 January 2022. Data were synthesized as the relative risk of symptoms improvement and normal stool consistency, mean difference of Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS), Short IBD Questionnaire (SIBDQ), IBS Quality of Life (IBS-QoL), Harvey-Bradshaw index (HBi), Mayo score, and fecal calprotectin (FC). Risk of bias was assessed based on study types. A funnel plot and Egger's test were used to analyze publication bias.
RESULTS
This review screened and included nine eligible studies, including four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five before-after studies, involving a total of 446 participants (351 patients with LFD vs. 95 controls). LFD alleviated overall FGSs (RR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.33-0.66, = 0.0000) and obtained higher SIBDQ scores (MD = 11.24, 95% CI 6.61 to 15.87, = 0.0000) and lower HBi score of Crohn's disease (MD = -1.09, 95% CI -1.77 to -0.42, = 0.002). However, there were no statistically significant differences in normal stool consistency, BSFS, IBS-QoL, Mayo score of ulcerative colitis, and FC. No publication bias was found.
CONCLUSIONS
LFD provides a benefit in FGSs and QoL but not for improving stool consistency and mucosal inflammation in IBD patients. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to develop the optimal LFD strategy for IBD.
Topics: Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted; Fermentation; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Inflammation; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Leukocyte L1 Antigen Complex; Mucositis; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35631213
DOI: 10.3390/nu14102072 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of EoE requires a constellation of clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologic findings (at least 15 eosinophils/high-powered microscope field (eos/hpf)). Current guidelines no longer require the failure of response to proton pump inhibitor medications to establish a diagnosis of EoE, but continue to suggest the exclusion of other etiologies of esophageal eosinophilia. The treatment goals for EoE are improvement in clinical symptoms, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia and other histologic abnormalities, endoscopic improvement, improved quality of life, improved esophageal function, minimized adverse effects of treatment, and prevention of disease progression and subsequent complications. Currently, there is no cure for EoE, making long-term treatment necessary. Standard treatment modalities include dietary modifications, esophageal dilation, and pharmacologic therapy. Effective pharmacologic therapies include corticosteroids, rapidly emerging biological therapies, and proton pump inhibitor medications.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions for people with eosinophilic esophagitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP to 3 March 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any medical intervention or food elimination diet for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, either alone or in combination, to any other intervention (including placebo).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) and as the mean or standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were: clinical, histological, and endoscopic improvement, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: serious and total adverse events, and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 RCTs with 3253 participants. Eleven studies included pediatric patients while the rest recruited both children and adults. Four studies were in patients with inactive disease while the rest were in patients with active disease. We identified 19 intervention comparisons. In this abstract we present the results of the primary outcomes for the two main comparisons: corticosteroids versus placebo and biologics versus placebo, based on the prespecified outcomes defined of the primary studies. Fourteen studies compared corticosteroids to placebo for induction of remission and the risk of bias for these studies was mostly low. Corticosteroids may lead to slightly better clinical improvement (20% higher), measured dichotomously (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.80; 6 studies, 583 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 4; low certainty), and may lead to slightly better clinical improvement, measured continuously (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; 5 studies, 475 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids lead to a large histological improvement (63% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 11.94, 95% CI 6.56 to 21.75; 12 studies, 978 participants; NNTB = 3; high certainty), and may lead to histological improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.82; 5 studies, 449 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to little to no endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 2.60, 95% CI 0.82 to 8.19; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty), and may lead to endoscopic improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.08; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to slightly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 14 studies, 1032 participants; low certainty). Nine studies compared biologics to placebo for induction of remission. Biologics may result in little to no difference in clinical improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.52; 5 studies, 410 participants; low certainty), and may result in better clinical improvement, measured continuously (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78; 7 studies, 387 participants; moderate certainty). Biologics result in better histological improvement (55% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 6.73, 95% CI 2.58 to 17.52; 8 studies, 925 participants; NNTB = 2; moderate certainty). We could not draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.66; 6 studies, 370 participants; very low certainty). Biologics may result in little to no difference in endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (effect not estimable, low certainty). We cannot draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.22; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.74; 8 studies, 792 participants; low certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids (as compared to placebo) may lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported both as dichotomous and continuous outcomes, from the primary study definitions. Corticosteroids lead to a large increase in histological improvement (dichotomous outcome) and may increase histological improvement (continuous outcome) when compared to placebo. Corticosteroids may or may not increase endoscopic improvement (depending on whether the outcome is measured dichotomously or continuously). Withdrawals due to adverse events (dichotomous outcome) may occur less frequently when corticosteroids are compared to placebo. Biologics (as compared to placebo) may not lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome and may lead to an increase in clinical symptom improvement (as a continuous outcome), from the primary study definitions. Biologics lead to a large increase in histological improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome, but this is uncertain when reported as a continuous outcome, as compared to placebo. Biologics may not increase endoscopic improvement (dichotomous outcome), but this is uncertain when measured as a continuous outcome. Withdrawals due to adverse events as a dichotomous outcome may occur as frequently when biologics are compared to placebo.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Biological Products; Chronic Disease; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Remission Induction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37470293
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004065.pub4