Dataset Information

Corticosteroids and risk of gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess whether corticosteroids are associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind, controlled trials comparing a corticosteroid to placebo for any medical condition or in healthy participants. Studies with steroids given either locally, as a single dose, or in crossover studies were excluded.

Data sources

Literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between 1983 and 22 May 2013.

Outcome measure

Outcome measures were the occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation. Predefined subgroup analyses were carried out for disease severity, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or gastroprotective drugs, and history of peptic ulcer.

Results

159 studies (N=33?253) were included. In total, 804 (2.4%) patients had a gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation (2.9% and 2.0% for corticosteroids and placebo). Corticosteroids increased the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation by 40% (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66). The risk was increased for hospitalised patients (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66). For patients in ambulatory care, the increased risk was not statistically significant (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 6.34). Only 11 gastrointestinal bleeds or perforations occurred among 8651 patients in ambulatory care (0.13%). Increased risk was still present in subgroup analyses (studies with NSAID use excluded; OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.71, peptic ulcer as an exclusion criterion excluded; OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.78, and use of gastroprotective drugs excluded; OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.67).

Conclusions

Corticosteroid use was associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation. The increased risk was statistically significant for hospitalised patients only. For patients in ambulatory care, the total occurrence of bleeding or perforation was very low, and the increased risk was not statistically significant.

SUBMITTER: Narum S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4025450 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Corticosteroids and risk of gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Narum Sigrid S Westergren Tone T Klemp Marianne M

BMJ open 20140515 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess whether corticosteroids are associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind, controlled trials comparing a corticosteroid to placebo for any medical condition or in healthy participants. Studies with steroids given either locally, as a single dose, or in crossover studies were excluded.<h4>Data sources</h4>Literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Datab ...[more]

PMID: 24833682

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceClinical prediction models, or risk scores, can be used to risk stratify patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB), although the most discriminative score is unknown.ObjectiveTo identify all LGIB risk scores available and compare their prognostic performance.Data sourcesA systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1990, through August 31, 2021, was conducted. Non-English-language articles were excluded.Study selectionObservational and interventional studies deriving or validating an LGIB risk score for the prediction of a clinical outcome were included. Studies including patients younger than 16 years or limited to a specific patient population or a specific cause of bleeding were excluded. Two investigators independently screened the studies, and disagreements were resolved by consensus.Data extraction and synthesisData were abstracted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline independently by 2 investigators and pooled using random-effects models.Main outcomes and measuresSummary diagnostic performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]) determined a priori were calculated for each risk score and outcome combination.ResultsA total of 3268 citations were identified, of which 9 studies encompassing 12 independent cohorts and 4 risk scores (Oakland, Strate, NOBLADS [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, no diarrhea, no abdominal tenderness, blood pressure ≤100 mm Hg, antiplatelet drug use (nonaspirin), albumin <3.0 g/dL, disease score ≥2 (according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index), and syncope], and BLEED [ongoing bleeding, low systolic blood pressure, elevated prothrombin time, erratic mental status, and unstable comorbid disease]) were included in the meta-analysis. For the prediction of safe discharge, the AUROC for the Oakland score was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88). For major bleeding, the AUROC was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.95) for the Oakland score, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77) for the Strate score, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.53-0.62) for the NOBLADS score, and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69) for the BLEED score. For transfusion, the AUROC was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00) for the Oakland score and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.90) for the NOBLADS score. For hemostasis, the AUROC was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.32-0.40) for the Oakland score, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.85) for the Strate score, and 0.24 (95% CI, 0.20-0.28) for the NOBLADS score.Conclusions and relevanceThe Oakland score was the most discriminative LGIB risk score for predicting safe discharge, major bleeding, and need for transfusion, whereas the Strate score was best for predicting need for hemostasis. This study suggests that these scores can be used to predict outcomes from LGIB and guide clinical care accordingly.

Project description:AimTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the weekend effect on the mortality of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding(UGIB).MethodsThe review protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number: CRD42017073313) and was written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We conducted a search of the PUBMED, COCHRANE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases from inception to August 2017. All observational studies comparing mortality between UGIB patients with weekend versus weekday admissions were included. Articles that were published only in abstract form or not published in a peer-reviewed journal were excluded. The quality of articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We pooled results from the articles using random-effect models. Heterogeneity was evaluated by the chi-square-based Q-test and I2 test. To address heterogeneity, we performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Potential publication bias was assessed via funnel plot.ResultsEighteen observational cohort studies involving 1,232,083 study patients were included. Weekend admission was associated with significantly higher 30-day or in-hospital mortality in all studies (OR = 1.12, 95% CI [1.07-1.17], P < 0.00001). Increased in-hospital mortality was also associated with weekend admission (OR = 1.12, 95% CI [1.08-1.17], P < 0.00001). No significant difference in in-hospital mortality was observed between patients admitted with variceal bleeding during the weekend or on weekdays (OR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.91-1.08], P = 0.82); however, weekend admission was associated with a 15% increase in in-hospital mortality for patients with non-variceal bleeding (OR = 1.15, 95% CI [1.09-1.21], P < 0.00001). The time to endoscopy for weekday admission was significantly less than that obtained for weekend admission (MD = -2.50, 95% CI [-4.08--0.92], P = 0.002).ConclusionsThe weekend effect is associated with increased mortality of UGIB patients, particularly in non-variceal bleeding. The timing of endoscopic intervention might be a factor that influences mortality of UGIB patients.

Project description:Background: Several risk scores have attempted to risk stratify patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) who are at a lower risk of requiring hospital-based interventions or negative outcomes including death. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare predictive abilities of pre-endoscopic scores in prognosticating the absence of adverse events in patients with UGIB. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, and ISI Web of knowledge from inception to February 2023. All fully published studies assessing a pre-endoscopic score in patients with UGIB were included. The primary outcome was a composite score for the need of a hospital-based intervention (endoscopic therapy, surgery, angiography, or blood transfusion). Secondary outcomes included: mortality, rebleeding, or the individual endpoints of the composite outcome. Both proportional and comparative analyses were performed. Results: Thirty-eight studies were included from 2153 citations, (n = 36,215 patients). Few patients with a low Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) cutoff (0, ≤1 and ≤2) required hospital-based interventions (0.02 (0.01, 0.05), 0.04 (0.02, 0.09) and 0.03 (0.02, 0.07), respectively). The proportions of patients with clinical Rockall (CRS = 0) and ABC (≤3) scores requiring hospital-based intervention were 0.19 (0.15, 0.24) and 0.69 (0.62, 0.75), respectively. GBS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), CRS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), AIMS65 (cutoffs 0 and ≤1) and ABC (cutoffs ≤1 and ≤3) scores all were associated with few patients (0.01–0.04) dying. The proportion of patients suffering other secondary outcomes varied between scoring systems but, in general, was lowest for the GBS. GBS (using cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2) showed excellent discriminative ability in predicting the need for hospital-based interventions (OR 0.02, (0.00, 0.16), 0.00 (0.00, 0.02) and 0.01 (0.00, 0.01), respectively). A CRS cutoff of 0 was less discriminative. For the other secondary outcomes, discriminative abilities varied between scores but, in general, the GBS (using cutoffs up to 2) was clinically useful for most outcomes. Conclusions: A GBS cut-off of one or less prognosticated low-risk patients the best. Expanding the GBS cut-off to 2 maintains prognostic accuracy while allowing more patients to be managed safely as outpatients. The evidence is limited by the number, homogeneity, quality, and generalizability of available data and subjectivity of deciding on clinical impact. Additional, comparative and, ideally, interventional studies are needed.

Dataset Information

Corticosteroids and risk of gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Outcome measure

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Corticosteroids and risk of gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets