Dataset Information

Oral versus intravenous methylprednisolone for the treatment of multiple sclerosis relapses: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: Intravenous glucocorticoids are recommended for multiple sclerosis (MS). However, they can be inconvenient and expensive. Due to their convenience and low cost, oral glucocorticoids may be an alternative treatment. Recently, several studies have shown that there is no difference in efficacy and safety between oral methylprednisolone (oMP) and intravenous methylprednisolone (ivMP).We sought to assess the clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral methylprednisolone versus intravenous methylprednisolone for MS relapses in this meta-analysis.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral methylprednisolone versus intravenous methylprednisolone for MS relapses were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE and China Biology Medicine until October 25, 2016, without language restrictions. The proportion of patients who had improved by day 28 was chosen as the efficacy outcome. We chose the risk ratio (RR) to analyze each trial with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We also used the fixed-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel approach) to calculate the pooled relative effect estimates.A total of 5 trials were identified, which included 369 patients. The results of our meta-analysis revealed that no significant difference existed in relapse improvement at day 28 between oMP and ivMP (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.10). No evidence of heterogeneity existed among the trials (P = 0.45, I2 = 0%). Both treatments were equally safe and well tolerated except that insomnia was more likely to occur in the oMP group compared to the ivMP group.Our meta-analysis reveals strong evidence that oMP is not inferior to ivMP in increasing the proportion of patients experiencing clinical improvement at day 28. In addition, both routes of administration are equally well tolerated and safe. These findings suggest that we may be able to replace ivMP with oMP to treat MS relapses.

SUBMITTER: Liu S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5703548 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Oral versus intravenous methylprednisolone for the treatment of multiple sclerosis relapses: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Liu Shuo S Liu Xiaoqiang X Chen Shuying S Xiao Yingxiu Y Zhuang Weiduan W

PloS one 20171127 11

<h4>Background</h4>Intravenous glucocorticoids are recommended for multiple sclerosis (MS). However, they can be inconvenient and expensive. Due to their convenience and low cost, oral glucocorticoids may be an alternative treatment. Recently, several studies have shown that there is no difference in efficacy and safety between oral methylprednisolone (oMP) and intravenous methylprednisolone (ivMP).<h4>Objectives</h4>We sought to assess the clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral meth ...[more]

PMID: 29176905

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveIntravenous methylprednisolone is the standard treatment for a multiple sclerosis relapse; however, this fails to improve symptoms in up to one quarter of patients. Immunoadsorption is an accepted treatment for refractory relapses, but prospective comparator-controlled studies are missing.MethodsIn this observational study, patients with steroid-refractory acute multiple sclerosis relapses receiving either six courses of tryptophan-immunoadsorption or double-dose methylprednisolone therapy were analysed. Outcomes were evaluated at discharge and three months later. Immune profiling of blood lymphocytes and proteomic analysis were performed by multi-parameter flow cytometry and Olink analysis, respectively (NCT04450030).Results42 patients were enrolled (methylprednisolone: 26 patients; immunoadsorption: 16 patients). For determination of the primary outcome, treatment response was stratified according to relative function system score changes ("full/best" vs. "average" vs. "worse/none"). Upon discharge, the adjusted odds ratio for any treatment response ("full/best" + "average" vs. "worse/none") was 10.697 favouring immunoadsorption (p = 0.005 compared to methylprednisolone). At follow-up, the adjusted odds ratio for the best treatment response ("full/best" vs. "average" + "worse/none") was 103.236 favouring IA patients (p = 0.001 compared to methylprednisolone). Similar results were observed regarding evoked potentials and quality of life outcomes, as well as serum neurofilament light-chain levels. Flow cytometry revealed a profound reduction of B cell subsets following immunoadsorption, which was closely correlated to clinical outcomes, whereas methylprednisolone had a minimal effect on B cell populations. Immunoadsorption treatment skewed the blood cytokine network, reduced levels of B cell-related cytokines and reduced immunoglobulin levels as well as levels of certain coagulation factors.InterpretationImmunoadsorption demonstrated favourable outcomes compared to double-dose methylprednisolone. Outcome differences were significant at discharge and follow-up. Further analyses identified modulation of B cell function as a potential mechanism of action for immunoadsorption, as reduction of B cell subsets correlated with clinical improvement.

Project description:BackgroundDespite treatment recommendations from various organizations, oral rehydration therapy (ORT) continues to be underused, particularly by physicians in high-income countries. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare ORT and intravenous therapy (IVT) for the treatment of dehydration secondary to acute gastroenteritis in children.MethodsRCTs were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, authors and references of included trials, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant organizations. Screening and inclusion were performed independently by two reviewers in order to identify randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing ORT and IVT in children with acute diarrhea and dehydration. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality using the Jadad scale and allocation concealment. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The primary outcome measure was failure of rehydration. We analyzed data using standard meta-analytic techniques.ResultsThe quality of the 14 included trials ranged from 0 to 3 (Jadad score); allocation concealment was unclear in all but one study. Using a random effects model, there was no significant difference in treatment failures (risk difference [RD] 3%; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0, 6). The Mantel-Haenzsel fixed effects model gave a significant difference between treatment groups (RD 4%; 95% CI: 2, 5) favoring IVT. Based on the four studies that reported deaths, there were six in the IVT groups and two in ORT. There were no significant differences in total fluid intake at six and 24 hours, weight gain, duration of diarrhea, or hypo/hypernatremia. Length of stay was significantly shorter for the ORT group (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.2 days; 95% CI: -2.4,-0.02). Phlebitis occurred significantly more often with IVT (number needed to treat [NNT] 33; 95% CI: 25,100); paralytic ileus occurred more often with ORT (NNT 33; 95% CI: 20,100). These results may not be generalizable to children with persistent vomiting.ConclusionThere were no clinically important differences between ORT and IVT in terms of efficacy and safety. For every 25 children (95% CI: 20, 50) treated with ORT, one would fail and require IVT. The results support existing practice guidelines recommending ORT as the first course of treatment in appropriate children with dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis.

Project description:Anemia is the most prevalent extraintestinal complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our aim was to evaluate the comparative efficacy and harm of intravenous (IV) versus oral iron supplementation for correcting anemia in adult IBD patients.We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to integrate evidence from randomized controlled trials having enrolled adults with IBD, and comparing IV versus oral iron (head-to-head) for correcting iron-deficiency anemia. Medline, Embase, Scopus, and the Web of Science database were searched through July 2015. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference proceedings were also investigated. Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and outcomes, and rated each trial's risk-of-bias. Pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates with their 95% CIs were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models.Five eligible studies, including 694 IBD patients, were identified. In meta-analysis, IV iron demonstrated a higher efficacy in achieving a hemoglobin rise of ?2.0?g/dL as compared to oral iron (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.13, 2.18). Treatment discontinuation rates, due to adverse events or intolerance, were lower in the IV iron groups (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.59). Similarly, the occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse events was consistently lower in the IV iron groups. On the contrary, serious adverse events (SAEs) were more frequently reported among patients receiving IV iron preparations (OR: 4.57, 95% CI: 1.11, 18.8); however, the majority of the reported SAEs were judged as unrelated or unlikely to be related to the study medication. We found no evidence of publication bias, or between-study heterogeneity, across all analyses. Risk of bias was high across primary studies, because patients and personnel were not blinded to the intervention.IV iron appears to be more effective and better tolerated than oral iron for the treatment of IBD-associated anemia.

Project description:Importance:Multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses may be increased in the postpartum period, and whether breastfeeding is associated with reduction in the risk of postpartum relapses remains controversial. Objective:To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether breastfeeding is associated with reduction in postpartum MS relapses compared with not breastfeeding. Data Sources:PubMed and Embase were searched for studies assessing the association between breastfeeding and MS disease activity published between January 1, 1980, and July 11, 2018, as well as reference lists of selected articles. Study Selection:All study designs assessing the association between breastfeeding and postpartum relapses in MS relative to a comparator group were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Study eligibility assessment and extraction of study characteristics, methods, and outcomes, were performed independently by 2 reviewers following PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was evaluated by 2 independent reviewers with the ROBINS-I tool for nonrandomized, interventional studies. Findings from studies with data available for the number of women with postpartum relapses in the breastfeeding and nonbreastfeeding groups were combined with a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures:Postpartum MS relapse. Results:The search identified 462 unique citations, and 24 (2974 women) satisfied eligibility criteria and were included, of which 16 were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. The pooled summary odds ratio for the association of breastfeeding with postpartum relapses was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.45-0.88; P?=?.006) compared with a reference of nonbreastfeeding. Pooled adjusted hazard ratio across 4 studies that reported this finding was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.38-0.85; P?=?.006). There was moderate heterogeneity (I2?=?48%), which was explained by variable prepregnancy relapse rate, postpartum follow-up duration, and the publication year. A stronger association was seen in studies of exclusive rather than nonexclusive breastfeeding, although both demonstrated an association. Studies were rated at moderate and serious risk of bias, with concern for residual confounding, although sensitivity analysis including only moderate quality studies was consistent with a protective outcome of breastfeeding. Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that breastfeeding is protective against postpartum relapses in MS, although high-quality prospective studies to date are limited and well-designed observational studies that aim to emulate a randomized trial would be of benefit.

Dataset Information

Oral versus intravenous methylprednisolone for the treatment of multiple sclerosis relapses: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Oral versus intravenous methylprednisolone for the treatment of multiple sclerosis relapses: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets