Dataset Information

Intranasal Corticosteroids Do Not Lead to Ocular Changes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The safety and efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are well established, but there remains apprehension that INCS could lead to systemic side effects, as with oral steroids. The objective of this systematic review was to assess whether the use of INCS lead to increased intraocular pressure (IOP) above 20?mm Hg, glaucoma, or formation of posterior subcapsular cataracts in adult patients with rhinitis. METHODS:Two medical librarians searched the published literature for records discussing the use of "nasal steroids" in "rhinitis" and their effect on "intraocular pressure," "cataracts," or "glaucoma." RESULTS:A total of 484 studies were identified, and 10 randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of 2,226 patients revealed that the relative risk of elevated IOP in those who received INCS was 2.24 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 7.34) compared to placebo. The absolute increased incidence of elevated IOP in patients using INCS compared to placebo was 0.8% (95% CI: 0% to 1.6%). There were zero cases of glaucoma in both placebo and INCS groups at 12 months. The absolute increased incidence of developing a posterior subcapsular cataract was 0.02% (95% CI: -0.3% to 0.4%). CONCLUSIONS:Use of INCS is not associated with a significant risk of elevating IOP or developing a posterior subcapsular cataract in patients with allergic rhinitis. Presence of glaucoma, however, is the real clinical adverse event of concern. There were zero reported cases of glaucoma at 12 months. Future studies should formally evaluate for glaucoma rather than use IOP measures as a surrogate. Laryngoscope, 129:6-12, 2019.

SUBMITTER: Valenzuela CV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6320292 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intranasal Corticosteroids Do Not Lead to Ocular Changes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Valenzuela Carla V CV Liu James C JC Vila Peter M PM Simon Laura L Doering Michelle M Lieu Judith E C JEC

The Laryngoscope 20180919 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>The safety and efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are well established, but there remains apprehension that INCS could lead to systemic side effects, as with oral steroids. The objective of this systematic review was to assess whether the use of INCS lead to increased intraocular pressure (IOP) above 20 mm Hg, glaucoma, or formation of posterior subcapsular cataracts in adult patients with rhinitis.<h4>Methods</h4>Two medical librarians searched the published litera ...[more]

PMID: 30229924

Similar Datasets

Project description:Transforaminal epidural injection of steroids is used to treat lumbar radicular pain. However, there are only a few well-designed randomized, controlled studies on the effectiveness of steroid injection.Hence, this study aims to assess the effectiveness of steroid injection to treat lumbar radicular pain using a meta-analysis of transforaminal epidural injection therapy for low back and lumbar radicular pain. The comparison was based on the mean difference in the Visual Analogue Score (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) from baseline to the specified followed up.The available literature of lumbar transforaminal epidural injections in managing low back and radicular pain was reviewed. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to 2009, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Finally, the search included the Current Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials.The initial search identified 126 papers. After screening, five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were studied for analysis and only three of these had followed-up patients systematically with pain and disability outcome scores to 3 months and of these, only one had follow up to 12 months. A total of 187 patients ('treatment group' receiving local anaesthetic/steroid injection) were compared with 181 patients ('control' group, receiving local anaesthetic only or saline injection). Improvement in pain (standardised mean difference in VAS 0.2 in favour of 'treatment'; 95%CI: -0.41 to 0.00, p = 0.05, I squared 0%) but not disability (standardised mean difference in ODI 0; 95%CI: -0.21 to 0.20, p = 0.99, I squared 0%) was observed between 'treatment' and 'control' groups; these differences were not significant. Additionally, the one study following patients to 12 months did not find any significant difference in VAS and ODI between treatment and control groups.The current meta-analysis shows that transforaminal epidural steroid injections, when appropriately performed, should result in an improvement in pain, but not disability. The three RCTs that followed patients to 3 months (and the single study to 12 months) have found no benefit by the addition of steroids. The limitations of this study include the paucity of the available literature.

Project description:IntroductionSepsis is associated with a dysregulated host response to infection and impaired endogenous corticosteroid metabolism. As such, therapeutic use of exogenous corticosteroids is a promising adjunctive intervention. Despite a large number of trials examining this research question, uncertainty persists regarding the effect of corticosteroids on survival in sepsis. Several large randomised controlled trials have been published recently prompting a re-evaluation of the available literature.Methods and analysisA rigorous and reproducible search and screening process from a Cochrane review on the same topic was comprehensive to October 2014. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane trial registry and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible randomised controlled trials investigating the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis from September 2014. Outcomes have been chosen by a semi-independent guideline panel, created in the context of a parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendation on the topic. This panel includes clinicians, content experts, methodologists and patient representatives, who will help identify patient-important outcomes that are critical for deciding whether to use or not use corticosteroids in sepsis. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify eligible studies; a third reviewer will resolve any disagreements. We will use RevMan to pool effect estimates from included studies for each outcome using a random-effect model. We will present the results as relative risk with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes and as mean difference or standardised mean difference for continuous outcomes with 95% CI. We will assess the certainty of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We will conduct a priori subgroup analyses, which have been chosen by the parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendation panel.Ethics and disseminationThe aim of this systematic review is to summarise the updated evidence on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.Trial registration numberCRD42017058537.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether corticosteroids are associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation.DesignSystematic 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 sourcesLiterature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between 1983 and 22 May 2013.Outcome measureOutcome 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.Results159 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).ConclusionsCorticosteroid 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.

Dataset Information

Intranasal Corticosteroids Do Not Lead to Ocular Changes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Publications

Intranasal Corticosteroids Do Not Lead to Ocular Changes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets