OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids therapy in adult critical ill patients with septic shock.
METHODS: The PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to March 24, 2018. To identify randomized controlled trials that evaluating the role of corticosteroids therapy in adult critical ill patients with septic shock. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The second outcomes included 90-day mortality, ICU mortality, In-hospital mortality, length of stay in ICU, length of stay in hospital, reversal of shock and superinfection.
RESULTS: A total of eighteen randomized controlled trials involving 8128 adult critical ill patients with septic shock fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The outcomes of this meta-analysis showed that corticosteroids therapy didn't significantly reduce the 28-day mortality [RR = 0.94; 95%CI, 0.84 to 1.05; Z = 1.07(P = 0.285)]. However, corticosteroids therapy was associated with a significantly shorter length of stay in ICU [WMD = -1.55; 95%CI, -2.19 to -0.91; Z = 4.74(P = 0.000)]. 90-day mortality, ICU mortality, In-hospital mortality, length of stay in hospital, reversal of shock and superinfection had no significantly difference between the corticosteroids therapy and placebo therapy(p > 0.05). Similar results were obtained in subgroups of trials stratified according to the dose of corticosteroids (high dose or low does).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, corticosteroids therapy was associated with a significantly shorter length of stay in ICU among adult cirtical ill patients with septic shock. The mortality was similar between the corticosteroids therapy and placebo.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to explore the effectiveness of various systemic corticosteroid (SCS) regimens to mitigate relapse in children with asthma discharged from an acute care setting.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, Global Health, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, EMB ALL, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global, and LILACS were searched using controlled vocabulary and key words. Additional citations were searched via clinical trial registries, Google Scholar, bibliographies, a SCOPUS forward search of a sentinel paper, and hand searching conference abstracts.
STUDY SELECTION: No limitations based on language, publication status, or year of publication were applied. Two independent reviewers searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of SCS regimens to prevent relapse in children following treatment for acute asthma.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included. In three studies comparing SCS to placebo, asthma relapse was significantly reduced (RR = 0.10; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.77; I
CONCLUSION: This review found evidence that SCS corticosteroids reduce relapse in children following treatment for acute asthma, albeit based on a limited number of studies. Additional studies are required to assess the differential effect of SCS doses and treatment duration to prevent relapse in children following discharge for acute asthma.
OBJECTIVE: Corticosteroids have important effects on intermediate outcomes in critically ill patients, but their effect on survival is unknown. The objective of this meta-analysis was to analyze the effect on mortality of corticosteroids in critical and perioperative settings.
DESIGN: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.
SETTING: PubMed, Embase, BioMed Central, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to February 1, 2018, for randomized trials comparing corticosteroids with placebo or standard care.
PARTICIPANTS: Critically ill or surgical adult patients.
INTERVENTIONS: Corticosteroids compared with placebo or standard care.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 44,553 patients from 135 studies were included. Overall, mortality in the corticosteroid group and in the control group were similar (16% v 16%; p = 0.9). Subanalyses identified a beneficial effect of corticosteroids on survival in patients with respiratory system diseases (9% v 13%; p < 0.001) and bacterial meningitis (28% v 32%; p= 0.04), and a detrimental effect on survival in patients with traumatic brain injury (22% v 19%; p < 0.001). No differences in mortality were found in patients with cardiac diseases (7% v 6%; p = 0.7), in patients undergoing cardiac surgery (2.8% v 3.2% p = 0.14), and when treatment duration or patient age were considered.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis documents the safety of corticosteroids in the overall critically ill population with the notable exception of brain injury patients, a setting where the authors confirmed their detrimental effect on survival. A possible beneficial effect of corticosteroids on survival was found among patients with respiratory diseases and in patients with bacterial meningitis.
BACKGROUND: Multiple corticosteroids and treatment regimens have been used as adjuncts in the treatment of septic shock. Qualitative and quantitative differences exist at cellular and tissular levels between the different drugs and their patterns of delivery. The objective of this study was to elucidate any differences between the drugs and their treatment regimens regarding outcomes for corticosteroid use in adult patients with septic shock.
METHODS: Network meta-analysis of the data used for the recently conducted Cochrane review was performed. Studies that included children and were designed to assess respiratory function in pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, as well as cross-over studies, were excluded. Network plots were created for each outcome, and all analyses were conducted using a frequentist approach assuming a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Complete data from 22 studies and partial data from 1 study were included. Network meta-analysis provided no clear evidence that any intervention or treatment regimen is better than any other across the spectrum of outcomes. There was strong evidence of differential efficacy in only one area: shock reversal. Hydrocortisone boluses and infusions were more likely than methylprednisolone boluses and placebo to result in shock reversal.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no clear evidence that any one corticosteroid drug or treatment regimen is more likely to be effective in reducing mortality or reducing the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding or superinfection in septic shock. Hydrocortisone delivered as a bolus or as an infusion was more likely than placebo and methylprednisolone to result in shock reversal.
BACKGROUND: Short-course oral corticosteroids are commonly used in children but are known to be associated with adverse drug reactions (ADRs). This review aimed to identify the most common and serious ADRs and to determine their relative risk levels.
METHODS: A literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PubMed was performed with no language restrictions to identify studies in which oral corticosteroids were administered to patients aged 28 days to 18 years of age for up to and including 14 days of treatment. Each database was searched from their earliest dates to December 2013. All studies providing clear information on ADRs were included.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies including 22 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. The studies involved a total of 3200 children in whom 850 ADRs were reported. The three most frequent ADRs were vomiting, behavioural changes and sleep disturbance, with respective incidence rates of 5.4%, 4.7% and 4.3% of patients assessed for these ADRs. Infection was one of the most serious ADRs; one child died after contracting varicella zoster. When measured, 144 of 369 patients showed increased blood pressure; 21 of 75 patients showed weight gain; and biochemical hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression was detected in 43 of 53 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Vomiting, behavioural changes and sleep disturbance were the most frequent ADRs seen when short-course oral corticosteroids were given to children. Increased susceptibility to infection was the most serious ADR.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014008774. By PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews.
BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common long-term breathing condition that affects approximately 300 million people worldwide. People with asthma may experience short-term worsening of their asthma symptoms; these episodes are often known as ‘exacerbations’, ‘flare-ups’, ‘attacks’ or 'acute asthma'. Oral steroids, which have a potent anti-inflammatory effect, are recommended for all but the most mild asthma exacerbations; they should be initiated promptly. The most often prescribed oral steroids are prednisolone and dexamethasone, but current guidelines on dosing vary between countries, and often among different guideline producers within the same country. Despite their proven efficacy, use of steroids needs to be balanced against their potential to cause important adverse events. Evidence is somewhat limited regarding optimal dosing of oral steroids for asthma exacerbations to maximise recovery while minimising potential side effects, which is the topic of this review.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of any dose or duration of oral steroids versus any other dose or duration of oral steroids for adults and children with an asthma exacerbation.
SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles. This search was up to date as of April 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated one dose or duration of oral steroid versus any other dose or duration, for management of asthma exacerbations. We included studies involving both adults and children with asthma of any severity, in which investigators analysed adults and children separately. We allowed any other co-intervention in the management of an asthma exacerbation, provided it was not part of the randomised treatment. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data and assessed risk of bias; all data were cross-checked for accuracy. We resolved disagreements by discussion with the third review author or with an external advisor.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs). We used a random-effects model, and we carried out a fixed-effect analysis if we detected statistical heterogeneity. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies that randomised a total of 2438 participants - both adults and children - and performed comparisons of interest. Included studies assessed higher versus lower doses of prednisolone (n = 4); longer versus shorter courses of prednisolone (n = 3) or dexamethasone (n = 1); tapered versus non-tapered courses of prednisolone (n = 4); and prednisolone versus dexamethasone (n = 6). Follow-up duration ranged from seven days to six months. The smallest study randomised just 15 participants, and the largest 638 (median 93). The varied interventions and outcomes reported limited the number of meaningful meta-analyses that we could perform.For two of our primary outcomes - hospital admission and serious adverse events - events were too infrequent to permit conclusions about the superiority of one treatment over the other, or their equivalence. Researchers in the included studies reported asthma symptoms in different ways and rarely used validated scales, again limiting our conclusions. Secondary outcome meta-analysis was similarly hampered by heterogeneity among interventions and outcome measures used. Overall, we found no convincing evidence of differences in outcomes between a higher dose or longer course and a lower dose or shorter course of prednisolone or dexamethasone, or between prednisolone and dexamethasone.Included studies were generally of reasonable methodological quality. Review authors assessed most outcomes in the review as having low or very low quality, meaning we are not confident in the effect estimates. The predominant reason for downgrading was imprecision, but indirectness and risk of bias also reduced our confidence in some estimates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is not strong enough to reveal whether shorter or lower-dose regimens are generally less effective than longer or higher-dose regimens, or indeed that the latter are associated with more adverse events. Any changes recommended for current practice should be supported by data from larger, well-designed trials. Varied study design and outcome measures limited the number of meta-analyses that we could perform. Greater emphasis on palatability and on whether some regimens might be easier to adhere to than others could better inform clinical decisions for individual patients.
BACKGROUND: Chondral damage is one of the major sequelae of septic arthritis; occurring even after prompt treatment of a septic joint. Subsequent loss of joint function can have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life. Corticosteroids are known to have beneficial effects on the rate and extent cartilage destruction in arthritis through a variety of mediators such as synovial RANKL expression, mast cells and pro-inflammatory cytokines. Investigation into sepsis at other sites has suggested improved outcomes with corticosteroid use despite the theoretical risks. This study therefore set out to review current literature with regards to a possible beneficial effect for corticosteroids in Septic Arthritis.
METHODS: A computerised search of the databases MEDLINE and CINAHL was conducted during November 2014 using the EBSCOhost web search engine in order to identify research articles relating to the use of corticosteroids in the treatment of septic arthritis. The search strategy revealed 223 unique articles which were subjected to inclusion/exclusion criteria assessment. 6 articles were selected for study inclusion. These consisted of 3 human studies (2 double-blind randomised controlled trials & 1 double-blind non-randomised controlled trial), and 3 animal studies (3 non-blinded non-randomised controlled trials). Quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) was only possible regarding two primary outcomes for two of the included studies - time to normalisation of CRP and duration of IV antibiotic therapy.
RESULTS: All current published evidence in humans is focused upon children. Overall results did however reveal a consensus between these studies for a reduced duration of symptoms and a reduction in inflammatory markers. Animal data suggested a protective effect on the articular cartilage with the addition of corticosteroids to antibiotic therapy. No article noted an adverse effect associated with steroid use. Findings were consistent with systematic reviews of corticosteroid use in other bacterial infections.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the promising outlook, issues' regarding generalisability of results and a lack of large randomised controlled trial data necessitates further assessment of the safety and efficacy of steroid use in adults before treatment recommendations can be made. Long term safety data and the determinations of the optimum route, dose and timing of corticosteroids are also required.
