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.
BACKGROUND: BRCA1/2 mutated breast cancer accounts for 3 to 12% of all women with breast cancer and significantly increases the lifetime risk of breast cancer. However, the optimal local treatment for breast cancer with BRCA germline mutation remains controversial. Here we present a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of breast-conserving therapy (BCT) on the prognosis of breast cancer with BRCA mutation.
METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for relevant studies on BCT and BRCA mutated breast cancer. Fixed or random effect models were used for meta-analyses based on whether significant heterogeneity existed among included studies. Funnel plot and Begg's test were employed for the evaluation of publication bias.
RESULTS: Totally, four studies with five cohorts and a totally 1254 patients were included for meta-analyses. The BCT group involved more T0/T1 (BCT 63.7% Vs. M 48.9%, p < 0.001), N0 (BCT 70.5% Vs. M 56.2%, p < 0.001) and ER negative (BCT 58.8% Vs. M 49.3% p < 0.01) tumors than M group. Patients who received M tended to have prophylactic contralateral mastectomy (BCT 16.5% Vs. M 35.8%, p < 0.001). BCT had a significant higher risk for local recurrence than M (HR 3.838, 95% CI = 2.376-6.201, p < 0.001). The pooled results revealed no significant impact of BCT on disease-free survival (DFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS).
CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis suggested that BCT had increasing local recurrence risk, but did not significantly impact patient survival in terms of DFS, MFS, BCSS and OS. BCT may serve as a safe alternative to mastectomy for breast cancer with BRCA mutation. Further high-quality randomized control trials are warranted to explore the optimal surgical management for BRCA mutation carriers.
BACKGROUND: Increasing number of breast cancer survivors in the USA have led to greater focus on the long-term health outcomes and surveillance care among these women. However limited evidence exists of use of surveillance mammography among breast cancer survivors and how it varies across racial/ethnic groups.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to explore disparities in use of surveillance mammogram among women breast cancer survivors by searching for relevant studies published between 2000 and 2020 from Medline (Ovid), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), and PsycINFO (Ovid) bibliographic databases. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of all articles that reported surveillance mammography use across racial/ethnic groups. Data on study design, screening eligibility, sample size, operational definition, and/or measure of the use of a surveillance mammogram among breast cancer survivors and the association between race/ethnicity and use of a surveillance mammogram were summarized in the evidence tables.
RESULTS: We identified 1544 records from the three databases, and 30 studies examined the use of surveillance mammograms among breast cancer survivors across race/ethnic groups. Of these, 21 provided adjusted estimates of racial/ethnic disparities in use of surveillance mammograms, and 15 of these reported statistically significant disparities. In summary, most studies reported that non-white women (mainly Blacks and Hispanics) were less likely to receive a timely surveillance mammogram compared to White.
CONCLUSION: This study extends the evidence of racial/ethnic disparities beyond completion of initial treatment by finding similar disparities in receipt of surveillance mammograms among breast cancer survivors.
IMPLICATION FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our findings identify a need to improve efforts to increase post-treatment use of surveillance mammography among racial/ethnic minority women to reduce these gaps and improve overall clinical and quality of life outcomes.
BACKGROUND: A number of clinical trials evaluated the efficacy and adverse effects of oral propranolol in the treatment of infantile hemangioma (IH), but the treatment has not yet been standardized. This meta-analysis aims to reevaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of oral propranolol in comparative studies and to provide a reliable basis for clinical administration in the therapy for IH.
METHODS: Data were obtained from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang database, from inception to December 1st, 2018. The pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated and used to evaluate the effect size. The meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model due to heterogeneity between the studies. The Cochrane Collaboration 6 aspects of bias, methodological index for non-randomized studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk for bias. Sensitivity analysis, publication bias and subgroup analysis were performed.
RESULTS: Eighteen unique studies involving 2701 unique children were included in the analysis. The response rate was reported in 18 trials, which compared oral propranolol with other treatments. The heterogeneity was statistically significant (P < 0.00001, I2 = 95%). The difference in the response rate was statistically significant (RR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.13-1.75) while compared with the controls. However, no significant difference in the adverse events rate (RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.45-1.34) and relapse rate (RR = 1.45, 95% CI 0.66-3.16) were found. Otherwise, the subgroup analysis indicated that the RR was 1.64 (95% CI 0.24-11.36) for low-dose propranolol (1 mg/kg/day), 1.42 (95% CI 1.12-1.80) for medium dose (2 mg/kg/day) and 1.46 (95% CI 1.17-1.82) for high dose (3 mg/kg/day), but the high dose had higher adverse events rate than medium dose, with 3.60% and 86.22%, respectively. The effectiveness of propranolol therapy among cases of treatment duration less than 6 months (RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.05-1.47) was inferior to that of treatment duration greater than or equal to 6 months (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.11-1.92).
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis reveals that oral propranolol is superior to other treatments in improving response rate of IH and can be used as the first-line therapy for IH children. A dosage of 2 mg/kg/day propranolol orally may be a good choice for IH. However, further studies are essential.
Background: Infantile haemangiomas (previously known as strawberry birthmarks) are soft, raised swellings of the skin that occur in 3% to 10% of infants. These benign vascular tumours are usually uncomplicated and tend to regress spontaneously. However, when haemangiomas occur in high-risk areas, such as near the eyes, throat, or nose, impairing their function, or when complications develop, intervention may be necessary. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011. Objectives: To assess the effects of interventions for the management of infantile haemangiomas in children. Search methods: We updated our searches of the following databases to February 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and CINAHL. We also searched five trials registries and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant trials. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of all types of interventions, versus placebo, active monitoring, or other interventions, in any child with single or multiple infantile haemangiomas (IHs) located on the skin. Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were clearance, a subjective measure of improvement, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were other measures of resolution; proportion of parents or children who consider there is still a problem; aesthetic appearance; and requirement for surgical correction. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. Main results: We included 28 RCTs, with a total of 1728 participants, assessing 12 different interventions, including lasers, beta blockers (e.g. propranolol, timolol maleate), radiation therapy, and steroids. Comparators included placebo, an active monitoring approach, sham radiation, and interventions given alone or in combination. Studies were conducted in a number of countries, including China, Egypt, France, and Australia. Participant age ranged from 12 weeks to 13.4 years. Most studies (23/28) included a majority of females and different types of IHs. Duration of follow-up ranged from 7 days to 72 months. We considered most of the trials as at low risk of random sequence generation, attrition bias, and selective reporting bias. Domains such as allocation concealment and blinding were not clearly reported in general. We downgraded evidence for issues related to risk of bias and imprecision. We report results for the three most important comparisons, which we chose on the basis of current use. Outcome measurement of these comparisons was at 24 weeks' follow-up. Oral propranolol versus placebo Compared with placebo, oral propranolol 3 mg/kg/day probably improves clinician-assessed clearance (risk ratio (RR) 16.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.22 to 65.34; 1 study; 156 children; moderate-quality evidence) and probably leads to a clinician-assessed reduction in mean haemangioma volume of 45.9% (95% CI 11.60 to 80.20; 1 study; 40 children; moderate-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in terms of short- or long-term serious adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.39; 3 studies; 509 children; low-quality evidence), nor in terms of bronchospasm, hypoglycaemia, or serious cardiovascular adverse events. The results relating to clearance and resolution for this comparison were based on one industry-sponsored study. Topical timolol maleate versus placebo The chance of reduction of redness, as a measure of clinician-assessed resolution, may be improved with topical timolol maleate 0.5% gel applied twice daily when compared with placebo (RR 8.11, 95% CI 1.09 to 60.09; 1 study; 41 children;low-quality evidence). Regarding short- or long-term serious cardiovascular events, we found no instances of bradycardia (slower than normal heart rate) or hypotension in either group (1 study; 41 children; low-quality evidence). No other safety data were assessed, and clearance was not measured. Oral propranolol versus topical timolol maleate When topical timolol maleate (0.5% eye drops applied twice daily) was compared with oral propranolol (via a tablet taken once per day, at a 1.0 mg/kg dose), there was no evidence of a difference in haemangioma size (as a measure of resolution) when measured by the proportion of patients with a clinician-assessed reduction of 50% or greater (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.97; 1 study; 26 participants; low-quality evidence). Although there were more short- or long-term general adverse effects (such as severe diarrhoea, lethargy, and loss of appetite) in the oral propranolol group, there was no evidence of a difference between groups (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 123.35; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-quality evidence). This comparison did not measure clearance. None of our key comparisons evaluated, at any follow-up, a subjective measure of improvement assessed by the parent or child; proportion of parents or children who consider there is still a problem; or physician-, child-, or parent-assessed aesthetic appearance. Authors' conclusions: We found there to be a limited evidence base for the treatment of infantile haemangiomas: a large number of interventions and outcomes have not been assessed in RCTs. Our key results indicate that in the management of IH in children, oral propranolol and topical timolol maleate are more beneficial than placebo in terms of clearance or other measures of resolution, or both, without an increase in harms. We found no evidence of a difference between oral propranolol and topical timolol maleate with regard to reducing haemangioma size, but we are uncertain if there is a difference in safety. Oral propranolol is currently the standard treatment for this condition, and our review has not found evidence to challenge this. However, these results are based on moderate- to very low-quality evidence. The included studies were limited by small sample sizes and risk of bias in some domains. Future trials should blind personnel and participants; describe trials thoroughly in publications; and recruit a sufficient number of children to deduce meaningful results. Future trials should assess patient-reported outcomes, as well as objective outcomes of benefit, and should report adverse events comprehensively. Propranolol and timolol maleate require further assessment in RCTs of all types of IH, including those considered problematic, as do other lesser-used interventions and new interventions. All treatments should be compared against propranolol and timolol maleate, as beta blockers are approved as standard care.
OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive description of consumptive hypothyroidism syndrome (CHS), a severe form of hypothyroidism that occurs due to the high expression levels of thyroid hormone inactivation enzyme type 3 deiodinase (D3) in tumors.
STUDY DESIGN: Case report and systematic review.
RESULTS: A 7-month-old girl with a diagnosis of massive hepatic hemangioendotheliomas was treated with high doses of thyroid hormones and tumor-directed chemotherapy with vincristine. The tumor displayed excellent response, and euthyroid status was regained. A systematic review on the databases PubMed/Medline and Embase was performed, using the term "Consumptive AND "Hypothyroidism." From the 33 selected references, we extracted 42 case reports of CHS: 36 children and 6 adults. The laboratory profile at diagnosis displayed high TSH and low T4 and T3 serum levels. The serum reverse T3 and D3 activity levels were high in all patients tested. In children, 97% had vascular tumors, whereas in adults 33% were vascular tumors, 33% fibrous tumors, and 33% gastrointestinal stromal tumors. The conservative treatment was predominant in children, while in adults all cases were treated with surgery. Death occurred in 16% of children and 33% of adults.
CONCLUSIONS: CHS is a rare form of hypothyroidism that occurs in children and adults, usually linked to hepatic vascular tumors. The condition is associated with high lethality. Prompt diagnosis, followed by high-dose thyroid hormone replacement and tumor-directed therapy are the keys to optimize outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoids play a major role in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). However, supraphysiological doses can suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. HPA axis suppression resulting in reduced cortisol response may cause an impaired stress response and an inadequate host defence against infection, which remain a cause of morbidity and death. Suppression commonly occurs in the first days after cessation of glucocorticoid therapy, but the exact duration is unclear. This review is the second update of a previously published Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the occurrence and duration of HPA axis suppression after (each cycle of) glucocorticoid therapy for childhood ALL.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1945 to December 2016), and Embase/Ovid (from 1980 to December 2016). In addition, we searched reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings (the International Society for Paediatric Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology from 2005 up to and including 2016, and the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology from 2014 up to and including 2016), and ongoing trial databases (the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study Number (ISRCTN) register via http://www.controlled-trials.com, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) register via www.clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) of the World Health Organization (WHO) via apps.who.int/trialsearch) on 27 December 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All study designs, except case reports and patient series with fewer than 10 children, examining effects of glucocorticoid therapy for childhood ALL on HPA axis function.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection. One review author extracted data and assessed 'Risk of bias'; another review author checked this information.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 studies (total of 298 children; we identified two studies for this update) including two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed adrenal function. None of the included studies assessed the HPA axis at the level of the hypothalamus, the pituitary, or both. Owing to substantial differences between studies, we could not pool results. All studies had risk of bias issues. Included studies demonstrated that adrenal insufficiency occurs in nearly all children during the first days after cessation of glucocorticoid treatment for childhood ALL. Most children recovered within a few weeks, but a small number of children had ongoing adrenal insufficiency lasting up to 34 weeks.Included studies evaluated several risk factors for (prolonged) adrenal insufficiency. First, three studies including two RCTs investigated the difference between prednisone and dexamethasone in terms of occurrence and duration of adrenal insufficiency. The RCTs found no differences between prednisone and dexamethasone arms. In the other (observational) study, children who received prednisone recovered earlier than children who received dexamethasone. Second, treatment with fluconazole appeared to prolong the duration of adrenal insufficiency, which was evaluated in two studies. One of these studies reported that the effect was present only when children received fluconazole at a dose higher than 10 mg/kg/d. Finally, two studies evaluated the presence of infection, stress episodes, or both, as a risk factor for adrenal insufficiency. In one of these studies (an RCT), trial authors found no relationship between the presence of infection/stress and adrenal insufficiency. The other study found that increased infection was associated with prolonged duration of adrenal insufficiency.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that adrenal insufficiency commonly occurs in the first days after cessation of glucocorticoid therapy for childhood ALL, but the exact duration is unclear. No data were available on the levels of the hypothalamus and the pituitary; therefore, we could draw no conclusions regarding these outcomes. Clinicians may consider prescribing glucocorticoid replacement therapy during periods of serious stress in the first weeks after cessation of glucocorticoid therapy for childhood ALL to reduce the risk of life-threatening complications. However, additional high-quality research is needed to inform evidence-based guidelines for glucocorticoid replacement therapy.Special attention should be paid to patients receiving fluconazole therapy, and perhaps similar antifungal drugs, as these treatments may prolong the duration of adrenal insufficiency, especially when administered at a dose higher than 10 mg/kg/d.Finally, it would be relevant to investigate further the relationship between present infection/stress and adrenal insufficiency in a larger, separate study specially designed for this purpose.
Antecedentes: Los cursos largos de corticosteroides orales se usan comúnmente en niños en el manejo de condiciones crónicas. Se sabe que se producen varias reacciones adversas a los medicamentos (ADR) con su uso. Esta revisión sistemática tuvo como objetivo identificar las ADR más comunes y graves y determinar sus niveles de riesgo relativo. Se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica de Embase, Medline, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL, Biblioteca Cochrane y PubMed sin restricciones de lenguaje para identificar estudios en los que se administraron corticosteroides orales a pacientes de 28 días a 18 años de edad por lo menos 15 Días de tratamiento. Cada base de datos se realizó una búsqueda desde sus fechas más tempranas hasta enero de 2016. Todos los estudios que proporcionaron información clara sobre ADRs fueron incluidos. RESULTADOS: Cien y un estudios que incluyeron 33 estudios prospectivos de cohortes; 21 ensayos controlados aleatorios; 21 series de casos y 26 informes de casos cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. Éstos involucraron a 6817 niños y reportaron 4321 ADRs. Los tres ADR experimentados por el mayor número de pacientes fueron el aumento de peso, el retraso del crecimiento y características de Cushingoid con las tasas de incidencia respectivas de 21,1%, 18,1% y 19,4% de los pacientes evaluados para estas ADR. 21,5% de los pacientes medidos mostraron disminución de la densidad ósea y 0,8% de los pacientes mostraron osteoporosis. La supresión bioquímica del eje HPA se detectó en 269 de 487 pacientes en los que se midió. La infección fue la ADR más grave, con veintiuna muertes. El varicela zóster fue la infección más frecuente (9 muertes). CONCLUSIONES: El aumento de peso, el retraso del crecimiento y las características de Cushingoid fueron las ADR más frecuentes observadas cuando se administraron corticosteroides orales a largo plazo a los niños. La mayor susceptibilidad a la infección fue la ADR más grave.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature and determine frequencies of adverse drug events (ADE) associated with pediatric asthma medications.
METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched six bibliographic databases between January 1991 and January 2017. Study eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment were independently completed and verified by two reviewers. We included randomized control trials (RCT), case-control, cohort, or quasi-experimental studies where the primary objective was identifying ADE in children 1 month- 18 years old exposed to commercial asthma medications. The primary outcome was ADE frequency.
FINDINGS: Our search identified 14,540 citations. 46 studies were included: 24 RCT, 15 cohort, 4 RCT pooled analyses, 1 case-control, 1 open-label trial and 1 quasi-experimental study. Studies examined the following drug classes: inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (n = 24), short-acting beta-agonists (n = 10), long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) (n = 3), ICS + LABA (n = 3), Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists (n = 3) and others (n = 3). 29 studies occurred in North America, and 29 were industry funded. We report a detailed index of 406 ADE descriptions and frequencies organized by drug class. The majority of data focuses on ICS, with 174 ADE affecting 13 organ systems including adrenal and growth suppression. We observed serious ADE, although they were rare, with frequency ranging between 0.9-6% per drug. There were no confirmed deaths, except for 13 potential deaths in a LABA study including combined adult and pediatric participants. We identified substantial methodological concerns, particularly with identifying ADE and determining severity. No studies utilized available standardized causality, severity or preventability assessments.
CONCLUSION: The majority of studies focus on ICS, with adrenal and growth suppression described. Serious ADE are relatively uncommon, with no confirmed pediatric deaths. We identify substantial methodological concerns, highlighting need for standardization with future research examining pediatric asthma medication safety.
OBJETIVO: Se realizó una revisión sistemática de estudios que compararon la interrupción de los antagonistas del factor de necrosis tumoral alfa (TNF) en pacientes con artritis reumatoide (AR), las razones de riesgo combinadas y la heterogeneidad clínica y metodológica evaluada. MÉTODOS: Se realizaron búsquedas en MEDLINE y EMBASE hasta junio de 2015 para determinar los coeficientes de riesgo en parejas para suspender infliximab, etanercept y adalimumab de cohortes de pacientes con AR. Las razones de riesgo se agruparon usando ponderación de varianza inversa y se obtuvieron estimaciones de efectos aleatorios de la relación de riesgo combinada. La heterogeneidad clínica y metodológica se evaluó mediante la estadística entre subgrupos I y la meta-regresión. RESULTADOS: Veinticuatro estudios únicos fueron elegibles y heterogeneidad grande (estadística cuadrada> 50%) se observó en todas las comparaciones. El tipo de datos, la ubicación y el orden del tratamiento (primera o segunda línea) modificaron la magnitud y la dirección de la interrupción comparando infliximab con adalimumab o etanercept; Sin embargo, permaneció cierta heterogeneidad. No se identificó ningún modificador de efecto cuando se comparó adalimumab y etanercept. CONCLUSIÓN: La heterogeneidad en los estudios que comparan la interrupción de los antagonistas del TNF en la AR se explica parcialmente por el tipo de datos, la ubicación y el orden del tratamiento. La agrupación de cocientes peligrosos para la interrupción de los antagonistas del TNF es inapropiada porque se demostró una heterogeneidad en gran parte inexplicada cuando se calcularon las estimaciones de efectos aleatorios.
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.
