There is convincing evidence for the known and unambiguously accepted beneficial effects of glucocorticoids at low dosages. However, the implementation of existing recommendations and guidelines on ...the management of glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases is lagging behind. As a first step to improve implementation, we aimed at defining conditions under which long-term glucocorticoid therapy may have an acceptably low level of harm. A multidisciplinary European League Against Rheumatism task force group of experts including patients with rheumatic diseases was assembled. After a systematic literature search, breakout groups critically reviewed the evidence on the four most worrisome adverse effects of glucocorticoid therapy (osteoporosis, hyperglycaemia/diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases and infections) and presented their results to the other group members following a structured questionnaire for final discussion and consensus finding. Robust evidence on the risk of harm of long-term glucocorticoid therapy was often lacking since relevant study results were often either missing, contradictory or carried a high risk of bias. The group agreed that the risk of harm is low for the majority of patients at long-term dosages of ≤5 mg prednisone equivalent per day, whereas at dosages of >10 mg/day the risk of harm is elevated. At dosages between >5 and ≤10 mg/day, patient-specific characteristics (protective and risk factors) determine the risk of harm. The level of harm of glucocorticoids depends on both dose and patient-specific parameters. General and glucocorticoid-associated risk factors and protective factors such as a healthy lifestyle should be taken into account when evaluating the actual and future risk.
To define the optimal biologic agent for systemic JIA (sJIA) based on safety and efficacy data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT).
Through a systematic literature search, sJIA RCTs evaluating ...biologic agents were identified. The primary efficacy outcome was defined as a 30% improvement according to the modified American College of Rheumatology Paediatric 30 response criteria (JIA ACR30). The primary safety outcome was defined as serious adverse events (SAEs). Outcomes were analysed by pairwise and network meta-analyses. The quality of evidence between biologic agents was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
From the 493 citations originally identified, 5 RCTs were eligible for inclusion-one each for anakinra, canakinumab and tocilizumab and two for rilonacept: all vs placebo. While all were effective, the network meta-analysis indicated with low-quality evidence (due to indirect comparison and inconsistency) that rilonacept-treated patients were less likely to respond than those treated with canakinumab odds ratio (OR) 0.10 (95% CI 0.02, 0.38), P = 0.001 or tocilizumab OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.03, 0.44), P = 0.001. Risks of SAEs were similar among the biologic agents (supported by very low-quality evidence) and not different from placebo.
Despite heterogeneous eligibility criteria and study designs across the five studies and different modified JIA ACR30 criteria, this meta-analysis of short-term RCTs presents empirical evidence that canakinumab and tocilizumab are more effective than rilonacept. Biologic agents in sJIA seem safe and comparable with respect to SAE risk in the short term.
Arthritis patients often take fish oil supplements to alleviate symptoms, but limited evidence exists regarding their efficacy. The objective was to evaluate whether marine oil supplements reduce ...pain and/or improve other clinical outcomes in patients with arthritis. Six databases were searched systematically (24 February 2015). We included randomized trials of oral supplements of all marine oils compared with a control in arthritis patients. The internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and heterogeneity was explored using restricted maximum of likelihood (REML)-based meta-regression analysis. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the overall quality of the evidence. Forty-two trials were included; 30 trials reported complete data on pain. The standardized mean difference (SMD) suggested a favorable effect (-0.24; 95% confidence interval, CI, -0.42 to -0.07; heterogeneity,
² = 63%. A significant effect was found in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (22 trials; -0.21; 95% CI, -0.42 to -0.004) and other or mixed diagnoses (3 trials; -0.63; 95% CI, -1.20 to -0.06), but not in osteoarthritis patients (5 trials; -0.17; 95% CI, -0.57-0.24). The evidence for using marine oil to alleviate pain in arthritis patients was overall of low quality, but of moderate quality in rheumatoid arthritis patients.
Despite significant cost differences, the comparative effect of combination treatments of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with and without biologic agents has rarely been examined. ...Thus we performed a network meta-analysis on the effect of combination therapies on progression of radiographic joint erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
The following combination drug therapies compared versus single DMARD were investigated: Double DMARD: 2 DMARDs (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, injectable gold, cyclosporine, chloroquine, azathioprin, penicillamin) or 1 DMARD plus low dose glucocorticoid (LDGC); triple DMARD: 3 DMARDs or 2 DMARDs plus LDGC; biologic combination: 1 DMARD plus biologic agent (tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor (TNFi) or abatacept or tocilizumab or CD20 inhibitor (CD20i)). Randomized controlled trials were identified in a search of electronic archives of biomedical literature and included in a star-shaped network meta-analysis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement protocol. Effects are reported as standardized mean differences (SMD). The effects of data from 39 trials published in the period 1989-2012 were as follows: Double DMARD: -0.32 SMD (CI: -0.42, -0.22); triple DMARD: -0.46 SMD (CI: -0.60, -0.31); 1 DMARD plus TNFi: -0.30 SMD (CI: -0.36, -0.25); 1 DMARD plus abatacept: -0.20 SMD (CI: -0.33, -0.07); 1 DMARD plus tocilizumab: -0.34 SMD (CI: -0.48, -0.20); 1 DMARD plus CD20i: -0.32 SMD (CI: -0.40, -0.24). The indirect comparisons showed similar effects between combination treatments apart from triple DMARD being significantly better than abatacept plus methotrexate (-0.26 SMD (CI: -0.45, -0.07)) and TNFi plus methotrexate (-0.16 SMD (CI: -0.31, -0.01)).
Combination treatment of a biologic agent with 1 DMARD is not superior to 2-3 DMARDs including or excluding LDGC in preventing structural joint damage. Future randomized studies of biologic agents should be compared versus a combination of DMARDs.
There has been a growing interest in the gastrointestinal system and its significance for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), including the significance of adopting a gluten-free and casein-free (GFCF) ...diet. The objective was to investigate beneficial and safety of a GFCF diet among children with a diagnosis of ASD. We performed a systematic literature search in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2020 for existing systematic reviews and individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies were included if they investigated a GFCF diet compared to a regular diet in children aged 3 to 17 years diagnosed with ASD, with or without comorbidities. The quality of the identified existing reviews was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). The risk of bias in RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and overall quality of evidence was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). We identified six relevant RCTs, which included 143 participants. The results from a random effect model showed no effect of a GFCF diet on clinician-reported autism core symptoms (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.31 (95% Cl. -0.89, 0.27)), parent-reported functional level (mean difference (MD) 0.61 (95% Cl -5.92, 7.14)) or behavioral difficulties (MD 0.80 (95% Cl -6.56, 10.16)). On the contrary, a GFCF diet might trigger gastrointestinal adverse effects (relative risk (RR) 2.33 (95% Cl 0.69, 7.90)). The quality of evidence ranged from low to very low due to serious risk of bias, serious risk of inconsistency, and serious risk of imprecision. Clinical implications of the present findings may be careful consideration of introducing a GFCF diet to children with ASD. However, the limitations of the current literature hinder the possibility of drawing any solid conclusion, and more high-quality RCTs are needed. The protocol is registered at the Danish Health Authority website.
Hip precautions are routinely prescribed to patients with osteoarthritis to decrease dislocation rates after total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a posterior approach. However, recommendations have ...been based on very low certainty of evidence. We updated the evidence on the influence of hip precautions on early recovery following THA by this systematic review.
We performed systematic searches for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized (NRS) studies in MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, and CINAHL published from 2016 to July 2022. 2 reviewers independently included studies comparing postoperative precautions with minimal or no precautions, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to synthesize the results. The certainty of the evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation approach. The critical outcome was the risk of hip dislocations within 3 months of surgery. Other outcomes were long-term risk of dislocation and reoperation, self-reported and performance-based assessment of function, quality of life, pain, and time to return to work.
4 RCTs and 5 NRSs, including 8,835 participants, were included. There may be no or negligible difference in early hip dislocations (RCTs: risk ratio RR 1.8, 95% confidence interval CI 0.6-5.2; NRS: RR 0.9, CI 0.3-2.5). Certainty in the evidence was low for RCTs and very low for NRSs. Finally, precautions may reduce the performance-based assessment of function slightly, but the evidence was very uncertain. For all other outcomes, no differences were found (moderate to very low certainty evidence).
The current evidence does not support routinely prescribing hip precautions post-surgically for patients undergoing THA to prevent hip dislocations. However, the results might change with high-quality studies.
The Danish Health Authority develops clinical practice guidelines to support clinical decision-making based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system ...and prioritizes using Cochrane reviews. The objective of this study was to explore the usefulness of Cochrane reviews as a source of evidence in the development of clinical recommendations. Evidence-based recommendations in guidelines published by the Danish Health Authority between 2014 and 2021 were reviewed. For each recommendation, it was noted if and how Cochrane reviews were utilized. In total, 374 evidence-based recommendations and 211 expert consensus recommendations were published between 2014 and 2021. Of the 374 evidence-based recommendations, 106 included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 28 recommendations, all critical and important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 36 recommendations, a minimum of all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews, but not all important outcomes. In 33 recommendations, some but not all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. Finally, in nine recommendations, some of the important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In almost one-third of the evidence-based recommendations, Cochrane reviews were used to inform clinical recommendations. This evaluation should inform future evaluations of Cochrane review uptake in clinical practice guidelines concerning outcomes important for clinical decision-making.
Nalmefene is a newly approved drug for alcohol use disorder, but the risk of harms has not been evaluated from empirical trial evidence.
To assess the harm of nalmefene administered to individuals ...diagnosed with substance use or impulse control disorders by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
A search was performed in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2014), MEDLINE via PubMed (1950), EMBASE via Ovid (1974), and Clinicaltrials.gov through December 2014.
This study included only randomised controlled trials with placebo or active controls that administered nalmefene to adult individuals for treating impulse control and/or substance use disorders. Both published and unpublished randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion.
Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Published information from the trials was supplemented by contact between reviewers and industry sponsor. Data were combined using two meta-approaches in fixed effects models; Peto Odds Ratios and risk differences were reported with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs).
Number of patients with serious adverse events, including specific psychiatric serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events.
Of 20 potentially relevant studies, 15 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, and 8 of these provided data enabling the meta-analysis. Overall, serious adverse events did not occur more often in the nalmefene group than in the placebo group (Peto Odds Ratio = 0.97 95% CI 0.64-1.44; P = 0.86). Risk of psychiatric serious adverse events was slightly elevated, albeit not at a statistically significant level (Peto Odds Ratio = 1.32 95% CI 0.62, 2.83; P = 0.47). Withdrawals due to adverse events were significantly more likely to occur with nalmefene compared to placebo (Peto Odds Ratio = 3.22 95% CI 2.46-4.22; P<0.001).
The three-fold increased risk of withdrawal from treatment on nalmefene due to adverse events is a matter of safety concern. The nature of these adverse events cannot be elucidated further without access to individual patients data.
There has been increasing interest in parent-mediated interventions (PMIs) for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine ...the effect of PMIs compared to no PMI for children with ASD aged 2–17 years. The primary outcome was adaptive functioning rated by a parent or clinician. The secondary outcomes were long-term adaptive functioning rated by the parents, adverse events, core symptoms of ASD, disruptive behavior, parental well-being, quality of life of the child rated by the parents and anxiety. The MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched in March 2020. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to rate the individual studies, and the certainty in the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. We identified 30 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 1,934 participants. A clinically relevant effect of PMIs on parent-rated adaptive functioning was found with a low certainty of evidence Standard mean difference (SMD): 0.28 (95% CI: −0.01, 0.57) on Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS), whereas no clinically relevant effect was seen for clinician-rated functional level, with a very low certainty of evidence SMD on Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-severity scale: SMD −0.45 95% CI: −0.87, −0.03). PMIs may slightly improve clinician-rated autism core symptoms SMD: −0.35 (95% CI: −0.71, 0.02). Additionally, no effect of PMIs on parent-rated core symptoms of ASD, parental well-being or adverse effects was identified, all with a low certainty of evidence. There was a moderate certainty of evidence for a clinically relevant effect on disruptive behavior SMD: 0.55 (95% Cl: 0.36, 0.74). The certainty in the evidence was downgraded due to serious risk of bias, lack of blinding, and serious risk of imprecision due to few participants included in meta-analyses. The present findings suggest that clinicians may consider introducing PMIs to children with ASD, but more high-quality RCTs are needed because the effects are not well-established, and the results are likely to change with future studies. The protocol for the systematic review is registered at the Danish Health Authority website (
www.sst.dk
).
Abstract Background and Objective Although various biological agents are in use for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA), head-to-head trials comparing the efficacy and safety among ...them are lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of biological agents in pJIA using all currently available randomized withdrawal trials (wRCTs). Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov was performed. Eligible wRCTs: patients with pJIA where a biological agent was compared with another biological agent or placebo. Efficacy was evaluated using disease flare as a measure. Adverse events (AEs) and Serious AEs were evaluated. Network meta-analysis compared biological agents based on a (empirical Bayes) mixed-effects logistic regression model which combines statistical inference from both direct and indirect comparisons of the treatment effects between biological agents. Results Of 496 references identified, 5 wRCTs were included: abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept and tocilizumab, one trial each, all vs. placebo. There were no differences in efficacy among biological agents and most showed statistically significant efficacy compared with placebo (nearly all exceptions were in agreement with the original study data). Serious AEs occurred very infrequently (0–8%) and an analysis was not possible. There were no differences for AEs when compared among biological agents or to placebo. Conclusion There were no statistical differences among biological agents for efficacy or safety. Overall, biological agents were effective and safe when compared to placebo. Based on these data, other considerations such as price and availability may need to be used to decide among biological agents when treating pJIA patients.
PDF
