Liu Shuo, Liu Xiaoqiang, Chen Shuying, Xiao Yingxiu, Zhuang Weiduan
Neurology Department, First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 27;12(11):e0188644. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188644. eCollection 2017.
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.
推荐使用静脉注射糖皮质激素治疗多发性硬化症(MS)。然而,其使用不便且费用高昂。鉴于口服糖皮质激素使用方便且成本低廉,可能是一种替代治疗方法。最近,多项研究表明,口服甲基泼尼松龙(oMP)和静脉注射甲基泼尼松龙(ivMP)在疗效和安全性方面并无差异。
在这项荟萃分析中,我们试图评估口服甲基泼尼松龙与静脉注射甲基泼尼松龙治疗MS复发的临床疗效、安全性和耐受性。
截至2016年10月25日,在PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、Medline、EMBASE和中国生物医学数据库中检索评估口服甲基泼尼松龙与静脉注射甲基泼尼松龙治疗MS复发的临床疗效、安全性和耐受性的随机对照试验(RCT),无语言限制。选择第28天病情改善的患者比例作为疗效指标。我们选择风险比(RR)分析每项试验,并给出95%置信区间(95%CI)。我们还使用固定效应模型(Mantel-Haenszel方法)计算合并相对效应估计值。
共纳入5项试验,包括369例患者。我们的荟萃分析结果显示,oMP和ivMP在第28天复发改善方面无显著差异(RR 0.96,95%CI 0.84至1.10)。试验之间无异质性证据(P = 0.45,I2 = 0%)。两种治疗同样安全且耐受性良好,只是与ivMP组相比,oMP组更易发生失眠。
我们的荟萃分析有力地证明,在提高第28天临床改善患者比例方面,oMP并不逊于ivMP。此外,两种给药途径耐受性和安全性相当。这些发现表明,我们或许可用oMP替代ivMP治疗MS复发。