Suppr超能文献

用于慢性炎症性脱髓鞘性多发性神经根神经病的皮质类固醇

Corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.

作者信息

Hughes Richard Ac, Mehndiratta Man Mohan, Rajabally Yusuf A

机构信息

MRC Centre for Neuromuscular Diseases, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, PO Box 114, Queen Square, London, UK, WC1N 3BG.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 29;11(11):CD002062. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002062.pub4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a progressive or relapsing and remitting paralysing illness, probably due to an autoimmune response, which should benefit from corticosteroid treatment. Non-randomised studies suggest that corticosteroids are beneficial. Two commonly used corticosteroids are prednisone and prednisolone. Both are usually given as oral tablets. Prednisone is converted into prednisolone in the liver so that the effect of the two drugs is usually the same. Another corticosteroid, dexamethasone, is more potent and is used in smaller doses. The review was first published in 2001 and last updated in 2015; we undertook this update to identify any new evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of corticosteroid treatment for CIDP compared to placebo or no treatment, and to compare the effects of different corticosteroid regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

On 8 November 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised trials of corticosteroids for CIDP. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of treatment with any corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone for CIDP, diagnosed by an internationally accepted definition.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data from included studies and assessed the risk of bias independently. The intended primary outcome was change in disability, with change in impairment after 12 weeks and side effects as secondary outcomes. We assessed strength of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

One non-blinded RCT comparing prednisone with no treatment in 35 eligible participants did not measure the primary outcome for this systematic review. The trial had a high risk of bias. Neuropathy Impairment Scale scores after 12 weeks improved in 12 of 19 participants randomised to prednisone, compared with five of 16 participants randomised to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) for improvement 2.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 4.52; very low-quality evidence). The trial did not report side effects in detail, but one prednisone-treated participant died.A double-blind RCT comparing daily standard-dose oral prednisolone with monthly high-dose oral dexamethasone in 40 participants reported none of the prespecified outcomes for this review. The trial had a low risk of bias, but the quality of evidence was limited as it came from a single small study. There was little or no difference in number of participants who achieved remission (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45 in favour of monthly dexamethasone; moderate-quality evidence), or change in disability or impairment after one year (low-quality evidence). Change of grip strength or Medical Research Council (MRC) scores demonstrated little or no difference between groups (moderate-quality to low-quality evidence). Eight of 16 people in the prednisolone group and seven of 24 people in the dexamethasone group deteriorated. Side effects were similar with each regimen, except that sleeplessness was less common with monthly dexamethasone (low-quality evidence) as was moon facies (moon-shaped appearance of the face) (moderate-quality evidence).Experience from large non-randomised studies suggests that corticosteroids are beneficial, but long-term use causes serious side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain about the effects of oral prednisone compared with no treatment, because the quality of evidence from the only RCT that exists is very low. Nevertheless, corticosteroids are commonly used in practice, supported by very low-quality evidence from observational studies. We also know from observational studies that corticosteroids carry the long-term risk of serious side effects. The efficacy of high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone is probably little different from that of daily standard-dose oral prednisolone. Most side effects occurred with similar frequencies in both groups, but with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone moon facies is probably less common and sleeplessness may be less common than with oral prednisolone. We need further research to identify factors that predict response.

摘要

背景

慢性炎性脱髓鞘性多发性神经根神经病(CIDP)是一种进行性或复发缓解型麻痹性疾病,可能由自身免疫反应引起,糖皮质激素治疗可能对其有益。非随机研究表明糖皮质激素有益。两种常用的糖皮质激素是泼尼松和泼尼松龙。两者通常都制成口服片剂给药。泼尼松在肝脏中转化为泼尼松龙,因此两种药物的效果通常相同。另一种糖皮质激素地塞米松效力更强,使用剂量较小。本综述首次发表于2001年,最后更新于2015年;我们进行此次更新以识别任何新证据。

目的

评估与安慰剂或不治疗相比,糖皮质激素治疗CIDP的效果,并比较不同糖皮质激素治疗方案的效果。

检索方法

2016年11月8日,我们检索了Cochrane神经肌肉专业注册库、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库、MEDLINE和Embase,以查找关于糖皮质激素治疗CIDP的随机试验。我们检索了临床试验注册库以查找正在进行的试验。

入选标准

我们纳入了采用任何糖皮质激素或促肾上腺皮质激素治疗CIDP的随机对照试验(RCT)或半随机对照试验,CIDP由国际公认的定义确诊。

数据收集与分析

两位作者从纳入研究中提取数据并独立评估偏倚风险。预期的主要结局是残疾的变化,次要结局是12周后损伤的变化和副作用。我们使用GRADE方法评估证据强度。

主要结果

一项在35名符合条件的参与者中比较泼尼松与不治疗的非盲RCT未测量本系统评价的主要结局。该试验存在较高的偏倚风险。随机分配至泼尼松组的19名参与者中有12名在12周后神经病变损害量表评分改善,而随机分配至不治疗组的16名参与者中有5名改善(改善的风险比(RR)为2.02(95%置信区间(CI)0.90至4.52;极低质量证据)。该试验未详细报告副作用,但有一名接受泼尼松治疗的参与者死亡。一项在40名参与者中比较每日标准剂量口服泼尼松龙与每月高剂量口服地塞米松的双盲RCT未报告本综述的任何预先设定的结局。该试验存在较低的偏倚风险,但由于其来自一项单一的小型研究,证据质量有限。达到缓解的参与者数量几乎没有差异(RR 1.11;95%CI 0.50至2.45,支持每月地塞米松;中等质量证据),或一年后残疾或损伤的变化(低质量证据)。握力或医学研究委员会(MRC)评分的变化在两组之间几乎没有差异(中等质量至低质量证据)。泼尼松龙组16人中有8人病情恶化,地塞米松组24人中有7人病情恶化。每种治疗方案的副作用相似,但每月地塞米松引起的失眠较少见(低质量证据),满月脸(面部呈满月形外观)也较少见(中等质量证据)。大型非随机研究的经验表明糖皮质激素有益,但长期使用会导致严重副作用。

作者结论

与不治疗相比,我们对口服泼尼松的效果非常不确定,因为现有唯一RCT的证据质量极低。尽管如此,在观察性研究的极低质量证据支持下,糖皮质激素在实践中仍被广泛使用。我们也从观察性研究中了解到糖皮质激素存在长期严重副作用的风险。每月高剂量口服地塞米松的疗效可能与每日标准剂量口服泼尼松龙的疗效差异不大。两组中大多数副作用的发生频率相似,但每月高剂量口服地塞米松引起满月脸的情况可能比口服泼尼松龙少见,失眠也可能较少见。我们需要进一步研究以确定预测反应的因素。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验