Biomedical subjects

B Shea

Publications and source records attributed to B Shea.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

PubMed2000

Injectable gold for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term benefit and risk of side-effects of injectable gold for rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, and Medline, up to July 1997, using the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Dickersin 1994). The search was complemented with bibliography searching of the reference list of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. Key experts in the area were contacted for further published and unpublished articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing injectable gold against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methodological quality of the RCTs was asessed by two reviewers (MS, BS) (kappa=1.0). Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted by two reviewers from the publications for the 6 month endpoint. Sufficient data was obtained to conduct a pooled analysis of the number of swollen joints, physician global assessment, patient global assessment and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Results were analyzed as standardized weighted mean differences for swollen joints and global assessments and weighted mean differences for ESR. Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals. Heterogeneity was estimated using a chi-square test. Fixed effects models were used throughout. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials and 415 patients were included. A statistically significant benefit was observed for injectable gold when compared to placebo. The standardized weighted difference (effect size) between gold and placebo for the number of swollen joints was -0.5, translating into a percentage change of 30% in favour of gold adjusted for placebo. Statistically significant differences were also observed for ESR and patient and physician assessments. Twenty two percent of the treated patients withdrew from toxicity compared to 4% of controls (OR=3.9 - 95%Cl: 2.1 - 7.2). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Although its use can be limited by the incidence of serious toxicity, injectable gold has an important clinically and statistically significant benefit in the short term treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Antirheumatic Agents↗

PubMed2000

Folic acid and folinic acid for reducing side effects in patients receiving methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of folic acid and folinic acid in reducing the mucosal and gastrointestinal (GI) and haematologic side effects of low-dose of Methotrexate (MTX) in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and to determine whether or not folate supplementation alters MTX efficacy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial's Register (CCTR), the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Specialized Register and Medline up to and including June 1999, using the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Dickersin 1994). We also handsearched the following: (i) bibliographic references; (ii) current contents of the last 6 months; (iii) abstracts of the rheumatology meetings; and (iv) all issues of four journals; Journal of Rheumatology, Arthritis & Rheumatism, Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, and British Journal of Rheumatology. All languages were included. Principal investigators were also contacted in order to look for unpublished literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials (RCTs), in which adult RA patients were treated with a low dose of MTX (<20 mg / week) concurrently with folate supplementation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two observers extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. (BS, Z0) The overall treatment effect across trials was calculated using a fixed effect model. Disease activity was evaluated using standardized mean differences to ensure comparability across outcome measures. Results are presented with 95% Confidence Inervals (95% CI). Subgroup analyses were conducted evaluating different doses and sensitivity analysis looking at the quality of the trials. Publication bias was assessed with an inverted funnel plot technique. Heterogeneity of the trials was measured using a standard chi square test. Costs per month in different countries were compared. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 12 trials retrieved, 7 met the inclusion criteria. The total sample included 307 patients, of which 147 were treated with folate supplementation, 80 patients with folinic acid and 67 patients with folic acid. A 79% reduction in mucosal and GI side effects was observed for folic acid [OR = 0.21 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.44)]. For folinic acid, a clinically but non-statistically significant reduction of 43% was found [OR = 0. 57 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.15)]. No major differences were observed between low and high doses of folic or folinic acid. Haematologic side effects could not be analyzed, since details of each haematologic side effect by patients were not provided. No consistent differences in disease activity parameters were observed when comparing placebo and folic or folinic acid at low or high doses, although patients on high dose folinic acid had an increase in the number of tender joints, but not swollen joints. Large differences in costs across countries were found, but folinic acid was more expensive in all. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The results support the protective effect of folate supplementation in reducing MTX side effects related to the oral and GI systems. We could not determine if folic was different from folinic acid. Therefore, for folinic acid to be considered cost-effective it must be found more effective than folic acid at reducing MTX side effects.

Antirheumatic Agents↗

PubMed2000

Calcium and vitamin D for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of calcium and vitamin D compared to calcium alone or placebo in the prevention of bone loss in patients taking systemic corticosteroids. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal trials register, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, EMBASE and Medline up to 1996. We also conducted a hand search of abstracts from various scientific meetings and reference lists of selected trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized trials comparing calcium and vitamin D to calcium alone or placebo in patients taking systemic corticosteroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was abstracted from trials by two investigators. Methodological quality was assessed in a similar manner. Analysis was performed using fixed effects models. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials were included, with 274 patients. The analysis was performed at two years after starting calcium and vitamin D. There was a significant weighted mean difference (WMD) between treatment and control groups in lumbar (WMD 2.6 (95% CI 0.7, 4.5), and radial bone mineral density (WMD 2.5 (95% CI 0.6, 4.4). The other outcome measures (femoral neck bone mass, fracture incidence, biochemical markers of bone resorption) were not significantly different. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated a clinically and statistically significant prevention of bone loss at the lumbar spine and forearm with vitamin D and calcium in corticosteroid treated patients. Because of low toxicity and cost all patients being started on corticosteroids should receive prophylactic therapy with calcium and vitamin D.

Calcium↗

PubMed2000

Iloprost and cisaprost for Raynaud's phenomenon in progressive systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and toxicity of the following agents:Prostaglandin analogues together with other agents proposed for the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenom (RP) in scleroderma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Medline up to 1996 using the Cochrane Collaboration search strategy developed by Dickersin et al.(1994). Key words included: raynaud's or vasospasm, scleroderma or progressive systemic sclerosis or connective tissue disease or autoimmune disease. Current Contents were searched up to and including April 7, 1997. All bibliographies of articles retrieved were searched and key experts in the area were contacted for additional and unpublished data. The initial search strategy included all languages. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials comparing prostaglandin analogues versus placebo were eligible if they reported clinical outcomes within the start of therapy, and if the dropout rate was less than 35%. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers (DF, AT). Peto's odds ratios were calculated for all dichotomous outcomes and a weighted mean difference was calculated for all continuous outcomes. A fixed effects or random effects model was used if the data were homogeneous or heterogeneous, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: Seven randomized trials and 332 patients were included. Five of the seven trials were of parallel design. Five trials compared I.V. Iloprost and one trial studied p.o. Iloprost and another p.o. Cisaprost. Some trials were dose finding trials so various doses of Iloprost were used. Due to different efficacies of I.V. Iloprost, oral Iloprost and oral Cisaprost, the overall efficacy of these drugs was somewhat diluted. Intravenous Iloprost appears to be effective in the treatment of secondary Raynaud's phenomenon. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous Iloprost is effective in the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon secondary to scleroderma at decreasing the frequency and severity of attacks and preventing or healing digital ulcers. The effect seems to be prolonged after the intravenous infusion is given. Oral Iloprost may have less efficacy than intravenous Iloprost. However, Cisaprost has minimal or no efficacy when given orally for the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon secondary to scleroderma.

Humans↗

PubMed2000

Ketanserin for Raynaud's phenomenon in progressive systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and toxicity of the following agent: ketanserin versus placebo proposed for the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) in scleroderma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Medline up to 1996 using the Cochrane Collaboration search strategy developed by Dickersin et al.(1994). Key words included: Raynaud's or vasospasm, scleroderma or progressive systematic sclerosis or connective tissue disease or autoimmune disease. Current Contents were searched up to and including April 7, 1997. All bibliographies of articles retrieved were searched and key experts in the area were contacted for additional and unpublished data. The initial search strategy included all languages. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials comparing ketanserin versus placebo were eligible if they reported clinical outcomes of interest. Trials with dropout rates greater than 35% were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers (DF, AT). Peto's odds ratios (OR) were calculated for all dichotomous outcomes, and a weighted mean difference (WMD) was carried out on all continuous outcomes. A fixed effects or random effects model were used if the data was homogeneous or heterogeneous, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials and 66 patients were included. The proportion improved was significantly better in the group on ketanserin with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.80 (95% CI 1.33, 17.37). However, when comparing ketanserin to placebo, the decrease in severity of RP attacks favoured placebo but this was not statistically significant. Side effects were significantly more common in the group using active treatment with an OR of 5.96 (95% CI 1.61, 22.06). Frequency of attacks did not change, but the duration of attacks decreased significantly in the ketanserin group. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Ketanserin may have some efficacy in the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon secondary to scleroderma. Overall, ketanserin is not significantly different from placebo for the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon except for some decrease in the duration of attacks and more subjects improved on ketanserin compared to placebo. However, there were more side effects. It can be concluded that ketanserin treatment in Raynaud's phenomenon secondary to scleroderma is not clinically beneficial.

Humans↗

PubMed2000

Cyclofenil for Raynaud's phenomenon in progressive systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and toxicity of Cyclofenil versus placebo for the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) in scleroderma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Medline up to 1996 using the Cochrane Collaboration search strategy developed by Dickersin et al.(1994). Key words included: Raynaud's or Vasospasm, Scleroderma or Progressive Systematic Sclerosis or Connective Tissue Disease or Autoimmune Disease. Current Contents were searched up to and including April 7, 1997. All bibliographies of articles retrieved were searched and key experts in the area were contacted for additional and unpublished data. The initial search strategy included all languages. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized trials comparing cyclofenil versus placebo were eligible if they reported any clinical outcomes within the trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers (DF, AT). Peto's odds ratio (OR) was calculated for all dichotomous outcomes, and a weighted mean difference was calculated for all continuous outcomes. A fixed effects or random effects model was used if the data were homogeneous or heterogeneous respectively. MAIN RESULTS: One trial with 38 patients was included. There was a trend for Cyclofenil to demonstrate more improvement and more dropouts compared to placebo, but there were no statistically significant differences. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Cyclofenil is not effective in the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon secondary to scleroderma.

Cyclofenil↗

PubMed2000

Prazosin for Raynaud's phenomenon in progressive systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects and toxicity of prazosin versus placebo proposed for the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) in scleroderma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Medline up to December 1996 using the Cochrane Collaboration search strategy developed by Dickersin et al.(1994). Key words included: Raynaud's or vasospasm, scleroderma or progressive systemic sclerosis or connective tissue disease or autoimmune disease. Current Contents were searched up to and including April 7, 1997. All bibliographies of articles retrieved were searched and key experts in the area were contacted for additional and unpublished data. The initial search strategy included all languages. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing prazosin versus placebo were eligible if they reported clinical outcomes from the start of therapy. Trials with a greater than 35% dropout were excluded. Trials were included if patients with diffuse or limited scleroderma were the subjects. If patients with other connective tissue diseases or primary Raynaud's were included, the trial was used if the data on the scleroderma patients could be extracted from the paper. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All data were abstracted by two independent and trained reviewers (DF, AT), and verified by a third reviewer (JP). Each trial was assessed independently by the same two reviewers for its quality using a validated quality assessment tool (Jadad 1996). Peto's odds ratios were calculated for all dichotomous outcomes and a weighted mean difference was carried out on all continuous outcomes. Fixed effects and random effects model were used if the data was homogeneous or heterogeneous, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials with a total of 40 patients were included. Prazosin has been found in two randomized controlled cross-over trials to be more effective than placebo in the treatment of Raynaud's secondary to scleroderma. However, the positive response is modest and side effects are not rare in those taking prazosin. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Prazosin is modestly effective in the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon secondary to scleroderma.

Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists↗

PubMed2000

Methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, and Medline, up to July 1997, using the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Dickersin 1994). The search was complemented with bibliography searching of the reference list of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. Key experts in the area were contacted for further published and unpublished articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing MTX against placebo in patients with RA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers determined the studies to be included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (GW, MSA). Data were independently abstracted by two reviewers (EB, MSA), and checked by a third reviewer (BS) using a pre-developed form for the rheumatoid arthritis sub-group of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. The same two reviewers, using a validated scale (Jadad 1996) assessed the methodological quality of the trials independently. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for joint counts, pain, and global and functional assessments. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios (OR) for withdrawals. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout and random effects for outcomes showing heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials and 300 patients were included. A statistically significant benefit was observed for MTX when compared to placebo. Statistically significant differences were observed for all measures except ESR. The standardized weighted difference (effect size) between MTX and placebo for the various outcome measures varied between -0.43 and -1.5. No differences were observed in the total number of withdrawals and dropouts (OR = 0.95), although patients on MTX were three times more likely to discontinue treatment because of adverse reactions (OR=3.47) and four times less likely to withdraw due to lack of response (OR=0.22). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-two percent of people on MTX withdrew due to adverse effects compared to seven percent of the placebo group. MTX has a substantial clinically and statistically significant benefit in the short term treatment of patients with RA.

Antirheumatic Agents↗

PubMed2000

Sulfasalazine for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term efficacy and toxicity of sulfasalazine for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, and Medline, up to July 1997, using the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Dickersin 1994). The search was complemented with bibliography searching of the reference list of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. Key experts in the area were contacted for further published and unpublished articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing sulfasalazine against placebo in patients with RA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers determined the studies to be included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (GW, MSA). Data were independently abstracted by two reviewers (EB, MSA), and checked by a third reviewer (BS) using a pre-developed form for the rheumatoid arthritis sub-group of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. The same two reviewers, using a validated scale (Jadad 1996) assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs independently. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for joint counts, pain, and global and functional assessments. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios (OR) for withdrawals. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout and random effects for outcomes showing heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials, including 468 patients were included. A statistically significant benefit was observed for sulfasalazine when compared to placebo for tender and swollen joint scores, pain and ESR. The standardized weighted mean difference between treatment and placebo was -0.49 for tender and swollen joint scores, and -0.42 for pain. The difference for ESR was -17.6mm. Withdrawals from adverse reactions were significantly higher in the sulfasalazine group (OR=3.0). Patients receiving placebo were four times more likely to discontinue treatment because of lack of efficacy than patients receiving sulfasalazine. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Sulfasalazine appears to have a clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with RA. Its effects on overall health status and radiological progression are not clear at this time, but would appear to be modest.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗

PubMed2000

Antimalarials for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term efficacy and toxicity of antimalarials for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline and Embase up to and including July 1997. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing antimalarials against placebo in patients with RA DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data abstraction was carried out independently by two reviewers. The same two reviewers using Jadad's scale (Jadad 1995) assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the 6-month endpoint. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences for joint counts, pain and global assessments. Weighted mean differences were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout. MAIN RESULTS: We found four trials, with 300 patients randomized to hydrochloroquine and 292 to placebo. Only trials evaluating hydroxychloroquine could be pooled in the analysis. A statistically significant benefit was observed when hydroxychloroquine was compared to placebo. The standardized mean differences for the various outcome measures ranged from -0.33 to -0. 52, and were statistically significant. Statistically significant differences were also observed for ESR. Overall withdrawals and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were significantly more frequent in the placebo group. No differences were observed in withdrawals due to toxicity. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine appears to be efficacious for the treatment of RA. Its overall effect appears to be moderate, but its low toxicity profile should be considered when treating patients with RA.

Antimalarials↗

PubMed2000

Cyclosporine for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term (up to one year) effects of cyclosporine for rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, and Medline, up to 1997, using the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Dickersin 1994). The search was complemented with bibliography searching of the reference list of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. Key experts in the area were contacted for further published and unpublished articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing cyclosporine against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers determined the trials to be included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (GW, MSA). Data were independently abstracted by two reviewers (DH, GW),and checked by a third reviewer (BS) using a pre-developed form for the rheumatoid arthritis sub-group of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. Methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs was assessed by two reviewers (BS, DH). Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for change from baseline endpoints. Sufficient data were obtained to include in the pooled analysis the number of swollen joints, physician global assessment, patient global assessment and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). MAIN RESULTS: Three trials and 318 patients were included. A statistically significant decrease in the number of tender and swollen joints was observed for cyclosporine when compared to placebo. The standardized mean difference (SMD) for the change in the number of swollen joints was -0.969. Significant improvements in pain and the functional index were also found for cyclosporine. More side effects occurred in the cyclosporine group compared to placebo. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Cyclosporine has an important clinical benefit int the short-term (up to one year) treatment of patients with progressive rheumatoid arthritis.

Antirheumatic Agents↗

PubMed2000

Pharmacotherapy for Behcet's syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of available pharmacological interventions in treating the different clinical features of Behcet's syndrome. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Medline up to January 1998. The computer search was complemented by a hand search of all bibliographic references from the reference lists of included trials. Principal investigators were contacted to seek unpublished literature. All languages were included. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they fulfilled all of the four following criteria: 1. Randomized controlled trials, single or double-blind; 2. Participants were patients with Behcet's Syndrome as defined by the International Study Group, 1990 (Int Study Group, 1990); 3. Interventions included any pharmacological therapy compared to placebo or some other pharmacological intervention for the treatment of Behcet's syndrome. 4. Outcome measures included active ocular inflammatory processes, arthritis, mucocutaneous manifestations (oral ulcer, genital ulcer, erythema nodosum), laboratory changes and major events such as adverse effects and death. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The 32 potentially relevant references were assessed by two independent reviewers (MA, AS) according to the inclusion criteria. Ten trials fit the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. From the 10 included trials, data were independently extracted by the same two observers and crosschecked. The quality of the included trials was assessed independently by two observers (MA, AS) using a validated scale (Jadad 1996). For dichotomous measures, the treatment effect for each trial was calculated using a fixed effect model [Peto model (Petitti 1994)]. The weighted mean differences were based, if available, on end-of-trial results. The analysis was conducted separately for each different intervention. Since the trials could not be pooled it was not possible to carry out a sensitivity analysis by quality scores or a subgroup analysis by drug dosages. Because of this lack of comparability across trials and the small number of trials, we could not conduct a heterogeneity test or a funnel plot. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials and 679 patients were included. The main results were the lack of efficacy of some of the classic treatments for Behcet's syndrome, including colchicine, cyclophosphamide and steroids for eye involvement, azapropazone and colchicine for arthritis and acyclovir, colchicine and topical interpheron for aphthas. The results confirm the protective effects of cyclosporine and azathioprine for eye involvement and benzathine-penicillin for arthritis. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that further randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials should be carried out to compare cyclosporine, azathioprine and benzathine-penicillin versus placebo in order to make the results generalizable and comparable.

Acyclovir↗

PubMed2000

Cyclophosphamide for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term effects of cyclophosphamide for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline and Embase up to and including July 1997. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing oral cyclophosphamide against placebo (or an active drug at a dosage considered to be ineffective) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data abstraction was carried out independently by two reviewers. The same two reviewers using Jadad's scale (Jadad 1995) assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for baseline and end-of-study. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for joint counts. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 70 patients were included in the pooled analysis of two trials, 31 receiving cyclophosphamide. A statistically significant benefit was observed for cyclophosphamide when compared to placebo for tender and swollen joint scores: SMDs were -0.57 and -0.59 respectively. The difference in ESR also favoured the active drug but did not reach statistical significance (-12 mm, 95%CI: -26 to 2.5). One trial reported the number of patients developing new or worse erosions: the OR for cyclophosphamide compared to placebo was 0.17 (95% CI: 0.05 to 0.57). Patients receiving placebo were six times more likely to discontinue treatment because of lack of efficacy than patients receiving cyclophosphamide. Withdrawals from adverse reactions were higher in the cyclophosphamide group (Odds ratio=2.9), although this difference was not statistically significant. Side effects from cyclophosphamide included hemorrhagic cystitis, nausea, vomiting, leucopenia, thrombocytopenia, alopecia, amenorrhea and herpes zoster infections. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Cyclophosphamide appears to have a clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with RA, similar to some disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as antimalarials or sulfasalazine, but lower than methotrexate. Toxicity however is severe, limiting its use given the low benefit-risk ratio compared to other antirheumatic agents.

Antirheumatic Agents↗

PubMed2000

Moderate-term, low-dose corticosteroids for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of low-dose corticosteroid efficacy in the moderate term for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted a search in MEDLINE from 1966 to 1998, using the keywords "corticosteroids" and "rheumatoid arthritis". We also handsearched all issues of Arthritis and Rheumatism and the Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology from their dates of first publication to 1994. Furthermore, we examined all Arthritis and Rheumatism abstracts over the 15 year period preceding 1994. References of all identified studies were searched for relevant trials. Authors of unpublished manuscripts were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were selected by two independent reviewers (LC, KS) using a set of predetermined criteria. Specifically, we required that trials be randomized or cross-over and report at least one of the following outcome measures in a quantitative manner: joint tenderness, joint swelling, grip strength, or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). We also required that trials be of at least three months duration and use prednisone (or a comparable corticosteroid preparation) at a mean dosage of less than or equal to 15 mg/day. We included studies that used either placebo or active drug controls (i.e., comparative studies). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We compared the effectiveness of prednisone to placebo and/or active controls using a fixed effects model for continuous data. A chi square test for homogeneity was performed, and where heterogeneity existed a random effects model was used. We reported results for all available outcomes recommended by the Outcome Measures for Rheumatology Trials (OMERACT) group. These included the number of tender and swollen joints, pain, functional status and ESR. Grip strength was also evaluated. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were used for outcomes assessing the same concept with different scales (eg. swollen joint counts). MAIN RESULTS: Very few studies directly assessed the effectiveness of corticosteroids for RA treatment and many were of poor methodologic quality. Only seven of 34 studies identified by our search met criteria for inclusion. Our results indicated that corticosteroids were significantly more effective than placebo controls for four of six outcomes assessed [standardized mean difference for tender joints = -0.37 (95%CI: -0. 59, -0.14), swollen joints = -0.41 (-0.67, -0.16), pain = -0.43 (-0. 74, -0.12), and functional status = -0.57 (-0.92, -0.22)]. The results for grip strength and ESR were not significant [GS = +0.30 (-0.19, +0.80), weighted mean difference (WMD) for ESR = -7.03 (-18. 06, +4.01)]. The single trial that compared prednisone to aspirin indicated no statistically significant difference between these groups for joint tenderness (0.10 (-0.35, +0.55) and for ESR [0.00 (-11.09, +11.09]. Overall, the four outcomes assessed in the single trial that compared prednisone to chloroquine suggested that the effectiveness of these two agents is similar [SMD for joint tenderness = +0.23 (-0.30, +0.75), swollen joints = +0.43 (-0.11, +0. 96), functional status = -0.27 (-0.80, +0.26), and WMD for ESR = -16. 00 (-30.58, -1.42)]. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited data available, moderate-term prednisone treatment of RA appears to be superior to placebo and comparable to treatment with aspirin or chloroquine in improving several common rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures.

Arthritis, Rheumatoid↗

PubMed2000

Bisphosphonates for steroid induced osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, Medline up to 1997 and Embase1988-1997), and selected hand searching of reference lists was conducted. Hand searching of scientific abstracts from relevant meetings for the last five years was also done. An electronic search in Current Contents was done for the last six months. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) will be searched for future updates. All languages were included in the search. For practical reasons only those in English were included, but all languages will be retrieved and translated for future updates. SELECTION CRITERIA: All controlled clinical trials (CCTs) dealing with prevention or treatment of corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis with bisphosphonates of any type and reporting the outcomes of interest were assessed. Trials had to involve adults only, and subjects had to be taking a mean steroid dose of 7.5 mg/day or more. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Outcomes of interest included change in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine and femoral neck at six and 12 months. If present, data on number of new fractures and withdrawals due to adverse effects were also extracted. All data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Both continuous and dichotomous data were analyzed using fixed effects models. When significant heterogeneity was present, a random effects model was used. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 13 trials, including 842 patients are included in this meta-analysis. Results are reported as a weighted mean difference of the percent change in BMD between the treatment and placebo groups, with trials being weighted by the inverse of their variance. The 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) are presented. At the lumbar spine, the weighted mean difference of BMD between the treatment and placebo groups was 4.3% (95% CI 2.7, 5.9). At the femoral neck, the weighted mean difference was 2.1% (95%CI 0. 01, 3.8). Although there was a 24% reduction in odds of spinal fractures [OR 0.76 (95%CI 0.37, 1.53)], this result was not statistically significant. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Bisphosphonates are effective at preventing and treating corticosteroid-induced bone loss at the lumbar spine and femoral neck. Efficacy regarding fracture prevention cannot be concluded from this analysis, although bone density changes are correlated with fracture risk.

Diphosphonates↗

PubMed2000

Calcitonin for the treatment and prevention of corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis is a cause of morbidity in patients with chronic obstructive lung disease, asthma, and rheumatologic disorders. Corticosteroid treatment causes bone loss by a variety of complex mechanisms. It has been shown that bone mineral loss at the hip averages 14% in the first year after starting corticosteroid therapy. OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy of calcitonin (subcutaneous or nasal) for the treatment and prevention of corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted a search of Medline, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Embase using the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group search strategy for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to May 1998. We also searched bibliographic references and consulted content experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two independent reviewers selected RCTs which met predetermined inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data using predetermined forms and assessed methodological quality of randomization, blinding and dropouts. For dichotomous outcomes, relative risks (RR) were calculated. For continuous data, weighted mean differences (WMD) of the percent change from baseline were calculated. We decided a priori to use random effects models for all outcomes, because of uncertainty about whether a consistent true effect exists in such different populations. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials met the inclusion criteria, including 221 patients randomized to calcitonin and 220 to placebo. The median methodologic quality was two out of a maximum of five points. Calcitonin was more effective than placebo at preserving bone mass at the lumbar spine after six and 12 months of therapy with a WMD of 2.8% (95% CI: 1.4 to 4.3) and 3.2% (95% CI: 0.3 to 6.1). At 24 months, lumbar spine BMD was not statistically different between groups: WMD 4.5% (95% CI: -0.6 to 9.5)]. Bone density at the distal radius was also higher with calcitonin after six months of therapy, but bone density at the femoral neck was not different between placebo and calcitonin treated groups. The relative risk of fractures was not significantly different between calcitonin and placebo with a relative risk (RR) of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.26 to 1.89) for vertebral and 0.52 (95% CI: 0.14 to 1.96) for nonvertebral fractures. The subgroup analyses of methodological quality and duration of corticosteroid therapy were confounded. Trials of patients who had been taking steroids for greater than three months (which were of low methodologic quality) demonstrated a larger effect of calcitonin on spine bone density (about 6%) than prevention trials (about 1%). There was no consistent effect of different dosages (50-100 IU compared to 200-400 IU). However, subcutaneous calcitonin showed substantially greater prevention of bone loss. Withdrawals due to side effects were higher in the calcitonin-treated groups: RR 3.19 (95%CI: 0.66 to 15.47). Important side effects included nausea and facial flushing. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Calcitonin appears to preserve bone mass in the first year of glucocorticoid therapy at the lumbar spine by about 3% compared to placebo, but not at the femoral neck. Our analysis suggests that the protective effect on bone mass may be greater for the treatment of patients who have been taking corticosteroids for more than three months. Efficacy of calcitonin for fracture prevention in steroid-induced osteoporosis remains to be established.

Calcitonin↗

PubMed2000

Low level laser therapy (classes I, II and III) for the treatment of osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) affects a large proportion of the population. Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) is a light source that generates extremely pure light, of a single wavelength. The effect is not thermal, but rather related to photochemical reactions in the cells. LLLT was introduced as an alternative non-invasive treatment for OA about 10 years ago, but its effectiveness is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of LLLT in the treatment of OA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Musculoskeletal registry, the registry of the Rehabilitation and Related Thereapies field and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to January 30, 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: Following an a priori protocol, only controlled clinical trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of OA were eligible. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials and abstracted data using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochran's Q test. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results were analyzed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between treated and control by the baseline variance. SMD were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept (e.g. pain). Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials were included, with 112 patients randomized to laser, 85 patients to placebo laser. Treatment duration ranged from 4 to 10 weeks. Pain was assessed by four trials. The pooled estimate (random effects) of three trials showed no effect on pain measured using a scale (SMD: -0.2, 95% CI: -1.0, +0.6), but there was statistically significant heterogeneity (p>0,05). Two of the trials showed no effect and one demonstrated very beneficial effects with laser. In another trial, with no scale-based pain outcome, significantly more patients reported pain relief (yes/no) with laser with an odds ratio of 0.05, (95% CI: 0.0 to 1.56). Other outcomes of joint tenderness, joint mobility and strength were not significant. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: For OA, the results are conflicting in different studies and may depend on the method of application and other features of the LLLT application. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the LLLT device and the application techniques used. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. Despite some positive findings, this meta-analysis lacked data on how LLLT effectiveness is affected by four important factors: wavelength, treatment duration of LLLT, dosage and site of application over nerves instead of joints. There is clearly a need to investigate the effects of these factors on LLLT effectiveness for OA in randomized controlled clinical trials.

Humans↗

PubMed2000

Auranofin versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Auranofin is an oral gold compound used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis RA. The use of auranofin has declined in the past few years, perhaps due in part to conflicting results from different studies. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term efficacy and toxicity of auranofin for the treatment of (RA) SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to December 1998, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) version 4, 1998, and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Specialized Register. A hand search was also done of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing auranofin against placebo in patients with RA DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of the trials was assessed using a validated assessment tool (Jadad 1996). Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the 6-month endpoint. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for joint counts, pain and global assessments. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used for ESR. Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals and adverse reactions. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. In the presence of heterogeneity, random effects models were used. Otherwise, the data was pooled assuming fixed effects. MAIN RESULTS: A statistically significant benefit was observed for auranofin when compared to placebo for tender joint scores, pain, patient and physician global assessments and ESR. The SMD between treatment and placebo was -0.39 (95% CI -0.54, -0.25) for tender joint scores, -0.08 (95% CI -0.22, -0.07) for swollen joint scores, and the WMD was -4.68 (95% CI -6.59, -2.77) for pain scores and -9.85mm (95% CI -16.46, -3.25) for ESR. Withdrawals from adverse reactions were 1.5 times higher in the auranofin group OR = 1.52 (95% CI 0.94, 2.46) but this result was not statistically significant. Patients receiving placebo were three times more likely to discontinue treatment because of lack of efficacy than patients receiving auranofin: OR=0.31 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.44). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Auranofin appears to have a small clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with RA. The beneficial effects appear to be modest compared to drugs such as methotrexate or parenteral gold. Its effects on long term health status and radiological progression are not clear at this time.

Antirheumatic Agents↗