Li-Quan Zhao1, Dan-Yang Yu2, Jin-Wei Cheng3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Hospital, Shanghai 201200, China. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, 920th Hospital of Jiont Logistics Support Force, Kunming 6500032, Yunnan Province, China. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200080, China.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the benefit and harms of high-dose intravenous glucocorticoids (IVGC) as first-line treatment for Graves' ophthalmopathy (GO). METHODS: A systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing IVGC for the treatment of GO, with placebo or other treatments, were conducted. Electronic databases were searched, and standard methodological guidance of Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used. The primary outcome was overall response, and secondary outcomes included the improvement and change in clinical activity score (CAS), and adverse events. RESULTS: Ten RCTs were included in the Meta-analysis. Low quality evidence (one trial) showed that participants receiving IVGC achieved significantly higher response compared to participants receiving placebo [risk ratio (RR) 7.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 49.26]. Moderate quality evidence (four trials) support appreciable benefit of IVGC in response compared with oral glucocorticoids (OGC), with of RR being 1.51 (95%CI 1.25 to 1.83). There was low quality evidence (one trial) compatible with appreciable benefit for IVGC plus orbital radiotherapy in response (RR 1.38, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.79), compared with OGC plus orbital radiotherapy. One IVGC versus rituximab trial provided moderate quality evidence suggesting that participants using IVGC achieved significantly lower response compared to participants using rituximab (RR 0.70, 95%CI 0.50 to 0.98). One IVGC versus mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) trial provided moderate quality evidence suggesting that participants using IVGC achieved significantly lower response compared to participants using MMF (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.63 to 0.88). Very low quality evidence (one trial) showed that participants with dysthyroid optic neuropathy (DON) receiving IVGC were more likely to achieve response compared to participants receiving orbital decompression (RR 3.33, 95%CI 0.51 to 21.89). CONCLUSION: The current evidence is moderate quality, which is sufficient to support IVGC to be as the first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe GO, and the use of rituximab or MMF to be the second-line treatment instead of IVGC. However, the evidence is very low quality, which is insufficient to support the use of IVGC or orbital decompression as the first-line treatment of DON.
AIM: To evaluate the benefit and harms of high-dose intravenous glucocorticoids (IVGC) as first-line treatment for Graves' ophthalmopathy (GO). METHODS: A systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing IVGC for the treatment of GO, with placebo or other treatments, were conducted. Electronic databases were searched, and standard methodological guidance of Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used. The primary outcome was overall response, and secondary outcomes included the improvement and change in clinical activity score (CAS), and adverse events. RESULTS: Ten RCTs were included in the Meta-analysis. Low quality evidence (one trial) showed that participants receiving IVGC achieved significantly higher response compared to participants receiving placebo [risk ratio (RR) 7.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 49.26]. Moderate quality evidence (four trials) support appreciable benefit of IVGC in response compared with oral glucocorticoids (OGC), with of RR being 1.51 (95%CI 1.25 to 1.83). There was low quality evidence (one trial) compatible with appreciable benefit for IVGC plus orbital radiotherapy in response (RR 1.38, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.79), compared with OGC plus orbital radiotherapy. One IVGC versus rituximab trial provided moderate quality evidence suggesting that participants using IVGC achieved significantly lower response compared to participants using rituximab (RR 0.70, 95%CI 0.50 to 0.98). One IVGC versus mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) trial provided moderate quality evidence suggesting that participants using IVGC achieved significantly lower response compared to participants using MMF (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.63 to 0.88). Very low quality evidence (one trial) showed that participants with dysthyroid optic neuropathy (DON) receiving IVGC were more likely to achieve response compared to participants receiving orbital decompression (RR 3.33, 95%CI 0.51 to 21.89). CONCLUSION: The current evidence is moderate quality, which is sufficient to support IVGC to be as the first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe GO, and the use of rituximab or MMF to be the second-line treatment instead of IVGC. However, the evidence is very low quality, which is insufficient to support the use of IVGC or orbital decompression as the first-line treatment of DON.
Authors: Mohammad Taher Rajabi; Seyed Mohsen Rafizadeh; Abbas Mohammadi; Bahram Eshraghi; Nader Mohammadi; Seyedeh Simindokht Hosseini; Mohammad Bagher Rajabi; Mohammad Mohsen Keshmirshekan; Mansoor Shahriari; Seyedeh Zahra Poursayed Lazarjani; Mohammad Mehdi Parandin Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-02-11