4.7 Review

Corticosteroids for Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Children: A Meta-analysis

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 146, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2020-0874

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CONTEXT: Treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is focused on dietary, pharmacologic, and endoscopic therapy options. Within the pharmacologic alternatives, topical corticosteroids are the most used, and a large number of studies evaluating their effectiveness have been published, requiring a new summary of evidence. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the histologic and clinical effectiveness of the use of corticosteroids in pediatric patients with a diagnosis of EoE. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and (June 2019). STUDY SELECTION: We selected randomized controlled trials assessing corticosteroids versus a placebo or dietary treatment of EoE in children. DATA EXTRACTION: Methodologic quality of evidence was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. The primary outcomes were clinical and histologic improvement. RESULTS: A total of 1655 studies were identified. Five studies were included (206 patients). Histologic response was 49.25% in the corticosteroids group and 4.16% in the placebo group (risk ratio 11.05 [confidence interval 3.8-32.15]; P < .0001). Symptomatic response was 33.6% in the corticosteroids group and 21.8% in the control group (risk ratio 1.62 [confidence interval 0.94-2.79]; P = .08). There were no major adverse effects. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity of the diagnosis of EoE. CONCLUSIONS: Our review revealed favorable results of corticosteroids versus placebo, mainly in histologic response. More studies are needed, by using validated clinical scores, to obtain more reliable results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据