4.2 Review

Effectiveness of medical treatment for Cushing's syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

PITUITARY
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 631-641

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11102-018-0897-z

关键词

Cushing's syndrome; Cushing's disease; Medical treatment; Effectiveness; Side effects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo systematically review the effectiveness of medical treatment for Cushing's syndrome in clinical practice, regarding cortisol secretion, clinical symptom improvement, and quality of life. To assess the occurrence of side effects of these medical therapies.MethodsEight electronic databases were searched in March 2017 to identify potentially relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies assessing the effectiveness of medical treatment in patients with Cushing's syndrome, were eligible. Pooled proportions were reported including 95% confidence intervals.ResultsWe included 35 articles with in total 1520 patients in this meta-analysis. Most included patients had Cushing's disease. Pooled reported percentage of patients with normalization of cortisol ranged from 35.7% for cabergoline to 81.8% for mitotane in Cushing's disease. Patients using medication monotherapy showed a lower percentage of cortisol normalization compared to use of multiple medical agents (49.4 vs. 65.7%); this was even higher for patients with concurrent or previous radiotherapy (83.6%). Mild side effects were reported in 39.9%, and severe side effects were seen in 15.2% of patients after medical treatment. No meta-analyses were performed for clinical symptom improvement or quality of life due to lack of sufficient data.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis shows that medication induces cortisol normalization effectively in a large percentage of patients. Medical treatment for Cushing's disease patients is thus a reasonable option in case of a contraindication for surgery, a recurrence, or in patients choosing not to have surgery. When experiencing side effects or no treatment effect, an alternate medical therapy or combination therapy can be considered.

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

4.2
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