-
1.
Glucocorticoid Metabolism in Obesity and Following Weight Loss.
Akalestou, E, Genser, L, Rutter, GA
Frontiers in endocrinology. 2020;:59
Abstract
Glucocorticoids are steroid hormones produced by the adrenal cortex and are essential for the maintenance of various metabolic and homeostatic functions. Their function is regulated at the tissue level by 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenases and they signal through the glucocorticoid receptor, a ligand-dependent transcription factor. Clinical observations have linked excess glucocorticoid levels with profound metabolic disturbances of intermediate metabolism resulting in abdominal obesity, insulin resistance and dyslipidaemia. In this review, we discuss the physiological mechanisms of glucocorticoid secretion, regulation and function, and survey the metabolic consequences of excess glucocorticoid action resulting from elevated release and activation or up-regulated signaling. Finally, we summarize the reported impact of weight loss by diet, exercise, or bariatric surgery on circulating and tissue-specific glucocorticoid levels and examine the therapeutic possibility of reversing glucocorticoid-associated metabolic disorders.
-
2.
Technical review on the management of eosinophilic esophagitis: a report from the AGA institute and the joint task force on allergy-immunology practice parameters.
Rank, MA, Sharaf, RN, Furuta, GT, Aceves, SS, Greenhawt, M, Spergel, JM, Falck-Ytter, YT, Dellon, ES, , , , , et al
Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. 2020;(5):424-440.e17
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the esophagus. Many new studies have been reported recently that describe EoE management. An expert panel was convened by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute and the Joint Task Force on Allergy-Immunology Practice Parameters to provide a technical review to be used as the basis for an updated clinical guideline. This technical review was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Eighteen focused EoE management questions were considered, with 15 answered using the GRADE framework and 3 with a narrative summary. There is moderate certainty in the evidence that topical glucocorticosteroids effectively reduce esophageal eosinophil counts to <15 per high-power field over a short-term treatment period of 4-12 weeks, but very low certainty about the effects of using topical glucocorticosteroids as maintenance therapy. Multiple dietary strategies may be effective in reducing esophageal eosinophil counts to <15 per high-power field over a short-term treatment period, with moderate certainty for elemental diets, low certainty for empiric 2-, 4-, and 6-food elimination diets, and very low certainty that allergy-based testing dietary eliminations have a higher failure rate compared to empiric diet elimination. There is very low certainty for the effect of proton pump inhibitors in patients with esophageal eosinophilia. Although esophageal dilation appears to be relatively safe, there is no evidence that it reduces esophageal eosinophil counts. There is very low certainty in the effects of multiple other medical treatments for EoE: anti-interleukin-5 therapy, anti-interleukin-13 therapy, anti-IgE therapy, montelukast, cromolyn, and anti-TNF therapy.
-
3.
Exclusive enteral nutrition versus corticosteroids for treatment of pediatric Crohn's disease: a meta-analysis.
Yu, Y, Chen, KC, Chen, J
World journal of pediatrics : WJP. 2019;(1):26-36
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many studies have examined the effects of exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) in children with Crohn's disease (CD), but corticosteroids are considered a superior therapy and are frequently used in China. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of EEN with corticosteroids in treating pediatric CD. METHODS A comprehensive retrieval from medical databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Wanfang data, VIP and CNKI, was performed using the search terms "diet therapy", "exclusive enteral nutrition", "Crohn's disease", "inflammatory bowel diseases", "child" and "pediatrics" from January 1990 to April 2017. RESULTS We included 18 studies from 1329 identified sources in this meta-analysis. EEN was as effective as corticosteroids in inducing remission rate of children suffering from CD (OR = 1.35; 95% CI 0.90, 2.10; P = 0.14). Nevertheless, patients who received EEN were more likely to achieve both endoscopic mucosal healing (OR = 5.24; 95% CI 2.06, 13.37; P = 0.0005) and histological mucosal healing (OR = 4.78; 95% CI 1.89, 12.08; P = 0.0009) than those who received corticosteroids; the Pediatric Crohn's Disease Activity Index was lower [mean difference (MD) = - 3.67; 95% CI - 4.91, - 2.43] and weight gain was higher (MD = 1.92; 95% CI 0.02, 3.83; P = 0.05) in those patients who received EEN than in those who received corticosteroids. No difference was found in relapse rate (OR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.25, 1.29; P = 0.18), height for age or body mass index between the patients treated with EEN and corticosteroids at the 1-year end point. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis reveals that there is no significant difference between EEN and corticosteroids in the efficacy of inducing remission rate of CD in a pediatric population, but EEN is superior to corticosteroids in improving short-term mucosal inflammation and reducing the PCDAI index.
-
4.
The Role of Steroids in the Management of Diabetic Macular Edema.
Zur, D, Iglicki, M, Loewenstein, A
Ophthalmic research. 2019;(4):231-236
Abstract
Inflammation is substantially contributing to the development and worsening of diabetic retinopathy in general and diabetic macular edema (DME) in particular, which provides the rationale to treat DME with corticosteroids. While anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are mostly chosen as a first-line treatment, there is an important role for steroids in the treatment algorithm for DME. A slow-release bioerodible dexamethasone implant and an extended-release nonbioerodible fluocinolone acetonide insert are both approved for the treatment of DME and provide the advantage of sustained drug delivery and reduced treatment burden. Steroids bare the complications of cataract progression and increase of intraocular pressure (IOP). However, with dexamethasone implant, IOP rise is well manageable with topical treatment in almost all cases. Dexamethasone implant has been shown to be effective in the treatment of naive DME as well as in eyes nonresponding to anti-VEGF agents. In these cases, early switching to steroids may be considered and has been shown to be beneficial. Fluocinolone acetonide is reserved for severe cases of chronic DME insufficiently responsive to other available therapies. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to realize the role of steroids in the current treatment algorithm of DME.
-
5.
Treatment of Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis with Bisphosphonates Alone, Vitamin D Alone or a Combination Treatment in Eastern Asians: A Meta-Analysis.
Wang, J, Li, H
Current pharmaceutical design. 2019;(14):1653-1662
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Glucocorticoid (GC)-induced osteoporosis and fractures have become a serious problem for Eastern Asians. Bisphosphonates (BPs), vitamin D and a combination treatment are effective methods to prevent and treat GC-induced osteoporosis. OBJECTIVE The study aimed to compare the efficacy of BPs, vitamin D and a combination treatment for preventing and managing GC-induced osteoporosis in Eastern Asians. METHODS A comprehensive search in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL databases was undertaken for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect of BPs, vitamin D and the combination treatment on GCs-induced osteoporosis in Eastern Asian populations. Primary outcome measures were the change in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers. The final search was performed in March 2019. RESULTS Nine RCTs were included. A total of 545 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with vitamin D, BPs and the combination treatment significantly alleviated osteoporosis of the spine and femoral neck in Eastern Asians with GC-induced osteoporosis. At the same time, the change in serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BAP) and serum C-telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) levels was observed to be significantly less with BPs and the combination treatment with vitamin D alone. No significant difference was found between BPs and the combination treatment in the markers mentioned above. CONCLUSION Compared with vitamin D alone, BPs alone and the combination treatment were significantly effective on Eastern Asians with GC-induced osteoporosis. Compared with the combination treatment, BPs alone were observed to be effective enough to increase the BMDs of the spine and femoral neck on both sides and thus prevent GC-induced osteoporosis in Eastern Asians.
-
6.
Controversial roles for dexamethasone in glioblastoma - Opportunities for novel vascular targeting therapies.
Dubinski, D, Hattingen, E, Senft, C, Seifert, V, Peters, KG, Reiss, Y, Devraj, K, Plate, KH
Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. 2019;(8):1460-1468
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Glioblastoma is a highly aggressive and treatment resistant primary brain tumor. Features of glioblastoma include peritumoral cerebral edema, the major contributor to neurological impairment. Although the current clinical approach to edema management is administration of the synthetic corticoid dexamethasone, increasing evidence indicates numerous adverse effects of dexamethasone on glioblastoma burden at the molecular, cellular and clinical level. The contradictions of dexamethasone for glioblastoma and brain metastasis therapy are discussed in this article. Finally, alternative strategies for cerebrovascular edema therapy with vascular stabilizing, anti-permeability agents that are either approved or in clinical trials for diabetic retinopathy and macula edema, are addressed.
-
7.
Pharmacology of Corticosteroids for Diabetic Macular Edema.
Whitcup, SM, Cidlowski, JA, Csaky, KG, Ambati, J
Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2018;(1):1-12
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE Corticosteroids remain the mainstay of treatment for inflammatory diseases almost 80 years after their first clinical use. Topical ophthalmic formulations of corticosteroids have been available to treat disease of the anterior segment of the eye, but the approval of corticosteroids to treat vitreoretinal diseases, including vein occlusion, diabetic macular edema, and uveitis, has occurred only recently. Although most diseases respond to corticosteroid therapy, some patients are resistant to this therapy and side effects, including cataract and elevated intraocular pressure, can limit their use. The purpose of this review is to detail the basic science of corticosteroids focusing on differences in potency, drug delivery, pharmacokinetics, and gene activation, and how these differences affect safety and efficacy in the treatment of diabetic macular edema. METHODS A review was conducted of basic science and pharmacology of the corticosteroids used to treat diabetic macular edema. RESULTS Clinically available corticosteroids not only have differing potency and pharmacokinetics, but also activate different genes in different target tissues. These differences are associated with distinct efficacy, pharmacokinetic, and safety profiles. It is important to understand these differences in selecting corticosteroids to treat diabetic macular edema. CONCLUSIONS Recent advances in our understanding of the basic science of corticosteroids can explain clinical differences in these agents regarding efficacy and safety. Importantly, this understanding should allow the future discovery of additional novel corticosteroids to treat diabetic macular edema.
-
8.
Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema.
Mehta, H, Hennings, C, Gillies, MC, Nguyen, V, Campain, A, Fraser-Bell, S
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;(4):CD011599
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The combination of steroid and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal therapeutic agents could potentially have synergistic effects for treating diabetic macular oedema (DMO). On the one hand, if combined treatment is more effective than monotherapy, there would be significant implications for improving patient outcomes. Conversely, if there is no added benefit of combination therapy, then people could be potentially exposed to unnecessary local or systemic side effects. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of intravitreal agents that block vascular endothelial growth factor activity (anti-VEGF agents) plus intravitreal steroids versus monotherapy with macular laser, intravitreal steroids or intravitreal anti-VEGF agents for managing DMO. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 21 February 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of intravitreal anti-VEGF combined with intravitreal steroids versus intravitreal anti-VEGF alone, intravitreal steroids alone or macular laser alone for managing DMO. We included people with DMO of all ages and both sexes. We also included trials where both eyes from one participant received different treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.Two authors independently reviewed all the titles and abstracts identified from the electronic and manual searches against the inclusion criteria. Our primary outcome was change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between baseline and one year. Secondary outcomes included change in central macular thickness (CMT), economic data and quality of life. We considered adverse effects including intraocular inflammation, raised intraocular pressure (IOP) and development of cataract. MAIN RESULTS There were eight RCTs (703 participants, 817 eyes) that met our inclusion criteria with only three studies reporting outcomes at one year. The studies took place in Iran (3), USA (2), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1) and South Korea (1). Seven studies used the unlicensed anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab and one study used licensed ranibizumab. The study that used licensed ranibizumab had a unique design compared with the other studies in that included eyes had persisting DMO after anti-VEGF monotherapy and received three monthly doses of ranibizumab prior to allocation. The anti-VEGF agent was combined with intravitreal triamcinolone in six studies and with an intravitreal dexamethasone implant in two studies. The comparator group was anti-VEGF alone in all studies; two studies had an additional steroid monotherapy arm, another study had an additional macular laser photocoagulation arm. Whilst we judged these studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains, at least one domain was at unclear risk in all studies.When comparing anti-VEGF/steroid with anti-VEGF monotherapy as primary therapy for DMO, we found no meaningful clinical difference in change in BCVA (mean difference (MD) -2.29 visual acuity (VA) letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.03 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD 0.20 μm, 95% CI -37.14 to 37.53; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) at one year. There was very low-certainty evidence on intraocular inflammation from 8 studies, with one event in the anti-VEGF/steroid group (313 eyes) and two events in the anti-VEGF group (322 eyes). There was a greater risk of raised IOP (Peto odds ratio (OR) 8.13, 95% CI 4.67 to 14.16; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and development of cataract (Peto OR 7.49, 95% CI 2.87 to 19.60; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) in eyes receiving anti-VEGF/steroid compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy. There was low-certainty evidence from one study of an increased risk of systemic adverse events in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the anti-VEGF alone group (Peto OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.86; 103 eyes).One study compared anti-VEGF/steroid versus macular laser therapy. At one year investigators did not report a meaningful difference between the groups in change in BCVA (MD 4.00 VA letters 95% CI -2.70 to 10.70; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD -16.00 μm, 95% CI -68.93 to 36.93; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence suggesting an increased risk of cataract in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 4.58, 95% 0.99 to 21.10, 100 eyes) and an increased risk of elevated IOP in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 9.49, 95% CI 2.86 to 31.51; 100 eyes).One study provided very low-certainty evidence comparing anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid monotherapy at one year. There was no evidence of a meaningful difference in BCVA between treatments at one year (MD 0 VA letters, 95% CI -6.1 to 6.1, low-certainty evidence). Likewise, there was no meaningful difference in the mean CMT at one year (MD - 9 μm, 95% CI -39.87μm to 21.87μm between the anti-VEGF/steroid group and the steroid group. There was very low-certainty evidence on raised IOP at one year comparing the anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid groups (Peto OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.55).No included study reported impact of treatment on patients' quality of life or economic data. None of the studies reported any cases of endophthalmitis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Combination of intravitreal anti-VEGF plus intravitreal steroids does not appear to offer additional visual benefit compared with monotherapy for DMO; at present the evidence for this is of low-certainty. There was an increased rate of cataract development and raised intraocular pressure in eyes treated with anti-VEGF plus steroid versus anti-VEGF alone. Patients were exposed to potential side effects of both these agents without reported additional benefit. The majority of the evidence comes from studies of bevacizumab and triamcinolone used as primary therapy for DMO. There is limited evidence from studies using licensed intravitreal anti-VEGF agents plus licensed intravitreal steroid implants with at least one year follow-up. It is not known whether treatment response is different in eyes that are phakic and pseudophakic at baseline.
-
9.
Pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis: updates for the primary care setting.
Ruffner, MA, Spergel, JM
Current opinion in pediatrics. 2018;(6):829-836
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a multifactorial, non-IgE-mediated inflammatory disorder of the esophagus and is the most common cause of food impaction in the pediatric population. The purpose of this review is to describe the current recommendations for diagnosis and management of EoE. RECENT FINDINGS New data has associated EoE with other allergic disorders of the atopic march as well as several risk factors, which predispose to allergic conditions. A subset of patients with esophageal eosinophilia respond to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy with a partial or complete resolution of esophageal eosinophilia. Therefore, some patients can be treated with PPI alone. If this is unsuccessful, dietary elimination and swallowed steroid therapy are recommended for long-term management. There is a growing appreciation that untreated esophageal inflammation can lead to complications of fibrosis and stricture formation. SUMMARY The current review will focus on the diagnosis and management of EoE in the pediatric population. Identification and diagnosis of pediatric patients with EoE is critical to prevent long-term esophageal complications.
-
10.
Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: an update.
Compston, J
Endocrine. 2018;(1):7-16
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis is the most common secondary cause of osteoporosis and the resulting fractures cause significant morbidity. Following initiation of oral glucocorticoids, rapid bone loss occurs, and fracture risk increases within a few months in a dose-dependent manner. These adverse effects are due to inhibition of bone formation accompanied by an early but transient increase in bone resorption. Multiple mechanisms underlie these changes in bone remodeling; direct effects include upregulation of PPARγR2, increased expression of sclerostin and increased RANKL/OPG ratio, whilst hypogonadism, altered renal and intestinal calcium handling, and reduced production of insulin-like growth factor 1 also contribute. Fracture risk assessment should be performed as soon as possible after glucocorticoids are initiated and bone protective therapy started promptly in individuals at high-risk, with calcium and vitamin D supplements where appropriate. Oral bisphosphonates are currently regarded as first line options on the grounds of their low cost. However, teriparatide has been shown to be superior in its effects on BMD and vertebral fracture risk in glucocorticoid-treated individuals with osteoporosis and should be considered as an alternative first line option in high-risk patients.