Adverse cognitive effects of glucocorticoids: A systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: Glucocorticoids as a drug class are widely used in the treatment of many conditions including more recently as one of the mainstay treatments for the SARS-CoV-2 infection. The physiological adverse effects are well described. However, less is known and understood about the potentially deleterious neuro-cognitive effects of this class of medication. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of the literature using two separate search strategies. The first focussed on the rates of reporting of adverse cognitive effects of glucocorticoid use in randomised controlled trials. The second looked at those studies focussing directly on adverse cognitive effects associated with the use of glucocorticoids. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library was searched for randomised controlled trials utilising glucocorticoids as a part of a treatment regimen. Additionally, these databases were also used to search for articles looking directly at the adverse cognitive effects of glucocorticoids. RESULTS: Of the forty-three RCTs included as a part of the first search strategy, only one (2.3%) included specific documentation pertaining to cognitive side effects. As a part of the twenty studies included in the second search strategy, eleven of the included studies (55%) were able to demonstrate a correlation between glucocorticoid use and decreased cognition. Most studies within this strategy showed that GCs predominately affected hippocampus-dependent functions such as memory, while sparing executive function and attention. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the data reporting of adverse clinical effects of glucocorticoid use is poor in recent RCTs. Given the demonstrable effect on predominately hippocampal-dependent cognitive functions evident within the literature, more thorough documentation is needed within clinical research to fully appreciate the potentially widespread nature of these effects.

Long-term survival and postoperative complications of pre-liver transplantation transarterial chemoembolisation in hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this meta-analysis was to conduct a contemporary systematic review of high quality non-randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of pre-liver transplantation (LT) transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) on long-term survival and complications of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. BACKGROUND: TACE is used as a neoadjuvant therapy to mitigate waitlist drop-out for patients with HCC awaiting LT. Previous studies have conflicting conclusions on the effect of TACE on long-term survival and complications of HCC patients undergoing LT. METHODS: CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Baseline characteristics included number of patients outside Milan criteria, tumour diameter, MELD score, and time on the waiting list. Primary outcomes included 3- and 5-year overall and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included tumour recurrence, 30-day postoperative mortality, and hepatic artery and biliary complications. RESULTS: Twenty-one high-quality NRCTs representing 8242 patients were included. Tumour diameter was significantly larger in TACE patients (3.49 cm vs 3.15 cm, P = 0.02) and time on the waiting list was significantly longer in TACE patients (4.87 months vs 3.46 months, P = 0.05), while MELD score was significantly higher in non-TACE patients (10.81 vs 12.35, P = 0.005). All primary and secondary outcomes displayed non-significant differences. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with TACE had similar survival and postoperative outcomes to non-TACE patients, however, they had worse prognostic features compared to non-TACE patients. These findings strongly support the current US and European clinical practice guidelines that neoadjuvant TACE can be used for patients with longer expected waiting list times (specifically >6 months). Randomised controlled trials would be needed to increase the quality of evidence.

Surgical outcomes of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of high quality prospective and randomised controlled trials.

Self-expanding metallic stent placement as a bridge to surgery has been reported as an alternative to emergency surgery for acute malignant colorectal obstruction. However, results from clinical trials and previous meta-analyses are conflicting. We carried out a meta-analysis to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes between emergency surgery and self-expanding metallic stents for malignant large bowel obstruction. Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched for prospective and randomised controlled trials. The outcomes of focus included 3- and 5-year overall and disease-free survival, overall tumour recurrence, overall complication and 30-day mortality rate, length of hospital and ICU stay, overall blood loss, number of patients requiring transfusion, total number of lymph nodes harvested, stoma and primary anastomosis rate. Twenty-seven studies were included with a total of 3894 patients. There was no significant difference in terms of 3-year and 5-year disease-free and overall survival. Stenting resulted in less blood loss (mean difference -234.72, P < 0.00001) and higher primary anastomosis rate (RR 1.25, P < 0.00001). For curative cases, bridge to surgery groups had lower 30-day mortality rate (RR 0.65, P = 0.01), lower overall complication rate (RR 0.65, P < 0.0001), more lymph nodes harvested (mean difference 2.51, P = 0.005), shorter ICU stay (mean difference -2.27, P = 0.02) and hospital stay (mean difference -7.24, 95% P < 0.0001). Compared to emergency surgery, self-expanding metallic stent interventions improve short-term surgical outcomes, especially in the curative setting, but have similar long-term oncological and survival outcomes.