دورية أكاديمية

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: systematic review and meta-analyses

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: systematic review and meta-analyses
المؤلفون: Camila Q. Felipe, Ana Luiza Biancardi, Vinicius T. Civile, Nelson Carvas Junior, Pedro D. Serracarbassa, Marcia K. Koike
المصدر: International Journal of Retina and Vitreous, Vol 8, Iss 1, Pp 1-19 (2022)
بيانات النشر: BMC, 2022.
سنة النشر: 2022
المجموعة: LCC:Ophthalmology
مصطلحات موضوعية: Central Serous Chorioretinopathy, Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists, Eplerenone, Spironolactone, Ophthalmology, RE1-994
الوصف: Abstract Background Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are widely used for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (cCSCR), but their effectiveness remains unclear. This research was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of this drugs for cCSCR. Methods This is a review of randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing MRAs to placebo in adults with cCSCR, using the effects of MRAs on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and adverse events as primary outcomes and the effects of MRAs on anatomical parameters as secondary outcomes: central subfield thickness (CST), subretinal fluid height (SFH) and central choroidal thickness (CCT). Our all-language online search included Medline (via PubMed), Central, Embase, Lilacs, Ibecs, and RCT registers platforms, as late as May 2021. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 2) to assess the methodological quality of each study and synthesized the results in meta-analyses using a random-effects model. Results The search identified 302 records, five of which were eligible, totaling 225 cCSCR patients (aged 45–62 years; M/F ratio 3.1:1) treated for 1 to 12 months with spironolactone (50 mg/day) or eplerenone (50 mg/day) vs. placebo. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests MRAs result in little to no improvement in BCVA compared to placebo (SMD 0.22; 95% CI − 0.04 to 0.48; studies = 5; comparisons = 6; participants = 218; I2 = 0%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that, when compared to placebo, MRAs have a very uncertain impact on adverse effects (no meta-analysis was performed), and CST (MD 18.1; 95% CI − 113.04 to 76.84; participants = 145; studies = 2; I2 = 68%). MRAs also result in little to no difference in SFH (SMD − 0.35; 95% CI − 0.95 to 0.26; studies = 5; comparisons = 6; participants = 221; I2 = 76%; moderate certainty) and CCT (MD − 21.23; 95% CI − 64.69 to 22.24; participants = 206; studies = 4; comparisons = 5; I2 = 85%; low certainty). Conclusion MRAs have little to no effect on BCVA. Evidence for adverse events and CST is very uncertain. MRAs also have little to no effect on SFH and CCT. These findings should be considered when prescribing MRAs for cCSCR. This research was previous registration in the PROSPERO platform (CRD42020182601).
نوع الوثيقة: article
وصف الملف: electronic resource
اللغة: English
تدمد: 2056-9920
Relation: https://doaj.org/toc/2056-9920
DOI: 10.1186/s40942-022-00385-1
URL الوصول: https://doaj.org/article/a234243e6ec540b5af4f15f8c8687265
رقم الأكسشن: edsdoj.234243e6ec540b5af4f15f8c8687265
قاعدة البيانات: Directory of Open Access Journals
الوصف
تدمد:20569920
DOI:10.1186/s40942-022-00385-1