↓ Skip to main content

Corticosteroids for treating nerve damage in leprosy

Overview of attention for article published in this source, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Corticosteroids for treating nerve damage in leprosy
Published by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005491.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Van Veen, Natasja HJ, Nicholls, Peter G, Smith, W Cairns S, Richardus, Jan Hendrik

Abstract

Leprosy causes nerve damage that can result in nerve function impairment and disability. Corticosteroids are commonly used for treating nerve damage, although their long-term effect is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2007, and previously updated in 2009 and 2011. To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nerve damage in leprosy. On 16 June 2015, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, and LILACS. We also checked clinical trials registers and contacted trial authors. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of corticosteroids for nerve damage in leprosy. The comparators were no treatment, placebo treatment, or a different corticosteroid regimen. The primary outcome was improvement in nerve function after one year. Secondary outcomes were change in nerve pain, limitations in activities of daily living, limitations in participation, and adverse events. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. When data were lacking, we contacted trial authors for additional information. We included five RCTs involving 576 people. The trials were largely at low risk of bias, but we considered the quality of the evidence from these trials as moderate to low, largely due to imprecision from small sample sizes. Two out of the five trials reported on improvement in nerve function at one year. These two trials compared prednisolone with placebo. One trial, with 84 participants, treated mild sensory impairment of less than six months' duration, and the other, with 95 participants, treated nerve function impairment of 6 to 24 months' duration. There was no significant difference in nerve function improvement after 12 months between people treated with prednisolone and those treated with placebo. Adverse events were not reported significantly more often with corticosteroids than with placebo. The other three trials did not report on the primary outcome measure. One (334 participants) compared three corticosteroid regimens for severe type 1 reactions. No serious side effects of steroids were reported in any participant during the follow-up period. Another trial (21 participants) compared low-dose prednisone with high-dose prednisone for ulnar neuropathy. Two participants on the higher dose of prednisone reported adverse effects. The last (42 participants) compared intravenous methylprednisolone and oral prednisolone with intravenous normal saline and oral prednisolone. The trial found no significant differences between the groups in the occurrence of adverse events. Corticosteroids are used for treating acute nerve damage in leprosy, but moderate-quality evidence from two RCTs treating either longstanding or mild nerve function impairment did not show corticosteroids to have a superior effect to placebo on nerve function improvement. A third trial showed significant benefit from a five-month steroid regimen over a three-month regimen in terms of response to treatment (need for additional corticosteroids). Further RCTs are needed to establish optimal corticosteroid regimens and to examine the efficacy and safety of adjuvant or new therapies for treating nerve damage in leprosy. Future trials should address non-clinical aspects, such as costs and impact on quality of life, which are highly relevant indicators for both policymakers and participants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 21%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 12 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 17 17%