The clinical management of hepatic sarcoidosis: A systematic review.

Background: Hepatic sarcoidosis is an uncommon clinical condition in which clear recommendations are lacking in its treatment. We aimed to review systematically the literature on hepatic sarcoidosis treatment to guide clinicians. Methods: Using MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases, we searched original articles on clinical studies reporting the outcome of adult hepatic sarcoidosis patients following treatment with various pharmacological agents. The primary end point was focused on assessing symptomatic relief and biochemical improvement posttreatment. Results: Out of 614 retrieved references, 34 published studies were eligible, providing data for a total of 268 patients with hepatic sarcoidosis. First-line therapy with corticosteroids alone was reported in 187 patients, whilst ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) was used in 40 patients. Symptomatic and biochemical responses were reported among 113(60.4%) and 80(42.8%) cases of corticosteroids respectively, whereas UDCA showed a complete response in 23(57.5%) patients. Second-line therapy was used in steroid-refractory cases, with most cases being reported for azathioprine (n = 32) and methotrexate (n = 28). Notably, 15(46.9%) and 11(39.2%) patients showed both clinical and biochemical responses respectively. Biological therapy including anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) was used as third line therapy in twelve cases with a 72.7% symptomatic and biochemical response rate each. Conclusion: The quality of evidence for the treatment of hepatic sarcoidosis was poor. Nevertheless, it appears that corticosteroid or UDCA may be utilized as first-line therapy. For cases that are refractory to corticosteroids, steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents and anti-TNF have shown some promising results, but further high-quality studies are required.

Effectiveness of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation: systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite proven effectiveness for people with chronic respiratory diseases, practical barriers to attending centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (centre-PR) limit accessibility. We aimed to review the clinical effectiveness, components and completion rates of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (home-PR) compared to centre-PR or usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using Cochrane methodology, we searched (January 1990 to August 2021) six electronic databases using a PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study type) search strategy, assessed Cochrane risk of bias, performed meta-analysis and narrative synthesis to answer our objectives and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework to rate certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 16 studies (1800 COPD patients; 11 countries). The effects of home-PR on exercise capacity and/or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were compared to either centre-PR (n=7) or usual care (n=8); one study used both comparators. Compared to usual care, home-PR significantly improved exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.88, 95% CI 0.32-1.44; p=0.002) and HRQoL (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.88--0.36; p<0.001). Compared to centre-PR, home-PR showed no significant difference in exercise capacity (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.25-0.05; p=0.21) or HRQoL (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.15-0.17; p=0.87). CONCLUSION: Home-PR is as effective as centre-PR in improving functional exercise capacity and quality of life compared to usual care, and is an option to enable access to pulmonary rehabilitation.

Clinical effectiveness and components of Home-pulmonary rehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory diseases: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) are common and disabling conditions that can result in social isolation and economic hardship for patients and their families. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) but practical barriers to attending centre-based sessions or the need for infection control limits accessibility. Home-PR offers a potential solution that may improve access. We aim to systematically review the clinical effectiveness, completion rates and components of Home-PR for people with CRDs compared with Centre-PR or Usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PeDRO and PsycInfo from January 1990 to date using a PICOS search strategy (Population: adults with CRDs; Intervention: Home-PR; Comparator: Centre-PR/Usual care; Outcomes: functional exercise capacity and HRQoL; Setting: any setting). The strategy is to search for 'Chronic Respiratory Disease' AND 'Pulmonary Rehabilitation' AND 'Home-PR', and identify relevant randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials. Six reviewers working in pairs will independently screen articles for eligibility and extract data from those fulfilling the inclusion criteria. We will use the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of evidence. We will perform meta-analysis or narrative synthesis as appropriate to answer our three research questions: (1) what is the effectiveness of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR or Usual care? (2) what components are used in effective Home-PR studies? and (3) what is the completion rate of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR? ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required since the study will review only published data. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation in conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020220137.