Furosemide and albumin for the treatment of nephrotic edema: a systematic review
Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany). 2022
BACKGROUND Edema is one of the cardinal clinical features of nephrotic syndrome (NS). It may vary from mild periorbital edema to severe generalized edema (anasarca). In patients where edema does not improve with prednisone therapy, the most common supportive medications are diuretics and albumin. However, due to the complex pathophysiology of edema formation in NS patients resulting in intravascular normovolemia or hypovolemia, optimal therapy for edema is still debated. We conducted a systematic review with the objective of evaluating the change in urine volume and urine sodium excretion after treatment with furosemide only versus furosemide with albumin in edematous patients with NS. OBJECTIVES (1) To evaluate efficacy of furosemide alone versus furosemide with albumin in the treatment of nephrotic edema in adults and children. (2) To compare the harms and benefits of different doses of furosemide for treating nephrotic edema. SEARCH METHODS The search included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in English and French using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL Trials Registry of the Cochrane Collaboration using the Ovid interface. ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all RCTs and randomized cross-over studies in which furosemide and furosemide plus albumin are used in the treatment of children or adults with nephrotic edema. We excluded patients with hypoalbuminemia of non-renal origin and severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) with a glomerular filtration rate below 30 ml/min/1.74 m(2) and patients with congenital NS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS All abstracts were independently assessed by at least two authors to determine which studies met the inclusion criteria. Information on study design, methodology, and outcome data (urine volume, urine sodium excretion, adverse effects) from each identified study was entered into a separate data sheet. The differences in outcomes between the types of therapy were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS The search yielded 525 records, and after screening, five studies were included in the systematic review and four of those studies in the meta-analysis. One study had high risk of bias and the remaining three studies were deemed to have some concerns. Urine excretion was greater after treatment with furosemide and albumin versus furosemide (SMD 0.85, 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.38). Results for sodium excretion were inconclusive (SMD 0.37, 95%CI = - 0.28 to 1.02). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The current evidence is not sufficient to make definitive conclusions about the role of albumin in treating nephrotic edema. High-quality randomized studies with adequate samples sizes are needed. Including an assessment of intravascular volume status may be helpful. TRIAL REGISTRATION Prospero: CRD4201808979. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.
Pharmacologic interventions for Kawasaki disease in children: A network meta-analysis of 56 randomized controlled trials
BACKGROUND Although the current consensus recommends a standard treatment of high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin with high-dose aspirin to manage Kawasaki disease (KD), the use of different adjunctive therapies remains controversial. The aim of the current network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of different existing interventions for the initial and refractory stages of KD. METHODS An NMA of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using the frequentist model applied after electronic searches in PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalKey, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science. The main outcomes were reduced fever duration/diminished severity of fever subsided. The initial stage of KD was defined as the first stage to treat patients with KD; the refractory stage of KD represents KD patients who failed to respond to standard KD treatment. The cut-off points for intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) were low (100-400 mg), medium (1 g), and high (at least 2 g). FINDINGS A total of fifty-six RCTs with 6486 participants were included. NMA demonstrated that the medium-dosage IVIG + aspirin + infliximab [mean difference=-1.76 days (95% confidence intervals (95% CIs): -3.65 to 0.13 days) compared to high-dosage IVIG + aspirin] exhibited the shortest fever duration; likewise, the medium-dosage IVIG + aspirin + infliximab [odds ratio (OR)=0.50, 95% CIs: 0.18-1.37 compared to high-dosage IVIG + aspirin] exhibited the smallest incidence of coronary artery lesion (CAL) in the initial-stage KD. In the refractory-stage KD, the high-dosage IVIG + pulse steroid therapy (OR=0.04, 95% CIs: 0.00-0.43 compared to the high-dosage IVIG only) had the best rate of decline of fever; likewise, the high-dosage IVIG + ciclosporin [OR=0.05 (95% CIs: 0.00-1.21) compared to the high-dosage IVIG only] exhibited the smallest incidence of CAL. Infliximab significantly improved resolution compared to the high-dosage IVIG only group (OR=0.20, 95%CIs: 0.07-0.62) in refractory-stage KD. INTERPRETATION The NMA demonstrated that the combination therapy with the standard therapy of IVIG and aspirin might have an additional effect on shortening the duration of fever and lowering the CAL incidence rate in patients with acute KD. Moreover, the combination therapy with high-dose IVIG and pulse steroid therapy or cyclosporine therapy might have an additional effect on improving the rate of decline of fever and lowering the incidence rate of CAL in children with refractory KD. Because some of the findings of this NMA should be considered hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory, further evidence from de novo randomised trials is needed to support our results. FUNDING None.
Effectiveness and tolerability of different therapies in preventive treatment of MOG-IgG-associated disorder: A network meta-analysis
Frontiers in immunology. 2022;13:953993
BACKGROUND Immunotherapy has been shown to reduce relapses in patients with myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disorder (MOG-AD); however, the superiority of specific treatments remains unclear. AIM: To identify the efficacy and tolerability of different treatments for MOG-AD. METHODS Systematic search in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 1, 2021, were performed. Published articles including patients with MOG-AD and reporting the efficacy or tolerability of two or more types of treatment in preventing relapses were included. Reported outcomes including incidence of relapse, annualized relapse rate (ARR), and side effects were extracted. Network meta-analysis with a random-effect model within a Bayesian framework was conducted. Between group comparisons were estimated using Odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). RESULTS Twelve studies that compared the efficacy of 10 different treatments in preventing MOG-AD relapse, including 735 patients, were analyzed. In terms of incidence of relapse, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), oral corticosteroids (OC), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), azathioprine (AZA), and rituximab (RTX) were all significantly more effective than no treatment (ORs ranged from 0.075 to 0.34). On the contrary, disease-modifying therapy (DMT) (OR=1.3, 95% CrI: 0.31 to 5.0) and tacrolimus (TAC) (OR=5.9, 95% CrI: 0.19 to 310) would increase the incidence of relapse. Compared with DMT, IVIG significantly reduced the ARR (MD=-0.85, 95% CrI: -1.7 to -0.098). AZA, MMF, OC and RTX showed a trend to decrease ARR, but those results did not reach significant differences. The combined results for relapse rate and adverse events, as well as ARR and adverse events showed that IVIG and OC were the most effective and tolerable therapies. CONCLUSIONS Whilst DMT should be avoided, IVIG and OC may be suited as first-line therapies for patients with MOG-AD. RTX, MMF, and AZA present suitable alternatives.
Corticosteroids for the treatment of Kawasaki disease in children
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2022;5:Cd011188
BACKGROUND Kawasaki disease (KD), or mucocutaneous syndrome, is the leading cause of childhood-acquired heart disease in high-income countries. There is much controversy on how best to treat children with KD and in particular who may benefit from additional treatment beyond the standard intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and aspirin, such as the addition of corticosteroids. This is an update of the review first published in 2017. OBJECTIVES To assess the impact of corticosteroid use on the incidence of coronary artery abnormalities in KD as either first-line or second-line treatment. SEARCH METHODS The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers to 8 February 2021. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We selected randomised controlled trials involving children with all severities of KD who were treated with corticosteroids, including different types of corticosteroids, different durations of treatment, and where corticosteroids were used alone or in conjunction with other accepted KD treatments. We included trials using corticosteroids for both first- and second-line treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed study quality and extracted data using standard Cochrane methods. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model when there was heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The outcomes of interest were incidence of coronary artery abnormalities, serious adverse events, mortality, duration of acute symptoms (such as fever), time for laboratory parameters to normalise, length of hospital stay and longer-term coronary morbidity. MAIN RESULTS This update identified one new study, therefore the analysis included eight trials consisting of 1877 participants. Seven trials investigated the use of corticosteroids in first-line treatment and one investigated second-line treatment. The trials were all of good methodological quality. On pooled analysis, corticosteroid treatment reduced the subsequent occurrence of coronary artery abnormalities (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.75; 8 studies, 986 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), without resultant serious adverse events (0 events; 6 studies, 737 participants; moderate-certainty) and mortality (0 events; 8 studies, 1075 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, corticosteroids reduced the duration of fever (MD -1.34 days, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.45; 3 studies, 290 participants; low-certainty evidence), time for laboratory parameters (erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP)) to normalise (MD -2.80 days, 95% CI -4.38 to -1.22; 1 study, 178 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -1.01 days, 95% CI -1.72 to -0.30; 2 studies, 119 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported long-term (greater than one year after disease onset) coronary morbidity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Moderate-certainty evidence shows that use of steroids in the acute phase of KD can be associated with reduced coronary artery abnormalities, reduced inflammatory markers and shorter duration of hospital stay when compared to no corticosteroids. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported with or without corticosteroid use. Low-certainty evidence shows use of corticosteroids can reduce duration of clinical symptoms (fever and rash). None of the included studies reported on long-term (greater than one year after disease onset) coronary morbidity. Evidence presented in this systematic review agrees with current clinical guidelines on the use of corticosteroids in the first-line treatment in KD.
Pharmacological treatment in adult patients with CRPS-I: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Rheumatology (Oxford, England). 2022
OBJECTIVE Several pharmacological treatments have been proposed for the treatment of Complex regional pain syndrome type-I (CRPS-I) in adults, but data regarding the efficacy of various agents for this disease is scarce. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to analyse pharmacological approaches in adults with CRPS-I. METHODS We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from the inception date to 30, June 2021 for identifying placebo-controlled or active-controlled RCTs using bisphosphonates, ketamine, corticosteroids, anti-epileptics, NSAIDs/COXIBs, opiates, antidepressants, scavengers/magnesium sulphate or intravenous immunoglobulins for the treatment of CRPS-I. The primary outcomes included changes in the visual analogue scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain before and after treatment. RESULTS We included 20 placebo-controlled or active-controlled RCTs (for a total of 818 CRPS-I adults) that used bisphosphonates (n = 7), ketamine (n = 2), corticosteroids (n = 2), anti-epileptics (n = 1), NSAIDs/COXIBs (n = 2), scavengers/magnesium (n = 5), or intravenous immunoglobulins (n = 1) to treat CRPS-I during a median follow-up of 26 weeks. The treatment with bisphosphonates showed a significant reduction of the values of the VAS/NRS pain scale compared with placebo or reference therapy (random effects weighted mean difference [WMD]: -23.8, 95%CI-28.0 to -19.6; I2=36.4%). Treatment with ketamine also documented a reduction in the values of the VAS/NRS pain scale (random effects WMD: -8.27,95%CI -12.9 to -3.70; I2=0%). Treatment with other agents did not improve the values of the VAS/NRS pain scale. CONCLUSION This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the recommendation of parenteral bisphosphonates as the first-line agent in the treatment of CRPS-I. REGISTRATION NUMBER Open Science Framework registries; osf.io/et9gu.
Efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin in patients with lupus nephritis: A systematic review of the literature
Autoimmunity reviews. 2022;:103182
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is an anti-inflammatory drug with an unclear role in the treatment of patients with lupus nephritis (LN). This systematic review evaluates the evidence for IVIg in the care of patients with LN. METHODOLOGY A systematic search was done in the PubMed, EMBASE, BVS and OVID databases - All EBM Reviews following the PRISMA methodology (registration in PROSPERO CRD42021236662). The variables were extracted: indications for use, dosage, partial or complete response, adverse reactions, initiation of renal replacement therapy, reduction of proteinuria, and mortality. The quality assessment was done with the "The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tools for use in Systematic Reviews Checklist". In addition, synthesis reports were prepared through the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis - SWiM guide. RESULTS A total of 2328 articles were obtained (28 were considered for inclusion). When the studies were evaluated, IVIg therapy was found to be between 60% to 70% effective (except for patients with class V LN) with overall responses (complete + partial) even for patients who are refractory to first line treatment. Normalization (<0.5 g) of nephrotic proteinuria occurred in 24% of cases with infrequent adverse events and a mortality plus dialysis composite of 11.5% and 24.1% (most representative study). CONCLUSION In patients with LN refractory to conventional treatment or co-infection situations, the reported data seem to demonstrate effectiveness of IVIg therapy. There are few adverse reactions and caution is exercised when using it on patients with class V NL. However, given the lack of controlled studies with long-term follow-up, these data should be interpreted cautiously thus encouraging the development of high-quality RCTs.
Patients with lupus nephritis (LN), (28 studies).
Systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg).
Various comparisons, including: indications for use, and dosage.
When the studies were evaluated, IVIg therapy was found to be between 60% to 70% effective (except for patients with class V LN) with overall responses (complete + partial) even for patients who were refractory to first line treatment. Normalization (<0.5 g) of nephrotic proteinuria occurred in 24% of cases with infrequent adverse events and a mortality plus dialysis composite of 11.5% and 24.1% (most representative study).
Immunoglobulin for multifocal motor neuropathy
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2022;1(1):Cd004429
BACKGROUND Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare, probably immune-mediated disorder characterised by slowly progressive, asymmetric, distal weakness of one or more limbs with no objective loss of sensation. It may cause prolonged periods of disability. Treatment options for MMN are few. People with MMN do not usually respond to steroids or plasma exchange. Uncontrolled studies have suggested a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005, with an amendment in 2007. We updated the review to incorporate new evidence. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous and subcutaneous immunoglobulin in people with MMN. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases on 20 April 2021: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We considered RCTs and quasi-RCTs examining the effects of any dose of IVIg and subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) in people with definite or probable MMN for inclusion in the review. Eligible studies had to have measured at least one of the following outcomes: disability, muscle strength, or electrophysiological conduction block. We used studies that reported the frequency of adverse effects to assess safety. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently reviewed the literature searches to identify potentially relevant trials, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS Six cross-over RCTs including a total of 90 participants were suitable for inclusion in the review. Five RCTs compared IVIg to placebo, and one compared IVIg to SCIg. Four of the trials comparing IVIg versus placebo involved IVIg-naive participants (induction treatment). In the other two trials, participants were known IVIg responders receiving maintencance IVIg at baseline and were then randomised to maintenance treatment with IVIg or placebo in one trial, and IVIg or SCIg in the other. Risk of bias was variable in the included studies, with three studies at high risk of bias in at least one risk of bias domain. IVIg versus placebo (induction treatment): three RCTs including IVIg-naive participants reported a disability measure. Disability improved in seven out of 18 (39%) participants after IVIg treatment and in two out of 18 (11%) participants after placebo (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 10.12; 3 RCTs, 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants with an improvement in disability at 12 months was not reported. Strength improved in 21 out of 27 (78%) IVIg-naive participants treated with IVIg and one out of 27 (4%) participants who received placebo (RR 11.00, 95% CI 2.86 to 42.25; 3 RCTs, 27 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg treatment may increase the proportion of people with resolution of at least one conduction block; however, the results were also consistent with no effect (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 51.70; 4 RCTs, 28 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg versus placebo (maintenance treatment): a trial that included participants on maintenance IVIg treatment reported an increase in disability in 17 out of 42 (40%) people switching to placebo and seven out of 42 (17%) remaining on IVIg (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.24; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and a decrease in grip strength in 20 out of 42 (48%) participants after a switch to placebo treatment compared to four out of 42 (10%) remaining on IVIg (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.54; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events, IVIg versus placebo (induction or maintenance): four trials comparing IVIg and placebo reported adverse events, of which data from two studies could be meta-analysed. Transient side effects were reported in 71% of IVIg-treated participants versus 4.8% of placebo-treated participants in these studies. The pooled RR for the development of side effects was 10.33 (95% CI 2.15 to 49.77; 2 RCTs, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was only one serious side effect (pulmonary embolism) during IVIg treatment. IVIg versus SCIg (maintenance treatment): the trial that compared continuation of IVIg maintenance versus SCIg maintenance did not measure disability. The evidence was very uncertain for muscle strength (standardised mean difference 0.08, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for the number of people with side effects attributable to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Low-certainty evidence from three small RCTs shows that IVIg may improve muscle strength in people with MMN, and low-certainty evidence indicates that it may improve disability; the estimate of the magnitude of improvement of disability has wide CIs and needs further studies to secure its significance. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, it is probable that most IVIg responders deteriorate in disability and muscle strength after IVIg withdrawal. SCIg might be an alternative treatment to IVIg, but the evidence is very uncertain. More research is needed to identify people in whom IVIg withdrawal is possible and to confirm efficacy of SCIg as an alternative maintenance treatment.
The Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Dermatomyositis and Polymyositis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Modern rheumatology. 2022
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in the treatment of dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM). METHODS A comprehensive systematic review was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews And Meta-analyses). PubMed, Embase, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched to find articles published between July 1919 and May 2021 concerning IVIG therapy in PM/DM. We analyzed continuum data through mean difference and the estimated pooled improvement rate through Log transformation. We calculated all the effect measures with a 95% confidence interval. The I²statistic was calculated to assess statistical heterogeneity across the studies. I²values of 25%, 50% and 75% were defined as low, moderate and high, respectively. All analyses were conducted using R Studio, Version 3.6.3. RESULTS Seventeen papers pertinent to our questions were found: three case-control studies, fourteen non-randomized studies. We evaluated the efficacy of IVIG in DM/PM by the indicators of creatine kinase (CK), Manual Muscle Test (MMT) scores, Medical Research Council (MRC) scale, the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scale and the pooled improvement rate. In a meta-analysis, we found that IVIG significantly improved the level of CK (SMD -0.69, 95%CI -0.93, -0.46; P<0.0001), MMT (SMD 1.12; 95%CI 0.77, 1.47; P<0.00001), MRC (SMD 1.59; 95%CI 0.86, 2.33; P<0.00001), ADL (SMD 1.07; 95%CI 0.59, 1.56; P<0.0001). The CK levels in DM and PM were also significantly improved after IVIG (SMD = -0.73, 95%CI -1.12, -0.34; P=0.0002; and SMD = -3.29, 95%CI -5.82, -0.76; P < 0.0001, respectively). The meta-analysis of three RCTs showed that there was a statistically significant improvement after IVIG (SMD 0.63; 95%CI 0.22, 1.03; P=0.002). In a random effects model pooled muscle power improvement rate was 77% (95% CI: 66.0-87.0%). Meta-analyses of IVIG as first-line therapy showed a significant improvement of CK level (SMD -0.71; 95%CI -1.12, -0.30; P=0.0007). In three studies, the polled improvement rate of esophageal disorders was 88% (95% CI: 80.0-95.0%). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of improvement between the number of courses < 2 and ≥ 2 (0.80 vs. 0.80 %, P = 0.9). The corticosteroid-sparing effect of IVIG was also well demonstrated, with the proportion of corticosteroid-sparing success reaching 81.8% (72/88). Adverse reactions included headache, fever, Hypotension and dizzy and so on. Mild cortical stroke, staphylococcal septicaemia, asymptomatic myocardial infarction, cerebral infarction, deep vein thrombosis and subendocardial ischemia as severe adverse events were found in seven cases. CONCLUSION IVIG seems to be an effective drug for DM\PM, improving muscle strength, CK levels and esophageal involvement, and it is well tolerated by patients.
Subcutaneous immunoglobulin use in immunoglobulin-naive patients with primary immunodeficiency: a systematic review
Aim: Identify and describe published literature on the use of subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) as initial immunoglobulin (IG)-replacement therapy for patients with primary immunodeficiency diseases (PID). Methods: We systematically identified and summarized literature in MEDLINE, Embase, BioSciences Information Service and Cochrane Library assessing efficacy/effectiveness, safety/tolerability, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and dosing regimens of SCIG for IG-naive patients with PID. Results: Sixteen studies were included. In IG-naive patients, SCIG managed/reduced infections and demonstrated similar pharmacokinetic parameters to IG-experienced patients; adverse events were mostly minor injection-site pain or discomfort. Three studies reported improvements in HRQoL. Quality of studies was difficult to assess due to limited reporting. Conclusion: Although studies were lacking, available data suggest IG-naive and IG-experienced patients initiating SCIG likely have similar outcomes.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmacologic therapies for acute and recurrent pericarditis
Trends in cardiovascular medicine. 2022
Acute idiopathic pericarditis (AIP) is a benign inflammatory condition associated with high recurrence rates. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAIDs) and colchicine are the recommended therapies. Our objective was to systematically assess effects of pharmacological therapies on recurrences or treatment failure in patients with first and subsequent AIP episodes. PubMed, BioMedCentral, Cochrane, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar and EMBASE (Ovid) were searched up to April 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating NSAIDs, indomethacin, colchicine, steroids, intravenous immunoglobulins, immunomodulators, or interleukin receptor antagonists in adult patients with acute episode of idiopathic pericarditis. Mantel-Haenzel random effects models were used for meta-analyses, and effects were reported as odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Six RCTs of colchicine plus NSAIDs (n=914 patients) and one RCT of anakinra (n=21) were found. No RCTs testing NSAIDs or corticosteroids were identified. Colchicine plus NSAIDs and anakinra significantly reduced recurrence (OR 0.37; 95%CI 0.27-0.51; and OR 0.02; 95%CI, 0.00-0.32, respectively). Colchicine plus NSAIDs also reduced treatment failure (OR 0.29; 95%CI 0.21-0.41). No differences in adverse events between colchicine and placebo were found (OR 1.16; 95%CI 0.72 to 1.86). In conclusion, Colchicine plus NSAIDS and anakinra are efficacious for preventing AIP recurrences. Colchicine reduces treatment failure as well. Although its use is supported by clinical experience, no solid evidence is currently available for the role of NSAIDs or steroids in the treatment of AIP.