부산대학교 도서관

PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate whether oral steroids can be used with the same efficacy and safety in comparison with the intravenous regimen for treatment of multiple sclerosis relapses. METHOD: We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library and systematically reviewed articles comparing outcomes of oral versus intravenous steroids for acute relapses in patients with a clinically definite diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. RESULTS: Six articles with 414 participants in total were analyzed. Five of the included trials reported the proportion of patients experiencing improvement in Expanded Disability Status Scale after receiving either oral or intravenous methylprednisolone treatment at four weeks; the pooled results showed that there was no statistically significant difference (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.60, 1.54; p=0.86) between treatments. Three trials reported the detailed results of adverse events, indicating the two treatments appear to be equally safe. Two trials revealed that there was no significant difference in gadolinium enhancement activity on magnetic resonance imaging. One trial showed that the mean area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) at 24 and 48 hours did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found in terms of clinical (benefits and adverse events), radiological and pharmacological outcomes in multiple sclerosis relapses in patients after oral or intravenous steroids treatment. Our meta-analysis provides evidence that oral steroid therapy is not inferior to intravenous steroid therapy. Thus oral administration may be a favorable substitute for intravenous medication of multiple sclerosis relapses.