The Efficacy, Adverse Effects and Economic Implications of Oral Versus Intravenous Methylprednisolone for the Treatment of Optic Neuritis: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Optic neuritis may occur in a variety of conditions, including as a manifestation of multiple sclerosis. Despite significant research into the efficacy of corticosteroids as a first-line treatment, the optimal route of administration has not been well defined. This review aims to explore the efficacy, adverse effects and economic implications of using oral versus intravenous methylprednisolone to treat acute optic neuritis.

Methods

A systematic search of the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL was performed to July 2022, prior to data collection and risk of bias analysis in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Six articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The results showed that in the treatment of acute optic neuritis, oral methylprednisolone has a non-inferior efficacy and adverse effect profile in comparison to intravenous methylprednisolone. In a cost analysis, oral methylprednisolone to be more cost-effective than intravenous methylprednisolone.

Conclusions

Oral methylprednisolone has comparable efficacy and adverse effect profiles to intravenous methylprednisolone for the treatment of optic neuritis. The analysis suggests oral administration is more cost-effective than intravenous administration; however, further analyses of the formal cost–benefit ratio are required.

KEYWORDS:

• Adverse effects
• efficacy
• health economic
• methylprednisolone
• optic neuritis
• steroids

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported that there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.