Revisiones sistemáticas relacionados a este tópico

loading
86 Referencias (86 articles) Revertir Estudificar

Revisión sistemática

No clasificado

Different modalities to manage rheumatoid arthritis: an A to Z story.

Revista Future science OA
Año 2024
Enlaces Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

Este artículo incluye 48 Estudios primarios 48 Estudios primarios (48 referencias)

Cargando información sobre las referencias
AIM: To investigate different approaches to RA treatment that might lead to greater efficacy and better safety profiles. METHODS: The Search strategy was based on medical subject headings, and screening and selection were based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS & DISCUSSION: Early therapy is critical for disease control and loss of bodily function. The most promising outcomes came from the development of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Different foods have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant qualities that protect against the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Some dietary patterns and supplements have been shown to have potential protective benefits against RA. CONCLUSION: Improvement in the quality of life of RA patients requires a tailored management approach based on the current patient medical data.

Revisión sistemática

No clasificado

Analysis of efficacy and safety of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Autores Mohamed Ahamada M , Wu X
Revista Clinical and experimental rheumatology
Año 2023
Enlaces Pubmed DOI

Este artículo incluye 13 Estudios primarios 13 Estudios primarios (13 referencias)

Cargando información sobre las referencias
OBJECTIVES: Abatacept (Orencia) is a drug used to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The agent improves patients' pain and joint inflammation through modulation of a co-stimulatory signal necessary for T cell activation. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of abatacept in the management of rheumatoid arthritis using the Cochrane systematic review. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search among PubMed, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Web of Science, and Embase databases from the establishment of these databases to April 2022. The effectiveness and safety of abatacept in treating rheumatoid arthritis were assessed in terms of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70/90 responses, Disease Activity Score-28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein (DAS-28-CRP), and adverse events. The Relative Risks (RRs) of relative safety and efficacy and their corresponding 95 confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compute the pooled assessments of the outcomes. We used the review manager software version 5.4 to analyse our data, and the PRISMA checklist 2020 was used to ensure that our work conforms with the specification of meta-analysis. RESULTS: Our study included 13 randomised control trials with a total of 5978 adult patients from different geographic regions and races. Following the combined analysis of these enrolled studies, the RRs for ACR 20/50/70/90 responses were 1.57 [95%CI 1.27, 1.93], 1.84 [95%CI 1.38, 2.44], 2.36 [95%CI 1.60, 3.47], and 2.95 [95%CI 1.88, 4.63], respectively. Such findings suggest that abatacept-treated patients were 1.57, 1.84, 2.36, and 2.95 times more likely to achieve ACR 20/50/70/90 responses, respectively, than those treated with placebo, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and or other biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. An exclusive comparison of abatacept and other biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) indicated that participants who were treated with abatacept could achieve better ACR responses than those treated with other b/tsDMARDs. Adverse events were less seen in abatacept-treated patients than in those who were given other b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis concludes that in adult with rheumatoid arthritis, abatacept can achieve better health outcomes than other biologic drugs.

Revisión sistemática

No clasificado

Risk of Adverse Events After Anti-TNF Treatment for Inflammatory Rheumatological Disease. A Meta-Analysis

Autores Li J , Zhang Z , Wu X , Zhou J , Meng D , Zhu P
Revista Frontiers in pharmacology
Año 2021
Enlaces Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

Este artículo incluye 23 Estudios primarios 23 Estudios primarios (23 referencias)

Cargando información sobre las referencias
Background: Adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, certolizumab, and etanercept are five anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) medicines that have been approved for use in rheumatology. Apart from their well-established therapeutic usefulness, -it is unclear to what extent -they are linked to an increased risk of various side effects. The present meta-analysis was carried out to assess the risk of infection and other side effects after anti-TNF- α for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cinahl (via Ebsco), Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases for trials comparing anti-TNF medications to placebo or no therapy in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis from August 2006 to August 2020. A total of 23 articles were used for meta-analysis. The Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. In addition, a random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratio, and Forest plots were constructed to determine the risk of infections and cancer following the use of anti-TNF treatment. Results: Treatment with anti-TNFα agents resulted in an increase in the risk of serious infections (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.56–1.90, p < 0.00001) and an increase in cancer risk (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.20–1.53, p < 0.00001) whereas the risk of developing tuberculosis was not significantly different with anti-TNFα agents versus those without treatment with anti-TNFα agents (OR: 2.55, 95% CI: 0.40–16.23, p = 0.32) although the number of studies is limited to make a definitive conclusion. The risk of bias of the included studies was unclear to high across most domains, and there was evidence of publication bias for most outcomes. Conclusion: The present meta-analysis suggests an increased risk of infectious adverse events, including overall adverse events and cancer following anti-TNFα treatment, whereas the risk of tuberculosis was not significantly different. Although anti-TNF agents have shown promise to treat inflammatory conditions, their use should be balanced by the risk-benefit ratio as suggested by the meta-analysis.

Revisión sistemática

No clasificado

The Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs and the Risk of Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Autores Hu S , Lin C , Cai X , Zhu X , Lv F , Nie L , Ji L
Revista Mediators of inflammation
Año 2021
Enlaces Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

Este artículo incluye 72 Estudios primarios 75 Estudios primarios (72 referencias)

Cargando información sobre las referencias
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between the use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with systemic inflammatory conditions. METHODS: Eligible cohort studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to January 2021 were included. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cardiovascular outcomes were calculated in the fixed- and random-effects model accordingly. Associated factors with risks of cardiovascular events were also studied in sensitivity analyses and metaregression analyses. RESULTS: Compared with non-bDMARD users, the risks of myocardial infarction (MI) (OR = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.87), heart failure (OR = 0.84, 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95), cardiovascular (CV) death (OR = 0.62, 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.95), all-cause mortality (OR = 0.64, 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.70), and 3P-MACE (composite endpoint of MI, stroke, and CV death) (OR = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.89) were significantly reduced in bDMARD users, which were mainly driven by the risk reduction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). TNF-α inhibitors exhibited consistent benefits in reducing the risks of MI, heart failure, CV death, all-cause mortality, and 3P-MACE. Moreover, the risks of heart failure, CV death, all-cause mortality, and 3P-MACE were significantly reduced in bDMARD users with follow-up over one year. CONCLUSIONS: The use of bDMARDs might be associated with the reduced risks of CV events, especially in patients with RA. The CV events might be less frequent in bDMARD users with TNF-α inhibitors or follow-up over one year. More investigations are needed to validate conclusions.

Revisión sistemática

No clasificado

Rheumatoid arthritis treated with 6-months of first-line biologic or biosimilar therapy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Revista International journal of technology assessment in health care
Año 2019
Enlaces Pubmed DOI

Este artículo incluye 46 Estudios primarios 46 Estudios primarios (46 referencias)

Cargando información sobre las referencias
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of first-line biologic disease modifying drugs(boDMARDs), and their approved biosimilars (bsDMARDs), compared with conventional (csDMARD) treatment, in terms of ACR (American College of Rheumatology) and EULAR (European League against Rheumatism) responses. METHODS: Systematic literature search, on eight databases to January 2017, sought ACR and EULAR data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of boDMARDs / bsDMARDs (in combination with csDMARDs, or monotherapy). Two adult populations: methotrexate (MTX)-naïve patients with severe active RA; and csDMARD-experienced patients with moderate-to-severe active RA. Network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using a random effects model with a probit link function for ordered categorical. RESULTS: Forty-six RCTs met the eligibility criteria. In the MTX-naïve severe active RA population, no biosimilar trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. MTX plus methylprednisolone (MP) was most likely to achieve the best ACR response. There was insufficient evidence that combination boDMARDs was superior to intensive (two or more) csDMARDs. In the csDMARD-experienced, moderate-to-severe RA population, the greatest effects for ACR responses were associated with tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy, and combination therapy (plus MTX) with bsDMARD etanercept (ETN) SB4, boDMARD ETN and TCZ. These treatments also had the greatest effects on EULAR responses. No clear differences were found between the boDMARDs and their bsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: In MTX-naïve patients, there was insufficient evidence that combination boDMARDs was superior to two or more csDMARDs. In csDMARD-experienced patients, boDMARDs and bsDMARDs were comparable and all combination boDMARDs / bsDMARDs were superior to single csDMARD.

Revisión sistemática

No clasificado

Long-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness of infliximab as first-line treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Revista Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research
Año 2019
Enlaces Pubmed DOI

Este artículo incluye 26 Estudios primarios 8 Estudios primarios (26 referencias)

Cargando información sobre las referencias
Introduction Early biological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may reverse the autoimmune response in some patients resulting in favorable long-term outcomes. Although the cost-effectiveness of this strategy has been questioned, biosimilar entries warrant the revision of clinical and pharmaco-economic evidence. Areas covered We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 24th May 2018 in Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL, comparing infliximab with non-biological therapy in patients with RA naïve to methotrexate. We performed meta-analyses for efficacy outcomes at month 6 and years 1 and 2. Six RCTs were identified, involving 1832 patients. At month 6 ACR70 response and remission, and at year 1 ACR20/ACR70 responses and remission were improved significantly with first-line infliximab versus control. The differences were not significant at year 2. We reviewed cost-utility studies, up to October 31, 2018 in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL and the CRD HTA databases. Four studies indicated that first-line use of originator infliximab calculated at 2005-2008 prices was not cost-effective. Expert opinion We demonstrated the efficacy benefits of first-line infliximab therapy up to 1 year in methotrexate-naïve RA. We highlighted the need for standardized reporting of outcomes and conducting cost-effectiveness analyses of first-line biosimilar therapy in RA.

Revisión sistemática

No clasificado

Added value of combining methotrexate with a biological agent compared to biological monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Revista Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism
Año 2019
Enlaces Pubmed DOI

Este artículo incluye 18 Estudios primarios 18 Estudios primarios (18 referencias)

Cargando información sobre las referencias
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate (MTX) in combination with an approved biological agent compared to biological monotherapy, in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and other sources were searched for randomised trials evaluating a biological agent plus MTX versus the same biological agent in monotherapy. Co-primary outcomes were ACR50 and the number of patients who discontinued due to adverse events (AEs). Random-effects models were applied for meta-analyses with risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals and the GRADE approach was used to assess confidence in the estimates. RESULTS: The analysis comprised 16 trials (4965 patients), including all biological agents approved for RA except anakinra and certolizumab. The overall likelihood of responding to therapy (i.e. ACR50) after 6 months was 32% better when MTX was given concomitantly with biological agents (1.32 [1.20-1.45]; P < 0.001) corresponding to 11 more out of 100 patients (7-16 more); Moderate Quality Evidence. Discontinuing due to AEs from concomitant use of MTX was potentially 20% increased (1.21 [0.97-1.50]; P = 0.09) compared to biological monotherapy corresponding to 1 more out of 100 patients (0-3 more); Moderate Quality Evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Randomised trials provide Moderate Quality Evidence for a favourable benefit-harm balance supporting concomitant use of MTX rather than monotherapy when prescribing a biological agent in patients with RA although in absolute terms only 7-16 more out of 100 patients will achieve an ACR50 response after 6 months of this combination therapy.

Revisión sistemática

No clasificado

Long-Term Efficacy of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors for the Treatment of Methotrexate-Naïve Rheumatoid Arthritis: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

Revista Advances in therapy
Año 2019
Enlaces Pubmed DOI

Este artículo incluye 39 Estudios primarios 11 Estudios primarios (39 referencias)

Cargando información sobre las referencias
INTRODUCTION: Synthesis of evidence on the long-term use of first-line biologic therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is required. We compared the efficacy of up to 5 years' treatment with first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) versus other treatment strategies in this population. METHODS: Previous systematic reviews, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving treatment of methotrexate-naïve RA patients with first-line TNFis. Literature was synthesized qualitatively, and a meta-analysis conducted to evaluate American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, clinical remission defined by any standard measure, and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ) at Years 2 and/or 5. RESULTS: Ten RCTs involving 4306 patients [first-line TNFi, n = 2234; other treatment strategies (control), n = 2072] were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies were double-blind for the first 2 years, while seven were partly/completely open label during this period. Five studies reported data at Year 5; all were open label at this time point. At Year 2, ACR50 response, ACR70 response and remission rates were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus control in double-blind RCTs [log-odds ratio (OR) 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02, 0.62; p = 0.035], log-OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.20, 0.77; p = 0.001), and log-OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.13, 0.74; p = 0.005), respectively], but not in open-label studies. No significant between-group differences were observed in mean HAQ at Year 2 in double-blind or open-label RCTs or in ACR response or remission outcomes at Year 5. CONCLUSION: In double-blind studies, 2-year efficacy outcomes were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus other treatment strategies in patients with MTX-naïve RA. No significant differences in these outcomes were observed when data from open-label RCTs were considered on their own. Further data on the efficacy of TNFi therapy over ≥ 2 years in patients with methotrexate-naïve RA are required. Plain language summary available for this article.

Revisión sistemática

No clasificado

Different Original and Biosimilar TNF Inhibitors Similarly Reduce Joint Destruction in Rheumatoid Arthritis-A Network Meta-Analysis of 36 Randomized Controlled Trials.

Revista International journal of molecular sciences
Año 2019
Enlaces Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

Este artículo incluye 34 Estudios primarios 35 Estudios primarios (34 referencias)

Cargando información sobre las referencias
The effect of five approved tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab) on joint destruction in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been compared versus methotrexate (MTX) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but have not been compared directly to each other or to an otherwise untreated placebo control. The present analysis compares effects of standard doses, high doses, and low doses of TNFis on radiographic joint destruction in RA and relate these effects to MTX and placebo by means of a Bayesian network meta-analysis. We identified 31 RCTs of the effect of TNFis on joint destruction and 5 RCTs with controls, which indirectly could link otherwise untreated placebo controls to the TNFi treatments in the network. The previously untested comparison with placebo was performed to estimate not only the effect relative to another drug, but also the absolute attainable effect. Compared to placebo there was a highly significant inhibitory effect on joint destruction of infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab, which was about 0.9% per year as monotherapy and about 1.2% per year when combined with MTX. Although significantly better than MTX and placebo, golimumab seemed inferior to the remaining TNFis. There was no difference between original reference drugs (Remicade, Enbrel) and the almost identical copy drugs (biosimilars).

Revisión sistemática

No clasificado

The efficacy and safety of mainstream medications for patients with cDMARD-Naïve rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis

Autores Cai W , Gu Y , Cui H , Cao Y , Wang X , Yao Y , Wang M
Revista Frontiers in pharmacology
Año 2018
Enlaces Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

Este artículo incluye 20 Estudios primarios 20 Estudios primarios (20 referencias)

Cargando información sobre las referencias
Background: The mainstream medications for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs), which mostly are methotrexate (MTX), and biologic agents such as adalimumab (ADA), certolizumab (CZP), etanercept (ETN), golimumab (GOL), infliximab (IFX), and tocilizumab (TCZ). This network meta-analysis was aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of the medications above and interventions combining cDMARDs and biologic agents for patients with RA. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched systematically for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes concerning efficacy and safety were evaluated utilizing odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). The outcomes of efficacy would be evaluated through remission and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank each treatment on each index. Results: A total of 20 RCTs with 9,047 patients were included, and the efficacy and safety of the concerning interventions for RA were evaluated. Compared with cDMARDs alone, TCZ+MTX, ETN+MTX, IFX+MTX, TCZ, and ADA+MTX showed significant statistical advantage on ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70. Apart from that, as for remission, TCZ+MTX, IFX+MTX, TCZ, and CZP+MTX performed better compared to cDMARDs alone. The SUCRA ranking also indicated that TCZ+MTX was the intervention with best ranking in the entire four efficacy indexes followed by ETX+MTX and IFX+MTX. However, there was no obvious difference among these medications compared with cDMARDs when it comes to safety, which need more specific studies on that. Conclusion: TCZ+MTX was potentially the most recommended combination of medications for RA due to its good performance in all outcomes of efficacy. ETX+MTX and IFX+MTX, which also performed well, could be introduced as alternative treatments. However, considering the adverse events, the treatments concerning should be introduced with caution.