-
Pharmacology 2022Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors and secukinumab have been demonstrated to be effective treatments for ankylosing spondylitis (AS). However, there have been no head-to-head... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors and secukinumab have been demonstrated to be effective treatments for ankylosing spondylitis (AS). However, there have been no head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness and safety characteristics of JAK inhibitors with secukinumab. This study aimed to evaluate the relative effectiveness and safety of JAK inhibitors and secukinumab in patients with active AS.
SUMMARY
A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using direct and indirect data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib 5 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, and secukinumab 150 mg in patients with active AS who had a poor response or intolerance to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and were tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor-naïve. Data from six RCTs comprising 937 patients were analyzed. The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20 (ASAS20) response rates were significantly higher in the JAK inhibitors and secukinumab groups than in the placebo group. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA)-based ranking probability based on the ASAS20 response rate suggested that tofacitinib 5 mg had the highest likelihood of being the best treatment for achieving the ASAS20 response rate, followed by filgotinib 200 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, secukinumab 150 mg, and placebo. The SUCRA-based ranking probability based on the ASAS20 response rate suggested that tofacitinib 5 mg had the highest likelihood of being the best treatment for achieving the ASAS40 response rate, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg, secukinumab 150 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, and placebo.
KEY MESSAGES
Tofacitinib 5 mg was the most effective treatment for AS, whereas JAK inhibitors and secukinumab 150 mg were effective treatments in patients with active AS who had a poor response or intolerance to NSAIDs and were TNF inhibitor-naïve.
Topics: Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Antirheumatic Agents; Treatment Outcome; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
PubMed: 35817017
DOI: 10.1159/000525627 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jun 2020To inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Efficacy of pharmacological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature research informing the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS
A systematic literature research (SLR) to investigate the efficacy of any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) (conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD, biological (b) and biosimilar DMARD, targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD) or glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in patients with RA was done by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2016 and 8 March 2019.
RESULTS
234 abstracts were selected for detailed assessment, with 136 finally included. They comprised the efficacy of bDMARDs versus placebo or other bDMARDs, efficacy of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAKi) across different patient populations and head-to-head of different bDMARDs versus JAKi or other bDMARDs. Switching of bDMARDs to other bDMARDs or tsDMARDs, strategic trials and tapering studies of bDMARDs, csDMARDs and JAKi were assessed. The drugs evaluated included abatacept, adalimumab, ABT-122, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, SBI-087, CNTO6785, decernotinib, etanercept, filgotinib, golimumab, GCs, GS-9876, guselkumab, hydroxychloroquine, infliximab, leflunomide, mavrilimumab, methotrexate, olokizumab, otilimab, peficitinib, rituximab, sarilumab, salazopyrine, secukinumab, sirukumab, tacrolimus, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, tregalizumab, upadacitinib, ustekinumab and vobarilizumab. The efficacy of many bDMARDs and tsDMARDs was shown. Switching to another tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi bDMARDs after TNFi treatment failure is efficacious. Tapering of DMARDs is possible in patients achieving long-standing stringent clinical remission; in patients with residual disease activity (including patients in LDA) the risk of flares is increased during the tapering. Biosimilars are non-inferior to their reference products.
CONCLUSION
This SLR informed the task force regarding the evidence base of various therapeutic regimen for the development of the update of EULAR's RA management recommendation.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Drug Substitution; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Synthetic Drugs; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 32033937
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216656 -
PharmacoEconomics May 2023Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib versus current biologics, considering combinations of first-line (1L) and second-line (2L) therapies, from a Japanese payer's perspective in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC following an inadequate response to conventional therapy and in those who were naïve to biologics.
METHODS
A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted during the time horizon specified in the Markov model, which considers a patient's lifetime as 60 years and an annual discount rate of 2% on costs and effects. The model compared tofacitinib with vedolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab. The time of active treatment was divided into induction and maintenance phases. Patients not responding to their biologic treatment after induction or during the maintenance phase were switched to a subsequent line of therapy. Treatment response and remission probabilities (for induction and maintenance phases) were obtained through a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis that employed a multinomial analysis with fixed effects. Patient characteristics were sourced from the OCTAVE Induction trials. Mean utilities associated with UC health states and adverse events (AEs) were obtained from published sources. Direct medical costs related to drug acquisition, administration, surgery, patient management, and AEs were derived from the JMDC database analysis, which corresponded with the medical procedure fees from 2021. The drug prices were adjusted to April 2021. Further validation through all processes by clinical experts in Japan was conducted to fit the costs to real-world practices. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were also performed to confirm the accuracy and robustness of the base-case results.
RESULTS
In the base-case, the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib was more cost-effective than vedolizumab, infliximab, golimumab, and ustekinumab for 1L therapies in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (based on the Japanese threshold of 5,000,000 yen/QALY [38,023 United States dollars {USD}/QALY]). The base-case results demonstrated that the incremental costs would be reduced for all biologics, and decreases in incremental QALYs were observed for all biologics other than adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was found to be dominant for adalimumab; for the other biologics, it was found to be less costly and less efficacious. The efficiency frontier on the cost-effectiveness plane indicated that tofacitinib-infliximab and infliximab-tofacitinib were more cost-effective than the other treatment patterns. When infliximab-tofacitinib was compared with tofacitinib-infliximab, the ICER was 282,609,856 yen/QALY (2,149,157 USD/QALY) and the net monetary benefit (NMB) was -12,741,342 yen (-96,894 USD) with a threshold of 5,000,000 yen (38,023 USD) in Japan. Therefore, infliximab-tofacitinib was not acceptable by this threshold, and tofacitinib-infliximab was the cost-effective treatment pattern.
CONCLUSION
The current analysis suggests that the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib is a cost-effective alternative to the biologics for patients with moderate-to-severe UC from a Japanese payer's perspective.
Topics: Humans; Colitis, Ulcerative; Infliximab; Adalimumab; Ustekinumab; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Japan; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Biological Products; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 36884164
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01254-x -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Apr 2023The IL-23 p19-subunit inhibitor guselkumab has been previously compared with other targeted therapies for PsA through network meta-analysis (NMA). The objective of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The IL-23 p19-subunit inhibitor guselkumab has been previously compared with other targeted therapies for PsA through network meta-analysis (NMA). The objective of this NMA update was to include new guselkumab COSMOS trial data, and two key comparators: the IL-23 inhibitor risankizumab and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials up to February 2021. A hand-search identified newer agents up to July 2021. Bayesian NMAs were performed to compare treatments on ACR response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response, modified van der Heijde-Sharp (vdH-S) score, and serious adverse events (SAEs).
RESULTS
For ACR 20, guselkumab 100 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W) and every 4 weeks (Q4W) were comparable (i.e. overlap in credible intervals) to most other agents, including risankizumab, upadacitinib, subcutaneous TNF inhibitors and most IL-17A inhibitors. For PASI 90, guselkumab Q8W and Q4W were better than multiple agents, including subcutaneous TNF and JAK inhibitors. For vdH-S, guselkumab Q8W was similar to risankizumab, while guselkumab Q4W was better; both doses were comparable to most other agents. Most agents had comparable SAEs.
CONCLUSIONS
Guselkumab demonstrates better skin efficacy than most other targeted PsA therapies, including upadacitinib. For vdH-S, both guselkumab doses are comparable to most treatments, with both doses ranking higher than most, including upadacitinib and risankizumab. Both guselkumab doses demonstrate comparable ACR responses to most other agents, including upadacitinib and risankizumab, and rank favourably in the network for SAEs.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Treatment Outcome; Psoriasis; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 36102818
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac500 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Alopecia areata (AA) is an immune disease characterized by non-scarring hair loss. With the widespread application of JAK inhibitors in immune-related diseases,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata (AA) is an immune disease characterized by non-scarring hair loss. With the widespread application of JAK inhibitors in immune-related diseases, attention is being given to their role in the treatment of AA. However, it is unclear which JAK inhibitors have a satisfactory or positive effect on AA. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different JAK inhibitors in the treatment of AA.
METHODS
The network meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials as well as a small number of cohort studies. The differences in efficacy and safety between the treatment and control groups were compared.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials, two retrospective studies, and two prospective studies involving 1689 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. In terms of efficacy, oral baricitinib and ruxolitinib significantly improved the response rate of patients compared to placebo [MD = 8.44, 95% CI (3.63, 19.63)] and [MD = 6.94, 95% CI, (1.72, 28.05)],respectively. Oral baricitinib treatment significantly improved the response rate compared to non-oral JAK inhibitor treatment [MD=7.56, 95% CI (1.32,43.36)]. Oral baricitinib, tofacitinib, and ruxolitinib treatments significantly improved the complete response rate compared to placebo [MD = 12.21, 95% CI (3.41, 43.79)], [MD = 10.16, 95% CI (1.02, 101.54)], and [MD = 9.79, 95% CI, (1.29, 74.27)], respectively. In terms of safety, oral baricitinib, tofacitinib, and ruxolitinib treatments significantly reduced treatment-emergent adverse event rates compared with conventional steroid treatment [MD = 0.08, 95% CI (0.02, 0.42)], [MD = 0.14, 95% CI (0.04, 0.55)], and [MD = 0.35, 95% CI, (0.14, 0.88)], respectively.
CONCLUSION
Oral baricitinib and ruxolitinib are excellent options for the treatment of AA owing to their good efficacy and safety profiles. In contrast, non-oral JAK inhibitors do not appear to have satisfactory efficacy in treating AA. However, further studies are required to verify the optimal dose of JAK inhibitors for AA therapy.
Topics: Humans; Alopecia Areata; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37138884
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1152513 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases May 2024To obtain an overview of recent evidence on efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
Efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature research informing the 2023 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To obtain an overview of recent evidence on efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
METHODS
This systematic literature research (SLR) investigated the efficacy and safety of conventional synthetic (cs), biological (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with PsA. A systematic database search using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted to identify relevant articles published since the previous update in 2019 until 28 December 2022. Efficacy was assessed in trials while for safety observational data were also considered. Adverse events of special interest were infections (including herpes zoster, influenza and tuberculosis), malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolisms, liver disease, laboratory changes and psychiatric adverse events. No meta-analyses were performed.
RESULTS
For efficacy, of 3946 articles screened, 38 articles (30 trials) were analysed. The compounds investigated included csDMARDs (leflunomide, methotrexate), bDMARDs inhibiting IL17 (bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, izokibep, secukinumab,), IL-23 (guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab), IL-12/23 (ustekinumab) as well as TNF (adalimumab, certolizumab-pegol, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab) and Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKi) (brepocitinib, deucravacitinib, tofacitinib, upadacitinib). The compounds investigated were efficacious in improving signs and symptoms of PsA, improving physical functioning and quality of life. For safety, 2055 abstracts were screened, and 24 articles analysed: 15 observational studies and 9 long-term follow-ups of trials, assessing glucocorticoids, TNFi, IL-17i, JAKi, IL-12/23i and PDE4i (apremilast). Safety indicators were generally coherent with the previous SLR in 2019.
CONCLUSION
The results of this SLR informed the task force responsible for the 2023 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for pharmacological management of PsA.
Topics: Arthritis, Psoriatic; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Treatment Outcome; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Biological Products
PubMed: 38503473
DOI: 10.1136/ard-2024-225534 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a novel class of drugs that have shown efficacy in treating immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). However, their safety...
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a novel class of drugs that have shown efficacy in treating immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). However, their safety profile in terms of herpes zoster infection remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the risk of herpes zoster associated with JAK inhibitors in patients with IMIDs. A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the safety of JAK inhibitors in patients with IMIDs including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), psoriasis (PsO), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of herpes zoster infection. Network meta-analysis was performed to compare the risk of herpes zoster among different JAK inhibitors and placebo. A network meta-analysis was conducted using data from 47 RCTs including 24,142 patients. In patients with IMIDs, peficitinib 100 mg QD was associated with the highest risk of herpes zoster infection in patients with IMIDs, followed by baricitinib 4 mg QD and upadacitinib 30 mg QD. No difference in herpes zoster risk was found for other JAK inhibitors compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis indicated that higher incidence of herpes zoster was found in patients treated by baricitinib 4 mg QD, peficitinib 100 mg QD, and upadacitinib 30 mg QD only in patients with RA. Our study suggests that some JAK inhibitors, particularly peficitinib, baricitinib, and tofacitinib, are associated with a higher risk of herpes zoster infection in patients with IMIDs.
PubMed: 37614317
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1241954 -
Clinical Drug Investigation May 2023Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are emerging as a therapeutic option for alopecia areata. The risk of potential adverse events is currently debated. In particular, several...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are emerging as a therapeutic option for alopecia areata. The risk of potential adverse events is currently debated. In particular, several safety data for JAK inhibitors are extrapolated from a single study in elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or adalimumab/etanercept as a comparator. The population of patients with alopecia areata is clinically and immunologically different from persons with rheumatoid arthritis and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are not effective in these patients. The objective of this systematic review was to analyze available data on the safety of various JAK inhibitors in patients with alopecia areata.
METHODS
The systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature review was performed by searching PubMed, Scopus and EBSCO databases with the last search on March 13, 2023.
RESULTS
In total, 36 studies were included. The frequency and odds ratio (OR) for most common adverse events versus placebo were: for baricitinib hypercholesterolemia (18.2% vs 10.5%, OR = 1.9) and headache (6.1% vs 5.1%, OR = 1.2), for brepocitinib elevated creatinine level (27.7% vs 4.3%, OR = 8.6) and acne (10.6% vs 4.3%, OR = 2.7), for ritlecitinib acne (10.4% vs 4.3%, OR = 2.6) and headache (12.5% vs 10.6%, OR = 1.2) and for deuruxolitinib headache (21.4% vs 9.1%, OR = 2.7) and acne (13.6% vs 4.5%, OR = 3.3). The respective numbers for upper respiratory infections were: baricitinib (7.3% vs 7.0%, OR = 1.0) and brepocitinib (23.4% vs 10.6%, OR = 2.6); for nasopharyngitis: ritlecitinib (12.5% vs 12.8%, OR = 1.0) and deuruxolitinib (14.6% vs 2.3%, OR = 7.3).
CONCLUSIONS
The most common side effects of JAK inhibitors in patients with alopecia areata were headache and acne. The OR for upper respiratory tract infections varied from over 7-fold increased to comparable to placebo. The risk of serious adverse events was not increased.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Alopecia Areata; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Alopecia
PubMed: 37138134
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-023-01260-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Myelofibrosis is a bone marrow disorder characterized by excessive production of reticulin and collagen fiber deposition caused by hematological and non-hematological... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Myelofibrosis is a bone marrow disorder characterized by excessive production of reticulin and collagen fiber deposition caused by hematological and non-hematological disorders. The prognosis of myelofibrosis is poor and treatment is mainly palliative. Janus kinase inhibitors are a novel strategy to treat people with myelofibrosis.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical benefits and harms of Janus kinase-1 and Janus kinase-2 inhibitors for treating myelofibrosis secondary to hematological or non-hematological conditions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 11), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946 to 13 November 2014), EMBASE (from 1980 to 12 January 2013), and LILACS (from 1982 to 20 November 2014). We searched WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and The metaRegister of Controlled Trials. We also searched for conference proceedings of the American Society of Hematology (from 2009 to October 2013), European Hematology Association (from 2009 to October 2013), American Society of Clinical Oncology (from 2009 to October 2013), and European Society of Medical Oncology (from 2009 to October 2013). We included searches in FDA, European Medicines Agency, and Epistemonikos. We handsearched the references of all identified included trials, and relevant review articles. We did not apply any language restrictions. Two review authors independently screened search results.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized clinical trials comparing Janus kinase-1 and Janus kinase-2 inhibitors with placebo or other treatments. Both previously treated and treatment naive patients were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for overall survival, progression-free survival and leukemia-free survival, risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for reduction in spleen size and adverse events binary data, and standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous data (health-related quality of life). Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. Primary outcomes were overall survival, progression-free survival and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two trials involving 528 participants, comparing ruxolitinib with placebo or best available therapy (BAT). As the two included trials had different comparators we did not pool the data. The confidence in the results estimates of these trials was low due to the bias in their design, and their limited sample sizes that resulted in imprecise results.There is low quality evidence for the effect of ruxolitinib on survival when compared with placebo at 51 weeks of follow-up (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.98) and compared with BAT at 48 weeks of follow-up (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.47). Similarly there was very low quality evidence for the effect of ruxolitinib on progression free survival compared with BAT (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.39).There is low quality evidence for the effect of ruxolitinib in terms of quality of life. Compared with placebo, the drug achieved a greater proportion of patients with a significant reduction of symptom scores (RR 8.82, 95% CI 4.40 to 17.69), and treated patients with ruxolitinib obtained greater MFSAF scores at the end of follow-up (MD -87.90, 95% CI -139.58 to -36.22). An additional trial showed significant differences in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores when compared ruxolitinib with best available therapy (MD 7.60, 95% CI 0.35 to 14.85).The effect of ruxolitinib on reduction in the spleen size of participants compared with placebo or BAT was uncertain (versus placebo: RR 64.58, 95% CI 9.08 to 459.56, low quality evidence; versus BAT: RR 41.78, 95% CI 2.61 to 669.75, low quality evidence).There is low quality evidence for the effect of the drug compared with placebo on anemia (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.41), neutropenia (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.02 to 12.55) and thrombocytopenia (RR 9.74, 95% CI 2.32 to 40.96). Ruxolitinib did not result in differences versus BAT in the risk of anemia (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.99, low quality evidence) or thrombocytopenia (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.44 to 3.28, low quality evidence). The risk of non-hematologic grade 3 or 4 adverse events (including fatigue, arthralgia, nausea, diarrhea, extremity pain and pyrexia) was similar when ruxolitinib was compared with placebo or BAT. The rate of neutropenia comparing ruxolitinib with standard medical treatment was not reported by the trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to allow any conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib for treating myelofibrosis. The findings of this Cochrane review should be interpreted with caution as they are based on trials sponsored by industry, and include a small number of patients. Unless powered randomized clinical trials provide strong evidence of a treatment effect, and the trade-off between potential benefits and harms is established, clinicians should be cautious when administering ruxolitinib for treating patients with myelofibrosis.
Topics: Humans; Janus Kinase 1; Janus Kinase 2; Nitriles; Primary Myelofibrosis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25860512
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010298.pub2 -
RMD Open Dec 2023Synovitis acne pustulosis hyperostosis osteitis (SAPHO) is a rare heterogeneous disease of unknown aetiopathology. Externally validated and internationally agreed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Synovitis acne pustulosis hyperostosis osteitis (SAPHO) is a rare heterogeneous disease of unknown aetiopathology. Externally validated and internationally agreed diagnostic criteria or outcomes and, as a result, prospective randomised controlled trials in SAPHO are absent. Consequently, there is no agreed treatment standard. This study aimed to systematically collate and discuss treatment options in SAPHO.
METHODS
Following 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses' guidance, a systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Prospective clinical studies and retrospective case collections discussing management and outcomes in SAPHO involving five or more participants were included. Articles not published in English, studies not reporting defined outcomes, and studies solely relying on patient-reported outcomes were excluded.
RESULTS
A total of 28 studies (20 observational, 8 open-label clinical studies) reporting 796 patients of predominantly European ethnicity were included. Reported therapies varied greatly, with many centres using multiple treatments in parallel. Most patients (37.1%) received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination. Bisphosphonates (22.1%), conventional (21.7%) and biological (11.3%) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were the next most frequently reported treatments. Reported outcomes varied and delivered mixed results, which complicates comparisons. Bisphosphonates demonstrated the most consistent improvement of osteoarticular symptoms and were associated with transient influenza-like symptoms. Paradoxical skin reactions were reported in patients treated with TNF inhibitors, but no serious adverse events were recorded. Most treatments had limited or mixed effects on cutaneous involvement. A recent study investigating the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib delivered promising results in relation to skin and nail involvement.
CONCLUSIONS
No single currently available treatment option sufficiently addresses all SAPHO-associated symptoms. Variable, sometimes descriptive outcomes and the use of treatment combinations complicate conclusions and treatment recommendations. Randomised clinical trials are necessary to generate reliable evidence.
Topics: Humans; Acquired Hyperostosis Syndrome; Osteitis; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Synovitis; Hyperostosis; Acne Vulgaris; Diphosphonates
PubMed: 38151265
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003688