-
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis Jul 20215-Aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] are the mainstay of treatment for ulcerative colitis [UC]. The optimum preparation, dose, and route of administration for UC remain unclear.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
5-Aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] are the mainstay of treatment for ulcerative colitis [UC]. The optimum preparation, dose, and route of administration for UC remain unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis to examine this issue.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from inception to December 2020. We included randomised controlled trials [RCTs] comparing oral, topical, or combined oral and topical 5-ASAs, with each other or placebo for induction of remission or prevention of relapse of UC. Results were reported as pooled relative risks [RRs] with 95% confidence intervals [CIs] to summarise effect of each comparison tested, with treatments ranked according to P-score.
RESULTS
We identified 40 RCTs for induction of remission and 23 for prevention of relapse. Topical mesalazine [P-score 0.99], or oral and topical mesalazine combined [P-score 0.87] ranked first and second for clinical and endoscopic remission combined. Combined therapy ranked first in trials where ≥50% of patients had left-sided/extensive disease, and topical mesalazine first in trials where ≥50% of patients had proctitis/proctosigmoiditis. High-dose [≥3.3 g/day] oral mesalazine ranked third in most analyses, with the most trials and most patients. For relapse of disease activity, combined therapy and high-dose oral mesalazine ranked first and second, with topical mesalazine third. 5-ASAs were safe and well tolerated, regardless of regimen.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results support previous evidence; however, higher doses of oral mesalazine had more evidence for induction of remission than combined therapy and were significantly more efficacious than lower doses. Future RCTs should better establish the role of combined therapy for induction of remission, as well as optimal doses of oral 5-ASAs to prevent relapse.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Mesalamine; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 33433562
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab010 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used in the treatment of LBP, particularly in people with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used in the treatment of LBP, particularly in people with acute LBP. In 2008, a Cochrane Review was published about the efficacy of NSAIDs for LBP (acute, chronic, and sciatica), identifying a small but significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo for short-term pain reduction and global improvement in participants with acute LBP. This is an update of the previous review, focusing on acute LBP.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo and other comparison treatments for acute LBP.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and two trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCT) to 7 January 2020. We also screened the reference lists from relevant reviews and included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that assessed the use of one or more types of NSAIDs compared to placebo (the main comparison) or alternative treatments for acute LBP in adults (≥ 18 years); conducted in both primary and secondary care settings. We assessed the effects of treatment on pain reduction, disability, global improvement, adverse events, and return to work.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials to be included in this review, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted the data. If appropriate, we performed a meta-analysis, using a random-effects model throughout, due to expected variability between studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 trials, with a total of 5356 participants (age range 16 to 78 years). Follow-up ranged from one day to six months. Studies were conducted across the globe, the majority taking place in Europe and North-America. Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean region were not represented. We considered seven studies at low risk of bias. Performance and attrition were the most common biases. There was often a lack of information on randomisation procedures and allocation concealment (selection bias); studies were prone to selective reporting bias, since most studies did not register their trials. Almost half of the studies were industry-funded. There is moderate quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective in short-term (≤ 3 weeks) reduction of pain intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 100) than placebo (mean difference (MD) -7.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.98 to -3.61; 4 RCTs, N = 815). There is high quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term improvement in disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), 0 to 24) than placebo (MD -2.02, 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15; 2 RCTs, N = 471). The magnitude of these effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term global improvement than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75; 5 RCTs, N = 1201), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I² 52%) between studies. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events when using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 6 RCTs, N = 1394). There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference between the proportion of participants who could return to work after seven days between those who used NSAIDs and those who used placebo (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.23; 1 RCT, N = 266). There is low quality evidence of no clear difference in short-term reduction of pain intensity between those who took selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs compared to non-selective NSAIDs (mean change from baseline -2.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 4.03; 2 RCTs, N = 437). There is moderate quality evidence of conflicting results for short-term disability improvement between groups (2 RCTs, N = 437). Low quality evidence from one trial (N = 333) reported no clear difference between groups in the proportion of participants experiencing global improvement. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events between those who took COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.50; 2 RCTs, N = 444). No data were reported for return to work.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This updated Cochrane Review included 32 trials to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs in people with acute LBP. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low, thus further research is (very) likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect, and may change the estimates. NSAIDs seemed slightly more effective than placebo for short-term pain reduction (moderate certainty), disability (high certainty), and global improvement (low certainty), but the magnitude of the effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There was no clear difference in short-term pain reduction (low certainty) when comparing selective COX-2 inhibitors to non-selective NSAIDs. We found very low evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events in both the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo and selective COX-2 inhibitors versus non-selective NSAIDs. We were unable to draw conclusions about adverse events and the safety of NSAIDs for longer-term use, since we only included RCTs with a primary focus on short-term use of NSAIDs and a short follow-up. These are not optimal for answering questions about longer-term or rare adverse events.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Disability Evaluation; Humans; Low Back Pain; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32297973
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013581 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022The refractory, repetitive, and disabling characteristic of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has seriously influenced the patients' quality of life, and makes it a major public... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The refractory, repetitive, and disabling characteristic of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has seriously influenced the patients' quality of life, and makes it a major public health problem. As a classic complementary and alternative therapy, acupuncture is usually applied for RA combined with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). However, there are various types of acupuncture, and the curative effects are different in different acupuncture therapies. In this study, we evaluated the clinical efficacy of different acupuncture therapies combined with DMARDs in the treatment of RA.
METHODS
The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture combined with DMARDs in the treatment of RA were searched in both English and Chinese database of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP database, Wanfang, and SinoMED, up to October 2021. Literature screening, data extraction, and evaluation of the risk of bias were carried out independently by two researchers, and the data were analyzed by Stata14.2 and GeMTC 0.14.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of 32 RCTs were included, including 2,115 RA patients. The results of network meta-analysis were as follows: in terms of improving DAS28 score, Electro-acupuncture + DMARDs has the best efficacy. In terms of improving VAS score, Fire Needle + DMARDs showed the best efficacy. In terms of improving morning stiffness time, acupuncture-related therapies combined with DMARDs were not better than DMARDs alone in improving morning stiffness time in RA patients. In terms of reducing CRP and ESR, Fire Needle + DMARDs showed the best efficacy. In terms of reducing RF, Moxibustion + DMARDs has the best efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS
The comprehensive comparison of the outcome indicators in 8 different treatments indicates that electro-acupuncture combined with DMARDs is the best combined therapy in improving DAS28 score, while in terms of improving pain and serological markers, fire needle combined with DMARDs and moxibustion combined with DMARDs were the best combined therapies. However, it is impossible to find out which is better between fire needle and moxibustion due to the limited studies. Clinically, appropriate treatment should be selected according to the actual situation.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, CRD42021278233.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35320944
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.829409 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with ulcerative colitis can be put into remission, leaving a group who do not respond to first- or second-line therapies. There is a significant proportion of people who experience adverse effects with current therapies. Consequently, new alternatives for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are constantly being sought. Probiotics are live microbial feed supplements that may beneficially affect the host by improving intestinal microbial balance, enhancing gut barrier function and improving local immune response.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of probiotics compared with placebo or standard medical treatment (5-aminosalicylates, sulphasalazine or corticosteroids) for the induction of remission in people with active ulcerative colitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 31 October 2019. We contacted authors of relevant studies and manufacturers of probiotics regarding ongoing or unpublished trials that may be relevant to the review, and we searched ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched references of trials for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of probiotics compared to standard treatments or placebo in the induction of remission of active ulcerative colitis. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
In this review, we included 14 studies (865 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies looked at adult participants and two studies looked at paediatric participants with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, the average age was between 12.5 and 47.7 years. The studies compared probiotics to placebo, probiotics to 5-ASA and a combination of probiotics plus 5-ASA compared to 5-ASA alone. Seven studies used a single probiotic strain and seven used a mixture of strains. The studies ranged from two weeks to 52 weeks. The risk of bias was high for all except two studies due to allocation concealment, blinding of participants, incomplete reports of outcome data and selective reporting. This led to GRADE ratings of the evidence ranging from moderate to very low. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may induce clinical remission when compared to placebo (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.54; 9 studies, 594 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to imprecision and risk of bias, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5). Probiotics may lead to an improvement in clinical disease scores (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.63; 2 studies, 54 participants; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.59; 7 studies, 520 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal bloating and discomfort. Probiotics did not lead to any serious adverse events in any of the seven studies that reported on it, however five adverse events were reported in the placebo arm of one study (RR 0.09, CI 0.01 to 1.66; 1 study, 526 participants; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to high risk of bias and imprecision). Probiotics may make little or no difference to withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.72; 4 studies, 401 participants; low-certainty evidence). Probiotics versus 5-ASA There may be little or no difference in the induction of remission with probiotics when compared to 5-ASA (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.16; 1 study, 116 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.33; 1 study, 116 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal pain, nausea, headache and mouth ulcers. There were no serious adverse events with probiotics, however perforated sigmoid diverticulum and respiratory failure in a patient with severe emphysema were reported in the 5-ASA arm (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; 1 study, 116 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Probiotics combined with 5-ASA versus 5-ASA alone Low-certainty evidence from a single study shows that when combined with 5-ASA, probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission (based on the Sunderland disease activity index) compared to 5-ASA alone (RR 1.22 CI 1.01 to 1.47; 1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to unclear risk of bias and imprecision). No information about adverse events was reported. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes (progression to surgery, need for additional therapy, quality of life scores, or steroid withdrawal) were reported in any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests that probiotics may induce clinical remission in active ulcerative colitis when compared to placebo. There may be little or no difference in clinical remission with probiotics alone compared to 5-ASA. There is limited evidence from a single study which failed to provide a definition of remission, that probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission when used in combination with 5-ASA. There was no evidence to assess whether probiotics are effective in people with severe and more extensive disease, or if specific preparations are superior to others. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies and the use of standardised participant groups and outcome measures in line with the wider field are needed, as well as reporting to minimise risk of bias.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Child; Colitis, Ulcerative; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Mesalamine; Middle Aged; Numbers Needed To Treat; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Sample Size; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 32128795
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005573.pub3 -
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) Aug 2023To develop initial American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines on the use of exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and additional interventions in conjunction with...
OBJECTIVE
To develop initial American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines on the use of exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and additional interventions in conjunction with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as part of an integrative management approach for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS
An interprofessional guideline development group constructed clinically relevant Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) questions. A literature review team then completed a systematic literature review and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the certainty of evidence. An interprofessional Voting Panel (n = 20 participants) that included 3 individuals with RA achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
RESULTS
The Voting Panel achieved consensus on 28 recommendations for the use of integrative interventions in conjunction with DMARDs for the management of RA. Consistent engagement in exercise received a strong recommendation. Of 27 conditional recommendations, 4 pertained to exercise, 13 to rehabilitation, 3 to diet, and 7 to additional integrative interventions. These recommendations are specific to RA management, recognizing that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions.
CONCLUSION
This guideline provides initial ACR recommendations on integrative interventions for the management of RA to accompany DMARD treatments. The broad range of interventions included in these recommendations illustrates the importance of an interprofessional, team-based approach to RA management. The conditional nature of most recommendations requires clinicians to engage persons with RA in shared decision-making when applying these recommendations.
Topics: Humans; United States; Rheumatology; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Antirheumatic Agents; Diet; Exercise Therapy
PubMed: 37227071
DOI: 10.1002/art.42507 -
Journal of Clinical Rheumatology :... Mar 2022The Janus kinases (JAKs) are cytoplasmic tyrosine kinases associated with membrane cytokine receptors that mediate signaling of multiple cytokines and growth factors,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE
The Janus kinases (JAKs) are cytoplasmic tyrosine kinases associated with membrane cytokine receptors that mediate signaling of multiple cytokines and growth factors, contributing to the pathogenesis of multiple autoimmune disorders. The JAK inhibitors are a new class of targeted therapies with proven efficacy in treating rheumatoid arthritis but are associated with an increased risk of infections. This study is aimed at comparing the relative safety of the different JAK inhibitors with regard to the risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The outcomes assessed were the risk of total and serious infections, tuberculosis, and herpes zoster. Sensitivity analysis disaggregated the results according to background therapy and licensed doses of JAK inhibitors.
RESULTS
Thirty-seven randomized controlled trials that were included met the inclusion criteria. Compared with filgotinib, adalimumab (4.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-16.66), etanercept (6.04; 95% CI, 1.79-20.37), peficitinib (7.56; 95% CI, 1.63-35.12), tofacitinib (4.29; 95% CI, 1.43-12.88), and upadacitinib (4.35; 95% CI, 1.46-13.00) have an increased risk of herpes zoster infection. Risk differences between the drugs became statistically nonsignificant when the sensitivity analysis was conducted.
CONCLUSIONS
The risk of infections seems to be similar among the currently approved JAK inhibitor drugs. Although the initial results suggested that filgotinib could have a reduced risk of herpes zoster, the sensitivity analyses did not support those findings.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Azetidines; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis; Purines; Pyrazoles; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 33902098
DOI: 10.1097/RHU.0000000000001749 -
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 -
Joint Bone Spine Mar 2023Despite available therapies, persistently active and corticosteroid-dependent Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) represent a significant therapeutic challenge. The...
INTRODUCTION
Despite available therapies, persistently active and corticosteroid-dependent Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) represent a significant therapeutic challenge. The purpose of this systematic review was to provide an updated view of targeted therapies currently in clinical development in SLE, with a special focus on the most promising ones.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of targeted therapies in clinical development in SLE in clinicaltrials.gov (search date: 28th of August 2022). Targeted therapies (defined as drugs specifically designed to block certain molecules, receptors, or pathways involved in the development of SLE) were extracted. For each investigational drug, we considered only the study at the most advanced stage of clinical development.
RESULTS
The systematic review yielded a total of 92 targeted therapies (58 biological DMARDs [bDMARDs] and 34 targeted synthetic [ts]DMARDs) assessed in a total of 203 clinical trials. The candidate drugs reached phase I (n=20), Ia/IIb (n=6), phase II (n=51), phase II/III (n=1), phase III (n=13) and phase IV (n=1). These trials were reported as recruiting (n=31), active but not recruiting (n=8), not yet recruiting (n=4), enrolling by invitation (n=2), completed (n=31), prematurely terminated (n=12) and withdrawn in 1 (status unknown in 3). The main investigational drugs for SLE target inflammatory cytokines, chemokines or their receptors (n=19), intracellular signaling pathways (n=18), B cells (n=14) or plasma cells (n=7),T/B cells co-stimulation molecules (n=10), complement molecules (n=5),T lymphocytes (n=2), plasmacytoid dendritic cells (n=2), as well as various other immune targets (n=15).
CONCLUSION
The pipeline of investigational drugs in SLE is highly diversified and will hopefully enable more optimal Treat-To-Target with the goal of disease modification. Companion biomarkers will be needed to better characterized SLE heterogeneity and optimize treatment selection at the individual-patient level.
Topics: Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Drugs, Investigational; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Antirheumatic Agents; Biological Products
PubMed: 36623799
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2023.105523 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2020Indomethacin is used as standard therapy to close a patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) but is associated with reduced blood flow to several organs. Ibuprofen, another... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Indomethacin is used as standard therapy to close a patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) but is associated with reduced blood flow to several organs. Ibuprofen, another cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor, may be as effective as indomethacin with fewer adverse effects.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of ibuprofen compared with indomethacin, other cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor(s), placebo, or no intervention for closing a patent ductus arteriosus in preterm, low-birth-weight, or preterm and low-birth-weight infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 10), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 30 November 2017), Embase (1980 to 30 November 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 30 November 2017). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of ibuprofen for the treatment of a PDA in preterm, low birth weight, or both preterm and low-birth-weight newborn infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data collection and analysis conformed to the methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 39 studies enrolling 2843 infants. Ibuprofen (IV) versus placebo: IV Ibuprofen (3 doses) reduced the failure to close a PDA compared with placebo (typical relative risk (RR); 0.62 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86); typical risk difference (RD); -0.18 (95% CI -0.30 to -0.06); NNTB 6 (95% CI 3 to 17); I = 65% for RR and I = 0% for RD; 2 studies, 206 infants; moderate-quality the evidence). One study reported decreased failure to close a PDA after single or three doses of oral ibuprofen compared with placebo (64 infants; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.62; RD -0.44, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.23; NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 4; I test not applicable). Ibuprofen (IV or oral) compared with indomethacin (IV or oral): Twenty-four studies (1590 infants) comparing ibuprofen (IV or oral) with indomethacin (IV or oral) found no significant differences in failure rates for PDA closure (typical RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.24; typical RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06; I = 0% for both RR and RD; moderate-quality evidence). A reduction in NEC (necrotising enterocolitis) was noted in the ibuprofen (IV or oral) group (18 studies, 1292 infants; typical RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94; typical RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.01; NNTB 25, 95% CI 14 to 100; I = 0% for both RR and RD; moderate-quality evidence). There was a statistically significant reduction in the proportion of infants with oliguria in the ibuprofen group (6 studies, 576 infants; typical RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; typical RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.05; NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 20; I = 24% for RR and I = 69% for RD; moderate-quality evidence). The serum/plasma creatinine levels 72 hours after initiation of treatment were statistically significantly lower in the ibuprofen group (11 studies, 918 infants; MD -8.12 µmol/L, 95% CI -10.81 to -5.43). For this comparison, there was high between-study heterogeneity (I = 83%) and low-quality evidence. Ibuprofen (oral) compared with indomethacin (IV or oral): Eight studies (272 infants) reported on failure rates for PDA closure in a subgroup of the above studies comparing oral ibuprofen with indomethacin (IV or oral). There was no significant difference between the groups (typical RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.27; typical RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.09; I = 0% for both RR and RD). The risk of NEC was reduced with oral ibuprofen compared with indomethacin (IV or oral) (7 studies, 249 infants; typical RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.73; typical RD -0.13, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.05; NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 20; I = 0% for both RR and RD). There was low-quality evidence for these two outcomes. There was a decreased risk of failure to close a PDA with oral ibuprofen compared with IV ibuprofen (5 studies, 406 infants; typical RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.56; typical RD -0.22, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.14; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 7; moderate-quality evidence). There was a decreased risk of failure to close a PDA with high-dose versus standard-dose of IV ibuprofen (3 studies 190 infants; typical RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.61; typical RD - 0.26, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.15; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 7); I = 4% for RR and 0% for RD); moderate-quality evidence). Early versus expectant administration of IV ibuprofen, echocardiographically-guided IV ibuprofen treatment versus standard IV ibuprofen treatment, continuous infusion of ibuprofen versus intermittent boluses of ibuprofen, and rectal ibuprofen versus oral ibuprofen were studied in too few trials to allow for precise estimates of any clinical outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Ibuprofen is as effective as indomethacin in closing a PDA. Ibuprofen reduces the risk of NEC and transient renal insufficiency. Therefore, of these two drugs, ibuprofen appears to be the drug of choice. The effectiveness of ibuprofen versus paracetamol is assessed in a separate review. Oro-gastric administration of ibuprofen appears as effective as IV administration. To make further recommendations, studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose ibuprofen, early versus expectant administration of ibuprofen, echocardiographically-guided versus standard IV ibuprofen, and continuous infusion versus intermittent boluses of ibuprofen. Studies are lacking evaluating the effect of ibuprofen on longer-term outcomes in infants with PDA.
Topics: Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Ductus Arteriosus, Patent; Enzyme Inhibitors; Humans; Ibuprofen; Indomethacin; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32045960
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003481.pub8