-
Lancet (London, England) Dec 2019The JAK pathway is a potential therapeutic target in ankylosing spondylitis. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, in... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (SELECT-AXIS 1): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 trial.
BACKGROUND
The JAK pathway is a potential therapeutic target in ankylosing spondylitis. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.
METHODS
This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period, parallel-group, phase 2/3 study, SELECT-AXIS 1, enrolled adults in 62 sites in 20 countries. Eligible patients had active ankylosing spondylitis, fulfilled modified New York criteria, were previously untreated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and had inadequate response to at least two or intolerance or contraindication to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 using interactive response technology to take oral upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or oral placebo for the 14-week period 1; only period 1 data are reported here. The primary endpoint was the composite outcome measure of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 response at week 14. Analyses were done in the full analysis set of patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03178487.
FINDINGS
Between Nov 30, 2017, and Oct 15, 2018, 187 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg (93 patients) or to placebo (94 patients), and 178 (95%) patients (89 in the upadacitinib group and 89 in the placebo group) completed period 1 on study drug (by the completion date of Jan 21, 2019). Significantly more patients had an Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 response in the upadacitinib group versus in the placebo group at week 14 (48 [52%] of 93 patients vs 24 [26%] of 94 patients; p=0·0003; treatment difference 26% [95% CI 13-40]). Adverse events were reported in 58 (62%) of 93 patients in the upadacitinib group versus 52 (55%) of 94 in the placebo group. The most common adverse event in the upadacitinib group was increased creatine phosphokinase (eight [9%] of 93 patients in the upadacitinib group vs two [2%] of 94 patients with placebo). No serious infections, herpes zoster, malignancy, venous thromboembolic events, or deaths were reported; one serious adverse event was reported in each group.
INTERPRETATION
Upadacitinib 15 mg was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis who had an inadequate response or contraindication to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. These data support the further investigation of upadacitinib for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis.
FUNDING
AbbVie.
Topics: Adult; Antirheumatic Agents; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Mesalamine; Methotrexate; Middle Aged; Sacroiliac Joint; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Sulfasalazine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31732180
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32534-6 -
Journal of Gastroenterology and... Jan 2021Although oral mesalamine is the first-choice drug for treating mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC), some patients show symptoms of intolerance, including...
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Although oral mesalamine is the first-choice drug for treating mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC), some patients show symptoms of intolerance, including exacerbation of diarrhea and abdominal pain. The present study clarified the current state and clinical courses of patients with mesalamine intolerance.
METHODS
Patients who were diagnosed with UC and administered oral mesalamine at eight hospitals in Japan with a follow-up period exceeding 1 year were analyzed.
RESULTS
Sixty-seven (11%) of 633 patients showed intolerance to at least one formulation of oral mesalamine. The frequency of mesalamine intolerance has increased in recent years, rising from 5.3% in 2007-2010 to 9.1% in 2011-2013 and 16.2% in 2014-2016. The most common complications were the exacerbation of diarrhea (n = 29), a fever (n = 25), and abdominal pain (n = 22). Readministration of mesalamine/sulfasalazine was attempted in 43 patients, mostly with other types of formulation of mesalamine, and more than half of these patients proved to be tolerant. The risk factors for mesalamine intolerance were female gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-3.12), age < 60 years old (OR = 2.82; CI, 1.19-8.33), and pancolitis (OR = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.23-3.60). There were no significant differences in the use of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents, colectomy, or steroid-free remission at the last visit between patients with and without mesalamine intolerance.
CONCLUSIONS
Mesalamine intolerance is not rare, and its frequency has been increasing recently. The prognosis of patients with mesalamine intolerance did not differ significantly from that of those without intolerance.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Administration, Oral; Adult; Colitis, Ulcerative; Diarrhea; Disease Progression; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Mesalamine; Middle Aged; Prognosis; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Severity of Illness Index; Sex Factors; Sulfasalazine; Time Factors
PubMed: 32525567
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15138 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Dec 2020To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis: phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.
DESIGN
Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study.
SETTING
Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein.
INTERVENTIONS
Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms.
RESULTS
812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms.
CONCLUSIONS
All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
EudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815.
Topics: Abatacept; Adult; Aged; Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibodies; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; C-Reactive Protein; Certolizumab Pegol; Denmark; Drug Therapy, Combination; Early Medical Intervention; Female; Finland; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Injections, Intra-Articular; Male; Methotrexate; Middle Aged; Netherlands; Norway; Prednisolone; Rheumatoid Factor; Severity of Illness Index; Single-Blind Method; Sulfasalazine; Sweden; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33268527
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m4328 -
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 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020In Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) theory, ulcerative colitis (UC) is associated with damp-heat, blood stasis, and intestinal vascular ischemia. Kuijieyuan decoction...
Kuijieyuan Decoction Improved Intestinal Barrier Injury of Ulcerative Colitis by Affecting TLR4-Dependent PI3K/AKT/NF-κB Oxidative and Inflammatory Signaling and Gut Microbiota.
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE
In Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) theory, ulcerative colitis (UC) is associated with damp-heat, blood stasis, and intestinal vascular ischemia. Kuijieyuan decoction (KD) is a traditional Chinese medicine based on the above theory and used clinically to alleviate UC injury.
METHODS
The main components of KD were analyzed by using high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) and confirmed by UPLC-MS/MS. A UC model was established in rats by using dextran sulfate sodium (DSS) and dead rats (caused by DSS) were excluded from the study. Forty-eight rats were divided into 6 groups, health control (CG), UC model (UG), sulfasalazine (SG), low-dose KD (LG), middle-dose KD (MG), and high-dose KD (HG) groups. UC damage was assessed by hematoxylin and eosin staining and scan electron microscopy. We measured Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), p-phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K), PI3K, p-Protein kinase B (AKT), AKT, p-nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB), NF-κB, oxidative stress marker (superoxidase dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidases (GPx), and malondialdehyde) and inflammatory markers (tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα), interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6 and IL-10) in UC tissues. Gut microbiota was analyzed through16S rRNA sequencing.
RESULTS
The main components of KD consist of gallic acid, paeoniflorin, emodin, berberine, coptisine, palmatine, jatrorrhizine, baicalein and baicalin. The UC model was successfully established by causing intestinal barrier injury with the loss of intestinal villi and destructed mitochondria of intestinal epithelial cells. Both sulfasalazine and KD treatment repaired UC injury, reduced the levels of malondialdehyde, TNFα, IL-1, IL-6, TLR4, p-PI3K, p-AKT, and p-NF-κB, and increased the levels of SOD, GPx, CAT, and IL-10. KD showed a protective function for the UC model in a dose-dependent way. The serum levels of paeoniflorin and baicalin had a strong relationship with the levels of inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers. KD treatment increased the proportion of Alloprevotella, Treponema, Prevotellaceae, and Prevotella, and reduced the proportion of Escherichia_Shigella and Desulfovibrio in gut microbiota.
CONCLUSIONS
KD improved intestinal barrier injury of ulcerative colitis, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties by affecting TLR4-dependent PI3K/AKT/NF-κB signaling possibly through the combination of its main compounds, and improving gut microbiota.
PubMed: 32848725
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.01036 -
Nature Reviews. Rheumatology Mar 2024In the past two decades, the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) has evolved markedly, owing to the availability of a growing number of novel, potent and... (Review)
Review
In the past two decades, the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) has evolved markedly, owing to the availability of a growing number of novel, potent and relatively safe therapeutic agents and the shift of management strategies towards early achievement of disease remission. However, JIA encompasses a heterogeneous group of diseases that require distinct treatment approaches. Furthermore, some old drugs, such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine and intraarticular glucocorticoids, still maintain an important therapeutic role. In the past 5 years, information on the efficacy and safety of drug therapies for JIA has been further enriched through the accomplishment of several randomized controlled trials of newer biologic and synthetic targeted DMARDs. In addition, a more rational therapeutic approach has been fostered by the promulgation of therapeutic recommendations and guidelines. A multinational collaborative effort has led to the development of the recommendations for the treat-to-target strategy in JIA. There is currently increasing interest in establishing the optimal time and modality for discontinuation of treatment in children with JIA who achieve sustained clinical remission. The aim of this Review is to summarize the current evidence and discuss the therapeutic approaches to the management of non-systemic phenotypes of JIA, including oligoarthritis, polyarthritis, enthesitis-related arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.
Topics: Child; Humans; Arthritis, Juvenile; Antirheumatic Agents; Methotrexate; Sulfasalazine; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38321298
DOI: 10.1038/s41584-024-01079-8 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2023Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DiHS)/drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a systemic inflammatory condition that is characterized by...
Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DiHS)/drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a systemic inflammatory condition that is characterized by multisystemic involvement (liver, blood, and skin), heterogeneous manifestations (fever, rash, lymphadenopathy, and eosinophilia), and an unpredictable course; cases of DiHS/DRESS caused by sulfasalazine are rare in children compared to adults. We report a case of a 12-year-old girl with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and sulfasalazine-related hypersensitivity who developed fever, rash, blood abnormalities, and hepatitis complicated with hypocoagulation. The treatment with intravenous and then oral glucocorticosteroids was effective. We also reviewed 15 cases (67% male patients) of childhood-onset sulfasalazine-related DiHS/DRESS from the MEDLINE/PubMed and Scopus online databases. All reviewed cases had a fever, lymphadenopathy, and liver involvement. Eosinophilia was reported in 60% of patients. All patients were treated with systemic corticosteroids, and one patient required emergency liver transplantation. Two patients (13%) died. A total of 40.0% of patients satisfied RegiSCAR definite criteria, 53.3% were probable, and 80.0% satisfied Bocquet's criteria. Only 13.3% satisfied typical and 20.0% atypical DIHS criteria from the Japanese group. Pediatric rheumatologists should be aware of DiHS/DRESS due to its similarities to other systemic inflammatory syndromes (especially systemic JIA, macrophage activation syndrome, and secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis). Further studies of DiHS/DRESS syndrome in children are needed to improve its recognition and differential diagnostic and therapeutic options.
PubMed: 37293296
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1140339 -
Drug Metabolism Reviews Aug 2023Orally administered drugs undergo four stages of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion in the body. However, before being absorbed into the body, orally... (Review)
Review
Orally administered drugs undergo four stages of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion in the body. However, before being absorbed into the body, orally administered drugs contact with gut microbiota, which catalyze their metabolic reactions such as reduction, hydroxylation (including deconjugation), dehydrogenation, acetylation, etc. Although these metabolic reactions typically inactivate drugs (ranitidine, digoxin, and amlodipine), some activate them (sulfasalazine). The composition and quantity of gut microbiota are variable across individuals and fluctuated by gut microbiota modulators such as diets, drugs (antibiotics), probiotics, prebiotics, pathogen infections, and stressors. Gut microbiota-involved metabolisms of drugs in the gastrointestinal tract are dependent on the composition and quantity of gut microbiota. Therefore, the bioavailability of orally administered drugs is significantly affected by gut microbiota modulators. This review describes gut microbiota modulator-drug interactions.
Topics: Humans; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Probiotics; Prebiotics; Gastrointestinal Tract; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 36999361
DOI: 10.1080/03602532.2023.2197178 -
Best Practice & Research. Clinical... Apr 2020There is lack of research on the safety of medications used to treat rheumatic diseases in men wishing to conceive. When evaluating medication safety for potential... (Review)
Review
There is lack of research on the safety of medications used to treat rheumatic diseases in men wishing to conceive. When evaluating medication safety for potential fathers, two major reproductive issues are to be considered: first, whether a drug induces infertility, and second, whether a drug can cause adverse pregnancy outcomes. Cyclophosphamide is the only medication used in rheumatic disease management that causes irreversible infertility. All men prescribed cyclophosphamide should be counseled on fertility preservation including sperm banking. Sulfasalazine can cause reversible azoospermia; when conception is delayed, this medication should be held for three months and semen analysis should be performed. There are limited data on the teratogenic risk of paternal exposure to medications. Men wanting to conceive should avoid cyclophosphamide and thalidomide. Methotrexate; NSAIDs; glucocorticoids; sulfasalazine; the immunosuppressive agents azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil; colchicine; TNF-alpha blockers; hydroxychloroquine; IVIG; rituximab; abatacept; and anakinra are compatible with paternal exposure. There are insufficient data to conclude the safety of other biologics and small molecules in men seeking to father a child.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Child; Fathers; Female; Humans; Infertility, Male; Male; Paternal Exposure; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Rheumatic Diseases
PubMed: 31727565
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2019.09.004