-
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 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022To evaluate Safety and efficacy of probiotic supplementation in inflammatory arthritis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate Safety and efficacy of probiotic supplementation in inflammatory arthritis.
METHODS
The literature on the treatment of inflammatory arthritis with probiotics has been collected in databases such as CNKI, Pubmed, Cochrane library, Embase, etc. The search time is for them to build the database until May 2022. The included literatures are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotics in the treatment of hyperuricemia and gout. The Cochrane risk assessment tool was used for quality evaluation, and the Rev Man5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 37 records were finally included, involving 34 RCTs and 8 types of autoimmune disease (Hyperuricemia and gout, Inflammatory bowel disease arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis [JIA], Osteoarthritis [OA], Osteoporosis and Osteopenia, Psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Spondyloarthritis). RA involved 10 RCTs (632 participants) whose results showed that probiotic intervention reduced CRP. Psoriasis involved 4 RCTs (214 participants) whose results showed that probiotic intervention could reduce PASI scores. Spondyloarthritis involved 2 RCTs (197 participants) whose results showed that probiotic intervention improved symptoms in patients. Osteoporosis and Ostepenia involving 10 RCTs (1156 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved bone mineral density in patients. Hyperuricemia and gout involving 4 RCTs (294 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved serum uric acid in patients. OA involving 1 RCTs (433 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved symptoms in patients. JIA involving 2 RCTs (72 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved symptoms in patients. Inflammatory bowel disease arthritis involving 1 RCTs (120 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved symptoms in patients. All of the above RCTs showed that probiotics did not increase the incidence of adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Probiotic supplements may improve Hyperuricemia and gout, Inflammatory bowel disease arthritis, JIA, OA, Osteoporosis and Osteopenia, Psoriasis, RA, Spondyloarthritis. However, more randomized controlled trials are needed in the future to determine the efficacy and optimal dosing design of probiotics.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021286425, identifier CRD42021286425.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Chronic Disease; Dietary Supplements; Gout; Humans; Hyperuricemia; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Osteoporosis; Probiotics; Psoriasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spondylarthritis; Uric Acid
PubMed: 36217542
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.961325 -
EBioMedicine Jun 2022Emerging evidence suggests that dysbiosis in gut microbiota may contribute to the occurrence or development of several rheumatic diseases. Since gut microbiota dysbiosis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Emerging evidence suggests that dysbiosis in gut microbiota may contribute to the occurrence or development of several rheumatic diseases. Since gut microbiota dysbiosis is potentially modifiable, it has been postulated to be a promising preventive or therapeutic target for rheumatic diseases. However, the current understanding on the potential associations between gut microbiota and rheumatic diseases is still inadequate. Therefore, we aimed to synthesise the accumulating evidence for the relation of gut microbiota to rheumatic diseases.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 11, 2022 to include observational studies evaluating the associations between gut microbiota and rheumatic diseases. Standardised mean difference (SMD) of α-diversity indices between rheumatic diseases and controls were estimated using random-effects model. β-diversity indices and relative abundance of gut microbes were summarised qualitatively.
FINDINGS
Of the included 92 studies (11,998 participants), 68 provided data for α-diversity. Taken together as a whole, decreases in α-diversity indices were consistently found in rheumatic diseases (observed species: SMD = -0.36, [95%CI = -0.63, -0.09]; Chao1: SMD = -0.57, [95%CI = -0.88, -0.26]; Shannon index: SMD = -0.33, [95%CI = -0.48, -0.17]; Simpson index: SMD = -0.32, [95%CI = -0.49, -0.14]). However, when specific rheumatic diseases were examined, decreases were only observed in rheumatoid arthritis (observed species: SMD = -0.51, [95%CI = -0.78, -0.24]; Shannon index: SMD = -0.31, [95%CI = -0.49, -0.13]; Simpson index: SMD = -0.31, [95%CI = -0.54, -0.08]), systemic lupus erythematosus (Chao1: SMD = -1.60, [95%CI = -2.54, -0.66]; Shannon index: SMD = -0.63, [95%CI = -1.08, -0.18]), gout (Simpson index: SMD = -0.64, [95%CI = -1.07, -0.22]) and fibromyalgia (Simpson index: SMD = -0.28, [95%CI = -0.44, -0.11]), whereas an increase was observed in systemic sclerosis (Shannon index: SMD = 1.25, [95%CI = 0.09, 2.41]). Differences with statistical significance in β-diversity were consistently reported in ankylosing spondylitis and IgG4-related diseases. Although little evidence of disease specificity of gut microbes was found, shared alterations of the depletion of anti-inflammatory butyrate-producing microbe (i.e., Faecalibacterium) and the enrichment of pro-inflammatory microbe (i.e., Streptococcus) were observed in rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren's syndrome and systemic lupus erythematosus.
INTERPRETATION
Gut microbiota dysbiosis was associated with rheumatic diseases, principally with potentially non-specific, shared alterations of microbes.
FUNDING
National Natural Science Foundation of China (81930071, 81902265, 82072502 and U21A20352).
Topics: Dysbiosis; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Rheumatic Diseases; Sjogren's Syndrome
PubMed: 35594658
DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104055 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of curcumin in rheumatoid arthritis patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of curcumin in rheumatoid arthritis patients.
METHODS
A computerized search from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was performed until 3 March 2023. Literature screening, basic data extraction and risk of bias evaluation were independently performed by two researchers each. The quality evaluation of the literature was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Risk of Bias Assessment tool for treatment evaluation.
RESULTS
The current study includes six publications covering 539 rheumatoid arthritis patients. The activity of rheumatoid arthritis was assessed using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), protein, disease activity score (DAS), rheumatoid factor (RF), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain, tender joint count (TJC) and swollen joint count (SJC). ESR (MD = -29.47, 95% CI [-54.05, -4.88], Z=2.35, P = 0.02), DAS28 (MD = -1.20, 95% CI [-1.85, -0.55], Z=3.62, P = 0.0003), SJC (MD = -5.33, 95% CI [-9.90, -0.76], Z = 2.29, P = 0.02) and TJC (MD = -6.33, 95% CI [-10.86, -1.81], Z = 2.74, P = 0.006) showed significantly change in experimental patients compared with controls.
CONCLUSION
Curcumin is beneficial for rheumatoid arthritis treatment. Inflammation levels and clinical symptoms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis can be improved by curcumin supplementation. Large sample randomized controlled trials on the effects of curcumin on patients with rheumatoid arthritis are needed in the future.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier (CRD42022361992).
Topics: Humans; Curcumin; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Rheumatoid Factor; Inflammation; C-Reactive Protein
PubMed: 37325651
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1121655 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Sep 2023Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a grey-level textural measurement acquired from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry lumbar spine images and is a validated index of bone...
Update on the clinical use of trabecular bone score (TBS) in the management of osteoporosis: results of an expert group meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO), and the International...
PURPOSE
Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a grey-level textural measurement acquired from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry lumbar spine images and is a validated index of bone microarchitecture. In 2015, a Working Group of the European Society on Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) published a review of the TBS literature, concluding that TBS predicts hip and major osteoporotic fracture, at least partly independent of bone mineral density (BMD) and clinical risk factors. It was also concluded that TBS is potentially amenable to change as a result of pharmacological therapy. Further evidence on the utility of TBS has since accumulated in both primary and secondary osteoporosis, and the introduction of FRAX and BMD T-score adjustment for TBS has accelerated adoption. This position paper therefore presents a review of the updated scientific literature and provides expert consensus statements and corresponding operational guidelines for the use of TBS.
METHODS
An Expert Working Group was convened by the ESCEO and a systematic review of the evidence undertaken, with defined search strategies for four key topics with respect to the potential use of TBS: (1) fracture prediction in men and women; (2) initiating and monitoring treatment in postmenopausal osteoporosis; (3) fracture prediction in secondary osteoporosis; and (4) treatment monitoring in secondary osteoporosis. Statements to guide the clinical use of TBS were derived from the review and graded by consensus using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
A total of 96 articles were reviewed and included data on the use of TBS for fracture prediction in men and women, from over 20 countries. The updated evidence shows that TBS enhances fracture risk prediction in both primary and secondary osteoporosis, and can, when taken with BMD and clinical risk factors, inform treatment initiation and the choice of antiosteoporosis treatment. Evidence also indicates that TBS provides useful adjunctive information in monitoring treatment with long-term denosumab and anabolic agents. All expert consensus statements were voted as strongly recommended.
CONCLUSION
The addition of TBS assessment to FRAX and/or BMD enhances fracture risk prediction in primary and secondary osteoporosis, adding useful information for treatment decision-making and monitoring. The expert consensus statements provided in this paper can be used to guide the integration of TBS in clinical practice for the assessment and management of osteoporosis. An example of an operational approach is provided in the appendix. This position paper presents an up-to-date review of the evidence base, synthesised through expert consensus statements, which informs the implementation of Trabecular Bone Score in clinical practice.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Cancellous Bone; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Bone Density; Absorptiometry, Photon; Lumbar Vertebrae; Osteoarthritis; Aging; Consensus; World Health Organization; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 37393412
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-023-06817-4 -
RMD Open Jan 2021To summarise, by a systematic literature review (SLR), the evidence regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat...
Pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise, by a systematic literature review (SLR), the evidence regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA), informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of D2T RA.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2019. Relevant papers were selected and appraised.
RESULTS
Two hundred seven (207) papers studied therapeutic strategies. Limited evidence was found on effective and safe disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with comorbidities and other contraindications that limit DMARD options (patients with obesity, hepatitis B and C, risk of venous thromboembolisms, pregnancy and lactation). In patients who previously failed biological (b-)DMARDs, all currently used b/targeted synthetic (ts-)DMARDs were found to be more effective than placebo. In patients who previously failed a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), there was a tendency of non-TNFi bDMARDs to be more effective than TNFis. Generally, effectiveness decreased in patients who previously failed a higher number of bDMARDs. Additionally, exercise, psychological, educational and self-management interventions were found to improve non-inflammatory complaints (mainly functional disability, pain, fatigue), education to improve goal setting, and self-management programmes, educational and psychological interventions to improve self-management.The identified evidence had several limitations: (1) no studies were found in patients with D2T RA specifically, (2) heterogeneous outcome criteria were used and (3) most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
This SLR underscores the scarcity of high-quality evidence on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of patients with D2T RA. Effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs decreased in RA patients who had failed a higher number of bDMARDs and a subsequent b/tsDMARD of a previously not targeted mechanism of action was somewhat more effective. Additionally, a beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions was found for improvement of non-inflammatory complaints, goal setting and self-management.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 33419871
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001512 -
Arthritis Care & Research Dec 2019To provide updated American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity measurements to facilitate a treat-to-target...
OBJECTIVE
To provide updated American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity measurements to facilitate a treat-to-target approach in routine clinical care.
METHODS
A working group conducted a systematic literature review from the time of the prior ACR recommendations literature search. Properties of disease activity measures were abstracted, and study quality was assessed using the Consensus-Based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments 4-point scoring method, allowing for overall level of evidence assessment. Measures that fulfilled a minimum standard were identified, and through a modified Delphi process preferred measures were selected for regular use in most clinic settings.
RESULTS
The search identified 5,199 articles, of which 110 were included in the review. This search identified 46 RA disease activity measures that contained patient, provider, laboratory, and/or imaging data. Descriptions of the measures, properties, study quality, level of evidence, and feasibility were abstracted and scored. Following a modified Delphi process, 11 measures fulfilled a minimum standard for regular use in most clinic settings, and 5 measures were recommended: the Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints with Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate or C-Reactive Protein Level, Clinical Disease Activity Index, Simplified Disease Activity Index, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3, and Patient Activity Scale-II.
CONCLUSION
We have updated prior ACR recommendations for preferred RA disease activity measures, identifying 11 measures that met a minimum standard for regular use and 5 measures that were preferred for regular use in most clinic settings.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Disease Progression; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Rheumatology; Severity of Illness Index; Societies, Medical; United States
PubMed: 31709779
DOI: 10.1002/acr.24042 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside exercise in hip or knee osteoarthritis management, but cumulative evidence for adjuncts to land-based exercise therapy is lacking.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of adjunctive therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy compared with placebo adjunctive therapy added to land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy only for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and clinical trials registries up to 10 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of people with hip or knee osteoarthritis comparing adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy (experimental group) versus placebo adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy (control groups). Exercise had to be identical in both groups. Major outcomes were pain, physical function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life (QOL), radiographic joint structural changes, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We evaluated short-term (6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (12 months onwards) effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 62 trials (60 RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs) totalling 6508 participants. One trial included people with hip osteoarthritis, one hip or knee osteoarthritis and 59 included people with knee osteoarthritis only. Thirty-six trials evaluated electrophysical agents, seven manual therapies, four acupuncture or dry needling, or taping, three psychological therapies, dietary interventions or whole body vibration, two spa or peloid therapy and one foot insoles. Twenty-one trials included a placebo adjunctive therapy. We presented the effects stratified by different adjunctive therapies along with the overall results. We judged most trials to be at risk of bias, including 55% at risk of selection bias, 74% at risk of performance bias and 79% at risk of detection bias. Adverse events were reported in eight (13%) trials. Comparing adjunctive therapies plus land-based exercise therapy against placebo therapies plus exercise up to six months (short-term), we found low-certainty evidence for reduced pain and function, which did not meet our prespecified threshold for a clinically important difference. Mean pain intensity was 5.4 in the placebo group on a 0 to 10 numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (lower scores represent less pain), and 0.77 points lower (0.48 points better to 1.16 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 10% (6% to 15% better) (22 studies; 1428 participants). Mean physical function on the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) 0 to 68 physical function (lower scores represent better function) subscale was 32.5 points in the placebo group and reduced by 5.03 points (2.57 points better to 7.61 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 12% (6% better to 18% better) (20 studies; 1361 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies did not improve QOL (SF-36 0 to 100 scale, higher scores represent better QOL). Placebo group mean QOL was 81.8 points, and 0.75 points worse (4.80 points worse to 3.39 points better) in the placebo adjunctive therapy group; relative improvement 1% (7% worse to 5% better) (two trials; 82 participants). Low-certainty evidence (two trials; 340 participants) indicates adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared to placebo therapies plus exercise (31% versus 13%; risk ratio (RR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 21.90). Participant-reported global assessment was not measured in any studies. Compared with land-based exercise therapy, low-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive electrophysical agents alongside exercise produced short-term (0 to 6 months) pain reduction of 0.41 points (0.17 points better to 0.63 points better); mean pain in the exercise-only group was 3.8 points and 0.41 points better in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group (0 to 10 NPRS); relative improvement 7% (3% better to 11% better) (45 studies; 3322 participants). Mean physical function (0 to 68 WOMAC subscale) was 18.2 points in the exercise group and 2.83 points better (1.62 points better to 4.04 points better) in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group; relative improvement 9% (5% better to 13% better) (45 studies; 3323 participants). These results are not clinically important. Mean QOL in the exercise group was 56.1 points and 1.04 points worse in the adjunctive therapies plus exercise therapy group (1.04 points worse to 3.12 points better); relative improvement 2% (2% worse to 5% better) (11 studies; 1483 participants), indicating no benefit (low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise probably result in a slight increase in participant-reported global assessment (short-term), with success reported by 45% in the exercise therapy group and 17% more individuals receiving adjunctive therapies and exercise (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62) (5 studies; 840 participants). One study (156 participants) showed little difference in radiographic joint structural changes (0.25 mm less, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.18 mm); 12% relative improvement (6% better to 18% better). Low-certainty evidence (8 trials; 1542 participants) indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared with exercise only (8.6% versus 6.5%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.27).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed no difference in pain, physical function or QOL between adjunctive therapies and placebo adjunctive therapies, or in pain, physical function, QOL or joint structural changes, compared to exercise only. Participant-reported global assessment was not reported for placebo comparisons, but there is probably a slight clinical benefit for adjunctive therapies plus exercise compared with exercise, based on a small number of studies. This may be explained by additional constructs captured in global measures compared with specific measures. Although results indicate no increased adverse events for adjunctive therapies used with exercise, these were poorly reported. Most studies evaluated short-term effects, with limited medium- or long-term evaluation. Due to a preponderance of knee osteoarthritis trials, we urge caution in extrapolating the findings to populations with hip osteoarthritis.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36250418
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011915.pub2 -
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 -
Reumatologia Clinica Dec 2022Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is frequent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this review...
AIMS
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is frequent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this review was to identify the different screening methods for ILD in patients with RA.
METHODS
We ran a systematic search in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library up to April 2020 and did a hand search of the references of the retrieved articles. The search was limited to humans and articles published in English, Spanish or French. We selected studies with any design where: (a) the population included adult patients with RA; (b) the intervention was any screening method for ILD; and (c) validity or reliability of the screening method were evaluated, or a screening method was described. Two reviewers independently screened the articles by title and abstract and subsequently extracted the information using a specific data extraction form.
RESULTS
25 studies were included with a total of 2593 patients. The most frequently used tool for ILD screening was high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the lung. Electronic auscultation, biochemical markers, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and lung ultrasonography were also evaluated. Across the different studies, electronic auscultation and lung ultrasonography achieved higher accuracy than PFTs, BAL and biochemical markers.
CONCLUSIONS
HRCT resulted as the most sensitive tool for ILD screening in patients with RA. Given its harmlessness and high sensitivity, lung ultrasonography may become the first-choice tool in the future.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Lung; Biomarkers
PubMed: 34776393
DOI: 10.1016/j.reumae.2021.07.002