-
BMC Pediatrics Mar 2012Treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) may improve outcomes compared to conventional therapy (e.g.,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) may improve outcomes compared to conventional therapy (e.g., non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intra-articular corticosteroids). The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of DMARDs versus conventional therapy and versus other DMARDs.
RESULTS
A systematic evidence review of 156 reports identified in MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, and by hand searches. There is some evidence that methotrexate is superior to conventional therapy. Among children who have responded to a biologic DMARD, randomized discontinuation trials suggest that continued treatment decreases the risk of having a flare. However, these studies evaluated DMARDs with different mechanisms of action (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, intravenous immunoglobulin, tocilizumab) and used varying comparators and follow-up periods. Rates of serious adverse events are similar between DMARDs and placebo in published trials. This review identified 11 incident cases of cancer among several thousand children treated with one or more DMARD.
CONCLUSIONS
Few data are available to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of either specific DMARDs or general classes of DMARDs. However, based on the overall number, quality, and consistency of studies, there is moderate strength of evidence to support that DMARDs improve JIA-associated symptoms. Limited data suggest that short-term risk of cancer is low.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Child; Child, Preschool; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Humans; Methotrexate; Treatment Outcome; United States; United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
PubMed: 22420649
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2431-12-29 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Children who undergo surgical procedures in ambulatory and inpatient settings are at risk of experiencing acute pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Children who undergo surgical procedures in ambulatory and inpatient settings are at risk of experiencing acute pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can reduce moderate to severe pain without many of the side effects associated with opioids. However, NSAIDs may cause bleeding, renal and gastrointestinal toxicity, and potentially delay wound and bone healing. Intravenous administration of ketorolac for postoperative pain in children has not been approved in many countries, but is routinely administered in clinical practise.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of ketorolac for postoperative pain in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases, without language restrictions, to November 2017: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 10); MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of reviews, and retrieved articles for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that compared the analgesic efficacy of ketorolac (in any dose, administered via any route) with placebo or another active treatment, in treating postoperative pain in participants zero to 18 years of age following any type of surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We analyzed trials in two groups; ketorolac versus placebo, and ketorolac versus opioid. However, we performed limited pooled analyses. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE, and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies, involving 920 randomised participants. There was considerable heterogeneity among study designs, including the comparator arms (placebo, opioid, another NSAID, or a different regimen of ketorolac), dosing regimens (routes and timing of administration, single versus multiple dose), outcome assessment methods, and types of surgery. Mean study population ages ranged from 356 days to 13.9 years. The majority of studies chose a dose of either 0.5 mg/kg (as a single or multiple dose regimen) or 1 mg/kg (single dose with 0.5 mg/kg for any subsequent doses). One study administered interventions intraoperatively; the remainder administered interventions postoperatively, often after the participant reported moderate to severe pain.There were insufficient data to perform meta-analysis for either of our primary outcomes: participants with at least 50% pain relief; or mean postoperative pain intensity. Four studies individually reported statistically significant reductions in pain intensity when comparing ketorolac with placebo, but the studies were small and had various risks of bias, primarily due to incomplete outcome data and small sample sizes.We found limited data available for the secondary outcomes of participants requiring rescue medication and opioid consumption. For the former, we saw no clear difference between ketorolac and placebo; 74 of 135 (55%) participants receiving ketorolac required rescue analgesia in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) versus 81 of 127 (64%) receiving placebo (relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.00, P = 0.05; 4 studies, 262 participants). For opioid consumption in the PACU, we saw no clear difference between ketorolac and placebo (P = 0.61). For the time period zero to four hours after administration of the interventions, participants receiving ketorolac received 1.58 mg less intravenous morphine equivalents than those receiving placebo (95% CI -2.58 mg to -0.57 mg, P = 0.002; 2 studies, 129 participants). However, we are uncertain whether ketorolac has an important effect on opioid consumption, as the data were sparse and the results were inconsistent. Only one study reported data for opioid consumption when comparing ketorolac with an opioid. There were no clear differences between the ketorolac and opioid group at any time point. There were no data assessing this outcome for the comparison of ketorolac with another NSAID.There were insufficient data to allow us to analyze overall adverse event or serious adverse event rates. Although the majority of serious adverse events reported in those receiving ketorolac involved bleeding, the number of events was too low to conclude that bleeding risk was increased in those receiving ketorolac perioperatively. There was not a statistically significant increase in event rates for any specific adverse event, either in pooled analysis or in single studies, when comparing ketorolac and placebo. When comparing ketorolac with opioids or other NSAIDs, there were too few data to make any conclusions regarding event rates. Lastly, withdrawals due to adverse events were vary rare in all groups, reflecting the acute nature of such studies.We assessed the quality of evidence for all outcomes for each comparison (placebo or active) as very low, due to issues with risk of bias in individual studies, imprecision, heterogeneity between studies, and low overall numbers of participants and events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to the lack of data for our primary outcomes, and the very low-quality evidence for secondary outcomes, the efficacy and safety of ketorolac in treating postoperative pain in children were both uncertain. The evidence was insufficient to support or reject its use.
Topics: Adolescent; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Ketorolac; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29981164
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012294.pub2 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Apr 2016To compare methotrexate based disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naive to or with an inadequate response to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: abridged Cochrane systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare methotrexate based disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naive to or with an inadequate response to methotrexate.
DESIGN
Systematic review and Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis of trials assessing methotrexate used alone or in combination with other conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic drugs, or tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
DATA SOURCES
Trials were identified from Medline, Embase, and Central databases from inception to 19 January 2016; abstracts from two major rheumatology meetings from 2009 to 2015; two trial registers; and hand searches of Cochrane reviews.
STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized or quasi-randomized trials that compared methotrexate with any other DMARD or combination of DMARDs and contributed to the network of evidence between the treatments of interest.
MAIN OUTCOMES
American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response (major clinical improvement), radiographic progression, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.
RESULTS
158 trials were included, with between 10 and 53 trials available for each outcome. In methotrexate naive patients, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%), compared with 41% with methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression, but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 5 units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate plus infliximab. After an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy, methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate plus leflunomide, methotrexate plus intramuscular gold, methotrexate plus most biologics, and methotrexate plus tofacitinib. The probability of response was 61% with triple therapy and ranged widely (27-70%) with other treatments. No treatment was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate plus abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Triple therapy (methotrexate plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine) and most regimens combining biologic DMARDs with methotrexate were effective in controlling disease activity, and all were generally well tolerated in both methotrexate naive and methotrexate exposed patients.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Factors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Methotrexate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27102806
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i1777 -
The Pharmacogenomics Journal Oct 2017Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects ~1% of the Caucasian population. Over the last decades, the availability of biological drugs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects ~1% of the Caucasian population. Over the last decades, the availability of biological drugs targeting the proinflammatory cytokine tumour necrosis factor α, anti-TNF drugs, has improved the treatment of patients with RA. However, one-third of the patients do not respond to the treatment. We wanted to evaluate the status of pharmacogenomics of anti-TNF treatment. We performed a PubMed literature search and all studies reporting original data on associations between genetic variants and anti-TNF treatment response in RA patients were included and results evaluated by meta-analysis. In total, 25 single nucleotide polymorphisms were found to be associated with anti-TNF treatment response in RA (19 from genome-wide association studies and 6 from the meta-analyses), and these map to genes involved in T cell function, NFκB and TNF signalling pathways (including CTCN5, TEC, PTPRC, FCGR2A, NFKBIB, FCGR2A, IRAK3). Explorative prediction analyses found that biomarkers for clinical treatment selection are not yet available.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Genome-Wide Association Study; Humans; Pharmacogenetics; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 28607508
DOI: 10.1038/tpj.2017.26 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2009Abatacept inhibits the co-stimulation of T cells and disrupts the inflammatory chain of events that leads to joint inflammation, pain, and damage in rheumatoid arthritis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Abatacept inhibits the co-stimulation of T cells and disrupts the inflammatory chain of events that leads to joint inflammation, pain, and damage in rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept in reducing disease activity, pain, and improving function in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (from 1966), EMBASE (from 1980), ACP Journal Club (from 2000), and Biosis Previews (from 1990) in March 2007 and December 2008. We contacted authors of included studies and the abatacept manufacturer.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing abatacept alone, or in combination with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or biologics, to placebo or other DMARDs or biologics in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed search results and risk of bias, and extracted data. We obtained adverse event data from trials, long-term extension studies, and regulatory agencies.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven trials with 2908 patients were included. Compared with placebo, patients in the abatacept group were 2.2 times more likely to achieve an ACR 50 response at one year (RR 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73 to 2.82) with a 21% (95% CI 16% to 27%) absolute risk difference between groups. The number needed to treat to achieve an ACR 50 response was 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Significant improvements in physical function and a reduction in disease activity and pain were found in abatacept-treated patients compared to placebo. One RCT found abatacept significantly slowed the radiographic progression of joint damage at 12 months compared to placebo, although it is not clear what the clinical relevance of this difference may be. There may be a risk of attrition bias. Total adverse events were greater in the abatacept group (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08). Other harm outcomes were not significant with the exception of a greater number of serious infections at 12 months in the abatacept group (Peto odds ratio 1.91 (95% CI 1.07 to 3.42). Serious adverse events were increased when abatacept was given in combination with other biologics (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.62).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-level evidence that abatacept is efficacious and safe in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Abatacept should not be used in combination with other biologics to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The withdrawal and toxicity profile appears acceptable at the present time but further long-term studies and post-marketing surveillance are required to assess harms and sustained efficacy.
Topics: Abatacept; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Immunoconjugates; Immunosuppressive Agents; Radiography; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 19821401
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007277.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2016Fatigue is a common and potentially distressing symptom for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with no accepted evidence-based management guidelines. Evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fatigue is a common and potentially distressing symptom for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with no accepted evidence-based management guidelines. Evidence suggests that biologic interventions improve symptoms and signs in RA as well as reducing joint damage.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effect of biologic interventions on fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases up to 1 April 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Current Controlled Trials Register, the National Research Register Archive, The UKCRN Portfolio Database, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, Web of Science, and Dissertation Abstracts International. In addition, we checked the reference lists of articles identified for inclusion for additional studies and contacted key authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials if they evaluated a biologic intervention in people with rheumatoid arthritis and had self reported fatigue as an outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses using a random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 32 studies for inclusion in this current review. Twenty studies evaluated five anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic agents (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab), and 12 studies focused on five non-anti-TNF biologic agents (abatacept, canakinumab, rituximab, tocilizumab and an anti-interferon gamma monoclonal antibody). All but two of the studies were double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trials. In some trials, patients could receive concomitant disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). These studies added either biologics or placebo to DMARDs. Investigators did not change the dose of the latter from baseline. In total, these studies included 9946 participants in the intervention groups and 4682 participants in the control groups. Overall, quality of randomised controlled trials was moderate with a low to unclear risk of bias in the reporting of the outcome of fatigue. We downgraded the quality of the studies from high to moderate because of potential reporting bias (studies included post hoc analyses favouring reporting of positive result and did not always include all randomised individuals). Some studies recruited only participants with early disease. The studies used five different instruments to assess fatigue in these studies: the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Domain (FACIT-F), Short Form-36 Vitality Domain (SF-36 VT), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (0 to 100 or 0 to 10) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). We calculated standard mean differences for pooled data in meta-analyses. Overall treatment by biologic agents led to statistically significant reduction in fatigue with a standardised mean difference of -0.43 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.38 to -0.49). This equates to a difference of 6.45 units (95% CI 5.7 to 7.35) of FACIT-F score (range 0 to 52). Both types of biologic agents achieved a similar level of improvement: for anti-TNF agents, this stood at -0.42 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.49), equivalent to 6.3 units (95% CI 5.3 to 7.4) on the FACIT-F score; and for non-anti-TNF agents, it was -0.46 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.53), equivalent to 6.9 units (95% CI 5.85 to 7.95) on the FACIT-F score. In most studies, the double-blind period was 24 weeks or less. No study assessed long-term changes in fatigue.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with biologic interventions in patients with active RA can lead to a small to moderate improvement in fatigue. The magnitude of improvement is similar for anti-TNF and non-anti-TNF biologics. However, it is unclear whether the improvement results from a direct action of the biologics on fatigue or indirectly through reduction in inflammation, disease activity or some other mechanism.
Topics: Abatacept; Adalimumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Certolizumab Pegol; Etanercept; Fatigue; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Infliximab; Interferon-gamma; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rituximab
PubMed: 27271314
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008334.pub2 -
Drug Safety May 2018Rheumatic diseases are autoimmune, inflammatory diseases often associated with cardiovascular (CV) disease, a major cause of mortality in these patients. In recent... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Rheumatic diseases are autoimmune, inflammatory diseases often associated with cardiovascular (CV) disease, a major cause of mortality in these patients. In recent years, treatment with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), either as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs, have become the standard of treatment. In this systematic literature review, we evaluated the effect of treatment with biologic or tofacitinib on the CV risk and outcomes in these patients.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for articles reporting on CV risk and events in patients with rheumatic disease treated with a biologic agent or tofacitinib. Articles identified were subjected to two levels of screening. Articles that passed the first level based on title and abstract were assessed on full-text evaluation. The quality of randomized clinical trials was assessed by Jadad scoring system and the quality of the other studies and abstracts was assessed using the Downs and Black instrument. The data extracted included study design, baseline patient characteristics, and measurements of CV risk and events.
RESULTS
Of the 5722 articles identified in the initial search, screening yielded 105 unique publications from 90 unique studies (33 clinical trials, 39 prospective cohort studies, and an additional 18 retrospective studies) that reported CV risk outcomes. A risk of bias analysis for each type of report indicated that they were of good or excellent quality. Importantly, despite some limitations in data reported, there were no indications of significant increase in adverse CV events or risk in response to treatment with the agents evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with biologic or tofacitinib appears to be well-tolerated with respect to CV outcomes in these patients.
Topics: Animals; Antirheumatic Agents; Biological Products; Cardiovascular Diseases; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Piperidines; Prospective Studies; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Retrospective Studies; Rheumatic Diseases; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29318514
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-017-0628-9 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Nov 2017The effectiveness of biologic therapies now means that remission or low disease activity are realistic targets for treatment. However, after achieving remission/low... (Review)
Review
The effectiveness of biologic therapies now means that remission or low disease activity are realistic targets for treatment. However, after achieving remission/low disease activity, the next steps remain unclear. The aim of this publication was to conduct a broad systematic literature review to evaluate dosing down of biologics. After screening papers and abstracts for relevance and application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, a structured extraction process was used to collect information on the included studies. Fifty-two papers were included in the analysis across rheumatic disease. In patients who discontinue therapy, remission is not typically sustained, with reported rates of relapse and flare across early RA (48-54%), established RA (2-84%), axial spondyloarthritis (11-53%) and PsA (44.9%). In many cases, an acceptable disease activity can be regained upon retreatment. More research is needed to understand the long-term impacts of these strategies on efficacy, safety and cost.
Topics: Abatacept; Adalimumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Certolizumab Pegol; Etanercept; Humans; Infliximab; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Remission Induction; Rituximab; Spondylarthropathies
PubMed: 28339632
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kew464 -
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2018Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are widely used in patients with rheumatic diseases, but their effects on the cardiovascular system remain unclear. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are widely used in patients with rheumatic diseases, but their effects on the cardiovascular system remain unclear. We aimed to assess whether CQ/HCQ could reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, and the ClinicalTrials.gov for studies investigating the association between CQ/HCQ and the risk of CVD from inception to 20 December 2017. We carried out the quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Random-effects model was used to pool the risk estimates relative ratio (RR), hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 19 studies (7 case-control studies, 12 cohort studies, and no clinical trials) involving 19,679 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled results for HRs or RRs showed that CQ/HCQ was associated with a significantly reduced risk of CVD (pooled RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.94, =0.013). Results based on ORs showed a similar tendency towards a reduced risk of CVD with CQ/HCQ (pooled OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.25-0.69, =0.001).
CONCLUSION
Our results suggested that CQ/HCQ was associated with a reduced risk of CVD in patients with rheumatic diseases. Randomized trials are needed to confirm the potential of CQ/HCQ in cardiovascular prevention in patients with and without rheumatic diseases.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antirheumatic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Chloroquine; Female; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Protective Factors; Rheumatic Diseases; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29928112
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S166893 -
Actas Dermo-sifiliograficas May 2015A great amount of information on systemic and biologic therapies for moderate to severe psoriasis is now available. However, applying the evidence in numerous clinical... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
A great amount of information on systemic and biologic therapies for moderate to severe psoriasis is now available. However, applying the evidence in numerous clinical scenarios has engendered debate; under these circumstances, the consensus of experts is useful.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A scientific committee systematically reviewed the literature relevant to 5 clinical scenarios. An online Delphi survey of dermatologists with experience treating moderate to severe psoriasis was then carried out in order to shed light on questions that remained unresolved by the available evidence.
RESULTS
Twenty-three dermatologists responded to the survey and consensus was reached on 37 (56%) of the 66 statements proposed. These results led to consensus on various clinical situations even though firm evidence was lacking. Thus, intermittent therapeutic regimens and strategies for reducing the intensity of treatment are considered appropriate for optimizing biologic treatment and reducing costs. The measurement of drug and antidrug antibody levels should be included routinely when following patients on biologics to treat psoriasis. Concomitant psoriatic arthritis or a history of cardiovascular conditions will influence the choice of biologic; in these situations, an agent with anti-tumor necrosis factor properties will be preferred. Tailored management is important when the patient is pregnant or intends to conceive; drug half-life and disease severity are important factors to take into consideration in these scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS
A combination of systematic review of the literature and structured discussion of expert opinion facilitates decision-making in specific clinical scenarios.
Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Biological Therapy; Clinical Decision-Making; Clinical Trials as Topic; Delphi Technique; Dermatology; Drug Substitution; Etanercept; Female; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Male; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Psoriasis
PubMed: 25595327
DOI: 10.1016/j.ad.2014.11.005