-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Pericarditis is the inflammation of the pericardium, the membranous sac surrounding the heart. Recurrent pericarditis is the most common complication of acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pericarditis is the inflammation of the pericardium, the membranous sac surrounding the heart. Recurrent pericarditis is the most common complication of acute pericarditis, causing severe and disabling chest pains. Recurrent pericarditis affects one in three patients with acute pericarditis within the first 18 months. Colchicine has been suggested to be beneficial in preventing recurrent pericarditis.
OBJECTIVES
To review all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assess the effects of colchicine alone or combined, compared to any other intervention to prevent further recurrences of pericarditis, in people with acute or recurrent pericarditis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following bibliographic databases on 4 August 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2014 on The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to July week 4, 2014), EMBASE (OVID, 1947 to 2014 week 31), and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) 1990 to 1 Aug 2014. We did not apply any language or time restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs of people with acute or recurrent pericarditis who are receiving colchicine compared to any other treatment, in order to prevent recurrences.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The first primary outcome was the time to recurrence, measured by calculating the hazard ratios (HRs). The second primary outcome was the adverse effects of colchicine. Secondary outcomes were the rate of recurrences at 6, 12 and 18 months, and symptom relief.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs, involving 564 participants in this review. We compared the effects of colchicine in addition to a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) such as ibuprofen, aspirin or indomethacin to the effects of the NSAID alone. Two comparable trials studied the effects of colchicine in 204 participants with recurrent pericarditis and two trials studied 360 people with acute pericarditis. All trials had a moderate quality for the primary outcomes. We identified two on-going trials; one of these trials examines acute pericarditis and the other assesses recurrent pericarditis.There was moderate quality evidence that colchicine reduces episodes of pericarditis in people with recurrent pericarditis over 18 months follow-up (HR 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.58). It is expected that at 18 months, the number needed to treat (NNT) is 4. In people with acute pericarditis, there was moderate quality evidence that colchicine reduces recurrence (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.61) at 18 months follow-up. Colchicine led to a greater chance of symptom relief at 72 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.4; 95% CI 1.26 to 1.56; low quality evidence). Adverse effects were mainly gastrointestinal and included abdominal pain and diarrhoea. The pooled RR for adverse events was 1.26 (95% CI 0.75 to 2.12). While the number of people experiencing adverse effects was higher in the colchicine than the control groups (9% versus 7%), the quality of evidence was low owing to imprecision, and there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups (P = 0.42). There was moderate quality evidence that treatment with colchicine led to more people stopping treatment due to adverse events (RR 1.87; 95% CI 1.02 to 3.41).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Colchicine, as adjunctive therapy to NSAIDs, is effective in reducing the number of pericarditis recurrences in patients with recurrent pericarditis or acute pericarditis. However, evidence is based on a limited number of small trials. Patients with multiple resistant recurrences were not represented in any published or on-going trials, and it is these patients that are in the most need for treatment.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Colchicine; Humans; Ibuprofen; Indomethacin; Pericarditis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence
PubMed: 25164988
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010652.pub2 -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism Oct 2023To assess real-world comparative effectiveness studies of biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess real-world comparative effectiveness studies of biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through a systematic review.
METHODS
We searched Medline for journal articles (2001-2021) and Embase® for abstracts presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2020 and 2021 annual meetings on non-randomized studies comparing the effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs using ACR-recommended disease activity measures, measures of functional status, and patient-reported outcomes (HAQ, PROMIS PF, patient pain, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of disease activity). Methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool.
RESULTS
Of 1283 records screened, 68 were selected for data extraction, of which 1 was excluded due to critical risk of bias. Most studies were multicenter observational cohort/registry studies (n = 60) and were published between 2011 and 2021 (n = 60). Mean or median reported RA duration was between 6 and 15 years. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (46 studies), Clinical Disease Activity Index (37 studies), and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (32 studies) were the most common outcomes used in clinical practice, with regional differences identified. The most common comparison was between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and non-TNFi bDMARDs (35 studies). There were no evident differences between b/tsDMARDs in clinical effectiveness.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review summarizing real-world evidence from a very large number of global studies found there are many effective options for the treatment of RA, but relatively less evidence to support the use of any one b/tsDMARD or drug class over another. Treatment for patients with RA should be tailored to suit individual clinical profiles. Further research is needed to identify whether specific patient subgroups may benefit from specific drug classes.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Antirheumatic Agents; Treatment Outcome; Biological Products; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37573754
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2023.152249 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Apr 2016To define the optimal biologic agent for systemic JIA (sJIA) based on safety and efficacy data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To define the optimal biologic agent for systemic JIA (sJIA) based on safety and efficacy data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT).
METHODS
Through a systematic literature search, sJIA RCTs evaluating biologic agents were identified. The primary efficacy outcome was defined as a 30% improvement according to the modified American College of Rheumatology Paediatric 30 response criteria (JIA ACR30). The primary safety outcome was defined as serious adverse events (SAEs). Outcomes were analysed by pairwise and network meta-analyses. The quality of evidence between biologic agents was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
RESULTS
From the 493 citations originally identified, 5 RCTs were eligible for inclusion-one each for anakinra, canakinumab and tocilizumab and two for rilonacept: all vs placebo. While all were effective, the network meta-analysis indicated with low-quality evidence (due to indirect comparison and inconsistency) that rilonacept-treated patients were less likely to respond than those treated with canakinumab [odds ratio (OR) 0.10 (95% CI 0.02, 0.38), P = 0.001] or tocilizumab [OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.03, 0.44), P = 0.001]. Risks of SAEs were similar among the biologic agents (supported by very low-quality evidence) and not different from placebo.
CONCLUSION
Despite heterogeneous eligibility criteria and study designs across the five studies and different modified JIA ACR30 criteria, this meta-analysis of short-term RCTs presents empirical evidence that canakinumab and tocilizumab are more effective than rilonacept. Biologic agents in sJIA seem safe and comparable with respect to SAE risk in the short term.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Biological Products; Humans; Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Fusion Proteins
PubMed: 26628580
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kev382 -
RMD Open Oct 2023We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of non-conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (ncs-DMARD) strategies on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of non-conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (ncs-DMARD) strategies on patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD).
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles from inception to 1 June 2022. The results obtained from the analysis were expressed as mean difference (MD), effect size and 95% CI.
RESULTS
A total of 17 studies, including 1315 patients with RA-ILD, were eligible. The ncs-DMARDs included abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, tumour necrosis factor and Janus kinase inhibitors. Compared with the baseline, there were no significant changes in forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV) and diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) values in the pooled data after ncs-DMARD treatment (alone or combined with conventional therapy) (p=0.36 for FVC; p=0.96 for FEV and p=0.46 for DLCO). Of note, FVC was obviously increased in rituximab subgroup (MD=-4.62, 95% CI -8.90 to -0.33, p=0.03). Also, high-resolution CT non-progression rate and fatality rate due to ILD progression in patients with RA-ILD were 0.792 (95% CI 0.746 to 0.834, p=0.015) and 0.049 (95% CI 0.035 to 0.065, p=0.000), respectively.
CONCLUSION
ncs-DMARDs alone or combined with conventional therapy might be an optimal and promising treatment for stabilising or improving ILD in patients with RA-ILD.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022356816.
Topics: Humans; Rituximab; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Abatacept
PubMed: 37899093
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003487 -
Pediatric Rheumatology Online Journal Mar 2021Biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors are prescribed in adult and paediatric rheumatology. Due to age-dependent...
Biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs and Janus kinase inhibitors in paediatric rheumatology - what we know and what we do not know from randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors are prescribed in adult and paediatric rheumatology. Due to age-dependent changes, disease course, and pharmacokinetic processes paediatric patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (PiRD) differ from adult rheumatology patients.
METHODS
A systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in PiRD treated with bDMARDs/JAK inhibitors was conducted on Medline, clinicaltrials.gov , clinicaltrialsregister.eu and conference abstracts as of July 2020. RCTs were included if (i) patients were aged ≤20 years, (ii) patients had a predefined rheumatic diagnosis and (iii) RCT reported predefined outcomes. Selected studies were excluded in case of (i) observational or single arm study or (ii) sample size ≤5 patients. Study characteristics were extracted.
RESULTS
Out of 608 screened references, 65 references were selected, reporting 35 unique RCTs. All 35 RCTs reported efficacy while 34/3 provided safety outcomes and 16/35 provided pharmacokinetic data. The most common investigated treatments were TNF inhibitors (60%), IL-1 inhibitors (17%) and IL-6 inhibitors (9%). No RCTs with published results were identified for baricitinib, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, guselkumab, risankizumab, rituximab, sarilumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab, or upadacitinib. In patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) 25/35 RCTs were conducted. The remaining 10 RCTs were performed in non-JIA patients including plaque psoriasis, Kawasaki Disease, systemic lupus erythematosus and non-infectious uveitis. In JIA-RCTs, the control arm was mainly placebo and the concomitant treatments were either methotrexate, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) or corticosteroids. Non-JIA patients mostly received NSAID. There are ongoing trials investigating abatacept, adalimumab, baricitinib, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, guselkumab, infliximab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tofacitinib and tildrakizumab.
CONCLUSION
Despite the FDA Modernization Act and support of major paediatric rheumatology networks, such as the Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group (PRCSG) and the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO), which resulted in drug approval for PiRD indications, there are limited RCTs in PiRD patients. As therapy response is influenced by age-dependent changes, pharmacokinetic processes and disease course it is important to consider developmental changes in bDMARDs/JAK inhibitor use in PiRD patients. As such it is critical to collaborate and conduct international RCTs to appropriately investigate and characterize efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of bDMARDs/JAK inhibitors in paediatric rheumatology.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Child; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rheumatic Diseases
PubMed: 33766063
DOI: 10.1186/s12969-021-00514-4 -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism Feb 2023This systematic review (SR) describes the efficacy and safety of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for patients with adult-onset Still's disease... (Review)
Review
This systematic review (SR) describes the efficacy and safety of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for patients with adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD). Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one retrospective case series of multiple interventions, and 17 case series of single interventions met the inclusion criteria for this SR. Comparisons of biologic therapy in AOSD were only available against conventional DMARDs in one RCT and against placebo in two RCTs. There was a lack of common assessment criteria, meaning treatment efficacy across studies could not be compared. Uncontrolled retrospective case series suggested that bDMARDs have an effect for patients with AOSD, but these studies did not provide comparative data to show whether bDMARDs were more effective than other interventions or, whether any bDMARD was more effective than another bDMARD. However, there was evidence that bDMARDs could reduce steroid dose. Safety data from all included studies showed that bDMARDs appear to be a safe alternative to conventional DMARDs. This SR has highlighted the need for larger comparative studies in AOSD and has shown the need to standardize the definition of therapeutic response in AOSD. This would allow comparisons between studies in order to gain clarity on which bDMARDs may be more effective treatments for AOSD.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Still's Disease, Adult-Onset; Antirheumatic Agents; Biological Factors; Treatment Outcome; Biological Products
PubMed: 36442231
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152139 -
RMD Open Nov 2023Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) can limit work participation. Our objective was to characterise productivity in patients with axSpA, including changes after 12-16 weeks... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Work productivity in patients with axial spondyloarthritis initiating biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) can limit work participation. Our objective was to characterise productivity in patients with axSpA, including changes after 12-16 weeks of treatment with biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs).
METHODS
A systematic literature review identified studies published from 1 January 2010 to 21 October 2021 reporting work productivity using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire in patients with axSpA initiating b/tsDMARDs. Baseline and Week 12-16 overall work productivity, absenteeism, presenteeism and activity impairment scores were used in a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate absolute mean change from baseline for each WPAI-domain.
RESULTS
Eleven studies in patients with axSpA who received either placebo (n=727) or treatment with adalimumab, bimekizumab, etanercept, ixekizumab, secukinumab or tofacitinib (n=994) were included. In working patients initiating a b/tsDMARD, mean baseline overall work productivity impairment, absenteeism and presenteeism scores were 52.1% (N=7 studies), 11.0% and 48.8% (N=6 studies), respectively. At Week 12-16, the pooled mean change from baseline in overall work impairment for b/tsDMARDs or placebo was -21.6% and -12.3%. When results were extrapolated to 1 year, the potential annual reductions in cost of paid and unpaid productivity loss per patient ranged from €11 962.88 to €14 293.54.
CONCLUSIONS
Over 50% of employed patients with active axSpA experienced work impairment, primarily due to presenteeism. Overall work productivity improved at Weeks 12-16 to a greater extent for patients who received b/tsDMARDs than placebo. Work productivity loss was associated with a substantial cost burden, which was reduced with improvements in impairment.
Topics: Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Efficiency; Etanercept; Axial Spondyloarthritis
PubMed: 38035757
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003468 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2012Arthritis remains a relatively infrequent complication of cystic fibrosis, but is a cause of significant morbidity when it does occur. Two distinct types of arthritis... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Arthritis remains a relatively infrequent complication of cystic fibrosis, but is a cause of significant morbidity when it does occur. Two distinct types of arthritis are described in cystic fibrosis: cystic fibrosis-related arthropathy and hypertrophic osteoarthropathy. Management of arthritis in people with cystic fibrosis is uncertain and complex because of the underlying disease and its treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To review the effectiveness and safety of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for the management of arthritis related to cystic fibrosis in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database handsearches of relevant journal and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of most recent search: 10 July 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials which compared the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (e.g. methotrexate, gold, sulfasalazine, penicillamine, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine and newer agents such as biologic disease modifying agents and monoclonal antibodies) with each other, with no treatment or with placebo for cystic fibrosis-related arthropathy or hypertrophic osteoarthropathy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
No relevant studies were identified.
MAIN RESULTS
No studies were included in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although it is generally recognised that cystic fibrosis-related arthritis can be episodic and resolve spontaneously, treatment with analgesics and anti-inflammatory agents may be needed. But when episodic symptoms progress to persistent disease, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs may be needed to limit the course of the disease. It is disappointing that no randomised controlled trials to rigorously evaluate these drugs could be found. This systematic review has identified the need for a well-designed adequately powered randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for the management of cystic fibrosis-related arthropathy and hypertrophic osteoarthropathy in adults and children with cystic fibrosis. However, given the infrequency of cystic fibrosis-related arthritis and the range of symptoms and severity, randomised controlled trials may not be feasible and well-designed non-randomised observational studies may be more appropriate. Studies should also better define the two conditions.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis; Cystic Fibrosis; Humans
PubMed: 22972107
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007336.pub3 -
The American Journal of Cardiology Nov 2011Inflammation predicts risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, but the relation of drugs that directly target inflammation with CVD risk is not established.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Inflammation predicts risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, but the relation of drugs that directly target inflammation with CVD risk is not established. Methotrexate is a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug broadly used for the treatment of chronic inflammatory disorders. A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence of relations of methotrexate with CVD occurrence were performed. Cohorts, case-control studies, and randomized trials were included if they reported associations between methotrexate and CVD risk. Inclusions and exclusions were independently adjudicated, and all data were extracted in duplicate. Pooled effects were calculated using inverse variance-weighted meta-analysis. Of 694 identified publications, 10 observational studies in which methotrexate was administered in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, or polyarthritis met the inclusion criteria. Methotrexate was associated with a 21% lower risk for total CVD (n = 10 studies, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73 to 0.87, p <0.001) and an 18% lower risk for myocardial infarction (n = 5, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.96, p = 0.01), without evidence for statistical between-study heterogeneity (p = 0.30 and p = 0.33, respectively). Among prespecified sources of heterogeneity explored, stronger associations were observed in studies that adjusted for underlying disease severity (relative risk 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96, p <0.01) and for other concomitant medication (relative risk 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84, p <0.001). Publication bias was potentially evident (funnel plot, Begg's test, p = 0.06); excluding studies with extreme risk estimates did not, however, alter results (relative risk 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89). In conclusion, methotrexate use is associated with a lower risk for CVD in patients with chronic inflammation. These findings suggest that a direct treatment of inflammation may reduce CVD risk.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis; Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Inflammation; Methotrexate; Psoriasis; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 21855836
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.054 -
PloS One 2023Some patients have insufficient treatment response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARD); although biologics have proven to be an effective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Some patients have insufficient treatment response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARD); although biologics have proven to be an effective treatment for RA, the effects that bDMARDs have on integumentary, cardiac, and immune systems and the high costs associated with these treatments, make that mesenchymal stem cell-based therapies (MSCs) for RA are being considered potential treatment methods. This work analyses the performance in safety and efficacy terms of MSCs techniques.
METHODS AND FINDING
A literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Open Grey databases from inception to October 28, 2022. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-randomized controlled trial (non-RCTs), including 358 patients met our inclusion criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis; only RCTs were eligible for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). Meta-analysis of adverse events (AE) in RCTs showed no significant differences in the incidence of AE in the MSCs group compared to the control group (Risk ratio: 2.35; 95% CI, 0.58 to 9.58; I2 = 58.80%). The pooled Risk ratio for non-serious and serious adverse events showed no statistical difference between intervention and control groups concerning the incidence of non-serious and serious adverse events (Risk ratio: 2.35; 95% CI, 0.58 to 9.51; I2 = 58.62%) and (Risk ratio: 1.10; 95% CI, 0.15 to 7.97; I2 = 0.0%) respectively. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and Disease Activity Score (DAS28) decreased in agreement with the decreasing values of C-reactive protein (CRP) and Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Additionally, a trend toward clinical efficacy was observed; however, this improvement was not shown in the studies after 12 months of follow-up without continuous treatment administration.
CONCLUSION
This Systematic review and meta-analysis showed a favorable safety profile, without life-threatening events in subjects with RA, and a trend toward clinical efficacy that must be confirmed through high-quality RCTs, considerable sample size, and extended follow-up in subjects with RA.
Topics: Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Methotrexate; Treatment Outcome; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37498842
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284828