-
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Aug 2017The aim was to update the 2009 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis (SSc), with attention to new...
The aim was to update the 2009 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis (SSc), with attention to new therapeutic questions. Update of the previous treatment recommendations was performed according to EULAR standard operating procedures. The task force consisted of 32 SSc clinical experts from Europe and the USA, 2 patients nominated by the pan-European patient association for SSc (Federation of European Scleroderma Associations (FESCA)), a clinical epidemiologist and 2 research fellows. All centres from the EULAR Scleroderma Trials and Research group were invited to submit and select clinical questions concerning SSc treatment using a Delphi approach. Accordingly, 46 clinical questions addressing 26 different interventions were selected for systematic literature review. The new recommendations were based on the available evidence and developed in a consensus meeting with clinical experts and patients. The procedure resulted in 16 recommendations being developed (instead of 14 in 2009) that address treatment of several SSc-related organ complications: Raynaud's phenomenon (RP), digital ulcers (DUs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), skin and lung disease, scleroderma renal crisis and gastrointestinal involvement. Compared with the 2009 recommendations, the 2016 recommendations include phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors for the treatment of SSc-related RP and DUs, riociguat, new aspects for endothelin receptor antagonists, prostacyclin analogues and PDE-5 inhibitors for SSc-related PAH. New recommendations regarding the use of fluoxetine for SSc-related RP and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for selected patients with rapidly progressive SSc were also added. In addition, several comments regarding other treatments addressed in clinical questions and suggestions for the SSc research agenda were formulated. These updated data-derived and consensus-derived recommendations will help rheumatologists to manage patients with SSc in an evidence-based way. These recommendations also give directions for future clinical research in SSc.
Topics: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Delphi Technique; Endothelin Receptor Antagonists; Europe; Fingers; Fluoxetine; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Glucocorticoids; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Kidney Diseases; Lung Diseases; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Prostaglandins I; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Raynaud Disease; Rheumatology; Scleroderma, Systemic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Ulcer
PubMed: 27941129
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209909 -
PloS One 2015Anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists is the current standard of care (SOC) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of the Novel Oral Anticoagulants Apixaban, Dabigatran, Edoxaban, and Rivaroxaban in the Initial and Long-Term Treatment and Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists is the current standard of care (SOC) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment and prevention. Although novel oral anti-coagulants (NOACs) have been compared with SOC in this indication, no head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared NOACs. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs for the initial and long-term treatment of VTE.
METHODS
Electronic databases (accessed July 2014) were systematically searched to identify RCTs evaluating apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban versus SOC. Eligible patients included adults with an objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) or both. A fixed-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted for outcomes of interest, and results were presented as relative risks (RR) and 95% credible intervals (Crl).
RESULTS
Six Phase III RCTs met criteria for inclusion: apixaban (one RCT; n = 5,395); rivaroxaban (two RCTs; n = 3,423/4,832); dabigatran (two RCTs; n = 2,539/2,568); edoxaban (one RCT; n = 8,240). There were no statistically significant differences between the NOACs with regard to the risk of 'VTE and VTE-related death. Apixaban treatment was associated with the most favourable safety profile of the NOACs, showing a statistically significantly reduced risk of 'major or clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleed' compared with rivaroxaban (0.47 [0.36, 0.61]), dabigatran (0.69 [0.51, 0.94]), and edoxaban (0.54 [0.41, 0.69]). Dabigatran was also associated with a significantly lower risk of 'major or CRNM bleed' compared with rivaroxaban (0.68 [0.53, 0.87]) and edoxaban (0.77 [0.60, 0.99]).
CONCLUSIONS
Indirect comparisons showed statistically similar reductions in the risk of 'VTE or VTE-related death for all NOACs. In contrast, reductions in 'major or CRNM bleed' for initial/long-term treatment were significantly better with apixaban compared with all other NOACs, and with dabigatran compared with rivaroxaban and edoxaban. Results from the current analysis indicate that the NOACs offer clinical benefit over conventional therapy while highlighting relative differences in their bleeding profile.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Dabigatran; Humans; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Pyridones; Rivaroxaban; Thiazoles; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 26716830
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144856 -
PloS One 2015Metamizole is used to treat pain in many parts of the world. Information on the safety profile of metamizole is scarce; no conclusive summary of the literature exists. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Metamizole is used to treat pain in many parts of the world. Information on the safety profile of metamizole is scarce; no conclusive summary of the literature exists.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether metamizole is clinically safe compared to placebo and other analgesics.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and several clinical trial registries. We screened the reference lists of included trials and previous systematic reviews. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of metamizole, administered to adults in any form and for any indication, to other analgesics or to placebo. Two authors extracted data regarding trial design and size, indications for pain medication, patient characteristics, treatment regimens, and methodological characteristics. Adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and dropouts were assessed. We conducted separate meta-analyses for each metamizole comparator, using standard inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis to pool the estimates across trials, reported as risk ratios (RRs). We calculated the DerSimonian and Laird variance estimate T2 to measure heterogeneity between trials. The pre-specified primary end point was any AE during the trial period.
RESULTS
Of the 696 potentially eligible trials, 79 trials including almost 4000 patients with short-term metamizole use of less than two weeks met our inclusion criteria. Fewer AEs were reported for metamizole compared to opioids, RR = 0.79 (confidence interval 0.79 to 0.96). We found no differences between metamizole and placebo, paracetamol and NSAIDs. Only a few SAEs were reported, with no difference between metamizole and other analgesics. No agranulocytosis or deaths were reported. Our results were limited by the mediocre overall quality of the reports.
CONCLUSION
For short-term use in the hospital setting, metamizole seems to be a safe choice when compared to other widely used analgesics. High-quality, adequately sized trials assessing the intermediate- and long-term safety of metamizole are needed.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adult; Agranulocytosis; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dipyrone; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Quality Control; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 25875821
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122918 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Apr 2023Ruxolitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting the Janus kinase (JAK) and signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathways. Ruxolitinib is used to...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Ruxolitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting the Janus kinase (JAK) and signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathways. Ruxolitinib is used to treat myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera and steroid-refractory graft-versus-host disease in the setting of allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. This review describes the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ruxolitinib.
METHODS
Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and web of Science were searched from the time of database inception to march 15, 2021 and was repeated on November 16, 2021. Articles not written in English, animal or in vitro studies, letters to the editor, case reports, where ruxolitinib was not used for hematological diseases or not available as full text were excluded.
RESULTS
Ruxolitinib is well absorbed, has 95% bio-availability, and is bound to albumin for 97%. Ruxolitinib pharmacokinetics can be described with a two-compartment model and linear elimination. Volume of distribution differs between men and women, likely related to bodyweight differences. Metabolism is mainly hepatic via CYP3A4 and can be altered by CYP3A4 inducers and inhibitors. The major metabolites of ruxolitinib are pharmacologically active. The main route of elimination of ruxolitinib metabolites is renal. Liver and renal dysfunction affect some of the pharmacokinetic variables and require dose reductions. Model-informed precision dosing might be a way to further optimize and individualize ruxolitinib treatment, but is not yet advised for routine care due to lack of information on target concentrations.
CONCLUSION
Further research is needed to explain the interindividual variability of the ruxolitinib pharmacokinetic variables and to optimize individual treatment.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Female; Janus Kinases; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrazoles; Nitriles
PubMed: 37000342
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-023-01225-7 -
Efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in steroid-refractory graft-versus-host disease: A meta-analysis.Frontiers in Immunology 2022Ruxolitinib is an important treatment for steroid refractory graft-versus-host disease (SR-GVHD). Therefore, we reported the updated results of a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Ruxolitinib is an important treatment for steroid refractory graft-versus-host disease (SR-GVHD). Therefore, we reported the updated results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of ruxolitinib as treatment for SR-GVHD. In addition, we wanted to compare the efficacy and safety between children and adults with SR-GVHD. Overall response rate (ORR) after ruxolitinib treatment was chosen as the primary end point. Complete response rate (CRR), infection, myelosuppression, and overall survival (OS) were chosen as secondary end points. A total of 37 studies were included in this meta-analysis, and 1,580 patients were enrolled. ORR at any time after ruxolitinib treatment was 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-0.84] and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.74-0.81), respectively, for SR-aGVHD and SR-cGVHD. CRR at any time after ruxolitinib treatment was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.40-0.57) and 0.15 (95% CI: 0.10-0.23), respectively, for SR-aGVHD and SR-cGVHD. The ORRs at any time after treatment was highest in mouth SR-cGVHD, followed by skin, gut, joints and fascia, liver, eyes, esophagus, and lung SR-cGVHD. The incidence rate of infections after ruxolitinib treatment was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.45-0.76) and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.31-0.63), respectively, for SR-aGVHD and SR-cGVHD. The incidence rates of overall (grades I-IV) and severe (grades III-IV) cytopenia were 53.2% (95% CI: 16.0%-90.4%) and 31.0% (95% CI: 0.0-100.0%), respectively, for SR-aGVHD, and were 28.8% (95% CI:13.0%-44.6%) and 10.4% (95% CI: 0.0-27.9%), respectively, for SR-cGVHD. The probability rate of OS at 6 months after treatment was 63.9% (95% CI: 52.5%-75.2%) for SR-aGVHD. The probability rates of OS at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after treatment were 95% (95% CI: 79.5%-100.0%), 78.7% (95% CI: 67.2%-90.1%), and 75.3% (95% CI: 68.0%-82.7%), respectively, for SR-cGVHD. The ORR, CRR, infection events, and myelosuppression were all comparable between children and adults with SR-GVHD. In summary, this study suggests that ruxolitinib is an effective and safe treatment for SR-GVHD, and both children and adults with SR-GVHD could benefit from ruxolitinib treatment.
Topics: Adult; Child; Graft vs Host Disease; Humans; Nitriles; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Steroids
PubMed: 35990629
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.954268 -
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases Feb 2022The most recent overall survival (OS) and adverse event (AE) data have not been compared for the three guideline-recommended high-risk non-metastatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Overall survival and adverse events after treatment with darolutamide vs. apalutamide vs. enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The most recent overall survival (OS) and adverse event (AE) data have not been compared for the three guideline-recommended high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treatment alternatives.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis focusing on OS and AE according to the most recent apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide reports. We systematically examined and compared apalutamide vs. enzalutamide vs. darolutamide efficacy and toxicity, relative to ADT according to PRISMA. We relied on PubMed search for most recent reports addressing prospective randomized trials with proven predefined OS benefit, relative to ADT: SPARTAN, PROSPER, and ARAMIS. OS represented the primary outcome and AEs represented secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Overall, data originated from 4117 observations made within the three trials that were analyzed. Regarding OS benefit relative to ADT, darolutamide ranked first, followed by enzalutamide and apalutamide, in that order. In the subgroup of PSA-doubling time (PSA-DT) ≤ 6 months patients, enzalutamide ranked first, followed by darolutamide and apalutamide in that order. Conversely, in the subgroup of PSA-DT 6-10 months patients, darolutamide ranked first, followed by apalutamide and enzalutamide, in that order. Regarding grade 3+ AEs, darolutamide was most favorable, followed by enzalutamide and apalutamide, in that order.
CONCLUSION
The current network meta-analysis suggests the highest OS efficacy and lowest grade 3+ toxicity for darolutamide. However, in the PSA-DT ≤ 6 months subgroup, the highest efficacy was recorded for enzalutamide. It is noteworthy that study design, study population, and follow-up duration represent some of the potentially critical differences that distinguish between the three studies and remained statistically unaccounted for using the network meta-analysis methodology. Those differences should be strongly considered in the interpretation of the current and any network meta-analyses.
Topics: Benzamides; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Nitriles; Phenylthiohydantoin; Prospective Studies; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Pyrazoles; Thiohydantoins; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34054128
DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00395-4 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jan 2021Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the...
OBJECTIVES
Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the current understanding of JAKi use based on a systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety.
METHODS
Existing data were evaluated by a steering committee and subsequently reviewed by a 29 person expert committee leading to the formulation of a consensus statement that may assist the clinicians, patients and other stakeholders once the decision is made to commence a JAKi. The committee included patients, rheumatologists, a gastroenterologist, a haematologist, a dermatologist, an infectious disease specialist and a health professional. The SLR informed the Task Force on controlled and open clinical trials, registry data, phase 4 trials and meta-analyses. In addition, approval of new compounds by, and warnings from regulators that were issued after the end of the SLR search date were taken into consideration.
RESULTS
The Task Force agreed on and developed four general principles and a total of 26 points for consideration which were grouped into six areas addressing indications, treatment dose and comedication, contraindications, pretreatment screening and risks, laboratory and clinical follow-up examinations, and adverse events. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined based on the SLR and levels of agreement were voted on for every point, reaching a range between 8.8 and 9.9 on a 10-point scale.
CONCLUSION
The consensus provides an assessment of evidence for efficacy and safety of an important therapeutic class with guidance on issues of practical management.
Topics: Adamantane; Advisory Committees; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Azetidines; Cytokines; Drug Therapy, Combination; Europe; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Niacinamide; Piperidines; Psoriasis; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Rheumatology; Spondylarthropathies; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Sulfonamides; Triazoles
PubMed: 33158881
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218398 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.
Topics: Male; Female; Adult; Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Axitinib; Nivolumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Sunitinib
PubMed: 37146227
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013798.pub2 -
JAMA Dec 2018Even though osteoarthritis is a chronic and progressive disease, pharmacological agents are mainly studied over short-term periods, resulting in unclear recommendations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Even though osteoarthritis is a chronic and progressive disease, pharmacological agents are mainly studied over short-term periods, resulting in unclear recommendations for long-term disease management.
OBJECTIVE
To search, review, and analyze long-term (≥12 months) outcomes (symptoms, joint structure) from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of medications for knee osteoarthritis.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
The databases of MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until June 30, 2018 (MEDLINE alerts through August 31, 2018) for RCTs of patients with knee osteoarthritis that had treatment and follow-up lasting 1 year or longer.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data at baseline and at the longest available treatment and follow-up of 12 months' duration or longer (or the change from baseline) were extracted. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was performed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the mean change from baseline in knee pain. Secondary outcomes were physical function and joint structure (the latter was measured radiologically as joint space narrowing). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and mean differences with 95% credibility intervals (95% CrIs) were calculated. Findings were interpreted as associations when the 95% CrIs excluded the null value.
RESULTS
Forty-seven RCTs (22 037 patients; mean age range, mostly 55-70 years; and a higher mean proportion of women than men, around 70%) included the following medication categories: analgesics; antioxidants; bone-acting agents such as bisphosphonates and strontium ranelate; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; intra-articular injection medications such as hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids; symptomatic slow-acting drugs in osteoarthritis such as glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate; and putative disease-modifying agents such as cindunistat and sprifermin. Thirty-one interventions were studied for pain, 13 for physical function, and 16 for joint structure. Trial duration ranged from 1 to 4 years. Associations with decreases in pain were found for the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib (SMD, -0.18 [95% CrI, -0.35 to -0.01]) and the symptomatic slow-acting drug in osteoarthritis glucosamine sulfate (SMD, -0.29 [95% CrI, -0.49 to -0.09]), but there was large uncertainty for all estimates vs placebo. The association with pain improvement remained significant only for glucosamine sulfate when data were analyzed using the mean difference on a scale from 0 to 100 and when trials at high risk of bias were excluded. Associations with improvement in joint space narrowing were found for glucosamine sulfate (SMD, -0.42 [95% CrI, -0.65 to -0.19]), chondroitin sulfate (SMD, -0.20 [95% CrI, -0.31 to -0.07]), and strontium ranelate (SMD, -0.20 [95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.05]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies of patients with knee osteoarthritis and at least 12 months of follow-up, there was uncertainty around the estimates of effect size for change in pain for all comparisons with placebo. Larger RCTs are needed to resolve the uncertainty around efficacy of medications for knee osteoarthritis.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Aged; Analgesics; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Celecoxib; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Glucosamine; Humans; Injections, Intra-Articular; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Management
PubMed: 30575881
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.19319 -
Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and... 2023Lichen Planus (LP) is a dermatological disorder characterized by violaceous papules that affect the cutaneous region, nails, scalp, and mucous membranes. Current... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Lichen Planus (LP) is a dermatological disorder characterized by violaceous papules that affect the cutaneous region, nails, scalp, and mucous membranes. Current molecular and clinical studies point to the Janus Kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway as a potential effector of LP pathology.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review summarizes the current reported literature outcomes for patients receiving JAK inhibitors to treat LP.
METHODS
MEDLINE and Embase were searched on 16 October, 2022, and 15 original articles were included, with 56 LP patients.
RESULTS
(mean age: 54.5 years, range: 26-81 years, male: 26.8%). The treatment outcomes were included for the following JAK inhibitors: tofacitinib ( = 30), baricitinib ( = 16), ruxolitinib ( = 12), and upadacitinib ( = 2). Patient outcomes were classified into complete resolution, partial resolution, and no resolution. Patients achieving complete resolution represented 25% ( = 4/16) in the baricitinib group, 10% ( = 3/30) in the tofacitinib group, 16.7% ( = 2/12) in the ruxolitinib group, and 100% (2/2) in the upadacitinib group. Partial resolution patients represented 31.3% ( = 5/16) of baricitinib patients, 60% ( = 18/30) of tofacitinib patients, and 83% ( = 10/12) of ruxolitinib patients. 43.8% ( = 7/16) of baricitinib patients and 10% ( = 9/30) of tofacitinib patients had no resolution of lesions.
CONCLUSION
This review also highlights the significance of utilizing a uniform outcome measure for LP, as it aids in reporting more generalizable results, reduces reporting bias, and ultimately lead to improved clinical outcomes for LP patients.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrazoles; Lichen Planus
PubMed: 36815857
DOI: 10.1177/12034754231156100