Suppr超能文献

肿瘤坏死因子-α抑制剂治疗失败后类风湿关节炎生物治疗选择的比较有效性和安全性:系统评价和间接成对荟萃分析。

Comparative effectiveness and safety of biological treatment options after tumour necrosis factor α inhibitor failure in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and indirect pairwise meta-analysis.

机构信息

2nd Department of Internal Medicine, Hietzing Hospital, Vienna, Austria.

出版信息

Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Aug;71(8):1303-8. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200490. Epub 2012 Jan 30.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Optimal treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after inadequate response (IR) to tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFi) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of biological agents after TNFi-IR.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out using Medline and Cochrane databases, as well as http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, and bibliographies of the retrieved literature were searched by hand. Randomised, placebo-controlled trials that enrolled patients with RA with TNFi-IR were included and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response as primary efficacy outcome and adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious infections (SIs) as safety measures were extracted. An indirect meta-analysis with pairwise comparisons of efficacy and safety data was then carried out using ORs or risk differences (RDs) in a random effects model.

RESULTS

In four randomised controlled trials with 24 weeks' follow-up, direct comparisons of abatacept, golimumab, rituximab and tocilizumab versus placebo showed statistically significant mean ORs of 3.3-8.9 for ACR20, 5.5-10.2 for ACR50 and 4.1-13.5 for ACR70. Risks of AEs, SAEs and SIs versus placebo were non-significant. Indirect pairwise comparisons of the four biological agents showed no significant differences in ACR50 and ACR70. Golimumab had a significantly lower OR (0.56-0.59) for ACR20 but significantly fewer AEs (RD 0.13-0.18). Efficacy after one versus multiple TNFi failures did not differ significantly between the different biological agents.

CONCLUSION

In patients refractory to one or more TNFi, new biological agents provide significant improvement with good safety. Lacking head-to-head trials, indirect meta-analysis enables a comparison of effectiveness and safety of biological agents with each other and shows that all biological agents have similar effects.

摘要

背景

肿瘤坏死因子-α抑制剂(TNFi)治疗类风湿关节炎(RA)效果不佳时,最佳治疗方案仍不确定。

目的

比较 TNFi 治疗效果不佳后生物制剂的疗效和安全性。

方法

系统检索 Medline 和 Cochrane 数据库、http://www.clinicaltrials.gov 以及检索文献的参考文献,纳入 TNFi 治疗效果不佳的 RA 患者的随机对照试验,以美国风湿病学会(ACR)反应为主要疗效终点,不良反应(AE)、严重不良事件(SAE)和严重感染(SI)为安全性指标,采用间接meta 分析对疗效和安全性数据进行合并,采用比值比(OR)或风险差(RD)在随机效应模型中进行比较。

结果

4 项为期 24 周的随机对照试验的直接比较结果显示,阿巴西普、戈利木单抗、利妥昔单抗和托珠单抗与安慰剂相比,ACR20 的 OR 分别为 3.3-8.9,ACR50 的 OR 为 5.5-10.2,ACR70 的 OR 为 4.1-13.5,AE、SAE 和 SI 的风险与安慰剂相比无显著差异。4 种生物制剂的间接两两比较显示,ACR50 和 ACR70 无显著差异。戈利木单抗治疗 ACR20 的 OR 显著较低(0.56-0.59),AE 显著较少(RD 0.13-0.18)。1 种或多种 TNFi 治疗失败后,不同生物制剂的疗效无显著差异。

结论

在对 1 种或多种 TNFi 治疗反应不佳的患者中,新型生物制剂治疗可显著改善病情且安全性良好。由于缺乏头对头试验,间接meta 分析可比较不同生物制剂之间的有效性和安全性,结果表明所有生物制剂的疗效相似。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验