• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

相似文献

1
2
3
Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA).生物制剂或托法替布单药治疗传统抗风湿药物(DMARD)治疗失败的类风湿关节炎患者:一项Cochrane系统评价和网状Meta分析(NMA)
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 17;11(11):CD012437. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012437.
4
Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.生物制剂或托法替布用于初治类风湿关节炎患者:一项系统评价和网状Meta分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 May 8;5(5):CD012657. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012657.
5
Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.生物制剂或托法替布用于生物制剂治疗类风湿关节炎失败的患者:一项系统评价和网状Meta分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 10;3(3):CD012591. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012591.
6
Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.生物制剂或托法替布用于对甲氨蝶呤或其他传统改善病情抗风湿药物反应不完全的类风湿关节炎患者:一项系统评价和网状Meta分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 May 13;2016(5):CD012183. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012183.
7
Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis.甲氨蝶呤单药治疗以及甲氨蝶呤与传统和生物改善病情抗风湿药物联合治疗类风湿关节炎:一项网状荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 29;2016(8):CD010227. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010227.pub2.
8
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.阿巴西普、阿达木单抗、依那西普和托珠单抗治疗幼年特发性关节炎的临床有效性和成本效益:一项系统评价和经济学评估
Health Technol Assess. 2016 Apr;20(34):1-222. doi: 10.3310/hta20340.
9
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.甲氨蝶呤单药治疗以及甲氨蝶呤与传统和生物改善病情抗风湿药联合治疗类风湿关节炎:Cochrane系统评价缩编版及网状Meta分析
BMJ. 2016 Apr 21;353:i1777. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i1777.
10
Summary of AHRQ's comparative effectiveness review of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults--an update.美国医疗保健研究与质量局(AHRQ)对成人类风湿关节炎(RA)药物治疗的比较效果评估综述——最新情况
J Manag Care Pharm. 2012 May;18(4 Supp C):S1-18. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2012.18.s4-c.1.

PMID:22696776
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Compare the benefits and harms of corticosteroids, oral and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for adults with rheumatoid arthritis.

DATA SOURCES

English-language articles from 1980 to February 2011 identified through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts; unpublished literature including dossiers from pharmaceutical companies.

METHODS

Two people independently selected relevant head-to-head trials of any sample size, prospective cohort studies with at least 100 participants, and relevant good- or fair-quality meta-analyses that compared benefits or harms of 14 drug therapies. Retrospective cohort studies were also included for harms. For biologic DMARDs, placebo-controlled, double-blind RCTs were also included. We required trials and cohort studies to have a study duration of at least 12 weeks. Literature was synthesized qualitatively within and between the two main drug classes (oral and biologic DMARDs). Network meta-analysis also was performed to examine the relative efficacy of biologic DMARDs and comparing withdrawal rates from placebo controlled trials.

RESULTS

Head-to-head trials showed no clinically important differences in efficacy among oral DMARD comparisons (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide). The only head-to-head trial comparing biologic DMARDs (abatacept vs. infliximab) found no clinically important differences. Combination therapy of biologic DMARDs plus methotrexate improved clinical response rates and functional capacity more than monotherapy with methotrexate. Network meta-analyses found higher odds of reaching ACR 50 response for etanercept compared with most other biologic DMARDs (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) for methotrexate-resistant patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Similar overall tolerability profiles were found among oral and biologic DMARDs, but short-term adverse events were more common with biologic DMARDs. Adjusted indirect comparisons of biologic DMARDs found that certolizumab had the most favorable overall withdrawal profile, followed by etanercept and rituximab. Certolizumab had lower relative withdrawal rates due to lack of efficacy than adalimumab, anakinra, and infliximab. Certolizumab and infliximab had more, while etanercept had fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than most other drugs. Evidence was insufficient to assess comparative risk of serious adverse events among biologic DMARDs. Combinations of biologic DMARDs have higher rates of serious adverse events than biologic DMARD monotherapy. Limited data existed for subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited head-to-head comparative evidence does not support one therapy over another for adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Network meta-analyses from placebo-controlled trials of biologics suggest some differences, including higher odds of reaching ACR 50 response, but strength of evidence was low.

摘要