Wu Bin, Xu Ting, Li Youping, Yin Xi
Department of Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No.37,Guoxue Lane, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, 610041.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 19;10(10):CD010893. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010893.pub3.
Familial Mediterranean fever, a hereditary auto-inflammatory disease, mainly affects ethnic groups living in the Mediterranean region. Early studies reported colchicine as a potential drug for preventing attacks of familial Mediterranean fever. For those people who are colchicine-resistant or intolerant, drugs such as rilonacept, anakinra, canakinumab, etanercept, infliximab, thalidomide and interferon-alpha might be beneficial. This is an updated version of the review.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions for reducing inflammation in people with familial Mediterranean fever.
We used detailed search strategies to search the following databases: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM); China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI); Wan Fang; and VIP. In addition, we also searched the clinical trials registries including ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, as well as references listed in relevant reports.Date of last search: 21 August 2018.
Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) of people diagnosed with familial Mediterranean fever, comparing active interventions (including colchicine, anakinra, rilonacept, canakinumab, etanercept, infliximab, thalidomide, interferon-alpha, ImmunoGuard™ (a herbal dietary supplement) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) with placebo or no treatment, or comparing active drugs to each other.
The authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We pooled data to present the risk ratio or mean difference with their 95% confidence intervals. We assessed overall evidence quality according to the GRADE approach.
We included nine RCTs with a total of 249 participants (aged three to 53 years); five were of cross-over and four of parallel design. Six studies used oral colchicine, one used oral ImmunoGuard™ and the remaining two used rilonacept or anakinra as a subcutaneous injection. The duration of each study arm ranged from one to eight months.The three studies of ImmunoGuard™, rilonacept and anakinra were generally well-designed, except for an unclear risk of detection bias in one of these. However, some inadequacy existed in the four older studies on colchicine, which had an unclear risk of selection bias, detection bias and reporting bias, and also a high risk of attrition bias and other potential bias. Neither of the two studies comparing a single to a divided dose of colchicine were adequately blinded, furthermore one study had an unclear risk of selection bias and reporting bias, a high risk of attrition bias and other potential bias.We aimed to report on the number of participants experiencing an attack, the timing of attacks, the prevention of amyloid A amyloidosis, any adverse drug reactions and the response of a number of biochemical markers from the acute phase of an attack, but data were not available for all outcomes across all comparisons.One study (15 participants) reported a significant reduction in the number of people experiencing attacks at three months with 0.6 mg colchicine three times daily (14% versus 100%), risk ratio 0.21 (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.95) (low-quality evidence). A further study (22 participants) of 0.5 mg colchicine twice daily showed no significant reduction in the number of participants experiencing attacks at two months (low-quality evidence). A study of rilonacept in individuals who were colchicine-resistant or intolerant (14 participants) also showed no reduction at three months (moderate-quality evidence). Likewise, a study of anakinra given to colchicine-resistant people (25 participants) showed no reduction in the number of participants experiencing an attack at four months (moderate-quality evidence).Three studies reported no significant differences in duration of attacks: one comparing colchicine to placebo (15 participants) (very low-quality evidence); one comparing single-dose colchicine to divided-dose colchicine (90 participants) (moderate-quality evidence); and one comparing rilonacept to placebo (14 participants) (low-quality evidence). Three studies reported no significant differences in the number of days between attacks: two comparing colchicine to placebo (24 participants in total) (very low-quality evidence); and one comparing rilonacept to placebo (14 participants) (low-quality evidence).No study reported on the prevention of amyloid A amyloidosis.One study of colchicine reported loose stools and frequent bowel movements (very low-quality evidence) and a second reported diarrhoea (very low-quality evidence). The rilonacept study reported no significant differences in gastrointestinal symptoms, hypertension, headache, respiratory tract infections, injection site reactions and herpes, compared to placebo (low-quality evidence). The ImmunoGuard study observed no side effects (moderate-quality evidence). The anakinra study reported no significant differences between intervention and placebo, including injection site reaction, headache, presyncope, dyspnea and itching (moderate-quality evidence). When comparing single and divided doses of colchicine, one study reported no difference in adverse events (including anorexia, nausea, diarrhoea, abdominal pain, vomiting and elevated liver enzymes) between groups (moderate-quality evidence) and the second study reported no adverse effects were detected.The rilonacept study reported no significant reduction in acute phase response indicators after three months (low-quality evidence). In the ImmunoGuard™ study, these indicators were not reduced after one month of treatment (moderate-quality evidence). The anakinra study, reported that C-reactive protein was significantly reduced after four months (moderate-quality evidence). One of the single dose versus divided dose colchicine studies reported no significant reduction in acute phase response indicators after eight months (low-quality evidence), while the second study reported no significant reduction in serum amyloid A concentration after six months (moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were limited RCTs assessing interventions for people with familial Mediterranean fever. Based on the evidence, three times daily colchicine appears to reduce the number of people experiencing attacks, colchicine single dose and divided dose might not be different for children with familial Mediterranean fever and anakinra might reduce C-reactive protein in colchicine-resistant participants; however, only a few RCTs contributed data for analysis. Further RCTs examining active interventions, not only colchicine, are necessary before a comprehensive conclusion regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for reducing inflammation in familial Mediterranean fever can be drawn.
家族性地中海热是一种遗传性自身炎症性疾病,主要影响居住在地中海地区的族群。早期研究报告称秋水仙碱是预防家族性地中海热发作的一种潜在药物。对于那些对秋水仙碱耐药或不耐受的人,诸如利纳西普、阿那白滞素、卡那单抗、依那西普、英夫利昔单抗、沙利度胺和α干扰素等药物可能有益。这是该综述的更新版本。
评估降低家族性地中海热患者炎症的干预措施的疗效和安全性。
我们使用详细的检索策略检索了以下数据库:Cochrane系统评价数据库;医学索引数据库;荷兰医学文摘数据库;中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM);中国知网数据库(CNKI);万方数据库;维普数据库。此外,我们还检索了临床试验注册库,包括美国国立医学图书馆临床试验数据库、国际标准随机对照试验编号注册库、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台和中国临床试验注册中心,以及相关报告中列出的参考文献。最后检索日期:2018年8月21日。
诊断为家族性地中海热的患者的随机对照研究(RCT),比较活性干预措施(包括秋水仙碱、阿那白滞素、利纳西普、卡那单抗、依那西普、英夫利昔单抗、沙利度胺、α干扰素、免疫卫士™(一种草药膳食补充剂)和非甾体类抗炎药)与安慰剂或不治疗,或比较活性药物之间的差异。
作者独立选择研究、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。我们汇总数据以呈现风险比或平均差及其95%置信区间。我们根据GRADE方法评估总体证据质量。
我们纳入了9项RCT,共249名参与者(年龄3至53岁);5项为交叉设计,4项为平行设计。6项研究使用口服秋水仙碱,1项使用口服免疫卫士™,其余2项使用利纳西普或阿那白滞素皮下注射。每个研究组的持续时间为1至8个月。免疫卫士™、利纳西普和阿那白滞素的3项研究设计总体良好,但其中1项研究的检测偏倚风险不明确。然而,关于秋水仙碱的4项较早研究存在一些不足,其选择偏倚、检测偏倚和报告偏倚风险不明确,失访偏倚和其他潜在偏倚风险也较高。两项比较秋水仙碱单次剂量与分次剂量的研究均未充分设盲,此外,一项研究的选择偏倚和报告偏倚风险不明确,失访偏倚和其他潜在偏倚风险较高。我们旨在报告发作的参与者人数、发作时间、淀粉样蛋白A淀粉样变性的预防情况、任何药物不良反应以及发作急性期一些生化标志物的反应,但并非所有比较的所有结局都有数据。一项研究(15名参与者)报告,每日3次服用0.6 mg秋水仙碱3个月时发作的人数显著减少(14%对100%),风险比0.21(95%置信区间0.05至0.95)(低质量证据)。另一项研究(22名参与者)每日2次服用0.5 mg秋水仙碱,2个月时发作的参与者人数未显著减少(低质量证据)。一项针对秋水仙碱耐药或不耐受个体的利纳西普研究(14名参与者)在3个月时也未显示减少(中等质量证据)。同样,一项给予秋水仙碱耐药者阿那白滞素的研究(25名参与者)在4个月时发作的参与者人数未减少(中等质量证据)。三项研究报告发作持续时间无显著差异:一项比较秋水仙碱与安慰剂(15名参与者)(极低质量证据);一项比较秋水仙碱单次剂量与分次剂量(90名参与者)(中等质量证据);一项比较利纳西普与安慰剂(14名参与者)(低质量证据)。三项研究报告发作间隔天数无显著差异:两项比较秋水仙碱与安慰剂(共24名参与者)(极低质量证据);一项比较利纳西普与安慰剂(14名参与者)(低质量证据)。没有研究报告淀粉样蛋白A淀粉样变性的预防情况。一项秋水仙碱研究报告有稀便和排便频繁(极低质量证据),另一项报告有腹泻(极低质量证据)。利纳西普研究报告,与安慰剂相比,胃肠道症状、高血压、头痛、呼吸道感染、注射部位反应和疱疹无显著差异(低质量证据)。免疫卫士研究未观察到副作用(中等质量证据)。阿那白滞素研究报告干预组与安慰剂组之间无显著差异,包括注射部位反应、头痛、晕厥前状态、呼吸困难和瘙痒(中等质量证据)。比较秋水仙碱单次剂量与分次剂量时,一项研究报告两组不良事件(包括厌食、恶心、腹泻、腹痛、呕吐和肝酶升高)无差异(中等质量证据),另一项研究报告未检测到不良反应。利纳西普研究报告3个月后急性期反应指标无显著降低(低质量证据)。在免疫卫士™研究中,治疗1个月后这些指标未降低(中等质量证据)。阿那白滞素研究报告4个月后C反应蛋白显著降低(中等质量证据)。一项秋水仙碱单次剂量与分次剂量研究报告8个月后急性期反应指标无显著降低(低质量证据),而另一项研究报告6个月后血清淀粉样蛋白A浓度无显著降低(中等质量证据)。
评估家族性地中海热患者干预措施的随机对照试验有限。基于现有证据,每日3次服用秋水仙碱似乎可减少发作的人数,秋水仙碱单次剂量和分次剂量对家族性地中海热儿童可能无差异,阿那白滞素可能降低秋水仙碱耐药参与者的C反应蛋白;然而,仅有少数随机对照试验提供了分析数据。在能够就降低家族性地中海热炎症的干预措施的疗效和安全性得出全面结论之前