Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BMJ Open ; 13(12): e076677, 2023 12 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38070932

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: External control arms (ECAs) provide useful comparisons in clinical trials when randomised control arms are limited or not feasible. We conducted a systematic review to summarise applications of ECAs in trials of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). DESIGN: Systematic review with an appraisal of ECA source quality rated across five domains (data collection, study populations, outcome definitions, reliability and comprehensiveness of the dataset, and other potential limitations) as high, low or unclear quality. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial were searched through to 12 September 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies were single-arm or randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of inflammatory bowel disease, pouchitis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in which an ECA was used as the comparator. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently screened the search results in duplicate. The characteristics of included studies, external data source(s), outcomes and statistical methods were recorded, and the quality of the ECA data source was assessed by two independent authors. RESULTS: Forty-three studies met the inclusion criteria (inflammatory bowel disease: 16, pouchitis: 1, rheumatoid arthritis: 12, juvenile idiopathic arthritis: 1, ankylosing spondylitis: 5, psoriasis: 3, multiple indications: 4). The majority of these trials were single-arm (33/43) and enrolled adult patients (34/43). All included studies used a historical control rather than a contemporaneous ECA. In RCTs, ECAs were most often derived from the placebo arm of another RCT (6/10). In single-arm trials, historical case series were the most common ECA source (19/33). Most studies (31/43) did not employ a statistical approach to generate the ECA from historical data. CONCLUSIONS: Standardised ECA methodology and reporting conventions are lacking for IMIDs trials. The establishment of ECA reporting guidelines may enhance the rigour and transparency of future research.


Assuntos
Artrite Reumatoide , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais , Pouchite , Psoríase , Espondilite Anquilosante , Adulto , Humanos , Espondilite Anquilosante/tratamento farmacológico , Psoríase/tratamento farmacológico , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais/terapia , Agentes de Imunomodulação
2.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37743037

RESUMO

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although biologics have revolutionized the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD), an efficacy ceiling has been reached. Combining biologic therapies may improve remission rates. METHODS: EXPLORER, a phase 4, single-arm, open-label study, evaluated triple combination therapy with vedolizumab (300 mg on day 1, weeks 2 and 6, and then every 8 weeks), adalimumab (160 mg on day 2, 80 mg at week 2, then 40 mg every 2 weeks), and methotrexate (15 mg weekly) in biologic-naïve patients with newly diagnosed, moderate- to high-risk CD. Endoscopic remission at week 26 (primary end point; Simple Endoscopic Score for CD ≤2), clinical remission at weeks 10 and 26 (secondary end point; Crohn's Disease Activity Index <150), and incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 55 enrolled patients, the mean CD duration was 0.4 years, the mean baseline Simple Endoscopic Score for CD was 12.6, and the mean baseline Crohn's Disease Activity Index was 265.5. At week 26, 19 patients (34.5%) were in endoscopic remission. At weeks 10 and 26, 34 (61.8%) and 30 patients (54.5%), respectively, were in clinical remission. Post hoc Bayesian analysis showed that the probabilities that triple combination therapy produced a higher endoscopic remission rate (33.5%; 95% credible interval, 22.4-45.7) than placebo (14%), vedolizumab monotherapy (27%), or adalimumab monotherapy (30%) were 99.9% or higher, 86.3%, and 71.4%, respectively. Six patients had serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy resulted in endoscopic and clinical remission at week 26 in 34.5% and 54.5% of patients, respectively, with no safety signal related to the treatment regimen. This supports further evaluation of combination therapy in CD. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number: NCT02764762.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA