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.
Rheumatology (Oxford) ; 55(4): 669-79, 2016 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26628580

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To define the optimal biologic agent for systemic JIA (sJIA) based on safety and efficacy data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Through a systematic literature search, sJIA RCTs evaluating biologic agents were identified. The primary efficacy outcome was defined as a 30% improvement according to the modified American College of Rheumatology Paediatric 30 response criteria (JIA ACR30). The primary safety outcome was defined as serious adverse events (SAEs). Outcomes were analysed by pairwise and network meta-analyses. The quality of evidence between biologic agents was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: From the 493 citations originally identified, 5 RCTs were eligible for inclusion-one each for anakinra, canakinumab and tocilizumab and two for rilonacept: all vs placebo. While all were effective, the network meta-analysis indicated with low-quality evidence (due to indirect comparison and inconsistency) that rilonacept-treated patients were less likely to respond than those treated with canakinumab [odds ratio (OR) 0.10 (95% CI 0.02, 0.38), P = 0.001] or tocilizumab [OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.03, 0.44), P = 0.001]. Risks of SAEs were similar among the biologic agents (supported by very low-quality evidence) and not different from placebo. CONCLUSION: Despite heterogeneous eligibility criteria and study designs across the five studies and different modified JIA ACR30 criteria, this meta-analysis of short-term RCTs presents empirical evidence that canakinumab and tocilizumab are more effective than rilonacept. Biologic agents in sJIA seem safe and comparable with respect to SAE risk in the short term.


Assuntos
Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Juvenil/tratamento farmacológico , Produtos Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais/efeitos adversos , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Antirreumáticos/efeitos adversos , Produtos Biológicos/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Proteína Antagonista do Receptor de Interleucina 1/efeitos adversos , Proteína Antagonista do Receptor de Interleucina 1/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Proteínas Recombinantes de Fusão/efeitos adversos , Proteínas Recombinantes de Fusão/uso terapêutico
2.
Semin Arthritis Rheum ; 46(3): 312-318, 2016 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27989499

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although various biological agents are in use for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA), head-to-head trials comparing the efficacy and safety among them are lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of biological agents in pJIA using all currently available randomized withdrawal trials (wRCTs). METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov was performed. Eligible wRCTs: patients with pJIA where a biological agent was compared with another biological agent or placebo. Efficacy was evaluated using disease flare as a measure. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were evaluated. Network meta-analysis compared biological agents based on a (empirical Bayes) mixed-effects logistic regression model that combines statistical inference from both direct and indirect comparisons of the treatment effects between biological agents. RESULTS: Of 496 references identified, five wRCTs were included-abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, and tocilizumab, one trial each, all vs. placebo. There were no differences in efficacy among biological agents and most showed statistically significant efficacy compared with placebo (nearly all exceptions were in agreement with the original study data). Serious AEs occurred very infrequently (0-8%) and an analysis was not possible. There were no differences for AEs when compared among biological agents or to placebo. CONCLUSION: There were no statistical differences among biological agents for efficacy or safety. Overall, biological agents were effective and safe when compared to placebo. Based on these data, other considerations such as price and availability may need to be used to decide among biological agents when treating pJIA patients.


Assuntos
Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Juvenil/tratamento farmacológico , Fatores Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Desprescrições , Abatacepte/uso terapêutico , Adalimumab/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Etanercepte/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Proteína Antagonista do Receptor de Interleucina 1/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA