4.4 Article

Indirect comparisons of the efficacy of subsequent biological agents in patients with psoriatic arthritis with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: a meta-analysis

期刊

CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 35, 期 7, 页码 1795-1803

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-016-3204-2

关键词

Biologic agents; Meta-analysis; Psoriatic arthritis; Systematic review; TNF inhibitors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Significant portion of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) could not tolerate or do not have a satisfactory response to either non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or even TNF inhibitors. Non-TNF inhibitor biologic agents have emerged as second-line therapy in such situation. However, the comparative efficacy of these agents remains unknown as head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not available. RCTs examining the efficacy of non-TNF inhibitor biologic agents in patients with PsA who experienced inadequate response or intolerance of TNF inhibitors were identified. If more than one RCT was available for a given biologic agent, the pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) of achieving 20 % improvement according to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) response across trials were calculated. The pooled OR for each biologic agent was then compared using the indirect comparison technique. Five RCTs of four non-TNF inhibitor biologic agents, including abatacept, secukinumab, ustekinumab, and apremilast, with 675 participants were identified and included in the data analyses. We found no significant difference in any comparisons, with the p values ranging from 0.14 to 0.98. Our study demonstrates that the likelihood of achieving the ACR20 response in patients with TNF inhibitor experience is not significantly different between the four non-TNF biologic agents. However, the interpretation of this analysis is limited by the small sample sizes. Head-to-head comparisons are still required to confirm the comparative efficacy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据