4.7 Review

Systematic review and meta-analysis: opportunistic infections and malignancies during treatment with anti-integrin antibodies in inflammatory bowel disease

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 41, 期 12, 页码 1227-1236

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13215

关键词

-

资金

  1. Merck
  2. Abbott
  3. MSD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundAnti-integrin antibodies are effective therapies for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). However, these drugs carry theoretical risks of opportunistic infection and malignancy. AimTo pool data from all placebo-controlled studies, to estimate risk of opportunistic infection or malignancy with anti-integrin antibodies. MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched (up to December 2014). Randomised placebo-controlled trials of anti-integrin antibodies in adults with active or quiescent CD or UC were eligible. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) of opportunistic infection or malignancy, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). ResultsThe search strategy identified 1579 citations, 12 of which were eligible (four trials of natalizumab, six of vedolizumab and two of etrolizumab). The RR of developing an opportunistic infection was not significantly higher with non-gut specific (2.34; 95% CI 0.05-108.72) or gut specific anti-integrin antibodies (1.55; 95% CI 0.16-14.83). The RR was generally higher in trials of non-gut specific anti-integrin antibodies with duration of therapy 52weeks (RR=15.00; 95% CI 0.86-261), but remained non-significant. The RR of malignancy was not elevated with non-gut specific (1.57; 95% CI 0.19-12.74) or gut specific anti-integrin antibodies (0.78; 95% CI 0.15-4.02). ConclusionsAbsolute numbers of opportunistic infections were higher with anti-integrin antibodies, but this difference is not statistically significant. There was no increased risk of malignancy detected. Long-term data in large prospective cohorts are needed to further assess this issue.

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

4.7
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