4.7 Review

A systematic literature review of drug therapies for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: current evidence and meta-analysis informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 71, 期 3, 页码 319-326

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2011.150995

关键词

-

资金

  1. MSD
  2. Abbott
  3. Chugai
  4. Pfizer
  5. BMS
  6. Roche
  7. Schering Plough
  8. UCB
  9. Amgen
  10. Genentech
  11. AstraZeneca
  12. Centocor
  13. Eli-Lilly
  14. GSK
  15. Merck
  16. Novartis
  17. Osuka
  18. Sanofi-Aventis
  19. Schering-Plough
  20. Wyeth
  21. Cancer Research UK
  22. Versus Arthritis [18475] Funding Source: researchfish
  23. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0508-10299] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To review the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), synthetic and biological drug therapies for the different clinical manifestations of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in order to provide data for the development of treatment recommendations by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) taskforce. Methods A systematic literature review (SLR) of available treatments for PsA was performed using the largest electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE) by two working groups formed within the EULAR taskforce. This comprised a comprehensive sample of rheumatologists, dermatologists, epidemiologists and patients. The available evidence was reviewed for NSAIDs, synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), local and systemic corticosteroids and biologic drugs. All articles and abstracts published between 1962 and January 2010 were reviewed and considered and a meta-analysis of data on biological therapies was performed. Results While little data are available on NSAIDs, glucocorticoids and synthetic DMARDs, the available evidence suggests an acceptable efficacy and safety profile of both NSAIDs and synthetic DMARDs (methotrexate, cyclosporine A, sulfasalazine and leflunomide) in PsA. More evidence is available (level 1B) supporting the efficacy of anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents (adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab) in treating the signs and symptoms of PsA as well as reducing radiographic progression. Registry data show no new safety concerns, although the numbers studied to date are relatively small. Conclusions This SLR reveals some evidence to support the use of NSAIDs and synthetic DMARDs and good evidence for the efficacy of anti-TNF therapy in PsA.

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