Comparative Efficacy of bDMARDs and tsDMARDs for the Treatment of Rheumatoid arthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Penghua Shi, Li Wang, Jiafang He, Yun Lu
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy of bDMARDs and tsDMARDs for the Treatment of Rheumatoid arthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis","authors":"Penghua Shi, Li Wang, Jiafang He, Yun Lu","doi":"10.54097/ijbls.v3i1.9623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To compare the relative clinical efficacy of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) (adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab, sarilumab, tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, peficitinib, filgotinib, abatacept, anakinra, rituximab) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had been treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) without adequate response by network meta-analysis. The computer comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Wanfang, and VIP databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of bDMARDs and tsDMARDs in the treatment of RA. The search time limit was set from the establishment of the databases to February 18, 2023. The quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, and the R software (version 4.1.3) calling the gemtc package (version 1.0-1) in conjunction with JAGS software was for data analysis. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, 70% response (ACR20, ACR50, ACR70). The included 68 RCTs, totaling 32356 patients with RA were analyzed. There were 68, 64 and 63 studies reported the outcomes of ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 respectively. The result showed that fifteen drugs all had significant difference compared with placebo. According to the SUCRA values, certolizumab pegol had the highest probability of becoming the best intervention in ACR20 and ACR50, and etanercept was ranked first in ACR70, followed by certolizumab pegol. In conclusion, bDMARDs and tsDMARDs were all effective in improving signs and symptoms in RA patients who had been treated with csDMARDs without adequate response. Certolizumab combined with csDMARDs had better performance on efficacy compared with other interventions.","PeriodicalId":182292,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Biology and Life Sciences","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Biology and Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54097/ijbls.v3i1.9623","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To compare the relative clinical efficacy of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) (adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab, sarilumab, tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, peficitinib, filgotinib, abatacept, anakinra, rituximab) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had been treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) without adequate response by network meta-analysis. The computer comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Wanfang, and VIP databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of bDMARDs and tsDMARDs in the treatment of RA. The search time limit was set from the establishment of the databases to February 18, 2023. The quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, and the R software (version 4.1.3) calling the gemtc package (version 1.0-1) in conjunction with JAGS software was for data analysis. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, 70% response (ACR20, ACR50, ACR70). The included 68 RCTs, totaling 32356 patients with RA were analyzed. There were 68, 64 and 63 studies reported the outcomes of ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 respectively. The result showed that fifteen drugs all had significant difference compared with placebo. According to the SUCRA values, certolizumab pegol had the highest probability of becoming the best intervention in ACR20 and ACR50, and etanercept was ranked first in ACR70, followed by certolizumab pegol. In conclusion, bDMARDs and tsDMARDs were all effective in improving signs and symptoms in RA patients who had been treated with csDMARDs without adequate response. Certolizumab combined with csDMARDs had better performance on efficacy compared with other interventions.
bDMARDs和tsDMARDs治疗类风湿性关节炎的比较疗效:系统评价和网络荟萃分析
比较生物降病抗风湿药物(bDMARDs)和靶向合成降病抗风湿药物(tsDMARDs)(阿达木单抗、英夫利昔单抗、塞托利珠单抗、pegol、golimumab、tocilizumab、sarilumab、tofacitinib、baricitinib、upadacitinib、peadacitinib、filgotinib、abatacept、anakinra、通过网络荟萃分析,rituximab(利妥昔单抗)用于类风湿性关节炎(RA)患者,这些患者接受了传统的合成疾病改善抗风湿药物(csDMARDs)治疗,但没有足够的反应。计算机综合检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网(CNKI)、中国生物医学文献库(CBM)、万方、VIP等数据库,检索bDMARDs和tsDMARDs治疗RA的随机对照试验(RCTs)。检索时限自数据库建立起至2023年2月18日止。采用Cochrane协作网(Cochrane Collaboration)的工具对纳入的研究进行质量评估,并使用R软件(版本4.1.3)调用gemtc软件包(版本1.0-1)与JAGS软件进行数据分析。疗效指标包括美国风湿病学会20%、50%和70%的缓解(ACR20、ACR50、ACR70)。纳入68项随机对照试验,共分析32356例RA患者。分别有68项、64项和63项研究报告了ACR20、ACR50和ACR70的结果。结果显示,15种药物与安慰剂相比均有显著差异。根据SUCRA值,certolizumab pegol在ACR20和ACR50中成为最佳干预的概率最高,在ACR70中依那西普排名第一,其次是certolizumab pegol。综上所述,bDMARDs和tsDMARDs均能有效改善csDMARDs治疗后RA患者的症状和体征。与其他干预措施相比,Certolizumab联合csDMARDs在疗效方面表现更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信