{"title":"依托利珠单抗与安慰剂治疗溃疡性结肠炎的 Meta 分析:安全性和疗效结果。","authors":"Rui Zhang, Ziran Jia, Yingshi Piao","doi":"10.1177/17562848241253685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The existing body of scientific literature offers inconclusive findings on the safety and therapeutic effectiveness of etrolizumab (ETR) for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The goal of this meta-analysis is to furnish a comprehensive synthesis of evidence that evaluates the safety and therapeutic effects of ETR in the management of UC.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and Web of science were searched to collect relevant English studies, and the reference lists of eligible studies were manually searched to avoid missing any eligible studies. Outcome measures encompassed clinical response, incidence of adverse events, histological remission, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, and antidrug antibodies. Relevant data were extracted by two independent investigators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis incorporated five eligible studies, involving a total of 1528 patients, with 1015 treated with ETR and 513 with placebo. The pooled analysis indicates that ETR is both effective and safe. The adverse event rates, endoscopic and histological response, as well as overall remission were comparable between the two groups. The monoclonal antibody group had a lower incidence rate of adverse reactions than the placebo group [odds ratio (OR): 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-1.03; <i>p</i> = 0.09)]. Clinical response was higher in the ETR group than in the placebo group (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.20-2.02; <i>p</i> = 0.0009), and endoscopic improvement was more favorable in the ETR group (OR: 1.88; 95% CI: 1.45-2,45; <i>p</i> < 0.00001). A higher rate of endoscopic remission was found in the ETR group than in the placebo group (OR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.75-3.50; <i>p</i> < 0.00001); histological remission was significantly higher in the ETR group than in the placebo group (OR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.55-2.86; <i>p</i> < 0.00001). The placebo group had a lower rate of positive antidrug antibodies (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 0.79-2.17; <i>p</i> < 0.29), and the incidence of complications was significantly higher in the ETR group compared with the placebo group (OR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.48-2.83; <i>p</i> < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Given the heterogeneity and potential biases in the included studies, gastroenterologists should cautiously tailor drug delivery strategies based on their clinical experience and the unique needs of individual patients.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration: </strong>CRD42023396100.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11162133/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-analysis of etrolizumab <i>versus</i> placebo in ulcerative colitis: safety and efficacy outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Rui Zhang, Ziran Jia, Yingshi Piao\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17562848241253685\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The existing body of scientific literature offers inconclusive findings on the safety and therapeutic effectiveness of etrolizumab (ETR) for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The goal of this meta-analysis is to furnish a comprehensive synthesis of evidence that evaluates the safety and therapeutic effects of ETR in the management of UC.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and Web of science were searched to collect relevant English studies, and the reference lists of eligible studies were manually searched to avoid missing any eligible studies. Outcome measures encompassed clinical response, incidence of adverse events, histological remission, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, and antidrug antibodies. Relevant data were extracted by two independent investigators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis incorporated five eligible studies, involving a total of 1528 patients, with 1015 treated with ETR and 513 with placebo. The pooled analysis indicates that ETR is both effective and safe. The adverse event rates, endoscopic and histological response, as well as overall remission were comparable between the two groups. The monoclonal antibody group had a lower incidence rate of adverse reactions than the placebo group [odds ratio (OR): 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-1.03; <i>p</i> = 0.09)]. Clinical response was higher in the ETR group than in the placebo group (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.20-2.02; <i>p</i> = 0.0009), and endoscopic improvement was more favorable in the ETR group (OR: 1.88; 95% CI: 1.45-2,45; <i>p</i> < 0.00001). A higher rate of endoscopic remission was found in the ETR group than in the placebo group (OR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.75-3.50; <i>p</i> < 0.00001); histological remission was significantly higher in the ETR group than in the placebo group (OR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.55-2.86; <i>p</i> < 0.00001). The placebo group had a lower rate of positive antidrug antibodies (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 0.79-2.17; <i>p</i> < 0.29), and the incidence of complications was significantly higher in the ETR group compared with the placebo group (OR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.48-2.83; <i>p</i> < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Given the heterogeneity and potential biases in the included studies, gastroenterologists should cautiously tailor drug delivery strategies based on their clinical experience and the unique needs of individual patients.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration: </strong>CRD42023396100.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11162133/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848241253685\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848241253685","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:现有科学文献对依托利珠单抗(ETR)治疗溃疡性结肠炎(UC)的安全性和治疗效果没有定论:本荟萃分析旨在提供一份全面的证据综述,评估ETR治疗溃疡性结肠炎的安全性和治疗效果:荟萃分析:对PubMed、Embase和Web of science进行检索,以收集相关的英文研究,并对符合条件的研究的参考文献列表进行人工检索,以避免遗漏任何符合条件的研究。结果测量包括临床反应、不良事件发生率、组织学缓解、内镜缓解、内镜改善和抗药抗体。相关数据由两名独立研究人员提取:荟萃分析纳入了五项符合条件的研究,共涉及 1528 名患者,其中 1015 人接受了 ETR 治疗,513 人接受了安慰剂治疗。汇总分析表明,ETR 既有效又安全。两组患者的不良事件发生率、内镜和组织学反应以及总体缓解情况相当。单克隆抗体组的不良反应发生率低于安慰剂组[几率比(OR):0.81;95% 置信区间(CI):0.63-1.03;P = 0.09]]。ETR 组的临床反应高于安慰剂组(OR:1.56;95% 置信区间:1.20-2.02;p = 0.0009),ETR 组的内镜改善效果更佳(OR:1.88;95% 置信区间:1.45-2,45;p p p p p 结论:鉴于所纳入研究的异质性和潜在偏差,胃肠病学家应根据自己的临床经验和个体患者的独特需求谨慎调整给药策略:CRD42023396100。
Meta-analysis of etrolizumab versus placebo in ulcerative colitis: safety and efficacy outcomes.
Background: The existing body of scientific literature offers inconclusive findings on the safety and therapeutic effectiveness of etrolizumab (ETR) for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC).
Objectives: The goal of this meta-analysis is to furnish a comprehensive synthesis of evidence that evaluates the safety and therapeutic effects of ETR in the management of UC.
Design: Meta-analysis.
Data sources and methods: PubMed, Embase, and Web of science were searched to collect relevant English studies, and the reference lists of eligible studies were manually searched to avoid missing any eligible studies. Outcome measures encompassed clinical response, incidence of adverse events, histological remission, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, and antidrug antibodies. Relevant data were extracted by two independent investigators.
Results: The meta-analysis incorporated five eligible studies, involving a total of 1528 patients, with 1015 treated with ETR and 513 with placebo. The pooled analysis indicates that ETR is both effective and safe. The adverse event rates, endoscopic and histological response, as well as overall remission were comparable between the two groups. The monoclonal antibody group had a lower incidence rate of adverse reactions than the placebo group [odds ratio (OR): 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-1.03; p = 0.09)]. Clinical response was higher in the ETR group than in the placebo group (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.20-2.02; p = 0.0009), and endoscopic improvement was more favorable in the ETR group (OR: 1.88; 95% CI: 1.45-2,45; p < 0.00001). A higher rate of endoscopic remission was found in the ETR group than in the placebo group (OR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.75-3.50; p < 0.00001); histological remission was significantly higher in the ETR group than in the placebo group (OR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.55-2.86; p < 0.00001). The placebo group had a lower rate of positive antidrug antibodies (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 0.79-2.17; p < 0.29), and the incidence of complications was significantly higher in the ETR group compared with the placebo group (OR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.48-2.83; p < 0.0001).
Conclusion: Given the heterogeneity and potential biases in the included studies, gastroenterologists should cautiously tailor drug delivery strategies based on their clinical experience and the unique needs of individual patients.