4.8 Article

Risk of serious infection in biological treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

LANCET
卷 386, 期 9990, 页码 258-265

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61704-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Rheumatology Division at the University of Alabama at Birmingham
  2. Agency for Health Quality and Research Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics [U19 HS021110]
  3. National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases [P50 AR060772, U34 AR062891]
  4. National Institute of Aging [U01 AG018947]
  5. National Cancer Institute [U10 CA149950]
  6. Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute [CE-1304-6631]
  7. Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) Canada Vanier Graduate Scholarship [CGV 121171]
  8. Canadian Network and Centre for Trials Internationally
  9. CIHR Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network [116573]
  10. Oak Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Serious infections are a major concern for patients considering treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Evidence is inconsistent as to whether biological drugs are associated with an increased risk of serious infection compared with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of serious infections in patients treated with biological drugs compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs. Methods We did a systematic literature search with Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to Feb 11, 2014. Search terms included biologics, rheumatoid arthritis and their synonyms. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they included any of the approved biological drugs and reported serious infections. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis of published trials using a binomial likelihood model to assess the risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were treated with biological drugs, compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs. The odds ratio (OR) of serious infection was the primary measure of treatment effect and calculated 95% credible intervals using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. Findings The systematic review identified 106 trials that reported serious infections and included patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received biological drugs. Compared with traditional DMARDs, standard-dose biological drugs (OR 1.31, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.09-1.58) and high-dose biological drugs (1.90, 1.50-2.39) were associated with an increased risk of serious infections, although low-dose biological drugs (0.93, 0.65-1.33) were not. The risk was lower in patients who were methotrexate naive compared with traditional DMARD-experienced or anti-tumour necrosis factor biological drug-experienced patients. The absolute increase in the number of serious infections per 1000 patients treated each year ranged from six for standard-dose biological drugs to 55 for combination biological therapy, compared with traditional DMARDs. Interpretation Standard-dose and high-dose biological drugs (with or without traditional DMARDs) are associated with an increase in serious infections in rheumatoid arthritis compared with traditional DMARDs, although low-dose biological drugs are not. Clinicians should discuss the balance between benefit and harm with the individual patient before starting biological treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.

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

4.8
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