4.7 Review

Biologic Therapies and Risk of Infection and Malignancy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

期刊

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 1385-+

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.04.039

关键词

Anti-TNF; Antibody; Cancer Risk Factor; Side Effect

资金

  1. Merck
  2. Abbott
  3. Janssen
  4. Genentech
  5. Mitsubishi
  6. Ferring
  7. Norgine
  8. Tillots
  9. Vifor
  10. Shire
  11. Therakos
  12. Pharmacosmos
  13. Pilege
  14. BMS
  15. UCB-pharma
  16. Hospira
  17. Celltrion
  18. Takeda
  19. Biogaran
  20. Boehringer-Ingelheim
  21. Lilly
  22. Pfizer
  23. HAC-pharma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Safety issues are a major concern for patients considering treatments for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether biologic agents affect the risk of infection or malignancy in adults with IBD. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials. gov through March 2016 for randomized placebo-controlled or head-to-head trials of biologic agents approved for treatment of adults with IBD (ie, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, infliximab, natalizumab, or vedolizumab). Two reviewers independently extracted study data and outcomes (serious infections, opportunistic infections, tuberculosis, any infection, and malignancies) and rated each trial's risk of bias. We used conventional meta-analysis to synthesize direct evidence and a network meta-analysis for adjusted indirect treatment comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 49 randomized placebo-controlled studies comprising 14,590 participants. Synthesis of the evidence indicated that patients treated with biologics had a moderate increase in risk of any infection (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.29) and a significant increase in risk of opportunistic infections (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.21-3.01). Risk of serious infections was not increased in patients treated with biologics (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.12). On the contrary, biologics appeared to significantly reduce risk of serious infections in studies with low risk of bias (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.90). We did not find an increased risk of malignancy with use of biologic agents (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.50), but data were insufficient in terms of exposure and follow-up times. None of the indirect comparisons, either among the individual agents or between the antitumor necrosis factor and anti-integrin classes, reached significance for any of the outcomes analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a systematic review and meta-analysis, biologic agents increase the risk of opportunistic infections in patients with IBD, but not the risk of serious infections. It is necessary to continue to monitor the comparative and long-term safety profiles of these drugs.

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