4.7 Review

Rituximab for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis: a systematic review of observational studies

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 60, 期 4, 页码 1640-1650

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab046

关键词

systematic review; rituximab; eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis; observational studies; ANCA-associated vasculitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A systematic review was conducted to analyze the use of RTX and other biologic agents in EGPA patients, revealing that most evaluable patients achieved remission. However, sources of heterogeneity and differences in study design limited the clear interpretation and applicability of the results in clinical practice.
Objective. To analyse the available evidence about the use of rituximab (RTX) and other biologic agents in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) patients and to provide useful findings to inform the design of future, reliable clinical trials. Methods. A systematic review was performed. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane library databases on RTX, and an extensive literature search was conducted on other biologic agents. Results. Forty-five papers pertinent to our questions were found: 16 retrospective cohort studies, 8 case series, 3 prospective cohort studies and 18 single case reports, for a total of 368 EGPA patients. More than 80% of evaluable patients achieved complete or partial remission with a tendency towards a higher rate of complete response in the pANCA-positive subgroup. Conclusion. Although the majority of the evaluable EGPA patients treated with RTX appears to achieve complete remission, we strongly believe that a number of sources of heterogeneity impair a clear interpretation of results and limit their transferability in clinical practice. Differences in design, enrolment criteria, outcome definition and measurement make a comparison among data obtained from studies on RTX and other biologic agents unreliable.

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