首页> 外文期刊>Clinical and experimental rheumatology >Efficacy and safety of down-titration versus continuation strategies of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with low disease activity or in remission: a systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Efficacy and safety of down-titration versus continuation strategies of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with low disease activity or in remission: a systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:滴定滴定的有效性和安全性与抗病生物风湿药的持续治疗策略对风湿性关节炎疾病活动度低或缓解的患者的系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of down-titration (dose reduction/tapering) strategies compared with continuation of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who achieved and maintained low disease activity or remission. METHODS: We searched the following electronic database up to March 2016: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and conference proceedings of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR). Our meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of RA patients with low disease activity or in remission that compared down-titration treatment with continuation treatment. Data on flare, defined as a 28-joint Disease Activity Score of a‰¥3.2, had to have been reported. Outcomes on efficacy or safety were collected. RESULTS: Of 1136 references identified, five RCTs (total, 771 participants) were included. The incidence of disease relapse in the down-titration and continuation groups was similar (risk ratio (RR)=1.14, 95% CI=0.88a€“1.49). There was no statistical difference in the number of serious adverse events (RR=1.15, 95% CI=0.53a€“2.49). Withdrawals due to inefficacy or toxicity were similar between groups and no clinically meaningful difference in efficacy outcomes was observed by continuation treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicated that continuing a standard dose of biological DMARDs in patients with low disease activity conveyed no significant benefit as compared with down-titration therapy, suggesting that a down-titration strategy is as effective as a continuation strategy. Since the number of trials meeting the criteria for this meta-analysis was relatively low, future analyses with additional prospective RCTs are required to compare other biological agents and evaluate the long-term efficacy of these two strategies.
机译:目的:评估滴定(减少剂量/减少剂量)策略与持续改善疾病活动性或维持低疾病活性的类风湿性关节炎(RA)患者的生物疾病修饰抗风湿药(DMARDs)相比的有效性和安全性缓解。方法:我们搜索了截至2016年3月的以下电子数据库:MEDLINE,EMBASE,Cochrane对照试验中央注册簿(CENTRAL),以及美国风湿病学院(ACR)和欧洲风湿病联盟(EULAR)的会议记录。我们的荟萃分析包括对疾病活动度低或缓解的RA患者进行的随机对照试验(RCT),该研究将滴定治疗与持续治疗进行了比较。曾报道过火炬的数据,即28个关节的疾病活动评分为¥ 3.2。收集有关疗效或安全性的结果。结果:在确定的1136篇参考文献中,纳入了5篇RCT(总计771名参与者)。在滴定和持续治疗组中疾病复发的发生率相似(风险比(RR)= 1.14,95%CI = 0.88a-1.49)。严重不良事件的数量没有统计学差异(RR = 1.15,95%CI = 0.53a-2.49)。各组之间因无效或毒性引起的戒断相似,继续治疗未观察到疗效结果的临床意义差异。结论:我们的研究结果表明,与滴定治疗相比,在疾病活动低的患者中继续使用标准剂量的生物DMARD并没有带来明显的益处,这表明滴定策略与持续策略一样有效。由于符合该荟萃分析标准的试验数量相对较低,因此需要使用其他前瞻性RCT进行未来分析,以比较其他生物制剂并评估这两种策略的长期疗效。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号