...
首页> 外文期刊>Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism >A systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety and efficacy of febuxostat versus allopurinol in chronic gout
【24h】

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety and efficacy of febuxostat versus allopurinol in chronic gout

机译:非布索坦与别嘌呤醇在慢性痛风中的安全性和有效性的系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of febuxostat compared to allopurinol for the treatment of chronic gout. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials that compared oral febuxostat to oral allopurinol for treatment of chronic gout. Two reviewers independently selected studies, assessed study quality, and extracted data. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated with random effects and were reported with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: From 1076 potentially relevant citations, 7 studies and 25 associated publications met inclusion criteria; 5 studies were ultimately included in the analysis. Febuxostat did not reduce the risk of gout flares compared with allopurinol (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.03-1.30, I2 = 44%). Overall, the risk of any adverse event was lower in febuxostat recipients compared to allopurinol (RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.90-0.99, I2 = 13%). Patients receiving febuxostat were more likely to achieve a serum uric acid of 6mg/dl than allopurinol recipients (RR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.22-2.00, I2 = 92%). Subgroup analysis did not indicate any significant difference between high- and low-dose febuxostat on the risk of gout flares. Conclusion: Although febuxostat was associated with higher likelihood of achieving a target serum uric acid level of 6. mg/dl, there was significant heterogeneity in the pooled results. There was no evidence that febuxostat is superior to allopurinol for clinically relevant outcomes. Given its higher cost, febuxostat should not be routinely used for chronic gout.
机译:目的:评价非布索坦与别嘌呤醇相比治疗慢性痛风的安全性和有效性。方法:我们对随机和非随机对照试验进行了系统的回顾和荟萃分析,比较了口服非布索坦和别嘌呤醇治疗慢性痛风的疗效。两名审稿人独立选择研究,评估研究质量并提取数据。风险比(RR)是根据随机效应计算得出的,并以相应的95%置信区间(CI)报告。结果:从1076篇潜在相关的引文中,有7篇研究和25篇相关出版物符合纳入标准;分析中最终包括5个研究。与别嘌呤醇相比,非布索坦没有降低痛风发作的风险(RR = 1.16,95%CI = 1.03-1.30,I2 = 44%)。总体而言,与别嘌呤醇相比,非布索坦接受者发生任何不良事件的风险均较低(RR = 0.94,95%CI = 0.90-0.99,I2 = 13%)。接受非布索坦的患者比别嘌呤醇接受者更可能获得<6mg / dl的血清尿酸(RR = 1.56,95%CI = 1.22-2.00,I2 = 92%)。亚组分析未显示高剂量和低剂量非布索坦在痛风发作风险上没有任何显着差异。结论:尽管非布索坦与达到目标血清尿酸水平<6的可能性更高。毫克/分升,合并结果中存在明显的异质性。没有证据表明非布司他在临床相关结局方面优于别嘌呤醇。由于其成本较高,非布索坦不宜常规用于治疗慢性痛风。

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