Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta Arthritis. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta Arthritis. Mostrar todas las entradas

20 junio, 2013

Indirect comparisons of the efficacy of biological antirheumatic agents in rheumatoid arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or to an anti-tumour necrosis factor agent:

Rheumatoid arthritis jointImage via Wikipedia
Salliot C, Finckh A, Katchamart W, et al. Indirect comparisons of the efficacy of biological antirheumatic agents in rheumatoid arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or to an anti-tumour necrosis factor agent: a meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Feb;70(2):266-71. Epub 2010 Nov 19. (Review) PMID: 21097801
Read Abstract Read Full Text
Clinical Evidence Topic: Rheumatoid arthritis







Abstract
BACKGROUND: The availability of increasing numbers of biological agents for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) offers several therapeutic options. While all biologicals have proven effective in trials, very limited direct comparisons are available. The objective of the present work was to compare the efficacy of biologicals (anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents, rituximab, abatacept, tocilizumab) in patients with RA with active disease and (i) an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate (IR-MTX), (ii) an IR to anti-TNF agents (IR-anti-TNFs) using indirect comparisons.
METHODS: Randomised clinical trials were identified examining the efficacy of a biological agent in RA at 6 months in patients with an IR-MTX or with an IR-anti-TNF. To compare the relative efficacy of biologicals, adjusted indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to estimate the ORs of achieving a 50% improvement according to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR50) response at 6 months were used.
RESULTS: A total of 18 published trials and 1 abstract were included in the analyses. In IR-MTX, anti-TNFs had the same probability of reaching an ACR50 compared to `non-anti-TNF biologicals` taken together (OR 1.30, 95 % CI 0.91 to 1.86). However, when compared to specific biological agents, anti-TNFs demonstrated a higher probability of reaching an ACR50 than abatacept (OR 1.52, 95 % CI 1.0 to 2.28), but not in comparison to rituximab and tocilizumab. In IR-anti-TNF, rituximab demonstrated a higher probability of achieving an ACR50 than tocilizumab (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.10 to 6.37), but no significant differences existed between rituximab, tocilizumab, abatacept and golimumab.
CONCLUSIONS: In a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials of patients with IR-MTX, anti-TNFs demonstrated a higher probability of achieving an ACR50 response than abatacept. In IR-anti-TNF, no difference was found between rituximab, tocimizumab, abatacept and golimumab.

Enhanced by Zemanta

05 marzo, 2013

ANTI-T-N-F THERAPY NOT ASSOCIATED RISK DEVELOPING SHINGLES AUTO-IMMUNE INFLAMMATORY DISEASES

English: A hand affected by rheumatoid arthritis
English: A hand affected by rheumatoid arthritis (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases are at increased risk for developing infections like shingles. Many of these patients take immunosuppressive drugs to treat the inflammation and pain associated with those diseases. A new study examined whether patients beginning anti-T-N-F therapy are at a higher risk for developing shingles infection. Catherine Dolf explains in this week's JAMA Report.
Note: in spite of I don´t read the original article, and reading another ones that show the opposite position, we could say that this article is not conclusive. Actually many ot these news drugs have at least  the same risk than older inmunosupressive drugs. And the reports of adverses effects is not shown in any publication for the FDA. Eventough you could find thousands of warnings of these news therapies in Medwatch or EMA.

Enhanced by Zemanta