Paper Details

  1. Home
  2. Paper Details

Compared efficacy of rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to methotrexate or TNF inhibitors agents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Author: BertoloManoel Barros, CiteraGustavo, Gonzalez-GayMiguel Angel, OliveiraAna Beatrice, PugliesiAlisson, XavierRicardo, da MotaLicia Maria Henrique, de CarvalhoLuiz Sergio Fernandes, de OliveiraAmanda Borges

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tResearch funding provided by government agencies outside the United States.
Meta-AnalysisA statistical technique that integrates the results of multiple studies to draw more general conclusions about a particular issue.
Systematic ReviewA review that systematically collects, evaluates, and integrates relevant research to answer a specific research question.
Journal ArticleAn article published in an academic or professional journal that reports original research or scholarly analysis.

Overview

Abatacept was associated with a higher chance of achieving an ACR70 response than tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to methotrexate (MTX) or tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapy.
Paper Details　
Original Abstract of the Article :
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to compare the efficacy of rituximab, tocilizumab, and abatacept in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to treatments with MTX or TNFi agents. METHODS: We searched 6 databases until January 2023 for phase 2-4 RCTs evaluating patients with RA refractory to M...See full text at original site
Dr.Camel IconDr.Camel's Paper Summary Blogラクダ博士について

ラクダ博士は、Health Journal が論文の内容を分かりやすく解説するために作成した架空のキャラクターです。
難解な医学論文を、専門知識のない方にも理解しやすいように、噛み砕いて説明することを目指しています。

* ラクダ博士による解説は、あくまで論文の要点をまとめたものであり、原論文の完全な代替となるものではありません。詳細な内容については、必ず原論文をご参照ください。
* ラクダ博士は架空のキャラクターであり、実際の医学研究者や医療従事者とは一切関係がありません。
* 解説の内容は Health Journal が独自に解釈・作成したものであり、原論文の著者または出版社の見解を反映するものではありません。


引用元：
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42358-023-00298-z

データ提供：米国国立医学図書館（NLM）

Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis of Biologic Therapies

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a chronic inflammatory condition, can feel like a relentless sandstorm, impacting daily life. This systematic review and network meta-analysis, like a group of researchers navigating the desert of RA treatment options, compares the efficacy of three biologics: rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab, for individuals with RA refractory to methotrexate or TNF inhibitors.

Navigating the Oasis of Biologic Therapies: A Comparative Analysis

The meta-analysis, a detailed map of the RA treatment landscape, found that abatacept was associated with a higher chance of achieving an ACR70 response compared to tocilizumab. This finding suggests that abatacept might be a more effective option for some patients, while rituximab did not show a significant difference in ACR70 response compared to abatacept. However, the study also identified significant heterogeneity among the included trials, highlighting the need for further research to clarify the relative effectiveness of these biologic agents.

A Personalized Journey: Finding the Right Oasis for RA Management

This research underscores the importance of individualized approaches to RA management, considering patient characteristics, disease severity, and response to previous treatments. The study emphasizes the need for careful consideration of various factors when selecting the appropriate biologic therapy for individuals with RA.

Dr. Camel's Conclusion

This meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the relative efficacy of different biologics for RA. It underscores the importance of personalized approaches to RA management and highlights the need for ongoing research to refine our understanding of these therapies. Navigating the desert of RA treatment options requires a thorough understanding of individual needs and the availability of diverse therapeutic tools. This research reminds us that the search for effective treatments for RA continues, and new oases of hope are constantly emerging.

Date :
  1. Date Completed 2023-07-10
  2. Date Revised 2023-12-06
Further Info :

Pubmed ID

37415193

DOI: Digital Object Identifier

10.1186/s42358-023-00298-z

SNS
PICO Info
in preparation
Languages

English

Positive IndicatorAn AI analysis index that serves as a benchmark for how positive the results of the study are. Note that it is a benchmark and requires careful interpretation and consideration of different perspectives.

This site uses cookies. Visit our privacy policy page or click the link in any footer for more information and to change your preferences.