Comparative efficacy and safety of baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis : A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Y H Lee, S-C Bae
{"title":"Comparative efficacy and safety of baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis : A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Y H Lee, S-C Bae","doi":"10.1007/s00393-016-0254-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of once-daily baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg administration in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this network meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with active RA were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to combine the direct and indirect evidence from the RCTs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven RCTs involving 3461 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were ten pairwise comparisons, including seven direct comparisons and five interventions. The ACR20 response rate was significantly higher in the baricitinib 4 mg in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) group than in the placebo+DMARD group (odds ratio, OR 3.13; 95% credible interval, CrI 2.32-4.33). Compared with the placebo+DMARD group, the baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg + DMARD, and adalimumab 40 mg + methotrexate (MTX) groups showed a significantly higher ACR20 response rate. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that baricitinib 4 mg + DMARD was likely to elicit the best ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.7930), followed by baricitinib 4 mg (SUCRA = 0.7034), baricitinib 2 mg + DMARD (SUCRA = 0.6304), adalimumab 40 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.3687), and placebo+DMARD (SUCRA = 0.0045). By contrast, the safety based on the number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) did not differ significantly among the five interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg administered once daily, in combination with DMARD, were efficacious interventions for active RA that had no significant risk of TEAE development.</p>","PeriodicalId":23843,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie","volume":"27 1","pages":"335-342"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00393-016-0254-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of once-daily baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg administration in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods: In this network meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with active RA were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to combine the direct and indirect evidence from the RCTs.

Results: Seven RCTs involving 3461 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were ten pairwise comparisons, including seven direct comparisons and five interventions. The ACR20 response rate was significantly higher in the baricitinib 4 mg in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) group than in the placebo+DMARD group (odds ratio, OR 3.13; 95% credible interval, CrI 2.32-4.33). Compared with the placebo+DMARD group, the baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg + DMARD, and adalimumab 40 mg + methotrexate (MTX) groups showed a significantly higher ACR20 response rate. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that baricitinib 4 mg + DMARD was likely to elicit the best ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.7930), followed by baricitinib 4 mg (SUCRA = 0.7034), baricitinib 2 mg + DMARD (SUCRA = 0.6304), adalimumab 40 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.3687), and placebo+DMARD (SUCRA = 0.0045). By contrast, the safety based on the number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) did not differ significantly among the five interventions.

Conclusion: Baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg administered once daily, in combination with DMARD, were efficacious interventions for active RA that had no significant risk of TEAE development.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
巴西替尼2mg和4mg治疗活动性类风湿关节炎的疗效和安全性比较:随机对照试验的贝叶斯网络荟萃分析
目的:本研究旨在评估每日一次baricitinib 2mg和4mg给药对活动性类风湿关节炎(RA)患者的相对疗效和安全性。方法:在这项网络荟萃分析中,纳入了随机对照试验(rct),检查巴西替尼对活动性RA患者的有效性和安全性。贝叶斯网络荟萃分析结合了随机对照试验的直接和间接证据。结果:7项rct共3461例患者符合纳入标准。有10个两两比较,包括7个直接比较和5个干预。baricitinib 4mg联合改善疾病的抗风湿药物(DMARD)组的ACR20反应率显著高于安慰剂+DMARD组(优势比,OR 3.13;95%可信区间(CrI 2.32-4.33)。与安慰剂+DMARD组相比,baricitinib 4mg、baricitinib 2mg +DMARD和阿达木单抗40mg +甲氨蝶呤(MTX)组的ACR20应答率显著提高。基于累积排序曲线下表面的排序概率(SUCRA)显示,baricitinib 4mg +DMARD可能获得最佳的ACR20应答率(SUCRA = 0.7930),其次是baricitinib 4mg (SUCRA = 0.7034)、baricitinib 2mg +DMARD (SUCRA = 0.6304)、阿达木单抗40mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.3687)和安慰剂+DMARD (SUCRA = 0.0045)。相比之下,基于治疗不良事件(teae)数量的安全性在五种干预措施之间没有显着差异。结论:Baricitinib 2mg和4mg,每日一次,联合DMARD,是有效的干预措施,没有显著的TEAE发展风险的活动性RA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Epidemiological data and medical care situation of patients with chronic inflammatory diseases in Germany Gicht Therapieeffekte der multimodalen rheumatologischen Komplexbehandlung im Rheumazentrum Rheinland-Pfalz Das DRFZ – ein Vorreiter bei der Erforschung des Zusammenspiels von Immun- und Stromazellen bei der De- und Regeneration des Bewegungsapparats Weiterbildung in der Rheumatologie – Stand 2022
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1