Comparative effectiveness of rheumatoid arthritis therapies

被引：3

作者：

Finckh A. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Geneva, 26 Avenue Beau-Sejour, Geneva

来源：

Current Rheumatology Reports | 2010年 / 12卷 / 5期

关键词：

Antirheumatic therapy; Comparative effectiveness; DMARDs; Rheumatoid arthritis;

D O I：

10.1007/s11926-010-0123-0

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Physicians and patients must choose between several therapeutic interventions for rheumatoid arthritis and need to compare the available therapeutic options. Although randomized, placebo-controlled trials are essential to establish the efficacy of a new treatment, they are not much help when it comes to selecting the best therapy for an individual patient. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is set to provide direct comparisons between therapeutic strategies. CER attempts to weigh the benefits against the potential harms of a particular intervention. Furthermore, CER may help identify specific patient subgroups that are more likely to benefit from a particular therapy or at increased risk of adverse events. Several study designs are available for CER, including pragmatic trials, indirect comparisons using meta-analysis, and observational studies. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each design improves the interpretation of the results. In this article, I illustrate CER principles using examples from the literature on biologic antirheumatic agents. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010.

引用

页码：348 / 354

页数：6

共 52 条

[11]

Furst D.E., Gaylis N., Bray V., Et al., Open-label, pilot protocol of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who switch to infliximab after an incomplete response to etanercept: The opposite study, Ann Rheum Dis, 66, pp. 893-899, (2007)

[12]

ClinicalTrials.gov: Switching Anti-TNF-alpha Agents in RA, 23, (2010)

[13]

ClinicalTrials.gov: Comparison of Adalimumab and Infliximab Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis, 23, (2010)

[14]

Grigor C., Capell H., Stirling A., Et al., Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control for rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): A single-blind randomised controlled trial, Lancet, 364, pp. 263-269, (2004)

[15]

Verstappen S.M., Jacobs J.W., Van Der Veen M.J., Et al., Intensive treatment with methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: Aiming for remission. Computer Assisted Management in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (CAMERA, an open-label strategy trial), Ann Rheum Dis, 66, pp. 1443-1449, (2007)

[16]

Goekoop-Ruiterman Y.P., De Vries-Bouwstra J.K., Allaart C.F., Et al., Clinical and radiographic outcomes of four different treatment strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (the BeSt study): A randomized, controlled trial, Arthritis Rheum, 52, pp. 3381-3390, (2005)

[17]

Taylor P.C., How do the efficacy and safety of abatacept and infliximab compare in the treatment of active RA?, Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol, 5, pp. 126-127, (2009)

[18]

Nixon R.M., Bansback N., Brennan A., Using mixed treatment comparisons and meta-regression to perform indirect comparisons to estimate the efficacy of biologic treatments in rheumatoid arthritis, Stat Med, 26, pp. 1237-1254, (2007)

[19]

Song F., Altman D.G., Glenny A.M., Et al., Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: Empirical evidence from published meta-analyses, BMJ, 326, (2003)

[20]

Bucher H.C., Guyatt G.H., Griffith L.E., Et al., The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, J Clin Epidemiol, 50, pp. 683-691, (1997)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 →