Dataset Information

The efficacy of systemic glucocorticosteroids for pain in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Glucocorticosteroids (GCs) are recommended to suppress inflammation in people with active RA. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify the effects of systemic GCs on RA pain.

Methods

A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in RA comparing systemic GCs to inactive treatment. Three databases were and spontaneous pain and evoked pain outcomes were extracted. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and mean differences were meta-analysed. Heterogeneity (I2, tau statistics) and bias (funnel plot, Egger's test) were assessed. Subgroup analyses investigated sources of variation. This study was pre-registered (PROSPERO CRD42019111562).

Results

A total of 18 903 titles, 880 abstracts and 226 full texts were assessed. Thirty-three RCTs suitable for the meta-analysis included 3123 participants. Pain scores (spontaneous pain) decreased in participants treated with oral GCs; SMD = -0.65 (15 studies, 95% CI -0.82, -0.49, P <0.001) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 56%, P =0.0002). Efficacy displayed time-related decreases after GC initiation. Mean difference visual analogue scale pain was -15 mm (95% CI -20, -9) greater improvement in GC than control at ≤3 months, -8 mm (95% CI -12, -3) at >3-6 months and -7 mm (95% CI -13, 0) at >6 months. Similar findings were obtained when evoked pain outcomes were examined. Data from five RCTs suggested improvement also in fatigue during GC treatment.

Conclusion

Oral GCs are analgesic in RA. The benefit is greatest shortly after initiation and GCs might not achieve clinically important pain relief beyond 3 months. Treatments other than anti-inflammatory GCs should be considered to reduce the long-term burden of pain in RA.

SUBMITTER: McWilliams DF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8742830 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTofacitinib is a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) which was recently approved by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There are several randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that have investigated the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A systematic review with a meta-analysis of RCTs was undertaken to determine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in treating patients with RA.MethodsElectronic and clinical trials register databases were searched for published RCTs of tofacitinib between 2009 and 2013. Outcomes of interest include 20% and 50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology Scale (ACR20 and ACR50) response rates, rates of infection, the number of immunological/haematological adverse events (AEs), deranged laboratory results (hepatic, renal, haematological tests and lipoprotein level) and the incidence of drug withdrawal.ResultsEight RCTs (n = 3,791) were reviewed. Significantly greater ACR20 response rates were observed in patients receiving tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg bid (twice daily) versus placebo at week 12, with risk ratios (RR) of 2.20 (95% CI 1.58, 3.07) and 2.38 (95% CI 1.81, 3.14) respectively. The effect was maintained at week 24 for 5 mg bid (RR 1.94; 95% CI 1.55, 2.44) and 10 mg bid (RR 2.20; 95% CI 1.76, 2.75). The ACR50 response rate was also significantly higher for patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg bid (RR 2.91; 95% CI 2.03, 4.16) and 10 mg bid (RR 3.32; 95% CI 2.33, 4.72) compared to placebo at week 12. Patients in the tofacitinib group had significantly lower mean neutrophil counts, higher serum creatinine, higher percentage change of LDL/HDL and a higher risk of ALT/AST > 1 ULN (upper limit of normal) versus placebo. There were no significant differences in AEs and withdrawal due to AEs compared to placebo.ConclusionTofacitinib is efficacious and well tolerated in patients with MTX-resistant RA up to a period of 24 weeks. However, haematological, liver function tests and lipoproteins should be monitored. Long-term efficacy and pharmacovigilance studies are recommended.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough bDMARDs are effective in the treatment of RA, they are associated with dose-dependent side effects, patient burden, and high costs. Recently, many studies have investigated the possibility of discontinuing or tapering bDMARDs when patients have reached their treatment goal. The aim of this review is to provide a narrative overview of the existing evidence on bDMARD dose reduction and to provide answers to specific dose-reduction-related questions that are of interest to clinicians.MethodsWe systematically searched for relevant studies in four scientific databases. Furthermore, we screened the references of reviews and relevant studies.ResultsOur searches resulted in 45 original studies of bDMARD dose reduction in RA patients (15 RCTs and 30 observational studies). Current evidence shows that bDMARD dose reduction can be considered in all RA patients who achieve stable (e.g., ≥6 months) low disease activity or remission. The best strategies seem to be disease-activity-guided dose optimization and fixed dose reduction, since direct bDMARD discontinuation (without restarting) results in a high flare rate, worse physical functioning, and more joint damage. When tapering the bDMARD treatment of a patient, disease activity should be monitored closely, and if a flare occurs, the dose should be increased to the lowest effective dose. Current evidence shows that restarting bDMARD treatment is effective and safe. Unfortunately, no clear predictors of successful dose reduction have been identified so far.ConclusionThe current evidence and rising healthcare costs urge that dose reduction should be considered for eligible patients. However, the decision to start dose reduction should be made in shared decision-making. Future research should focus not only on a better understanding of the effects of dose reduction on clinical outcomes but also on the perspectives of patients and physicians as well as the implementation of this new treatment principle.