Multiple sclerosis and related disorders · 2025
Immunosuppression in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: A trial sequential analysis and updated meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Menegaz de Almeida Artur, Martinez-Lemus Juan D, Cavalcanti Maria Eduarda, de Moraes Francisco Cezar Aquino, Filho Fernando Westphal, Lopes Paulo Robeto Moss, Andrade Ítalo Barros, Dantas Clara Rocha, Reis Mariana Rachas, Reyes-Mantilla Maria I
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder (NMOSD) is an autoimmune disease affecting the spinal cord, optic nerves, and brainstem. First-line therapies include Rituximab (RTX), Azathioprine (AZA), and Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF), but their non-inferiority remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of RTX, AZA, and MMF through a meta-analysis and assess the findings using trial sequential analysis (TSA).
METHODS: Databases were systematically searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials on NMOSD patients treated with RTX, AZA, and/or MMF. Statistical analysis was done using RStudio, Review Manager, and TSA software.
RESULTS: 37 studies with 2047 patients were included. ARR improved with RTX, AZA, and MMF, but only RTX improved EDSS. Comparisons showed no significant differences between RTX and AZA/MMF in ARR or EDSS. RTX had lower relapse risk, fewer adverse events, lower rates of elevated transaminases and leukopenia, but a higher risk of infections compared to AZA and MMF. TSA confirmed findings for ARR and adverse events but was inconclusive for EDSS.
CONCLUSIONS: AZA and MMF reduce ARR and EDSS similarly to RTX but do not reduce relapse time. RTX has fewer adverse events but higher infection risk. Non-specific immunomodulators may be useful when RTX is unavailable.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of RTX, AZA, and MMF through a meta-analysis and assess the findings using trial sequential analysis (TSA).
METHODS: Databases were systematically searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials on NMOSD patients treated with RTX, AZA, and/or MMF. Statistical analysis was done using RStudio, Review Manager, and TSA software.
RESULTS: 37 studies with 2047 patients were included. ARR improved with RTX, AZA, and MMF, but only RTX improved EDSS. Comparisons showed no significant differences between RTX and AZA/MMF in ARR or EDSS. RTX had lower relapse risk, fewer adverse events, lower rates of elevated transaminases and leukopenia, but a higher risk of infections compared to AZA and MMF. TSA confirmed findings for ARR and adverse events but was inconclusive for EDSS.
CONCLUSIONS: AZA and MMF reduce ARR and EDSS similarly to RTX but do not reduce relapse time. RTX has fewer adverse events but higher infection risk. Non-specific immunomodulators may be useful when RTX is unavailable.