MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2145649264 · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2010.01.037

Treatment options for autoimmune hepatitis: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

2010· review· en· W2145649264 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

fundUn bailleur canadien est enregistré sur le travail.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Hepatology · 2010
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLiver Diseases and Immunity
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
Mots-clésAzathioprineMedicineAutoimmune hepatitisInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialMaintenance therapyRelative riskMeta-analysisMEDLINEInduction therapyHepatitisGastroenterologyConfidence intervalChemotherapyDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background & AimsPredniso(lo)ne with or without azathioprine is considered the mainstay in the treatment of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), but many therapeutic options are available. The primary objective of this review was to explore the published literature on the optimal induction and subsequent maintenance therapy for AIH.MethodsWe performed a systematic search on electronic databases MEDLINE (1950-07.2009), Web of Science, Cochrane, and the website www.clinicaltrials.gov. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on apparent beneficial treatment regimens as induction or maintenance treatment in AIH were included. Pediatric studies were excluded. We calculated relative risks (RR) for comparison of treatment options on the primary outcome measure, which was defined as clinical, biochemical and histological remission.ResultsEleven RCTs were included, of which 7 studies evaluated the induction therapy in AIH patients: 3 treatment naive (n = 253), 2 relapse (n = 53), 2 combination of naive and relapse (n = 110). The remaining 4 studies (n = 162) assessed maintenance therapy. All but one maintenance study (thymostimulin versus no therapy) studied predniso(lo)ne (PRED), azathioprine (AZA) or combination PRED + AZA. We found no differences in primary outcome between induction therapy with PRED and PRED + AZA in treatment naive patients (RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.65–1.47). AZA monotherapy as induction was considered as not viable because of a high mortality rate (30%). This was similar in AIH patients who relapsed: RR for PRED versus PRED + AZA for inducing remission was not different: 0.71 (95% CI 0.37–1.39). PRED + AZA maintained remission more often than PRED (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.13–1.73). Also AZA maintained a higher remission rate than PRED (RR = 1.35; 95% CI 1.07–1.70). Maintenance of remission was not different between PRED + AZA and AZA (RR = 1.06; 95% CI 0.94–1.20).ConclusionsBased on available RCTs, PRED monotherapy and PRED + AZA combination therapy are both viable induction therapies for AIH treatment naives and relapsers, while for maintenance therapy PRED + AZA and AZA therapy are superior to PRED monotherapy. Predniso(lo)ne with or without azathioprine is considered the mainstay in the treatment of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), but many therapeutic options are available. The primary objective of this review was to explore the published literature on the optimal induction and subsequent maintenance therapy for AIH. We performed a systematic search on electronic databases MEDLINE (1950-07.2009), Web of Science, Cochrane, and the website www.clinicaltrials.gov. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on apparent beneficial treatment regimens as induction or maintenance treatment in AIH were included. Pediatric studies were excluded. We calculated relative risks (RR) for comparison of treatment options on the primary outcome measure, which was defined as clinical, biochemical and histological remission. Eleven RCTs were included, of which 7 studies evaluated the induction therapy in AIH patients: 3 treatment naive (n = 253), 2 relapse (n = 53), 2 combination of naive and relapse (n = 110). The remaining 4 studies (n = 162) assessed maintenance therapy. All but one maintenance study (thymostimulin versus no therapy) studied predniso(lo)ne (PRED), azathioprine (AZA) or combination PRED + AZA. We found no differences in primary outcome between induction therapy with PRED and PRED + AZA in treatment naive patients (RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.65–1.47). AZA monotherapy as induction was considered as not viable because of a high mortality rate (30%). This was similar in AIH patients who relapsed: RR for PRED versus PRED + AZA for inducing remission was not different: 0.71 (95% CI 0.37–1.39). PRED + AZA maintained remission more often than PRED (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.13–1.73). Also AZA maintained a higher remission rate than PRED (RR = 1.35; 95% CI 1.07–1.70). Maintenance of remission was not different between PRED + AZA and AZA (RR = 1.06; 95% CI 0.94–1.20). Based on available RCTs, PRED monotherapy and PRED + AZA combination therapy are both viable induction therapies for AIH treatment naives and relapsers, while for maintenance therapy PRED + AZA and AZA therapy are superior to PRED monotherapy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens large)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,393
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,992

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,030
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0630,018
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,070
Tête enseignante GPT0,406
Écart entre enseignants0,336 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle