SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2023
Efficacy and safety of novel biologics in the treatment of lupus nephritis based on registered clinical trials: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Ophthalmological Safety Considerations of Emerging and Conventional Therapeutic Agents.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of novel biologics for the treatment of lupus nephritis based on a reticulated meta-analysis approach. Registered clinical trials in 4 major databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials) and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched with a search time frame of build to June 2022. And we screened registered randomized controlled clinical trials of biologics for the treatment of lupus nephritis according to the protocol's nadir criteria. Trials were evaluated for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, and data were statistically analyzed using Stata 16.0 and Review Manager 5.3 software to compare and rank differences in effectiveness and safety between the biologics. A total of 10 registered randomized controlled clinical trials involving 2148 subjects were included in this study. The interventions were ranked from best to worst in terms of the primary outcome indicator of effectiveness, renal complete remission: belimumab > anifrolumab (900 + 300) mg > obinutuzumab > ocrelizumab 400 mg > abatacept 30/10 mg/kg > belimumab + rituximab > abatacept 10/10 mg/kg > abatacept (30/10 + 10/10) mg/kg > placeo > ocrelizumab 1000 mg > rituximab > anifrolumab 300 mg, belimumab was superior to placebo [OR = 1.75, 95% CI (1.13, 2.70)] and anifrolumab 300 mg [OR = 3.27, 95% CI (1.05, 10.14)], anifrolumab (900 + 300) mg was superior to anifrolumab 300 mg [OR = 3.56, 95% CI (1.30, 9.76)], and all were statistically significant. The ranking of each intervention in terms of overall renal remission for secondary outcome indicators from best to worst was: obinutuzumab > belimumab + rituximab > anifrolumab (900 + 300) mg > ocrelizumab 1000 mg > ocrelizumab 400 mg > belimumab > rituximab 1000 mg > abatacept 30/10 mg/kg > abatacept (30/10 + 10/10) mg/kg > placeo > abatacept 10/10 mg/kg > anifrolumab 300 mg, obinutuzumab was superior to placebo [OR = 2.27, 95% CI (1.11, 4.67)] and belimumab was also superior to placebo [OR = 1.56, 95% CI (1.07, 2.27)], and all were statistically significant. In terms of safety, with a focus on serious adverse events and serious infections, the results were: Serious adverse events at 1 year of monitoring occurred better with ocrelizumab 1000 mg than ocrelizumab 400 mg [OR = 0.51, 95% CI (0.29, 0.89)] and were statistically different; serious adverse events at 2 years of monitoring infection adverse events occurred better with obinutuzumab than with abatacept (30/10 + 10/10) mg/kg [OR = 0.24, 95% CI (0.07, 0.81)] and were statistically different. The safety of the new biologics in combination with conventional standard therapies is generally good, but it is belimumab and obinutuzumab that are most effective in achieving complete and overall remission in the kidney. This study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, with a registration number of CRD42021262498.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37462818What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.