Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38454228›Full record

ArticleTurkish archives of pediatrics2024

How Safe Are Biological Agents in Pediatric Rheumatology?

Emine Nur Sunar Yayla, Çişem Yıldız, Pelin Esmeray Şenol, Nihal Karaçayır, Deniz Gezgin Yıldırım, Sevcan A Bakkaloğlu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish archives of pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Emine Nur Sunar YaylaDivision of Pediatric Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey, Clinic of Pediatric Rheumatology, Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Çişem YıldızDivision of Pediatric Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Pelin Esmeray ŞenolDivision of Pediatric Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Nihal KaraçayırDivision of Pediatric Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Deniz Gezgin YıldırımDivision of Pediatric Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Sevcan A BakkaloğluDivision of Pediatric Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveBiologic therapy has changed the prognosis of patients with rheumatologic disease. Despite all benefits of the biological agents, adverse events may occur due to their long-term use. The aim of this study is to analyze the adverse events observed in pediatric patients who received biological treatment. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective observational cohort study was conducted between January 2010 and January 2022. File records of 139 patients used biological agents for rheumatologic diseases in a pediatric rheumatology clinic were evaluated. Diagnosis, received treatment, the rationale for stopping treatment, requirement of tuberculosis prophylaxis, presence of an adverse event, and results were recorded.

resultsThe most used biological therapy was etanercept (41.7%). Anakinra, adalimumab, canakinumab were used in 30.9%, 27.3%, 23.7% of patients, and the others in less than 10%. Totally 491 adverse events (97.9/100 patient-years) were encountered during the duration of biological treatment. The most often adverse event was recurrent upper respiratory tract infection in the patients (31.9/100 patient-years). Elevated aminotransferase levels (10.4/100 patient-years), abdominal pain (7/100 patient-years), and headache (5.2/100 patient-years) were among the other common side effects. Isoniazid (INH) prophylaxis was needed before biological treatment in 20.9% of the patients. Tuberculosis developed in none of the patients followed-up for latent tuberculosis, however, it developed in a patient while receiving etanercept due to noncompliance with his scheduled outpatient visits during etanercept treatment.

conclusionThe most commonly used biological treatments were TNFi and IL-antagonists, and the majority of side effects were infections and laboratory abnormalities. Although the rate of serious adverse events is quite low, close follow-up of patients receiving biological therapy is very important.

Identifiers

PMID38454228
PMCPMC11059757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.