SynthesisPloS one2025
Biologic therapies for the treatment of large vessel vasculitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Infection risk associated with steroid-sparing therapies in GCA, PMR, and ANCA-associated vasculitis: A systematic review.Joint bone spine · 2026Article
- Rare Systemic Vasculitides: Polyarteritis Nodosa and Takayasu Arteritis.The American journal of case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo summarize the existing evidence from double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies regarding the effects of biologic agents for the treatment of large vessel vasculitis (LVV).
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov covering the period from database inception to May 3rd, 2023. Double-blind RCTs and cohort studies reporting biologic therapies' effects on LVV including giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu's arteritis (TAK) with outcomes of interest in English were included. The primary outcome of interest was relapse rates during glucocorticoid tapering. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 and the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool were used for the quality assessment. Random-effects models were used for meta-analysis.
resultsOf the 4599 references retrieved, 10 RCTs regarding GCA, 6 cohort studies, and 2 RCTs regarding TAK were included, comprising 997 participants in total. All the included RCTs were of low risk of bias, while the 6 cohort studies were of moderate to serious risk of bias. Meta-analysis suggested a significant superiority of biologic agents in prolonging relapse-free survival, increasing glucocorticoid taper rate, and decreasing cumulative glucocorticoids dose for both GCA and TAK. Additionally, GCA patients using biologic agents had significantly lower relapse rates and ESR levels with higher remission rates. Trends of favoring biologic agents in reducing relapse rate, ITAS-2010, ITAS-A, ESR, and CRP along with increased remission rate for TAK were also observed.
conclusionsBiologic agents significantly improved clinical outcomes in LVV by reducing relapse rates, enhancing remission, and enabling safer glucocorticoid tapering, offering an important therapeutic advantage for managing both GCA and TAK. Further well-designed studies and corresponding meta-analyses are needed to validate their long-term efficacy and safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.