SynthesisClinical reviews in allergy & immunology2025
Efficacy and Safety of Biologics for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE): A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Biomarker-stratified efficacy and safety of biologics in systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Lupus science & medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of biologics and targeted small-molecule therapies plus stable background therapy in systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to use Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of biologics for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). A comprehensive and systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, and WanFang Data) was conducted from 2014 to September 2024. Our study only included randomized controlled trials with full articles that enrolled adult SLE patients treated with biologics, in comparison with standard therapy. The primary efficacy endpoints were SLE Responder Index 4 (SRI4) and BICLA (BILAG-Based Composite Lupus Assessment). The safety endpoints were adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). R 4.4.3 and RStudio were used to conduct the network meta-analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used to assess the included literature. 29 randomized controlled trials with a total of 13,712 patients met the inclusion criteria. The network meta-analysis indicated that compared with standard therapy, telitacicept (OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.4-20.0) demonstrated superior efficacy in achieving SRI4 response, deucravacitinib (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.5), and anifrolumab (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-2.0) all exhibited significant BICLA response in moderate-to-severe SLE patients. Regarding safety, it was observed that there were no significant statistical differences among the various treatment options. Cluster analysis revealed that deucravacitinib exhibited the best efficacy-safety profile. Deucravacitinib suggested a favorable profile between efficacy and safety. Telitacicept showed the most pronounced improvement in SRI-4 response, but was associated with higher rates of AEs and SAEs, whereas anifrolumab and deucravacitinib displayed advantages in reducing SAEs. For patients with elevated baseline IFN signatures, anti-type I interferon biologics such as anifrolumab and sifalimumab are recommended to maximize clinical benefits. The reliance on indirect comparisons necessitates cautious interpretation of these findings, so further research should prioritize direct head-to-head trials to validate the efficacy and safety profiles of these biologics.
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.