Angioplasty or stenting for deep venous thrombosis.

The best medical treatment (BMT) for treating deep venous thrombosis (DVT) includes anticoagulation and compression stockings. Angioplasty and stenting restore vessel patency and facilitate blood flow. In some people with DVT, angioplasty or stenting is used to minimise complications such as post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), but their effects are under discussion. To assess the effects of adjunctive angioplasty or stenting on a background treatment of anticoagulation and thrombolysis, compared with BMT, sham procedure, thrombolysis, or any combination of these treatments, in people with DVT. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, IBECS, CINAHL, and AMED databases, as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers, to 20 April 2023. We checked the bibliographies of included trials for further references to relevant trials and contacted specialists in the field, manufacturers, and authors of the included trials for any unpublished data. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing angioplasty or stenting on a background treatment of anticoagulation and thrombolysis, compared with BMT, sham procedure, thrombolysis, or any combination of these treatments, in the management of people with acute obstruction due to DVT. We excluded participants who had a baseline PTS diagnosis or who had received any form of mechanical thrombectomy, as this was investigated in a separate Cochrane review. We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were PTS and venous thromboembolism (VTE); secondary outcomes were mortality, major bleeding, secondary patency, duration of hospitalisation, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events. We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias for RCTs and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We performed meta-analysis where appropriate. We included two RCTs (134 participants) that were conducted in China and presented comparisons for acute obstruction after DVT based on length of follow-up (12 months (early), 24 months (intermediate), and 36 months (long term)). Angioplasty or stenting plus BMT and thrombolysis versus BMT and thrombolysis for acute obstruction due to DVT (intermediate time point) In the intermediate time point, angioplasty or stenting may have little to no effect on PTS (Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS): mean difference (MD) -3.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.74 to 1.33; 2 studies, 133 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and adverse events (limb pain) (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.04 to 10.33; 1 study, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Angioplasty or stenting may increase secondary patency (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.59; 2 studies, 133 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of angioplasty or stenting on quality of life (MD 10.54, 95% CI -1.34 to 22.41; 2 studies, 133 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and is not estimable for VTE, mortality, or major bleeding. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for all reported outcomes in this comparison by two levels due to serious study limitations (risk of performance and other bias), and another level for imprecision (small numbers of events and participants). The imbalance between study group size and different vein access may also have contributed to the high heterogeneity seen in the analyses of these outcomes. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for PTS and quality of life by one level for inconsistency (no similarity of point estimates in any of the included studies, no overlap of CIs, and considerable heterogeneity in results). There is an additional difficulty with blinding personnel in this type of intervention, but the trialists should have reported blinding of outcome assessment. Although angioplasty or stenting may increase secondary patency in people with acute obstruction due to DVT, the evidence is very uncertain; the evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of angioplasty or stenting on PTS, quality of life, and adverse events in people with acute obstruction due to DVT. The effects on VTE, mortality, and major bleeding were not estimable or not assessed by the included studies. Future trials must be large enough to detect significant clinical outcomes, and provide data on original stenosis before angioplasty or stenting and differing times from the initial event, among other essential characteristics.

Flumignan RL ，Nakano LC ，Flumignan CD ，Baptista-Silva JC ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Preoperative coronary interventions for preventing acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major open vascular or endovascular surgery.

Postoperative myocardial infarction (POMI) is associated with major surgeries and remains the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in people undergoing vascular surgery, with an incidence rate ranging from 5% to 20%. Preoperative coronary interventions, such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), may help prevent acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major vascular surgery when used in addition to routine perioperative drugs (e.g. statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and antiplatelet agents), CABG by creating new blood circulation routes that bypass the blockages in the coronary vessels, and PCI by opening up blocked blood vessels. There is currently uncertainty around the benefits and harms of preoperative coronary interventions. To assess the effects of preoperative coronary interventions for preventing acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major open vascular or endovascular surgery. We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, and CINAHL EBSCO on 13 March 2023. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared the use of preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care versus usual care for preventing acute myocardial infarction during major open vascular or endovascular surgery. We included participants of any sex or any age undergoing major open vascular surgery, major endovascular surgery, or hybrid vascular surgery. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes of interest were acute myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, and adverse events resulting from preoperative coronary interventions. Our secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, quality of life, vessel or graft secondary patency, and length of hospital stay. We reported perioperative and long-term outcomes (more than 30 days after intervention). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included three RCTs (1144 participants). Participants were randomised to receive either preoperative coronary revascularisation with PCI or CABG plus usual care or only usual care before major vascular surgery. One trial enrolled participants if they had no apparent evidence of coronary artery disease. Another trial selected participants classified as high risk for coronary disease through preoperative clinical and laboratorial testing. We excluded one trial from the meta-analysis because participants from both the control and the intervention groups were eligible to undergo preoperative coronary revascularisation. We identified a high risk of performance bias in all included trials, with one trial displaying a high risk of other bias. However, the risk of bias was either low or unclear in other domains. We observed no difference between groups for perioperative acute myocardial infarction, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 4.57; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One trial showed a reduction in incidence of long-term (> 30 days) acute myocardial infarction in participants allocated to the preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care group, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28; 1 trial, 426 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on all-cause mortality in the perioperative period when comparing the preoperative coronary intervention plus usual care group to usual care alone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.04; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of preoperative coronary interventions on long-term (follow up: 2.7 to 6.2 years) all-cause mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.80; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported no adverse effects related to coronary angiography, whereas the other two studies reported five deaths due to revascularisations. There may be no effect on cardiovascular mortality when comparing preoperative coronary revascularisation plus usual care to usual care in the short term (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; 1 trial, 426 participants; low-certainty evidence). Preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care in the short term may reduce length of hospital stay slightly when compared to usual care alone (mean difference -1.17 days, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.28; 1 trial, 462 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. None of the included trials reported on quality of life or vessel graft patency at either time point, and no study reported on adverse effects, cardiovascular mortality, or length of hospital stay at long-term follow-up. Preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care may have little or no effect on preventing perioperative acute myocardial infarction and reducing perioperative all-cause mortality compared to usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain. Similarly, limited, very low-certainty evidence shows that preoperative coronary interventions may have little or no effect on reducing long-term all-cause mortality. There is very low-certainty evidence that preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care may prevent long-term myocardial infarction, and low-certainty evidence that they may reduce length of hospital stay slightly, but not cardiovascular mortality in the short term, when compared to usual care alone. Adverse effects of preoperative coronary interventions were poorly reported in trials. Quality of life and vessel or graft patency were not reported. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence most frequently for high risk of bias, inconsistency, or imprecision. None of the analysed trials provided significant data on subgroups of patients who could potentially experience more substantial benefits from preoperative coronary intervention (e.g. altered ventricular ejection fraction). There is a need for evidence from larger and homogeneous RCTs to provide adequate statistical power to assess the role of preoperative coronary interventions for preventing acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major open vascular or endovascular surgery.

Botelho FE ，Flumignan RL ，Shiomatsu GY ，de Castro-Santos G ，Cacione DG ，Leite JO ，Baptista-Silva JC ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Direct factor Xa inhibitors versus low molecular weight heparins or vitamin K antagonists for prevention of venous thromboembolism in elective primary hip or knee replacement or hip fracture repair.

People undergoing major orthopaedic surgery are at increased risk of postoperative thromboembolic events. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are recommended for thromboprophylaxis in this population. New oral anticoagulants, including direct factor Xa inhibitors, are recommended as alternatives. They may have more advantages than disadvantages compared to LMWHs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs, another type of anticoagulant). To assess the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulation with direct factor Xa inhibitors compared with low molecular weight heparins and vitamin K antagonists in people undergoing major orthopaedic surgery for elective total hip or knee replacement or hip fracture surgery. We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trial registers to 11 November 2023. We conducted reference checks to identify additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of direct factor Xa inhibitors to LMWHs or VKAs in people undergoing major orthopaedic surgery. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, and serious hepatic and non-hepatic adverse events. We evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies using Cochrane's risk of bias 1 tool. We calculated estimates of treatment effects using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included 53 RCTs (44,371 participants). Participants' average age was 64 years (range: 18 to 93 years). Only one RCT compared a VKA with direct factor Xa inhibitors. All 53 RCTs compared direct factor Xa inhibitors with LMWHs. Twenty-three studies included participants undergoing total hip replacement; 21 studies, total knee replacement; and three studies included people having hip fracture surgery. The studies' average duration was approximately 42 days (range: two to 720 days). Compared to LMWHs, direct factor Xa inhibitors may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 28 studies, 29,698 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Direct factor Xa inhibitors may make little to no difference to major venous thromboembolic events compared to LMWHs, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71; absolute risk difference: 12 fewer major VTE events per 1000 participants, 95% CI 16 fewer to 7 fewer; I2 = 48%; 28 studies, 24,574 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to LMWHs, direct factor Xa inhibitors may reduce symptomatic VTE (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.83; I2 = 0%; 33 studies, 31,670 participants; low-certainty evidence). The absolute benefit of substituting factor Xa inhibitors for LMWHs may be between two and five fewer symptomatic VTE episodes per 1000 patients. In the meta-analysis with all studies pooled, direct factor Xa inhibitors appeared to make little or no difference to major bleeding compared to LMWHs, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; I2 = 15%; 36 studies, 39,778 participants; very low certainty-evidence). • In a subgroup analysis limited to studies comparing rivaroxaban to LMWHs, people given rivaroxaban may have had more major bleeding events (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.98; I2 = 0%; 17 studies, 17,630 participants; low-certainty evidence). The absolute risk of substituting rivaroxaban for LMWH may be between one and seven more major bleeding events per 1000 patients. • In a subgroup analysis limited to studies comparing direct factor Xa inhibitors other than rivaroxaban to LMWHs, people given these other direct factor Xa inhibitors may have had fewer major bleeding events, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.02; absolute risk difference: 3 fewer major bleeding events per 1000 participants, 95% CI 5 fewer to 0 fewer; I2 = 0%; 19 studies, 22,148 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Direct factor Xa inhibitors may make little to no difference in serious hepatic adverse events compared to LMWHs, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 3.01, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.93; 2 studies, 3169 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Only two studies reported this outcome, with one death in the intervention group due to hepatitis reported in one study, and no events reported in the other study. People given direct factor Xa inhibitors may have a lower risk of serious non-hepatic adverse events than those given LMWHs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; I2 = 18%; 15 studies, 26,246 participants; low-certainty evidence). The absolute benefit of substituting factor Xa inhibitors for LMWH may be between three and 14 fewer serious non-hepatic adverse events per 1000 patients. Only one study compared a direct factor Xa inhibitor with a VKA. It reported outcome data with imprecise results due to the small number of events. It showed no difference in the effects of the study drugs. Oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain. Oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may slightly reduce symptomatic VTE events when compared with LMWH. They may make little or no difference to major VTE events, but the evidence is very uncertain. In the evaluation of major bleeding, the evidence suggests rivaroxaban results in a slight increase in major bleeding events compared to LMWHs. The remaining oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may have little to no effect on major bleeding, but the evidence is very uncertain. Oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may reduce serious non-hepatic adverse events slightly compared to LMWHs. They may have little to no effect on serious hepatic adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain. Due to the high rates of missing participants and selective outcome reporting, the effect estimates may be biased.

Salazar CA ，Basilio Flores JE ，Malaga G ，Malasquez GN ，Bernardo R ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Treatment for women with postpartum iron deficiency anaemia.

Postpartum iron deficiency anaemia is caused by antenatal iron deficiency or excessive blood loss at delivery and might affect up to 50% of labouring women in low- and middle-income countries. Effective and safe treatment during early motherhood is important for maternal well-being and newborn care. Treatment options include oral iron supplementation, intravenous iron, erythropoietin, and red blood cell transfusion. To assess the benefits and harms of the available treatment modalities for women with postpartum iron deficiency anaemia. These include intravenous iron, oral iron supplementation, red blood cell transfusion, and erythropoietin. A Cochrane Information Specialist searched for all published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, without language or publication status restrictions. We searched databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify eligible studies. We applied date limits to retrieve new records since the last search on 9 April 2015 until 11 April 2024. We included published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatments for postpartum iron deficiency anaemia with placebo, no treatment, or alternative treatments. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. We included RCTs regardless of blinding. Participants were women with postpartum haemoglobin ≤ 12 g/dL, treated within six weeks after childbirth. We excluded non-randomised, quasi-randomised, and cross-over trials. The critical outcomes of this review were maternal mortality and fatigue. The important outcomes included persistent anaemia symptoms, persistent postpartum anaemia, psychological well-being, infections, compliance with treatment, breastfeeding, length of hospital stay, serious adverse events, anaphylaxis or evidence of hypersensitivity, flushing/Fishbane reaction, injection discomfort/reaction, constipation, gastrointestinal pain, number of red blood cell transfusions, and haemoglobin levels. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. Two review authors independently performed study screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. We contacted trial authors for supplementary data when necessary. We screened all trials for trustworthiness and scientific integrity using the Cochrane Trustworthiness Screening Tool. We conducted meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model whenever feasible to synthesise outcomes. In cases where data were not suitable for meta-analysis, we provided a narrative summary of important findings. We evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included 33 RCTs with a total of 4558 postpartum women. Most trials were at high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Most of the evidence was of low or very low certainty. Imprecision due to few events and risk of bias due to lack of blinding were the most important factors. Intravenous iron versus oral iron supplementation The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intravenous iron on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 71.96; P = 0.51; I² = not applicable; 3 RCTs; 1 event; 572 women; very low-certainty evidence). One woman died of cardiomyopathy, and another developed arrhythmia, both in the groups treated with intravenous iron. Intravenous iron probably results in a slight reduction in fatigue within 8 to 28 days (standardised mean difference -0.25, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.07; P = 0.006; I² = 47%; 2 RCTs; 515 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding was not reported. Oral iron probably increases the risk of constipation compared to intravenous iron (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.21; P < 0.001; I² = 0%; 10 RCTs; 1798 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intravenous iron on anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity (RR 2.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 24.86; P = 0.36; I² = 0%; 12 RCTs; 2195 women; very low-certainty evidence). Three women treated with intravenous iron experienced anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity. The trials that reported on haemoglobin at 8 to 28 days were too heterogeneous to pool. However, 5 of 6 RCTs favoured intravenous iron, with mean changes in haemoglobin ranging from 0.73 to 2.10 g/dL (low-certainty evidence). Red blood cell transfusion versus intravenous iron No women died in the only trial that reported on mortality (1 RCT; 7 women; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of red blood cell transfusion on fatigue at 8 to 28 days (mean difference (MD) 1.20, 95% CI -2.41 to 4.81; P = 0.51; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 13 women; very low-certainty evidence) and breastfeeding more than six weeks postpartum (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.57; P = 0.20; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 13 women; very low-certainty evidence). Constipation and anaphylaxis were not reported. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in haemoglobin within 8 to 28 days (MD -1.00, 95% CI -2.02 to 0.02; P = 0.05; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 12 women; low-certainty evidence). Intravenous iron and oral iron supplementation versus oral iron supplementation Mortality and breastfeeding were not reported. One trial reported a greater improvement in fatigue in the intravenous and oral iron group, but the effect size could not be calculated (1 RCT; 128 women; very low-certainty evidence). Intravenous iron and oral iron may result in a reduction in constipation compared to oral iron alone (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.69; P = 0.01; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 128 women; low-certainty evidence). There were no anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity events in the trials (2 RCTs; 168 women; very low-certainty evidence). Intravenous iron and oral iron may result in little to no difference in haemoglobin (g/dL) at 8 to 28 days (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.48; P = 1.00; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 60 women; low-certainty evidence). Red blood cell transfusion versus no transfusion Mortality, fatigue at day 8 to 28, constipation, anaphylaxis, and haemoglobin were not reported. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in breastfeeding more than six weeks postpartum (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; P = 0.24; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 297 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral iron supplementation versus placebo or no treatment Mortality, fatigue, breastfeeding, constipation, anaphylaxis, and haemoglobin were not reported. Two trials reported on gastrointestinal symptoms, but did not report results by study arm. Intravenous iron probably reduces fatigue slightly in the early postpartum weeks (8 to 28 days) compared to oral iron tablets, but probably results in little to no difference after four weeks. It is very uncertain if intravenous iron has an effect on mortality and anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity. Breastfeeding was not reported. Intravenous iron may increase haemoglobin slightly more than iron tablets, but the data were too heterogeneous to pool. However, changes in haemoglobin levels are a surrogate outcome, and treatment decisions should preferentially be based on patient-relevant outcomes. Iron tablets probably result in a large increase in constipation compared to intravenous iron. The effect of red blood cell transfusion compared to intravenous iron on mortality, fatigue, and breastfeeding is very uncertain. No studies reported on constipation or anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in haemoglobin at 8 to 28 days. The effect of intravenous iron and oral iron supplementation on mortality, fatigue, breastfeeding, and anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity is very uncertain or unreported. Intravenous iron and oral iron may result in a reduction in constipation compared to oral iron alone, and in little to no difference in haemoglobin. The effect of red blood cell transfusion compared to non-transfusion on mortality, fatigue, constipation, anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity, and haemoglobin is unreported. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in breastfeeding. The effect of oral iron supplementation on mortality, fatigue, breastfeeding, constipation, anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity, and haemoglobin is unreported. This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. Protocol and previous versions are available: Protocol (2013) [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010861] Original review (2004) [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004222.pub2] Review update (2015) [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010861.pub2].

Jensen MCH ，Holm C ，Jørgensen KJ ，Schroll JB ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors for juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a rheumatic disorder that causes chronic joint inflammation beginning before the age of 16 years. Pharmacological treatment necessary to prevent joint destruction and functional impairment includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intra-articular corticosteroids, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) like methotrexate (MTX), and biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), abatacept, anakinra, and tocilizumab. More recently, targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) like tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib have been approved for the treatment of JIA. To assess the benefits and harms of TNFi in children with JIA. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP from inception to 28 February 2024, with no language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and data from the randomized part of withdrawal trials conducted in individuals with JIA where TNFi were compared to placebo, MTX, NSAIDs, other bDMARDs, tsDMARDs, or other TNFi. Our major outcomes were treatment response, pain, function, participant global assessment of well-being (disease activity), remission, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We used standard Cochrane methods. At least two review authors performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessment. The primary comparison was TNFi versus placebo. The primary time point was up to 16 weeks and up to the end of the trials for efficacy and safety outcomes, respectively. We included nine studies with 678 participants (80% females) with JIA. The mean age of participants ranged from 8 to 15 years, and the mean duration of symptoms ranged from 0.8 years to 6.7 years. Seven studies compared TNFi to placebo (570 participants), and two studies compared TNFi combined with MTX to MTX alone (108 participants). We identified no studies investigating the other predefined comparisons. Only two studies had a low risk of bias in all domains, while five studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain, predominantly other bias. Two studies were at unclear risk of selection bias, and two studies were at unclear risk of detection bias. TNFi versus placebo Benefits at up to 16 weeks Low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) suggests that treatment with TNFi may increase the likelihood of achieving a treatment response, defined as pedACR70 (34% compared to 14% with placebo) (risk ratio [RR] 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48 to 4.14; 4 studies, 245 participants). The evidence is very uncertain (downgraded for indirectness and imprecision) for the effect of TNFi on pain, with mean pain scores (visual analogue scale [VAS] 0 to 100, 0 no pain, minimal clinically important difference [MCID] = 15 mm) lower with TNFi (11 mm) compared to placebo (33 mm) (mean difference [MD] 22 mm, 95% CI 50 mm lower to 5.7 mm higher; 2 studies, 72 participants). Similarly, the effect of TNFi on function (Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire [CHAQ], 0 to 3, 0 normal function) and quality of life (global assessment of well-being, VAS 0 to 100 mm, 0 no disease activity) is very uncertain. Mean function was 0.84 with TNFi and 1 with placebo (MD 0.16 lower, 95% CI 0.39 lower to 0.06 higher; 3 studies, 194 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision). The mean participant global assessment of well-being was 23 mm with TNFi and 34 mm with placebo (MD 11 mm lower, 95% CI 23 mm lower to 1 mm higher; 3 studies, 194 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for indirectness, imprecision, and risk of bias). No study reported data on remission. Harms at any time We are uncertain about the effect of TNFi on withdrawals due to adverse events (3%) compared to placebo (1%) (RR 3.41, 95% CI 0.73 to 15.9; 6 studies, 448 participants). We are also uncertain about the effect of TNFi on serious adverse events (7%) compared to placebo (6%) (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.22; 6 studies, 448 participants). The certainty of evidence was very low, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. TNFi plus MTX versus MTX alone Benefits at 17 to 26 weeks We are uncertain about the effect of TNFi plus MTX on treatment response. Seventy per cent of participants receiving MTX and 90% receiving TNFi plus MTX achieved treatment response (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.77; 1 study, 40 participants). We are also uncertain about the effect of TNFi plus MTX on remission. Five per cent of participants on MTX monotherapy and 40% on combination therapy were in remission (RR 8.00, 95% CI 1.10 to 58.19; 1 study, 40 participants). No study reported pain, function, or participant global assessment of well-being. Harms at any time We are uncertain about the effect of TNFi plus MTX on withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events. Very low-certainty evidence from two studies shows that 2/53 participants (4%) receiving MTX alone and 3/55 (5%) receiving TNFi plus MTX withdrew due to adverse events (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 9.82; 108 participants), and 5/53 (9%) receiving MTX alone and 0/55 receiving TNFi plus MTX reported serious adverse events (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32). Due to risk of bias and imprecision, the certainty of evidence was very low across all major outcomes for this comparison. In JIA, TNFi may result in a higher proportion of individuals achieving clinical improvement compared to placebo, but we are uncertain about the effect of TNFi on pain, function, and quality of life. We are also uncertain about the effect of TNFi combined with MTX versus MTX alone on clinical improvement and remission. Evidence for the safety of TNFi compared to placebo or MTX is very uncertain. There are no RCTs comparing TNFi to other treatments. More high-quality studies are warranted to assess the benefits and harms of TNFi in JIA.

Cagnotto G ，Juhl CB ，Ahlström F ，Wikström F ，Bruschettini M ，Petersson I ，Dreyer L ，Compagno M ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》