Reviews
Biologics in the treatment of calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease: a systematic literature review
E. Cipolletta1, A. Di Matteo2, A. Scanu3, M. Isidori4, J. Di Battista5, L. Punzi6, W. Grassi7, E. Filippucci8
- Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Carlo Urbani Hospital, Jesi, Ancona, Italy. edoardocipolletta@gmail.com
- Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Carlo Urbani Hospital, Jesi, Ancona, and Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, UK.
- Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine-DIMED, University of Padua, Italy.
- Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Carlo Urbani Hospital, Jesi, Ancona, Italy.
- Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Carlo Urbani Hospital, Jesi, Ancona, Italy.
- Rheumatology Unit, Centre for Gout and Metabolic Bone and Joint Diseases, SS Giovanni e Paolo Hospital, Venice, Italy.
- Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Carlo Urbani Hospital, Jesi, Ancona, Italy.
- Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Carlo Urbani Hospital, Jesi, Ancona, Italy.
CER13037
2020 Vol.38, N°5
PI 1001, PF 1007
Reviews
Free to view
(click on article PDF icon to read the article)
PMID: 32359034 [PubMed]
Received: 20/12/2019
Accepted : 17/02/2020
In Press: 28/04/2020
Published: 02/10/2020
Abstract
The main aim of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to summarise the evidence in the use of biological therapies in calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD). We performed a SLR using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Only studies reporting the efficacy of biologics in CPPD were selected. The search resulted in 83 articles; 11 were further evaluated in the SLR. Seventy-six patients were included: 2 received infliximab, whereas 74 anakinra. Anakinra was used in refractory disease (85.1%) or in patients with contraindications to standard treatments (23.0%). Clinical response to anakinra was observed in 80.6% of patients with acute and 42.9% of those with chronic CPPD. Short-term treatment was well tolerated and adverse events were reported in 4.1% of the cases. This review provides evidence in favour of the use of anakinra as a therapeutic option in patients with CPPD, especially in acute refractory CPPD or when standard treatments are contraindicated.