impact factor
logo
 

Reviews

 

Biologics in the treatment of calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease: a systematic literature review


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

 

  1. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Carlo Urbani Hospital, Jesi, Ancona, Italy. edoardocipolletta@gmail.com
  2. 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.
  3. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine-DIMED, University of Padua, Italy.
  4. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Carlo Urbani Hospital, Jesi, Ancona, Italy.
  5. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Carlo Urbani Hospital, Jesi, Ancona, Italy.
  6. Rheumatology Unit, Centre for Gout and Metabolic Bone and Joint Diseases, SS Giovanni e Paolo Hospital, Venice, Italy.
  7. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Carlo Urbani Hospital, Jesi, Ancona, Italy.
  8. 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.

Rheumatology Article