IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0188810.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficacy and safety of selective glucocorticoid receptor modulators in comparison to glucocorticoids in arthritis, a systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • M Safy
  • M J H de Hair
  • J W G Jacobs
  • F Buttgereit
  • M C Kraan
  • J M van Laar

Abstract

Background: Long-term treatment with glucocorticoids (GCs) plays an important role in the management of arthritis patients, although the efficacy/safety balance is unfavorable. Alternatives with less (severe) adverse effects but with good efficacy are needed. Selective GC receptor modulators (SGRMs) are designed to engage the GC receptor with dissociative characteristics: transactivation of genes, which is mainly responsible for unwanted effects, is less strong while trans-repression of genes, reducing inflammation, is maintained. It is expected that SGRMs thus have a better efficacy/safety balance than GCs. A systematic review providing an overview of the evidence in arthritis is lacking. Objective: To systematically review the current literature on efficacy and safety of oral SGRMs in comparison to GCs in arthritis. Methods: A search was performed in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library, from inception dates of databases until May 2017. Experimental studies involving animal arthritis models or human material of arthritis patients, as well as clinical studies in arthritis patients were included, provided they reported original data. All types of arthritis were included. Data was extracted on the SGRM studied and on the GC used as reference standard; the design or setting of the study was extracted as well as the efficacy and safety results. Results: A total of 207 articles was retrieved of which 17 articles were eligible for our analysis. Two studies concerned randomized controlled trials (RCT), five studies were pre-clinical studies using human material, and 10 studies involved pre-clinical animal models (acute and/or chronic arthritis induced in mice or rats). PF-04171327, the only compound investigated in a clinical trial setting, had a better efficacy/safety balance compared to GCs: better clinical anti-inflammatory efficacy and similar safety. Conclusion: Studies assessing both efficacy and safety of SGRMs are scarce. There is limited evidence for dissociation of anti-inflammatory and metabolic effects of the SGRMs studied. Development of many SGRMs is haltered in a preclinical phase. One SGRM showed a better clinical efficacy/safety balance.

Suggested Citation

  • M Safy & M J H de Hair & J W G Jacobs & F Buttgereit & M C Kraan & J M van Laar, 2017. "Efficacy and safety of selective glucocorticoid receptor modulators in comparison to glucocorticoids in arthritis, a systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0188810
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188810
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188810
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188810&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0188810?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0188810. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.