Table 2 The details of the studies on the response to different therapeutic regimens
Author, year | Type of study | Disease | Number | Medication | Response rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Correll, 2017 [20] | Review chart | JIA | 60 | Adalimumab | 80.0% |
Horneff, 2016 [21] | Review chart | JIA | 236 | Adalimumab | 61.0% |
Castiblanco, 2016 [22] | Review chart | JIA | 14 | Adalimumab | 77.0% |
Henderson, 2016 [23] | cohort study | JIA | 92 | Adalimumab | 68.0% |
Klotsche, 2016 [24] | cohort study | JIA | 320 | Adalimumab | 77.0% |
Schmeling, 2014 [25] | Review chart | JIA | 289 | Adalimumab | 63.4% |
García, 2013 [26] | Clinical trial | JIA | 39 | Adalimumab | 60.0% |
Lerman, 2013 [27] | Review chart | JIA | 56 | Adalimumab | 75.0% |
Simonini, 2013 [28] | Clinical trial | JIA, Behçet’s | 14 | Adalimumab | 57.4% |
Zannin, 2013 [29] | Cohort Study | JIA | 108 | Adalimumab | 67.4% |
Trachana, 2011 [30] | Cohort Study | JIA | 9 | Adalimumab | 65.4% |
Tynjälä, 2008 [31] | Review chart | JIA | 20 | Adalimumab | 65.0% |
Gallagher, 2007 [32] | case series | JIA | 23 | Adalimumab | 77.0% |
Vazquez, 2006 [33] | Clinical trial | JIA | 9 | Adalimumab | 80.8% |
Sardar, 2017 [8] | Review chart | JIA | 56 | Infliximab | 80.0% |
Aeschlimann, 2017 [34] | Review chart | JIA | 52 | Infliximab | 60.0% |
Aeschlimann, 2014 [35] | Review chart | JIA | 82 | Infliximab | 57.0% |
Tambralli, 2013 [36] | Review chart | JIA | 95 | Infliximab | 74.1% |
Zannin, 2013 [29] | Review chart | JIA | 48 | Infliximab | 42.8% |
Tugal, 2008 [37] | Review chart | JIA | 20 | Infliximab | 80.0% |
Ardoin, 2007 [38] | Case series | JIA | 16 | Infliximab | 79.0% |
de Oliveira, 2007 [39] | Review chart | JIA | 30 | Infliximab | 70.0% |
Tynjälä, 2007 [40] | Review chart | JIA | 21 | Infliximab | 31.0% |
Rajaraman, 2006 [41] | Review chart | JIA | 6 | Infliximab | 100% |
Saeed, 2014 [42] | Review chart | JIA | 9 | Etanercept | 66.7% |
Foeldvari, 2007 [43] | Review chart | JIA | 34 | Etanercept | 70.0% |
Tynjälä, 2007 [40] | Review chart | JIA | 45 | Etanercept | 31.0% |
de Oliveira, 2007 [39] | Review chart | JIA | 9 | Etanercept | 70.0% |
Horneff, 2016 [21] | Review chart | JIA | 94 | Etanercept | 68.0% |
Quesada, 2017 [44] | Review chart | JIA | 89 | Tocilizumab | 46.0% |
Horneff, 2016 [21] | Review chart | JIA | 74 | Tocilizumab | 61.0% |
Tappeiner, 2016 [45] | Review chart | JIA | 17 | Tocilizumab | 58.8% |
Miserocchi, 2016 [46] | Review chart | JIA | 8 | Rituximab | 75.0% |
Gallagher, 2007 [32] | Review chart | JIA | 23 | Daclizumab | 80.0% |
Henderson, 2016 [23] | cohort study | JIA | 92 | Methotrexate | 76.0% |
Saeed, 2014 [42] | Review chart | JIA | 147 | Methotrexate | 34.0% |
Marvillet, 2009 [47] | Review chart | JIA | 75 | Methotrexate | 17.4% |
Papadopoulou, 2013 [48] | Review chart | JIA | 254 | Methotrexate | 33.9% |
Kalinina, 2011 [49] | Review chart | JIA | 22 | Methotrexate | 82.0% |
Heiligenhaus, 2007 [50] | Review chart | JIA | 31 | Methotrexate | 41.9% |
Shetty, 1999 [51] | Review chart | JIA | 4 | Methotrexate | 50.0% |
Weiss, 1998 [52] | Review chart | JIA | 7 | Methotrexate | 85.7% |