ArticleJoint bone spine2026
Infection risk associated with steroid-sparing therapies in GCA, PMR, and ANCA-associated vasculitis: A systematic review.
Article in Joint bone spine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveGiant cell arteritis (GCA), polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR), and ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) often require prolonged glucocorticoid therapy. Steroid-sparing biologic and small molecule therapies reduce glucocorticoid exposure, but may increase infection risk, particularly in older adults. We evaluated infection risk associated with these therapies with concomitant glucocorticoid treatment, versus glucocorticoid treatment alone, in vasculitis/PMR clinical trials.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov using terms related to GCA, PMR, AAV, biologics (tocilizumab, sarilumab), small molecule therapies (upadacitinib, avacopan), glucocorticoids, and infection outcomes. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing biologics or small molecules plus glucocorticoid (active intervention) versus glucocorticoid monotherapy (comparator) reporting infection outcomes. We calculated the relative risk (RR) of infection and difference in glucocorticoid dose between the comparator and active intervention groups.
resultsWe included 10 RCTs (1487 patients total, enrolling adults averaged≥50 years): 4 tocilizumab, 3 avacopan, 2 sarilumab, and 1 upadacitinib. When the active intervention had much lower glucocorticoid dosing than the comparator, the RR for infection was either close to 1 or<1. When the active intervention glucocorticoid dose was comparable to the comparator, the RR for infection was>1.
conclusionSteroid-sparing therapies reduced glucocorticoid exposure with varying magnitudes but were not consistently associated with lower infection risk. These findings underscore the heightened risk of infection when these novel therapies are used in combination with glucocorticoids when the glucocorticoid dose cannot be adequately tapered, particularly in older adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.