Evidence Hub

Infectious complications of Belimumab with standard care in systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yu Zhao, G. Chi, Shujun Xia, Xinchang Wang, Yong-Sheng Fan, Chenhang Ma, James Cheng-Chung Wei, Weijie Wang

Seminars in Arthritis & Rheumatism, 2025

8,545 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the risk of infectious complications of Belimumab with standard care in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for studies on SLE and Belimumab and evaluated the study quality using the Cochrane Collaboration tool (ROB 2). A random-effect model was employed to analyze the results. To evaluate publication bias, Egger's tests were used. We also performed subgroup analysis based on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group(BILAG). The study protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023421255).

RESULTS

Eight studies involving 8545 patients were included, of which four studies had a high attrition bias. The present study suggested that the risks of infectious complications including infection (RR=1.02, 95 %CI=(0.97,1.08), I2=7.7 %) or serious infections (RR=0.94, 95 %CI=(0.77,1.15), I2=0 %), nasopharyngitis(RR=1.02, 95 %CI=(0.79,1.33), I2=36 %), upper respiratory tract infection(RR=0.97, 95 %CI=(0.83,1.14), I2=20.6 %), urinary tract infection(RR=1.09, 95 %CI=(0.91,1.32), I2=0 %), herpes zoster (RR=0.75, 95 %CI=(0.54,1.05), I2=0 %)and influenza(RR=0.98, 95 %CI=(0.69,1.39), I2=0 %) were not significantly increased in patients who received Belimumab with standard care, except for bronchitis (RR=1.51, 95 %CI=(0.98,2.33), I2=23.7 %). Additionally, the subgroup analysis of SLEDAI and the proportion of patients with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 8,545 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free