-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).
MAIN RESULTS
This update includes an additional 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions, except anti-IL23. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.5 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Topics: Adalimumab; Adult; Biological Products; Etanercept; Female; Humans; Infliximab; Male; Methotrexate; Network Meta-Analysis; Psoriasis; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Ustekinumab
PubMed: 35603936
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub5 -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology May 2022Due to the rarity of relapsing polychondritis (RP), no randomised clinical trial has been conducted to date and treatment remains empirical. We performed a systematic... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Due to the rarity of relapsing polychondritis (RP), no randomised clinical trial has been conducted to date and treatment remains empirical. We performed a systematic literature review to assess the efficacy of the main conventional immunosuppressants and biotherapies used in RP.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE for original articles without language restriction. Abstracts from American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) were also considered for inclusion. Observational studies and clinical trials reporting on the efficacy of conventional immunosuppressants and biotherapies in adult patients with RP were selected and pooled response rates for each treatment were computed.
RESULTS
Of 304 articles and abstracts identified, 31 underwent full-text review, and 11 were included. The studies involved a total of 177 patients, exposed to a total of 247 lines of treatments. The main treatments studied (by number of lines) were: TNF inhibitors (TNFi), n=92; methotrexate (MTX), n=38; tocilizumab (TCZ), n=26; anakinra (ANA), n=21; rituximab (RTX), n=16; abatacept (ABT), n=14; cyclophosphamide (CYC), n=14; azathioprine (AZA), n=13. The pooled response rates across studies were: 72% [95% CI: 42-95] for ABT, 66% [95% CI: 49-82] for TCZ, 64% [95% CI: 53-74] for TNFi, 56% [95% CI: 37-73] for MTX, 47% [95% CI: 26-68] for ANA, 43% [95% CI: 20-68] for RTX. Based on more limited data, response rates for AZA and CYC ranged from 38 to 100% and from 25 to 100%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review of available evidence regarding the treatment of relapsing polychondritis, ABT, TCZ and TNFi were the drugs associated with the best outcomes. ABT efficacy must be interpreted in light of the small number of patients treated. While MTX had slightly less efficacy, it is one of the drugs for which data are the most robust.
Topics: Abatacept; Adult; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Methotrexate; Polychondritis, Relapsing; Rituximab; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors
PubMed: 35238756
DOI: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/h9gq1o -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).
MAIN RESULTS
This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Topics: Adult; Male; Humans; Female; Ustekinumab; Methotrexate; Infliximab; Network Meta-Analysis; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Psoriasis; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Biological Products
PubMed: 37436070
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub6 -
European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry Oct 2018Methotrexate (MTX) is used as an anchor disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) because of its potent efficacy and... (Review)
Review
Methotrexate (MTX) is used as an anchor disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) because of its potent efficacy and tolerability. MTX benefits a large number of RA patients but partially suffered from side effects. A variety of side effects can be associated with MTX when treating RA patients, from mild to severe or discontinuation of the treatment. In this report, we reviewed the possible side effects that MTX might cause from the most common gastrointestinal toxicity effects to less frequent malignant diseases. In order to achieve regimen with less side effects, the administration of MTX with appropriate dose and a careful pretreatment inspection is necessary. Further investigations are required when combining MTX with other drugs so as to enhance the efficacy and reduce side effects at the same time. The management of MTX treatment is also discussed to provide strategies for occurred side effects. Thus, this review will provide scholars with a comprehensive understanding the side effects of MTX administration by RA patients.
Topics: Animals; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Methotrexate; Neoplasms
PubMed: 30243154
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2018.09.027 -
JAMA Jun 2016Polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) and giant cell arteritis (GCA) are related inflammatory disorders occurring in persons aged 50 years and older. Diagnostic and therapeutic... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) and giant cell arteritis (GCA) are related inflammatory disorders occurring in persons aged 50 years and older. Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches are heterogeneous in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE
To summarize current evidence regarding optimal methods for diagnosing and treating PMR and GCA.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from their inception dates to March 30, 2016. Screening by 2 authors resulted in 6626 abstracts, of which 50 articles met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool or American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology.
FINDINGS
Twenty randomized clinical trials for therapy (n = 1016 participants) and 30 imaging studies for diagnosis and/or assessing response to therapy (n = 2080 participants) were included. The diagnosis of PMR is based on clinical features such as new-onset bilateral shoulder pain, including subdeltoid bursitis, muscle or joint stiffness, and functional impairment. Headache and visual disturbances including loss of vision are characteristic of GCA. Constitutional symptoms and elevated inflammatory markers (>90%) are common in both diseases. Ultrasound imaging enables detection of bilateral subdeltoid bursitis in 69% of PMR patients. In GCA, temporal artery biopsy remains the standard for definitive diagnosis. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of large vessels revealing inflammation-induced wall thickening support the diagnosis of GCA (specificity 78%-100% for ultrasound and 73%-97% for MRI). Glucocorticoids remain the primary treatment, but the optimal initial dose and tapering treatment regimens are unknown. According to consensus-based recommendations, initial therapy for PMR is prednisone, 12.5 to 25 mg/day or equivalent, and 40 to 60 mg/day for GCA, followed by individualized tapering regimens in both diseases. Adjunctive methotrexate may reduce cumulative glucocorticoid dosage by 20% to 44% and relapses by 36% to 54% in both PMR and GCA. Use of tocilizumab as additional treatment with prednisone showed a 2- to 4-fold increase in remission rates of GCA in a randomized clinical trial (N = 30).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Diagnosis of PMR/GCA is made by clinical features and elevated inflammatory markers. In PMR, ultrasound imaging may improve diagnostic accuracy. In GCA, temporal artery biopsy may not be required in patients with typical disease features accompanied by characteristic ultrasound or MRI findings. Consensus-based recommendations suggest glucocorticoids as the most effective therapy for PMR/GCA. Methotrexate may be added to glucocorticoids in patients at risk for relapse and in those with glucocorticoid-related adverse effects or need for prolonged glucocorticoid therapy.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Diagnostic Imaging; Drug Administration Schedule; Giant Cell Arteritis; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Methotrexate; Middle Aged; Polymyalgia Rheumatica; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27299619
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.5444 -
Clinical Rheumatology Sep 2023Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality... (Review)
Review
Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality CPG recommendations, highlighting areas of consistency, and inconsistency. Electronic searches of five databases and four online guideline repositories were performed. RA management CPGs were eligible for inclusion if they were written in English and published between January 2015 and February 2022; focused on adults ≥ 18 years of age; met the criteria of a CPG as defined by the Institute of Medicine; and were rated as high quality on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. RA CPGs were excluded if they required additional payment to access; only addressed recommendations for the system/organization of care and did not include interventional management recommendations; and/or included other arthritic conditions. Of 27 CPGs identified, 13 CPGs met eligibility criteria and were included. Non-pharmacological care should include patient education, patient-centered care, shared decision-making, exercise, orthoses, and a multi-disciplinary approach to care. Pharmacological care should include conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), with methotrexate as the first-line choice. If monotherapy conventional synthetic DMARDs fail to achieve a treatment target, this should be followed by combination therapy conventional synthetic DMARDs (leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), biologic DMARDS and targeted synthetic DMARDS. Management should also include monitoring, pre-treatment investigations and vaccinations, and screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis. Surgical care should be recommended if non-surgical care fails. This synthesis offers clear guidance of evidence-based RA care to healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UB3Y7 ).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Hydroxychloroquine; Methotrexate; Sulfasalazine; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 37291382
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-023-06654-0 -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism Feb 2021Calcium pyrophosphate crystal deposition disease (CPPD) is a common cause of acute and chronic arthritis, especially in the elderly population. There is a paucity of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Calcium pyrophosphate crystal deposition disease (CPPD) is a common cause of acute and chronic arthritis, especially in the elderly population. There is a paucity of data regarding the management of CPPD disease, which is currently based on expert opinion and evidence derived from the treatment of gout. We conducted a systematic literature review in order to identify the available treatment options for CPPD, and describe their efficacy and safety.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Online databases were searched from inception to May of 2020 using the search terms: (CPPD [Title/Abstract] OR CPDD [Title/Abstract] OR calcium pyrophosphate [Title/Abstract] OR chondrocalcinosis [Title/Abstract]) AND (treatment [Title/Abstract] OR management [Title/Abstract] OR therapy [Title/Abstract]). Articles evaluating the use of specific treatment agents for CPPD were eligible for inclusion. Case reports were excluded.
RESULTS
A total of 22 eligible studies and 403 unique patients were selected. We identified only 3 randomized, double-blind, controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and magnesium carbonate in CPPD, and these therapeutic options, with the exception of methotrexate, have shown efficacy and reduction of pain intensity. Further, 10 case series and 9 cohort studies were included. Intramuscular and intra-articular glucocorticoids, ACTH, as well as the biologic agents anakinra and tocilizumab appear to be efficacious in CPPD. Intra-articular injections of glycosaminoglycan polysulphate, hyaluronic acid and yttrium, as well as synovial membrane destruction by laser irradiation were associated with symptomatic improvement. Due to significant study heterogenicity, direct comparison between studies was not possible.
CONCLUSION
There are a limited number of studies evaluating the treatment of CPPD. High quality evidence is rather limited, while commonly administered agents such as NSAIDs, colchicine and corticosteroids have not been evaluated by RCTs. The need for high quality evidence supporting specific treatment modalities is urgent for this common yet neglected form of arthritis.
Topics: Aged; Calcium Pyrophosphate; Chondrocalcinosis; Colchicine; Gout; Humans; Methotrexate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33360232
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2020.10.005 -
Reumatologia Clinica 2019To assess the efficacy and side effects of methotrexate and leflunomide in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as the first disease-modifying antirheumatic drug... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and side effects of methotrexate and leflunomide in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as the first disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies that included patients who took methotrexate, leflunomide, placebo or another DMARD for RA treatment. A systematic review yielded 1971 articles from databases; once completely reviewed, 73 trials that completed inclusion criteria were selected. In structured workshops for discussion and assessment of each article, 6 could be meta-analyzed for the primary and secondary outcomes: achievement of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 and its core set components; and change of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-Di), liver enzyme aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase ratio, new gastrointestinal (GI) side effects and infections.
RESULTS
A total of 1984 patients were included: 986 took leflunomide and 998 methotrexate. The probability of achieving ACR 20 had an odds ratio (OR) of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74, 1.06) with a trend toward favoring methotrexate; reduction of the swollen joint count was greater for methotrexate: mean difference=0.82 (95%CI 0.24, 1.39); tender joint count, physician global assessment, HAQ-Di, and serum CRP levels revealed no significant difference between groups. Increased liver enzymes were more frequent in the leflunomide group, OR=0.38 (95%CI 0.27, 0.53), and new GI complaints were more common with methotrexate (OR=1.44; 95%CI 1.17, 1.79). There was no difference in the incidence of non-severe infections.
CONCLUSION
Leflunomide used as the first DMARD in RA seemed to be as efficacious as methotrexate; only the reduction of swollen joint count was more marked for methotrexate. Leflunomide was linked to a greater increase in liver enzymes, but there were fewer GI complaints.
Topics: Alanine Transaminase; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Aspartate Aminotransferases; C-Reactive Protein; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Clinical Trials as Topic; Disability Evaluation; Drug Therapy, Combination; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Leflunomide; Methotrexate; Treatment Outcome; gamma-Glutamyltransferase
PubMed: 28867467
DOI: 10.1016/j.reuma.2017.07.020 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jan 2023To update the evidence on efficacy of DMARDs (disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) and inform the taskforce of the 2022 update of the European Alliance of Associations...
Efficacy of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To update the evidence on efficacy of DMARDs (disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) and inform the taskforce of the 2022 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS
This systematic literature review (SLR) investigated the efficacy of conventional synthetic (cs), biological (b), biosimilar and targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs in patients with RA. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science were used to identify all relevant articles published since the previous update in 2019 to 14 January 2022.
RESULTS
Of 8969 search results, 169 articles were selected for detailed review and 47 were finally included. Trials investigated the efficacy of csDMARDs, bDMARDs and tsDMARDs, DMARD switching, tapering and trials investigating different treatment strategies. The compounds investigated were csDMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), bDMARDs (abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab-pegol, denosumab, etanercept, infliximab, levilimab, olokizumab, opineracept, rituximab, sarilumab, tocilizumab) and tsDMARDs (baricitinib, filgotinib, tofacitinib, upadacitinib). The efficacy of csDMARDs+ short-term glucocorticoids in early RA was confirmed and similar to bDMARD+MTX combination therapy. Interleukin-6 pathway inhibition was effective in trials on olokizumab and levilimab. Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) was efficacious in different patient populations. After insufficient response to JAKi, patients could respond to TNFi treatment. Tapering of DMARDs was feasible for a proportion of patients, who were able to taper therapy while remaining in low disease activity or remission.
CONCLUSION
The results of this SLR, together with one SLR on safety of DMARD and one on glucocorticoids, informed the taskforce of the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for pharmacological management of RA.
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; Rheumatology; Biological Products; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Methotrexate; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Janus Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 36368906
DOI: 10.1136/ard-2022-223365 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases May 2024New modes of action and more data on the efficacy and safety of existing drugs in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) required an update of the EULAR 2019 recommendations for the...
OBJECTIVE
New modes of action and more data on the efficacy and safety of existing drugs in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) required an update of the EULAR 2019 recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of PsA.
METHODS
Following EULAR standardised operating procedures, the process included a systematic literature review and a consensus meeting of 36 international experts in April 2023. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were determined.
RESULTS
The updated recommendations comprise 7 overarching principles and 11 recommendations, and provide a treatment strategy for pharmacological therapies. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be used in monotherapy only for mild PsA and in the short term; oral glucocorticoids are not recommended. In patients with peripheral arthritis, rapid initiation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is recommended and methotrexate preferred. If the treatment target is not achieved with this strategy, a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) should be initiated, without preference among modes of action. Relevant skin psoriasis should orient towards bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)-23p40, IL-23p19, IL-17A and IL-17A/F inhibitors. In case of predominant axial or entheseal disease, an algorithm is also proposed. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors is proposed primarily after bDMARD failure, taking relevant risk factors into account, or in case bDMARDs are not an appropriate choice. Inflammatory bowel disease and uveitis, if present, should influence drug choices, with monoclonal tumour necrosis factor inhibitors proposed. Drug switches and tapering in sustained remission are also addressed.
CONCLUSION
These updated recommendations integrate all currently available drugs in a practical and progressive approach, which will be helpful in the pharmacological management of PsA.
Topics: Arthritis, Psoriatic; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Methotrexate; Biological Products
PubMed: 38499325
DOI: 10.1136/ard-2024-225531