-
Rheumatology International Feb 2018To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of novel biologic therapies in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and to establish the position of the non-anti-tumor necrosis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of novel biologic therapies in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and to establish the position of the non-anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) biologic drugs in the treatment regimen of the disease. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) requirements. Two investigators identified the studies, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. The NMA was conducted for efficacy [American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, ACR20 and ACR50; psoriasis area and severity index (PASI), PASI75] and safety outcomes [any adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs)]; treatments were ranked using the P score for each outcome. The PROSPERO registration number was 42017072200. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the inception of each database to July 10, 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for abatacept, apremilast, secukinumab or ustekinumab in adults with moderate and severe PsA were included. The overall PsA population and anti-TNF-α-naive, anti-TNF-α-failure, or anti-TNF-α-experienced subpopulations were considered. We identified eight eligible RCTs and included them in the systematic review and NMA. Significant differences in ACR20 response rate were revealed between secukinumab 150 mg and apremilast 20 mg [relative risk; RR = 2.55 (CI-confidence interval; 1.24, 5.23)] and between secukinumab 300 mg and apremilast 20 or 30 mg [RR = 3.57 CI (1.48, 8.64) and RR = 2.84 CI (1.18, 6.86), respectively]. Any AEs occurred more often in apremilast 20 and 30 mg compared with placebo [RR = 0.58 CI (0.45, 0.74) and RR = 0.58 CI (0.45, 0.75), respectively] but also compared with secukinumab 150 mg [RR = 0.54 CI (0.35, 0.81) and RR = 0.45 CI (0.35, 0.82), respectively]. No significant differences were revealed for SAEs among biologics and between biologics and placebo. In the overall population, as well as in the anti-TNF-α-naive subpopulation, secukinumab at a dose of 300 and 150 mg was ranked the highest for the ACR20 endpoint, while in the anti-TNF-α-experienced subpopulation, secukinumab 300 mg and apremilast 30 mg revealed the highest rank. Secukinumab 75 mg was the safest drug in terms of any AEs, but for SEAs the safest was ustekinumab 90 mg. Our study revealed no significant differences among non-anti-TNF-α biologics in the treatment of PsA in the comparisons performed with regards to the highest efficacy and safety. Both in the overall population and in the analyzed subpopulations, secukinumab 300 mg was ranked the highest for the ACR20 response rate. Secukinumab 300 mg was the safest drug in terms of any AEs, and ustekinumab 90 mg presented the lowest overall risk of SAEs. Head-to-head trials and evaluation of comparative efficacy and safety between non-TNF-α biologics are warranted to inform clinical decision making with a relevant treatment paradigm.
Topics: Abatacept; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Biological Products; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Humans; Remission Induction; Thalidomide; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Ustekinumab
PubMed: 29285605
DOI: 10.1007/s00296-017-3919-7 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jan 2023Scleroderma or systemic sclerosis (SSc) is an autoimmune disease affecting the connective tissue, characterized by fibrosis of the skin and internal organs. There is... (Review)
Review
Scleroderma or systemic sclerosis (SSc) is an autoimmune disease affecting the connective tissue, characterized by fibrosis of the skin and internal organs. There is currently no curative treatment available, so therapeutic action is aimed at a symptomatic treatment of the affected organs. The development of biotechnology has made it possible to implement certain biological drugs that could represent a window of opportunity to modulate the evolution and symptomatology of scleroderma with greater efficacy and less toxicity than conventional treatments. This study aimed to review the current evidence critically and systematically on the effects of biological drugs on the pulmonary function, skin disease, and health status of patients afflicted by diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc). Three electronic databases (Pubmed, Dialnet, and Cochrane Library Plus) were systematically searched until the cut-off date of October 2022. The review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and included original articles in English and Spanish with a controlled trial design, comparing biological drug treatments (tocilizumab, belimumab, riociguat, abatacept, and romilkimab) with a control group. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the McMaster quantitative form and the PEDro scale. A total of 383 studies were identified, 6 of them met the established criteria and were included in the present systematic review. A total of 426 patients treated with tocilizumab, belimumab, riociguat, abatacept, and romilkimab were included. The results showed substantial non-significant ( < 0.05) improvement trends after treatment with the biological drugs included in this review for the modified Rodnan Scale Value, Forced Vital Capacity, and Carbon Monoxide Diffusion Test; however, no benefits were shown on the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index when compared to the control group. Biological drugs, therefore, maybe a new therapeutic strategy for dcSSc and could be recommended as an additional and/or adjunctive treatment that promotes anti-fibrotic activity. This review could further define the clinical rationale for the use of biologics in the treatment of dcSSc and could provide key details on the study protocol, design, and outcome reporting.
Topics: Humans; Scleroderma, Diffuse; Abatacept; Biological Products; Scleroderma, Systemic; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Fibrosis
PubMed: 36837449
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59020247 -
Health Technology Assessment... Aug 2016End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation followed by induction and maintenance immunosuppressive therapy to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect,(®) Novartis Pharmaceuticals) and rabbit antihuman thymocyte immunoglobulin (Thymoglobuline,(®) Sanofi) as induction therapy and immediate-release tacrolimus [Adoport(®) (Sandoz); Capexion(®) (Mylan); Modigraf(®) (Astellas Pharma); Perixis(®) (Accord Healthcare); Prograf(®) (Astellas Pharma); Tacni(®) (Teva); Vivadex(®) (Dexcel Pharma)], prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf,(®) Astellas Pharma); belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix,(®) Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) [Arzip(®) (Zentiva), CellCept(®) (Roche Products), Myfenax(®) (Teva), generic MMF is manufactured by Accord Healthcare, Actavis, Arrow Pharmaceuticals, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Mylan, Sandoz and Wockhardt], mycophenolate sodium, sirolimus (Rapamune,(®) Pfizer) and everolimus (Certican,(®) Novartis Pharmaceuticals) as maintenance therapy in children and adolescents undergoing renal transplantation.
DATA SOURCES
Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted to 7 January 2015 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science [via Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)], Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted to 15 January 2015 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Databases (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and EconLit (via EBSCOhost).
REVIEW METHODS
Titles and abstracts were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria, as were full texts of identified studies. Included studies were extracted and quality appraised. Data were meta-analysed when appropriate. A new discrete time state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed; graft function, and incidences of acute rejection and new-onset diabetes mellitus were used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death.
RESULTS
Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four non-RCTs were included. The RCTs only evaluated BAS and tacrolimus (TAC). No statistically significant differences in key outcomes were found between BAS and placebo/no induction. Statistically significantly higher graft function (p < 0.01) and less biopsy-proven acute rejection (odds ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.57) was found between TAC and ciclosporin (CSA). Only one cost-effectiveness study was identified, which informed NICE guidance TA99. BAS [with TAC and azathioprine (AZA)] was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) versus no induction (BAS was dominant). BAS (with CSA and MMF) was not predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY versus no induction (BAS was dominated). TAC (with AZA) was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY versus CSA (TAC was dominant). A model based on adult evidence suggests that at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY, BAS and TAC are cost-effective in all considered combinations; MMF was also cost-effective with CSA but not TAC.
LIMITATIONS
The RCT evidence is very limited; analyses comparing all interventions need to rely on adult evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
TAC is likely to be cost-effective (vs. CSA, in combination with AZA) at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Analysis based on one RCT found BAS to be dominant, but analysis based on another RCT found BAS to be dominated. BAS plus TAC and AZA was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY when all regimens were compared using extrapolated adult evidence. High-quality primary effectiveness research is needed. The UK Renal Registry could form the basis for a prospective primary study.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013544.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.
Topics: Abatacept; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antilymphocyte Serum; Azathioprine; Basiliximab; Child; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Drug Therapy, Combination; Everolimus; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; Models, Economic; Mycophenolic Acid; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Sirolimus; Tacrolimus; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 27557331
DOI: 10.3310/hta20610 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Common variable immunodeficiency related interstitial lung disease (CVID-ILD, also referred to as GLILD) is generally considered a manifestation of systemic immune...
INTRODUCTION
Common variable immunodeficiency related interstitial lung disease (CVID-ILD, also referred to as GLILD) is generally considered a manifestation of systemic immune dysregulation occurring in up to 20% of people with CVID. There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of CVID-ILD.
AIM
To systematically review use of diagnostic tests for assessing patients with CVID for possible ILD, and to evaluate their utility and risks.
METHODS
EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched. Papers reporting information on the diagnosis of ILD in patients with CVID were included.
RESULTS
58 studies were included. Radiology was the investigation modality most commonly used. HRCT was the most reported test, as abnormal radiology often first raised suspicion of CVID-ILD. Lung biopsy was used in 42 (72%) of studies, and surgical lung biopsy had more conclusive results compared to trans-bronchial biopsy (TBB). Analysis of broncho-alveolar lavage was reported in 24 (41%) studies, primarily to exclude infection. Pulmonary function tests, most commonly gas transfer, were widely used. However, results varied from normal to severely impaired, typically with a restrictive pattern and reduced gas transfer.
CONCLUSION
Consensus diagnostic criteria are urgently required to support accurate assessment and monitoring in CVID-ILD. ESID and the ERS e-GLILDnet CRC have initiated a diagnostic and management guideline through international collaboration.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022276337.
Topics: Humans; Common Variable Immunodeficiency; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; Biopsy; Affect
PubMed: 37223103
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1190235 -
Pediatric Rheumatology Online Journal Mar 2021Biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors are prescribed in adult and paediatric rheumatology. Due to age-dependent...
Biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs and Janus kinase inhibitors in paediatric rheumatology - what we know and what we do not know from randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors are prescribed in adult and paediatric rheumatology. Due to age-dependent changes, disease course, and pharmacokinetic processes paediatric patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (PiRD) differ from adult rheumatology patients.
METHODS
A systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in PiRD treated with bDMARDs/JAK inhibitors was conducted on Medline, clinicaltrials.gov , clinicaltrialsregister.eu and conference abstracts as of July 2020. RCTs were included if (i) patients were aged ≤20 years, (ii) patients had a predefined rheumatic diagnosis and (iii) RCT reported predefined outcomes. Selected studies were excluded in case of (i) observational or single arm study or (ii) sample size ≤5 patients. Study characteristics were extracted.
RESULTS
Out of 608 screened references, 65 references were selected, reporting 35 unique RCTs. All 35 RCTs reported efficacy while 34/3 provided safety outcomes and 16/35 provided pharmacokinetic data. The most common investigated treatments were TNF inhibitors (60%), IL-1 inhibitors (17%) and IL-6 inhibitors (9%). No RCTs with published results were identified for baricitinib, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, guselkumab, risankizumab, rituximab, sarilumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab, or upadacitinib. In patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) 25/35 RCTs were conducted. The remaining 10 RCTs were performed in non-JIA patients including plaque psoriasis, Kawasaki Disease, systemic lupus erythematosus and non-infectious uveitis. In JIA-RCTs, the control arm was mainly placebo and the concomitant treatments were either methotrexate, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) or corticosteroids. Non-JIA patients mostly received NSAID. There are ongoing trials investigating abatacept, adalimumab, baricitinib, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, guselkumab, infliximab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tofacitinib and tildrakizumab.
CONCLUSION
Despite the FDA Modernization Act and support of major paediatric rheumatology networks, such as the Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group (PRCSG) and the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO), which resulted in drug approval for PiRD indications, there are limited RCTs in PiRD patients. As therapy response is influenced by age-dependent changes, pharmacokinetic processes and disease course it is important to consider developmental changes in bDMARDs/JAK inhibitor use in PiRD patients. As such it is critical to collaborate and conduct international RCTs to appropriately investigate and characterize efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of bDMARDs/JAK inhibitors in paediatric rheumatology.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Child; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rheumatic Diseases
PubMed: 33766063
DOI: 10.1186/s12969-021-00514-4 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Nov 2017The effectiveness of biologic therapies now means that remission or low disease activity are realistic targets for treatment. However, after achieving remission/low... (Review)
Review
The effectiveness of biologic therapies now means that remission or low disease activity are realistic targets for treatment. However, after achieving remission/low disease activity, the next steps remain unclear. The aim of this publication was to conduct a broad systematic literature review to evaluate dosing down of biologics. After screening papers and abstracts for relevance and application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, a structured extraction process was used to collect information on the included studies. Fifty-two papers were included in the analysis across rheumatic disease. In patients who discontinue therapy, remission is not typically sustained, with reported rates of relapse and flare across early RA (48-54%), established RA (2-84%), axial spondyloarthritis (11-53%) and PsA (44.9%). In many cases, an acceptable disease activity can be regained upon retreatment. More research is needed to understand the long-term impacts of these strategies on efficacy, safety and cost.
Topics: Abatacept; Adalimumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Certolizumab Pegol; Etanercept; Humans; Infliximab; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Remission Induction; Rituximab; Spondylarthropathies
PubMed: 28339632
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kew464 -
Cancers Jan 2024Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are used to treat many cancers, and cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs) are among the most frequently encountered toxic... (Review)
Review
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are used to treat many cancers, and cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs) are among the most frequently encountered toxic effects. Understanding the incidence and prognostic associations of cirAEs is of importance as their uses in different settings, combinations, and tumor types expand. To evaluate the incidence of cirAEs and their association with outcome measures across a variety of ICI regimens and cancers, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published trials of anti-programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) ICIs, both alone and in combination with chemotherapy, antiangiogenic agents, or other ICIs in patients with melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and urothelial carcinoma. Key findings of our study include variable cirAE incidence among tumors and ICI regimens, positive association with increased cirAE incidence and response rate, as well as significant association between increased vitiligo incidence and overall survival. Across 174 studies, rash, pruritis, and vitiligo were the most reported cirAEs, with incidences of 16.7%, 18.0%, and 6.6%, respectively. Higher incidence of cirAEs was associated with ICI combination regimens and with CTLA-4-containing regimens, particularly with higher doses of ipilimumab, as compared to PD-1/L1 monotherapies. Outcome measures including response rate and progression-free survival were positively correlated with incidence of cirAEs. The response rate and incidence of pruritis, vitiligo, and rash were associated with expected rises in incidence of 0.17% ( = 0.0238), 0.40% ( = 0.0010), and 0.18% ( = 0.0413), respectively. Overall survival was positively correlated with the incidence of pruritis, vitiligo, and rash; this association was significant for vitiligo ( = 0.0483). Our analysis provides benchmark incidence rates for cirAEs and links cirAEs with favorable treatment outcomes at a study level across diverse solid tumors and multiple ICI regimens.
PubMed: 38254829
DOI: 10.3390/cancers16020340 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Apr 2016To compare methotrexate based disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naive to or with an inadequate response to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: abridged Cochrane systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare methotrexate based disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naive to or with an inadequate response to methotrexate.
DESIGN
Systematic review and Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis of trials assessing methotrexate used alone or in combination with other conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic drugs, or tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
DATA SOURCES
Trials were identified from Medline, Embase, and Central databases from inception to 19 January 2016; abstracts from two major rheumatology meetings from 2009 to 2015; two trial registers; and hand searches of Cochrane reviews.
STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized or quasi-randomized trials that compared methotrexate with any other DMARD or combination of DMARDs and contributed to the network of evidence between the treatments of interest.
MAIN OUTCOMES
American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response (major clinical improvement), radiographic progression, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.
RESULTS
158 trials were included, with between 10 and 53 trials available for each outcome. In methotrexate naive patients, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%), compared with 41% with methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression, but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 5 units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate plus infliximab. After an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy, methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate plus leflunomide, methotrexate plus intramuscular gold, methotrexate plus most biologics, and methotrexate plus tofacitinib. The probability of response was 61% with triple therapy and ranged widely (27-70%) with other treatments. No treatment was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate plus abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Triple therapy (methotrexate plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine) and most regimens combining biologic DMARDs with methotrexate were effective in controlling disease activity, and all were generally well tolerated in both methotrexate naive and methotrexate exposed patients.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Factors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Methotrexate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27102806
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i1777 -
Health Technology Assessment... Apr 2016Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is characterised by joint pain, swelling and a limitation of movement caused by inflammation. Subsequent joint damage can lead to... (Review)
Review
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
BACKGROUND
Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is characterised by joint pain, swelling and a limitation of movement caused by inflammation. Subsequent joint damage can lead to disability and growth restriction. Treatment commonly includes disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate. Clinical practice now favours newer drugs termed biologic DMARDs where indicated.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four biologic DMARDs [etanercept (Enbrel(®), Pfizer), abatacept (Orencia(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), adalimumab (Humira(®), AbbVie) and tocilizumab (RoActemra(®), Roche) - with or without methotrexate where indicated] for the treatment of JIA (systemic or oligoarticular JIA are excluded).
DATA SOURCES
Electronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for published studies from inception to May 2015 for English-language articles. Bibliographies of related papers, systematic reviews and company submissions were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional evidence.
REVIEW METHODS
Systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A cost-utility decision-analytic model was developed to compare the estimated cost-effectiveness of biologic DMARDs versus methotrexate. The base-case time horizon was 30 years and the model took a NHS perspective, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5%.
RESULTS
Four placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness review (one RCT evaluating each biologic DMARD). Only one RCT included UK participants. Participants had to achieve an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric (ACR Pedi)-30 response to open-label lead-in treatment in order to be randomised. An exploratory adjusted indirect comparison suggests that the four biologic DMARDs are similar, with fewer disease flares and greater proportions of ACR Pedi-50 and -70 responses among participants randomised to continued biologic DMARDs. However, confidence intervals were wide, the number of trials was low and there was clinical heterogeneity between trials. Open-label extensions of the trials showed that, generally, ACR responses remained constant or even increased after the double-blind phase. The proportions of adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar between the treatment and placebo groups. Four economic evaluations of biologic DMARDs for patients with JIA were identified but all had limitations. Two quality-of-life studies were included, one of which informed the cost-utility model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab versus methotrexate were £38,127, £32,526 and £38,656 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively. The ICER for abatacept versus methotrexate as a second-line biologic was £39,536 per QALY.
LIMITATIONS
The model does not incorporate the natural history of JIA in terms of long-term disease progression, as the current evidence is limited. There are no head-to-head trials of biologic DMARDs, and clinical evidence for specific JIA subtypes is limited.
CONCLUSIONS
Biologic DMARDs are superior to placebo (with methotrexate where permitted) in children with (predominantly) polyarticular course JIA who have had an insufficient response to previous treatment. Randomised comparisons of biologic DMARDs with long-term efficacy and safety follow-up are needed to establish comparative effectiveness. RCTs for JIA subtypes for which evidence is lacking are also required.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016459.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Abatacept; Adalimumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Double-Blind Method; Etanercept; Humans; Methotrexate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27135404
DOI: 10.3310/hta20340