-
Rheumatology International Nov 2017Biologic therapies have improved the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the treat-to-target approach has resulted in many patients achieving remission. In the... (Review)
Review
Biologic therapies have improved the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the treat-to-target approach has resulted in many patients achieving remission. In the current treatment landscape, clinicians have begun considering dose reduction/tapering for their patients. Rheumatology guidelines in Asia, Europe, and the United States include down-titration of biologics but admit that the level of evidence is moderate. We conducted a systematic literature review to assess the published studies that evaluate down-titration of biologics in RA. The published literature was searched for studies that down-titrated the following biologics: abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, and tocilizumab. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, observational, and pharmacoeconomic studies. The outcomes of interest were (1) efficacy and health-related quality of life, (2) disease flares, and (3) impact on cost. Eleven full-text publications were identified; only three were RCTs. Study results suggest that dosing down may be an option in many patients who have achieved remission or low disease activity. However, some patients are likely to experience a disease flare. Across the studies, the definition of disease flare and the down-titration criteria were inconsistent, making it difficult to conclude which patients may be appropriate and when to attempt down-titration. Studies have evaluated the practice of dosing down biologic therapy in patients with RA; however, a relatively small number of RCTs have been published. Although down-titration may be an option for some patients in LDA or remission, additional RCTs are needed to provide guidance on this practice.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 28852832
DOI: 10.1007/s00296-017-3780-8 -
Autoimmunity Reviews Jan 2022The treatment for COVID-19 often utilizes immune-modulating drugs. These drugs are also used in immune mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). We performed a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The treatment for COVID-19 often utilizes immune-modulating drugs. These drugs are also used in immune mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). We performed a systematic review about seroconversion after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with IMIDs and impact of various drugs on seroconversion rates.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant studies reporting seroconversion rates following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in IMIDs. We calculated the pooled seroconversion rates after a single or two doses of vaccination, pooled seroconversion rates in patients with specific IMIDs, and rates in patients on various drugs/drug classes.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies were included in the systematic review. The pooled seroconversion rates after two doses of mRNA vaccination were higher (83.1, 95%CI: 74.9-89.0, I = 90%) as compared to a single dose (69.3, 52.4-82.3, I = 95%). The odds of seroconversion were lower in IMIDs as compared to healthy controls (0.05, 0.02-0.13, I = 21%). The seroconversion rates in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (95.2, 95%CI: 92.6-96.9, I = 0%), spondyloarthropathy (95.6, 95% CI: 83.4-98.9, I = 35%), and systemic lupus erythematosus (90.7, 95%CI: 85.4-94.2, I = 0%) were higher as compared to rheumatoid arthritis (79.5, 95% CI: 65.1-88.9, I = 85%), and vasculitis (70.5, 95% CI: 52.9-83.5, I = 51%). The seroconversion rates following double dose of mRNA were excellent (>90%) in those on anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF), anti-integrin (vedolizumab), anti-IL 17 (secukinumab), anti-IL6 (Tocilizumab) and anti-IL12/23 (Ustekinumab) therapies but attenuated (<70%) in patients on anti-CD20 (Rituximab) or anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte associated antigen (CTLA-4) therapies (Abatacept). The seroconversion rates were good (70-90%) with steroids, hydroxychloroquine, JAK inhibitors, mycophenolate mofetil and leflunomide. Combination of anti-TNF with immunomodulators (azathioprine, 6-meracptopurine, methotrexate) resulted in an attenuated vaccine response as compared to anti-TNF monotherapy.
CONCLUSION
Seroconversion rates after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are lower in patients with IMIDs. Certain therapies (anti-TNF, anti-integrin, anti-IL 17, anti-IL6, anti-12/23) do not impact seroconversion rates while others (anti-CD20, anti-CTLA-4) result in poorer responses.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors; Vaccination
PubMed: 34474172
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2021.102927 -
The Journal of Rheumatology Jan 2020Understanding the placebo response is critical to interpreting treatment efficacy, particularly for agents with a ceiling to their therapeutic effect, where an...
OBJECTIVE
Understanding the placebo response is critical to interpreting treatment efficacy, particularly for agents with a ceiling to their therapeutic effect, where an increasing placebo response makes it harder to detect potential benefit. The objective of this study is to assess the change in placebo responses over time in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCT) for drug licensing authorization.
METHODS
The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register database was searched to identify RCT of biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in RA. Studies were excluded if patients were conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD)-naive, not receiving background csDMARD therapy, or were biologic experienced. Metaregression model was used to evaluate changes in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, ACR50, and ACR70 treatment response over time.
RESULTS
There were 32 trials in total: anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy (n = 15), tocilizumab (n = 4), abatacept (n = 2), rituximab (n = 2), and Janus kinase inhibitors (n = 9). From 1999 to 2018, there was no significant trend in the age or sex of patients in the placebo arm. Disease duration, swollen joint count, and 28-joint count Disease Activity Score using erythrocyte sedimentation rate at baseline all significantly declined over time. There was a statistically significant increase in placebo ACR50 and ACR70 responses (ACR50 β = 0.41, 95% CI 0.09-0.74, p = 0.01; ACR70 β = 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.31, p = 0.01) that remained significant after controlling for potential confounders.
CONCLUSION
There has been a rise in the placebo response in RA clinical trials over the last 2 decades. Shifting RA phenotype, changes in trial design, and expectation bias are possible explanations for this phenomenon. This observation has important implications when evaluating newer novel agents against established therapies.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Female; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Outcome Assessment; Placebo Effect; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 31043548
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.190008 -
Clinical Rheumatology Nov 2021The pharmacotherapy of Takayasu arteritis (TAK) with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is an evolving area. A systematic review of Scopus, Web of Science,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The pharmacotherapy of Takayasu arteritis (TAK) with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is an evolving area. A systematic review of Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed Central, clinical trial databases and recent international rheumatology conferences for interventional and observational studies reporting the effectiveness of DMARDs in TAK identified four randomized controlled trials (RCTs, with another longer-term follow-up of one RCT) and 63 observational studies. The identified trials had some concern or high risk of bias. Most observational studies were downgraded on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale due to lack of appropriate comparator groups. Studies used heterogenous outcomes of clinical responses, angiographic stabilization, normalization of inflammatory markers, reduction in vascular uptake on positron emission tomography, reduction in prednisolone doses and relapses. Tocilizumab showed benefit in a RCT compared to placebo in a secondary per-protocol analysis but not the primary intention-to-treat analysis. Abatacept failed to demonstrate benefit compared to placebo for preventing relapses in another RCT. Pooled data from uncontrolled observational studies demonstrated beneficial clinical responses and angiographic stabilization in nearly 80% patients treated with tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors, tocilizumab or leflunomide. Certainty of evidence for outcomes from RCTs ranged from moderate to very low and was low to very low for all observational studies. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence to guide the pharmacotherapy of TAK. Future observational studies should attempt to include appropriate comparator arms. Multicentric, adequately powered RCTs assessing both clinical and angiographic responses are necessary in TAK.
Topics: Abatacept; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antirheumatic Agents; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Takayasu Arteritis
PubMed: 33932173
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-021-05743-2 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Sep 2021Scleroderma (morphea) en coup de sabre is a localized subtype restricted to the frontoparietal region of the head. Current treatment paradigms rely on low levels of... (Review)
Review
Scleroderma (morphea) en coup de sabre is a localized subtype restricted to the frontoparietal region of the head. Current treatment paradigms rely on low levels of evidence, primarily case reports and case series-supported by expert opinions. The aim of this article was to systematically analyze current data related to the treatment of localized scleroderma en coup de sabre. The databases Scopus, PubMed, and EBSCO were searched for all reports discussing the treatment of localized scleroderma en coup de sabre. The keywords en coup de sabre, "facial linear scleroderma", and "morphea linearis", combined with "treatment" or "therapy" were used as search terms. A total of 34 articles analyzed treatment outcomes for patients with localized scleroderma en coup de sabre including 4 retrospective cohort studies, 2 prospective cohort studies, 4 case series, and 24 case reports, representing a total of 69 patients (38 children and 31 adults). Methotrexate was the most commonly investigated treatment (26 patients) with a highest response rate (26/26, 100%). Other treatments included systemic glucocorticosteroids (nine patients), followed by UVA1 (four patients), mycophenolate mofetil (two patients), hydroxychloroquine (five patients), abatacept (two patients), tocilizumab (three patients), cyclosporine (one patient), interferon gamma (one patient), PUVA therapy (two patients), NB-UVB therapy (one patient), and pulsed dye laser (one patient). Reconstructive and surgery treatment was successfully used for lesions with settled disease activity to improve the cosmetic aspect of the lesions. Conclusion: methotrexate is the most often-studied treatment and reported good clinical outcomes in children and adults with localized scleroderma en coup de sabre.
PubMed: 34640533
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10194517 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic inflammatory disease that affects the synovial fluid of joints, tendons, and some extra-articular sites. Biologic agents have...
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic inflammatory disease that affects the synovial fluid of joints, tendons, and some extra-articular sites. Biologic agents have been highly effective and are comparable in reducing RA symptoms, slowing disease progression, and improving physical function; however, concerns have been raised about the risks of several potential adverse effects. Thus, this study aimed to assess the safety of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in observational studies using administrative health databases. PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to 21 October 2021. The analysis was divided into five groups: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) versus non-TNFi; TNFi versus csDMARDs; bDMARDs versus csDMARDs; abatacept versus bDMARDs; and TNFi versus Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi). The adverse events were cancer, cardiovascular events, infection, herpes zoster, tuberculosis, and death. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model estimated risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Thirty-one studies were eligible for inclusion in the present systematic review, published from 2014 to 2021. A total of 1,039,398 RA patients were assessed. The 31 studies evaluated eleven different biological drugs. No significant differences were found regarding safety between TNFi versus non-TNFi (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.92-1.28; < 0.01; I = 93.0%), TNFi versus csDMARDs (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.75-1.10; < 0.01; I = 87.0%), bDMARDs versus csDMARDs (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.82-1.20; < 0.01; I = 93.0%), abatacept versus bDMARDs (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.54-1.18; < 0.01; I = 90.0%), and TNFi versus JAKi (RR 3.54; 95% CI 0.30-42.09; = 0.01; I = 81.0%). In the subgroup analysis, among studies comparing abatacept to TNFi, a lower risk of cardiovascular events was associated with abatacept (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.24-0.55). Our results do not suggest an increased risk of adverse events associated with biological therapy in treating RA patients, indicating a lower risk of cardiovascular events with abatacept than TNFi. However, these findings must be interpreted with caution given the limitations of this study and the low/very low certainty of the evidence. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier [CRD42020190838].
PubMed: 36034855
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.928471 -
RMD Open 2017To update the evidence for the efficacy and safety of (b)biological and (ts)targeted-synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with axial...
Efficacy and safety of biological and targeted-synthetic DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To update the evidence for the efficacy and safety of (b)biological and (ts)targeted-synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) to inform the 2016 update of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society/European League Against Rheumatism (ASAS/EULAR) recommendations for the management of axSpA.
METHODS
Systematic literature review (2009-2016) for randomised controlled trials (RCT), including long-term extensions, strategy trials and observational studies (the latter was only for safety assessment and a comparator was required). Interventions were any bDMARD or tsDMARD. All relevant efficacy and safety outcomes were included.
RESULTS
76 papers and 24 abstracts fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Large treatment effects were found both in radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA) and non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA) for all tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) (NNT to achieve ASAS40 response ranged between 2.6-5.2 for r-axSpA and 2.3-5.4 for nr-axSpA). For nr-axSpA, efficacy was superior for those who had objective signs of inflammation (positive C reactive protein or inflammation on MRI-SI). Secukinumab 150 mg has shown efficacy in two phase 3 RCTs (NNT to achieve ASAS40 response: 3.4 and 4.0). Ustekinumab and tofacitinib have shown positive results in phase 2/proof-of-concept trials; trials with apremilast, rituximab, interleukin (IL)-6 antagonists and abatacept have failed their primary end points. New (unknown) safety signals were not found in the trials but long-term observational safety data for TNFi are still scarce.
CONCLUSIONS
New evidence supports the efficacy and safety of TNFi both in r-axSpA and nr-axSpA. Secukinumab is the first drug targeting the IL-17 pathway in r-axSpA that has shown efficacy.
PubMed: 28176964
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2016-000396 -
Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia 2016A question is raised about an increased risk of severe infection from the use of biological drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. This systematic review of... (Review)
Review
A question is raised about an increased risk of severe infection from the use of biological drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. This systematic review of observational studies aimed at assessing the risk of severe infection associated with the use of anakinra, rituximab, and abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, Scirus, Cochrane, Exerpta Medica Database, Scielo, and Lilacs up to July 2010. Severe infections were defined as those life-threatening ones in need of the use of parenteral antibiotics or of hospitalization. Longitudinal observational studies were selected without language restriction, involving adult patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and who used anakinra, rituximab, or abatacept. In four studies related to anakinra, 129 (5.1%) severe infections were related in 2896 patients, of which three died. With respect to rituximab, two studies reported 72 (5.9%) severe infections in 1224 patients, of which two died. Abatacept was evaluated in only one study in which 25 (2.4%) severe infections were reported in 1046 patients. The main site of infection for these three drugs was the respiratory tract. One possible explanation for the high frequency of severe infections associated with anakinra may be the longer follow-up time in the selected studies. The high frequency of severe infections associated with rituximab could be credited to the less strict inclusion criteria for the patients studied. Therefore, infection monitoring should be cautious in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in use of these three drugs.
Topics: Abatacept; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein; Rituximab
PubMed: 27914602
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbre.2016.10.001 -
Arthritis Care & Research Aug 2016To systematically compare the risk of adverse events (AEs) for 13 targeted immunomodulators (TIMs) indicated for ankylosing spondylitis (AS), inflammatory bowel... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically compare the risk of adverse events (AEs) for 13 targeted immunomodulators (TIMs) indicated for ankylosing spondylitis (AS), inflammatory bowel diseases, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS
We searched electronic databases through July 2015 to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing AEs between 2 or more TIMs head-to-head. We reported on the following outcomes: number of AEs, discontinuation due to AEs, serious AEs, mortality, serious infections, tuberculosis, herpes zoster, and malignancies. We qualitatively synthesized the literature and conducted random-effects meta-analyses if 3 or more studies provided data for an outcome.
RESULTS
Ten head-to-head RCTs and 51 observational studies were included in this systematic review. A majority of the studies (70%) were conducted in RA patients. Risk of treatment discontinuation due to AEs was higher with infliximab than with adalimumab or etanercept in RA, PsA, and AS. A higher risk for serious infections was noted with infliximab than with abatacept, adalimumab, or etanercept in RA. Risk for treatment discontinuation due to AEs, serious infections, and tuberculosis was lower with etanercept than with adalimumab in RA. Limited evidence suggested no comparative differences in risk for mortality, malignancies, and herpes zoster for adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab in RA.
CONCLUSION
Important differences were noted in the safety profile of TIMs in RA, generally favoring abatacept, adalimumab, and etanercept over infliximab. Head-to-head comparative evidence for other TIMs and non-RA populations was insufficient to draw conclusions for most of the safety outcomes.
Topics: Arthritis, Juvenile; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Immune System Diseases; Immunologic Factors; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Observational Studies as Topic; Psoriasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spondylitis, Ankylosing
PubMed: 26663412
DOI: 10.1002/acr.22815 -
Reumatologia Clinica Nov 2021To review the available evidence on the impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments in associated diffuse interstitial lung disease (ILD).
OBJECTIVE
To review the available evidence on the impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments in associated diffuse interstitial lung disease (ILD).
METHODS
Systematic review of studies evaluating the impact of pharmacological treatment in patients with RA and ILD. A bibliographic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane, a selection of articles and the methodological quality assessment (FLC 3.0 OSTEBA) and grading of the level of evidence (SING) of the selected articles were performed.
RESULTS
1,720 references were identified in primary search and 7 in manual or indirect. Forty-three articles were included: 7 systematic reviews, 2 randomized clinical trials, 5 cohort studies, 8 case-control studies and 21 case series. Methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide (LEF) do not increase incidence, complications or mortality due to ILD. Although the results are not uniform, anti-TNF have often had worse outcomes in incidence, progression and mortality due to ILD than MTX, LEF, abatacept (ABA) and rituximab (RTX). The evidence found is scarce for JAK kinase and antifibrotic inhibitors, and controversial for IL-6 inhibitors.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence that MTX or LEF worsens the prognosis of patients with AR-EPID. RTX and ABA seem to have better results than other biologicals, such us TNFi, often achieving stabilization and, in some cases, the improvement of ILD in patients with RA.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors
PubMed: 34756311
DOI: 10.1016/j.reumae.2020.04.010