-
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases May 2024To obtain an overview of recent evidence on efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
Efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature research informing the 2023 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To obtain an overview of recent evidence on efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
METHODS
This systematic literature research (SLR) investigated the efficacy and safety of conventional synthetic (cs), biological (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with PsA. A systematic database search using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted to identify relevant articles published since the previous update in 2019 until 28 December 2022. Efficacy was assessed in trials while for safety observational data were also considered. Adverse events of special interest were infections (including herpes zoster, influenza and tuberculosis), malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolisms, liver disease, laboratory changes and psychiatric adverse events. No meta-analyses were performed.
RESULTS
For efficacy, of 3946 articles screened, 38 articles (30 trials) were analysed. The compounds investigated included csDMARDs (leflunomide, methotrexate), bDMARDs inhibiting IL17 (bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, izokibep, secukinumab,), IL-23 (guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab), IL-12/23 (ustekinumab) as well as TNF (adalimumab, certolizumab-pegol, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab) and Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKi) (brepocitinib, deucravacitinib, tofacitinib, upadacitinib). The compounds investigated were efficacious in improving signs and symptoms of PsA, improving physical functioning and quality of life. For safety, 2055 abstracts were screened, and 24 articles analysed: 15 observational studies and 9 long-term follow-ups of trials, assessing glucocorticoids, TNFi, IL-17i, JAKi, IL-12/23i and PDE4i (apremilast). Safety indicators were generally coherent with the previous SLR in 2019.
CONCLUSION
The results of this SLR informed the task force responsible for the 2023 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for pharmacological management of PsA.
Topics: Arthritis, Psoriatic; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Treatment Outcome; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Biological Products
PubMed: 38503473
DOI: 10.1136/ard-2024-225534 -
European Review For Medical and... Jul 2023The use of biological drugs to treat ulcerative colitis (UC) represents a clear added value; nevertheless, many patients do not have a sustained response to these drugs.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The comparative efficacy and safety of biologics and small molecules for treating patients with ulcerative colitis in Portugal: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The use of biological drugs to treat ulcerative colitis (UC) represents a clear added value; nevertheless, many patients do not have a sustained response to these drugs. Small molecules were recently approved for the treatment of UC in Portugal. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the different therapies, including biological and small molecules, in patients prior exposed to biological treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed on January 6, 2022, identifying all the relevant reports about the efficacy and safety of biologics (adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab) and small molecules (upadacitinib, filgotinib, tofacitinib) in the treatment of UC in Portugal. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulations. Results were presented in median Odds Ratio and Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking (SUCRA) score for each treatment.
RESULTS
Treatment of UC is divided into two phases: induction and maintenance. Upadacitinib 45 mg was the most efficacious therapy in achieving clinical remission and response and endoscopic improvement in the induction phase. Concerning the maintenance phase, upadacitinib 30 mg performed better than ustekinumab formulations in clinical remission and response, and endoscopic improvement. Regarding safety, there were no significant differences between all the drugs included in the analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
This network meta-analysis showed that upadacitinib reflects better efficacy compared to the available treatments for bio-exposed patients with moderate to severe UC. The safety profile is comparable to the other drugs.
Topics: Humans; Colitis, Ulcerative; Ustekinumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Portugal; Bayes Theorem; Biological Factors; Biological Products
PubMed: 37522686
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202307_33145 -
Cureus Jun 2024Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory disorder affecting the colon, and typically, during the disease course, the condition may exacerbate, relapse, and remit. One... (Review)
Review
Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory disorder affecting the colon, and typically, during the disease course, the condition may exacerbate, relapse, and remit. One of the most successful lines for inducing and maintaining clinical remission in subjects with UC is biological therapy with anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNF) agents, including adalimumab (ADA) and infliximab (IFX). This meta-analysis is an attempt to obtain complementary information driven by real-world experience (RWE) concerning the efficacy and safety of two of the most popular anti-TNFs in treating UC. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of RWE studies comparing ADA and IFX as naïve anti-TNF agents for the treatment of subjects with UC. Studies were obtained by searching Scopus, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and the PubMed Central databases. Patients treated with IFX showed significantly higher induction responses. No statistically significant difference was found in the comparison of response in the maintenance treatment period. Higher overall adverse events were related to IFX treatment, with serious adverse events that were nonsignificantly higher in the ADA-treated group. In conclusion, IFX demonstrated significantly higher induction responses compared to ADA in patients with moderate-to-severe UC. IFX was associated with higher overall adverse events, whereas serious adverse events were non-significantly higher in the ADA-treated group. IFX may be favored as a first-line agent for its induction efficacy, and the choice between IFX and ADA should be individualized based on comprehensive clinical evaluation.
PubMed: 38835557
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.61547 -
RMD Open Dec 2023To identify the best evidence on the efficacy of pharmacological interventions in reducing fatigue in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of pharmacological interventions: a systematic review informing the 2023 EULAR recommendations for the management of fatigue in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.
OBJECTIVE
To identify the best evidence on the efficacy of pharmacological interventions in reducing fatigue in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (I-RMDs) and to summarise their safety in the identified studies to inform European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the management of fatigue in people with I-RMDs.
METHODS
Systematic review of adults with I-RMDs conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook. Search strategy ran in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Complete, PEDro, OTseeker and PsycINFO. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials were eligible. Assessment of risk of bias, data extraction and synthesis performed by two reviewers independently and in duplicate. Data pooled in statistical meta-analyses.
RESULTS
From 4151 records, 455 were selected for full-text review, 99 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and 19 RCTs were included in meta-analyses. Adalimumab was superior to placebo in reducing fatigue at 12 and 52 weeks in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (n=3 and 2 RCTs; mean difference (MD)= -3.03, p<0.001; MD=-2.25, p=0.03, respectively). Golimumab (n=2 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-5.27, p<0.001), baricitinib (n=2 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-4.06, p<0.001), sarilumab (n=2 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-3.15, p<0.001), tocilizumab (n=3 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-3.69, p<0.001) and tofacitinib (n=3 RCTs; 12 weeks: MD=-4.44, p<0.001) were also superior to placebo in reducing fatigue in RA. A dose/effect relationship was observed for sarilumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib. In spondyloarthritis (excluding psoriatic arthritis), secukinumab was superior to placebo in reducing fatigue at 16 weeks (n=2 RCTs; MD=-4.15, p<0.001), with a dose/effect relationship also observed. The narrative results of the RCTs not included in the meta-analysis indicated that several other pharmacological interventions were efficacious in reducing fatigue, with reassuring safety results.
CONCLUSIONS
Several pharmacological interventions are efficacious and generally safe for managing fatigue in people with I-RMDs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Adalimumab; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Fatigue
PubMed: 38056919
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003349 -
Cureus Sep 2023The widely accepted standard of care for chronic cutaneous sarcoidosis is corticosteroids. However, when this treatment is shown to be refractory, other interventions... (Review)
Review
Recent Clinical Studies on the Effects of Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha (TNF-α) and Janus Kinase/Signal Transducers and Activators of Transcription (JAK/STAT) Antibody Therapies in Refractory Cutaneous Sarcoidosis: A Systematic Review.
The widely accepted standard of care for chronic cutaneous sarcoidosis is corticosteroids. However, when this treatment is shown to be refractory, other interventions must be considered. In this review, we report the current progress of clinical studies on various monoclonal antibody therapies and their future potential as primary interventions for refractory cutaneous sarcoidosis. In this systematic review, clinical studies on the management of refractory cutaneous sarcoidosis were retrieved from PubMed and ScienceDirect databases. Studies were screened based on article type, publication within the last 10 years, and access to free full text. The articles selected consisted of case studies, clinical trials, and observational studies. The studies needed to focus on cases of diagnosed cutaneous sarcoidosis at the time of the study and involve adult patients resistant to corticosteroid regimens, with or without additional immunomodulators. Only interventions that included tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) (e.g., infliximab and adalimumab) or Janus kinase/signal transducers and activators of transcription (JAK/STAT) (e.g., ruxolitinib and tofacitinib) antibody therapy were considered. Two authors independently conducted quality assessments using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal and NIH Study Quality Assessment tools. A total of 16 clinical studies were included in this systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. Of the 16 cases included, 15 studies demonstrated partial to complete resolution of cutaneous lesions within a range of two weeks to 18 months from initiation of antibody therapy. Studies on anti-TNF-α intervention demonstrated the most adverse events, including two deaths and one case associated with cutaneous exacerbation. Studies on anti-JAK-STAT interventions demonstrate no adverse events after treatment; however, patient study size was limiting. Recent studies have shown promising potential for anti-TNF-α and anti-JAK-STAT inhibitors to become the mainstay interventions in refractory cutaneous sarcoidosis. Due to limited population studies, the current data on the efficacy and safety of antibody therapies have not yielded a standardized FDA-approved steroid-sparing treatment. Therefore, a need for more population studies on the effectiveness of third-line intervention in refractory cutaneous sarcoidosis is necessary.
PubMed: 37818515
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44901 -
Hepatology Communications Jan 2024Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is an immune-mediated, chronic cholestatic liver disease. Currently, liver transplantation is the only established life-saving... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is an immune-mediated, chronic cholestatic liver disease. Currently, liver transplantation is the only established life-saving treatment. Several studies have evaluated the effect of different biologic therapies on PSC with inconclusive findings. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of biologics in PSC and associated inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
METHODS
MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase were searched up to July 31, 2023, for studies reporting the effects of biologics in patients with PSC-IBD. Effects of biologic therapy on alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, ulcerative colitis response score, and adverse events were calculated and expressed as standardized difference of means (SMD), proportions, and 95% CI using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Six studies, including 411 PSC-IBD patients who received biologics, were included. Biologic treatment was associated with no change in alkaline phosphatase (SMD: 0.1, 95% CI: -0.07 -0.17, p=0.43), but a small and statistically significant increase in total bilirubin (SMD: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.05-0.35, p<0.01). 31.2% (95% CI: 23.8-39.7) of patients with IBD achieved endoscopic response, and there was a significant improvement in ulcerative colitis response score (SMD: -0.6,95% CI: -0.88 to 0.36, p<0.01). Furthermore, 17.6% (95% CI: 13.0-23.5) of patients experienced adverse events severe enough to discontinue therapy, and 29.9% (95% CI: 25.2-34.8) had a loss of response to biologics.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment of patients with PSC-IBD with biologics (vedolizumab, infliximab, and adalimumab) was not associated with improvement of biochemical markers of cholestasis. Biologics are effective in treating the colitis associated with PSC. Vedolizumab was associated with worsening liver enzymes in contrast to other biologics, a finding that warrants further study.
Topics: Humans; Colitis, Ulcerative; Alkaline Phosphatase; Cholangitis, Sclerosing; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Bilirubin; Cholestasis; Biological Products
PubMed: 38206197
DOI: 10.1097/HC9.0000000000000347 -
Scientific Reports Aug 2023What is the impact of switching between biologics and biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on efficacy and safety for rheumatoid arthritis? A systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Impact of switching between reference biologics and biosimilars of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
What is the impact of switching between biologics and biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on efficacy and safety for rheumatoid arthritis? A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed to compare switching and non-switching groups of treatments. Pooled Risk Relative (RR) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs) were obtained. Seventeen randomized trials with a switching phase involving 6,562 patients were included. Results showed that a single switch from biologics to biosimilars compared to continuing biologics had comparable effects for primary and co-primary outcomes, the American College of Rheumatology criteria with 20% response (ACR20) (7 trials, 1,926 patients, RR 0.98, 95% CrIs 0.93 to 1.03) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (5 trials, 1,609 patients, SMD - 0.07, 95% CrIs - 0.23 to 0.1), and within the equivalence margins: ACR20 [RR 0.94, 1.06] and HAQ-DI [SMD - 0.22, 0.22]. The risk of treatment-emergent adverse events, discontinuation, and positive anti-drug antibodies were comparable after switching. Safety results were imprecise, and the follow-up period might not be sufficient to evaluate long-term effects, especially malignancies. Overall, the practice of single switching between approved biologics and biosimilars of Tumour Necrosis Factor inhibitors is efficacious and safe for rheumatoid arthritis.
Topics: Humans; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Infliximab
PubMed: 37607959
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-40222-5 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2023Conventional therapy is the most commonly used treatment for Crohn's disease (CD), but it does not always achieve disease control, which is why the use of biologic drugs... (Review)
Review
Conventional therapy is the most commonly used treatment for Crohn's disease (CD), but it does not always achieve disease control, which is why the use of biologic drugs is increasing. The aim of this study was to analyze the efficacy and safety of biologic drugs in adult patients diagnosed with moderate-severe CD. An intensive search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and Medline to collect phase 2 or 3 clinical trials published between 2018 and 2023 that were randomized, placebo-controlled and double-blind trials analyzing the efficacy and safety of biologic drugs in adult patients diagnosed with CD. This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. Thirteen clinical trials evaluating eight biologic drugs were included. Upadacitinib, vedolizumab, adalimumab, guselkumab, mirikizumab, ustekinumab and risankizumab showed statistically significant efficacy across different clinical, endoscopic, histological, genetic, biomarker or quality-of-life parameters. However, PF-00547659 only showed statistically significant results for the CDAI-70 at week 12. In terms of safety, the incidence and severity of adverse effects were analyzed, with all drugs being well tolerated and presenting a good safety profile since most adverse effects were mild. Biologic drugs can be considered an effective and safe option for the treatment of moderate-severe CD in adult patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional therapy.
PubMed: 38004446
DOI: 10.3390/ph16111581 -
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Oct 2023Loss of response to infliximab or adalimumab in ulcerative colitis occurs frequently, and dose escalation may aid in regaining clinical benefit. This study aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Loss of response to infliximab or adalimumab in ulcerative colitis occurs frequently, and dose escalation may aid in regaining clinical benefit. This study aimed to systematically assess the annual loss of response and dose escalation rates for infliximab and adalimumab in ulcerative colitis.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted from August 1999 to July 2021 for studies reporting loss of response and dose escalation during infliximab and/or adalimumab use in ulcerative colitis patients with primary response. Annual loss of response, dose escalation rates, and clinical benefit after dose escalation were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies with 1-year follow-up or less.
RESULTS
We included 50 unique studies assessing loss of response (infliximab, n = 24; adalimumab, n = 21) or dose escalation (infliximab, n = 21; adalimumab, n = 16). The pooled annual loss of response for infliximab was 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-14.3) and 13.6% (95% CI, 9.3-19.9) for studies with 1-year follow-up. The pooled annual loss of response for adalimumab was 13.4% (95% CI, 8.2-21.8) and 23.3% (95% CI, 15.4-35.1) for studies with 1-year follow-up. Annual pooled dose escalation rates were 13.8% (95% CI, 8.7-21.7) for infliximab and 21.3% (95% CI, 14.4-31.3) for adalimumab, regaining clinical benefit in 72.4% and 52.3%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Annual loss of response was 10% for infliximab and 13% for adalimumab, with higher rates during the first year. Annual dose escalation rates were 14% (infliximab) and 21% (adalimumab), with clinical benefit in 72% and 52%, respectively. Uniform definitions are needed to facilitate more robust evaluations.
Topics: Humans; Adalimumab; Colitis, Ulcerative; Infliximab; Retrospective Studies; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36318229
DOI: 10.1093/ibd/izac200 -
Cureus Mar 2024This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to address the scarcity of research on the use of biological therapy in primary sclerosing... (Review)
Review
This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to address the scarcity of research on the use of biological therapy in primary sclerosing cholangitis-inflammatory bowel disease (PSC-IBD) and the historical inadequacy of therapeutic options. Its purpose is to investigate this matter comprehensively and furnish guidance for clinical practice. Utilizing Embase, PubMed, Medline, and clinicaltrials.gov studies investigating the roles of biologics and antibiotics in PSC-IBD were identified. The systematic literature review encompassed articles published from inception through September 2023. Two independent reviewers assessed the articles, and methodological quality was gauged using Review Manager 5.4.2. Nine studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. However, only four met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis due to variability and availability of data; the remaining studies underwent descriptive analysis. Notably, infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib showed ineffectiveness in reducing cholestatic markers. This review underscores the limited impact of biological and small-molecule therapies on disease progression in PSC-IBD patients, signifying the need for further exploration and development of treatment modalities in this domain.
PubMed: 38487649
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.56182