-
Pharmacological Research Apr 2024Optimizing second-line biologic therapies for adult ulcerative colitis (UC) post first-line failure is essential. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Selection strategy of second-line biologic therapies in adult patients with ulcerative colitis following prior biologic treatment failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Optimizing second-line biologic therapies for adult ulcerative colitis (UC) post first-line failure is essential.
OBJECTIVE
Compare second-line biologic therapy efficacy in adult UC patients with prior treatment failure.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of electronic databases up to May 2023 was conducted to assess second-line biologic therapy efficacy using a random effects model. Parameters analyzed included clinical remission rate, clinical response rate, mucosal healing rate, annual discontinuation rate, and colectomy rates.
RESULTS
Forty-three research papers were analyzed. Clinical remission rates for second-line biologics were ranked at 6-14 weeks: Infliximab (30%) was followed by Vedolizumab (29%), Ustekinumab (27%), and Adalimumab (19%). At 52-54 weeks, the order shifted, with Vedolizumab (35%) followed by Infliximab (32%), Ustekinumab (31%), and Adalimumab (26%). The mucosal healing rate was 21%, ranked as: Infliximab (31%), Vedolizumab (21%), Adalimumab (21%), and Ustekinumab (14%). The annual discontinuation rate stood at 20%, with Adalimumab (25%), Vedolizumab (18%), Infliximab (17%), and Ustekinumab (16%). Discontinuation rates due to primary failure (PF), secondary failure (SF), and adverse events (AE) were 6%, 12%, and 3%, respectively. The annual colectomy rate was 9%, with Adalimumab (15%) followed by Vedolizumab (10%), Ustekinumab (9%), and Infliximab (5%), and colectomy rates of 10% due to PF, 12% due to SF, and 4% due to AE.
CONCLUSION
For UC patients with first-line treatment failure, it is recommended to prioritize infliximab or vedolizumab as second-line biologic therapies, while avoiding adalimumab as the primary choice. Further clinical trials are necessary to assess ustekinumab efficacy accurately.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Colitis, Ulcerative; Infliximab; Adalimumab; Ustekinumab; Treatment Failure; Biological Products; Biological Therapy
PubMed: 38403257
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2024.107108 -
International Journal of Molecular... Mar 2023The aims of this systematic literature review (SLR) were to identify the effects of approved biological and targeted synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aims of this systematic literature review (SLR) were to identify the effects of approved biological and targeted synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) on synovial membrane of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients, and to determine the existence of histological/molecular biomarkers of response to therapy. A search was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (PROSPERO:CRD42022304986) to retrieve data on longitudinal change of biomarkers in paired synovial biopsies and in vitro studies. A meta-analysis was conducted by adopting the standardized mean difference (SMD) as a measure of the effect. Twenty-two studies were included (19 longitudinal, 3 in vitro). In longitudinal studies, TNF inhibitors were the most used drugs, while, for in vitro studies, JAK inhibitors or adalimumab/secukinumab were assessed. The main technique used was immunohistochemistry (longitudinal studies). The meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in both CD3+ lymphocytes (SMD -0.85 [95% CI -1.23; -0.47]) and CD68+ macrophages (sublining, sl) (SMD -0.74 [-1.16; -0.32]) in synovial biopsies from patients treated for 4-12 weeks with bDMARDs. Reduction in CD3+ mostly correlated with clinical response. Despite heterogeneity among the biomarkers evaluated, the reduction in CD3+/CD68+sl cells during the first 3 months of treatment with TNF inhibitors represents the most consistent variation reported in the literature.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors; Antirheumatic Agents; Adalimumab; Biomarkers
PubMed: 36902437
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24055006 -
Laryngoscope Investigative... Dec 2020The study systematically reviewed the existing literature on the management of autoimmune inner ear disease (AIED). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The study systematically reviewed the existing literature on the management of autoimmune inner ear disease (AIED).
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
We performed a literature search of Embase, NCBI, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases from April 1990 to April 2020. Inclusion criteria included studies that were retrospective or prospective in nature evaluating the treatment of AIED with audiometric data measuring hearing outcomes during treatment. Hearing improvement was the primary study outcome and improvement in vestibular symptoms was the secondary study outcome.
RESULTS
Sixteen of 412 candidate articles were included in our study. Systemic steroid treatment is most commonly described. Alternative treatment modalities included intratympanic steroid treatment, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, methylprednisolone, rituximab, and anakinra.
CONCLUSION
Systemic corticosteroids are the first line treatment of AIED. Intratympanic steroids are a potential adjuvant or alternative treatment for patients who cannot tolerate or become refractory to steroid treatment. Steroid nonresponders may benefit from biologic therapy. Alternative treatment modalities including nonsteroidal immunosuppressants and biologics have been studied in small cohorts of patients with varying results. Prospective studies investigating the efficacy of biologic and nonsteroidal therapy are warranted.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
2.
PubMed: 33364414
DOI: 10.1002/lio2.508 -
World Journal of Clinical Cases Jun 2022Adalimumab (ADA) and infliximab (IFX) are the cornerstones of the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD). It remains controversial whether there is a difference in the...
BACKGROUND
Adalimumab (ADA) and infliximab (IFX) are the cornerstones of the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD). It remains controversial whether there is a difference in the effectiveness and safety between IFX and ADA for CD.
AIM
To perform a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of ADA and IFX in CD.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched. Cohort studies were considered for inclusion. The primary outcomes were induction of response and remission, maintenance of response and remission, and secondary loss of response. Adverse events were secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Fourteen cohort studies were included. There was no apparent difference between the two agents in the induction response [odds ratio (OR): 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-1.74, = 0.14] and remission (OR: 1.11, 95%CI: 0.78-1.57, = 0.57), maintenance response (OR: 1.08, 95%CI: 0.76-1.53, = 0.67) and remission (OR: 1.26, 95%CI: 0.87-1.82, = 0.22), and secondary loss of response (OR: 1.01, 95%CI: 0.65-1.55, = 0.97). Subgroup analysis revealed ADA and IFX had similar rates of response, remission, and loss of response either in anti-tumor necrosis factor-α naïve or non-naïve patients. Further, there was a similar result regardless of whether CD patients were treated with optimized therapy, including dose intensification, shortening interval, and combination immunomodulators. However, ADA had a fewer overall adverse events than IFX (OR: 0.62, 95%CI: 0.42-0.91, = 0.02).
CONCLUSION
ADA and IFX have similar clinical benefits for anti-tumor necrosis factor-α naïve or non-naïve CD patients. Overall adverse events rate is higher in patients in the IFX group.
PubMed: 35949827
DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i18.6091 -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Feb 2020Despite the low prevalence of uveitis in pediatric rheumatic diseases, potential problems as well as high disease burden can complicate its management. In this review,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the low prevalence of uveitis in pediatric rheumatic diseases, potential problems as well as high disease burden can complicate its management. In this review, we systematically assessed the epidemiological, etiological, and managerial aspects of uveitis in pediatric rheumatic diseases.
METHODS
This current study was conducted in accordance with the established methods and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). We searched the manuscript databases, including Medline, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane for all eligible studies in line with the considered keywords. We also conducted the statistical analysis using the Stata software.
RESULTS
Considering studies focusing on uveitis in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) yielded a pooled prevalence of 11.8% (95%CI: 11.2 to 12.4%) for uveitis following JIA. In this regard, the prevalence rate of uveitis related to Behçets disease and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE( was estimated to be 15.0 and 0.8%, respectively. The pooled response rate to Adalimumab and Infliximab was estimated to be 68.0% (95%CI: 65.4 to 70.6%), 64.7% (95%CI: 59.8 to 69.3%), respectively. The documents for the systematical assessment of other biological medications (e.g. Tocilizumab, Daclizumab and Rituximab) were inadequate; however, the mean response rate for these drugs was 59, 75 and 80%, respectively. Our meta-analysis showed a pooled response rate of 40.0% (95%CI, 36.0% to 44.2) to Methotrexate. Significant heterogeneity and significant diffusion bias were demonstrated by reviewing studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The pooled prevalence of uveitis in pediatric rheumatic diseases widely varied based on the underlying disease requiring more investigations in different subtypes of rheumatic diseases. The biologic medications, especially Adalimumab are the most effective treatments for uveitis in pediatric rheumatic diseases; however, a combination of the safe, available alternatives is preferred to achieve the most desirable treatment response.
Topics: Adalimumab; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Child; Humans; Methotrexate; Uveitis
PubMed: 32019589
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-020-1324-x -
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 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated skin disease that may occur at any age. Prevalence in children ranges between 0.5 and 1.0% across Europe. Approximately 10-20%...
Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated skin disease that may occur at any age. Prevalence in children ranges between 0.5 and 1.0% across Europe. Approximately 10-20% of paediatric psoriasis patients are moderate-to-severe in severity and may require the use of systemic therapy. Recently, newer targeted, systemic therapies have been licensed for treatment of moderate-to-severe paediatric psoriasis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the short-term efficacy of available antipsoriatic systemic drugs in children with a narrative synthesis of key efficacy from randomized clinical trials. A systematic review of literature was performed on Medline and embase databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of treatments licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration and/or the European Medicines Agency for paediatric and adolescent psoriatic population were retrieved and analyzed. Data from this literature review was assessed in line with GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations). The short-term (12-16 weeks) clinical efficacy from baseline was evaluated according to the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 and 90 compared to baseline. Illustrative comparative risks, relative risk (RR) and the number needed to treat (NNT) for response on PASI 75 and PASI 90 were extracted. A total of five relevant studies were identified on two TNF-alpha blockers (etanercept and adalimumab), the IL12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab and two IL-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab, secukinumab). Comparators were placebo (3 studies), placebo and etanercept (1 study) methotrexate (1 study). All examined drugs resulted efficacious. The probability to achieve PASI 75 and PASI 90 was higher for the IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors. Overall, the anti-IL17s and the anti-IL12/23 antibodies showed a more favourable NNT for PASI 75, whereas IL-17 inhibitors for PASI 90. The approved biological therapies may be beneficial for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in children and adolescents. Since psoriasis is a chronic and often challenging condition with no definitive solution, systematic evaluations of long-term efficacy, drug survival and adverse effects may help careful, individualized, patient-centered clinical decision making.
PubMed: 35450044
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.847308 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have emerged as a progressively utilized therapeutic approach for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, the complete...
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have emerged as a progressively utilized therapeutic approach for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, the complete determination of their cardiovascular safety remains inconclusive. Hence, the primary objective of this network meta-analysis is to meticulously assess and juxtapose the cardiovascular risks linked to distinct JAK inhibitors employed in RA patients. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were meticulously conducted, encompassing a collection of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that focused on investigating the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality associated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors administered to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Extensive exploration was performed across multiple electronic databases, incorporating studies published until March 2023. To be included in this analysis, the RCTs were required to involve adult participants diagnosed with RA who received treatment with JAK inhibitors. To ensure accuracy, two authors independently undertook the selection of eligible RCTs and meticulously extracted aggregate data. In order to examine the outcomes of MACE and all-cause mortality, a frequentist graph theoretical approach within network meta-analyses was employed, utilizing random-effects models. Third study has been registered on PROSPERO under the reference CRD42022384611. A specific selection encompassing a total of 14 meticulously chosen randomized controlled trials was undertaken, wherein 13,524 patients were assigned randomly to distinct treatment interventions. The analysis revealed no notable disparity in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) between the interventions and the placebo group. However, in comparison to adalimumab, the employment of JAK inhibitors exhibited an association with higher rates of all-cause mortality [odds ratio (OR): 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-2.81]. This observed increase in risk primarily stemmed from the usage of tofacitinib (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.12-3.23). None of the other JAK inhibitors exhibited a statistically significant variance in all-cause mortality when compared to adalimumab. Our study suggests that JAK inhibitors may not increase the risk of MACE in RA patients but may be associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to adalimumab, primarily due to tofacitinib use. Rheumatologists should carefully consider the cardiovascular risks when prescribing JAK inhibitors, particularly tofacitinib, for RA patients. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=384611, CRD42022384611.
PubMed: 37614310
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1237234 -
Expert Review of Clinical Immunology Jan 2021There are few comparative data for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous infliximab versus adalimumab, etanercept and intravenous infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
There are few comparative data for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS
Historical data for reference product/biosimilar intravenous infliximab, or adalimumab and etanercept, were pooled and compared with phase 3 study results for a subcutaneous (SC) formulation of the infliximab biosimilar CT-P13, in a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42019149621).
RESULTS
The authors identified 13 eligible controlled trials that randomized over 5400 participants to prespecified treatments of interest. Comparison with pooled historical data suggested a numerical advantage for CT-P13 SC over intravenous infliximab for almost every prespecified efficacy outcome evaluated, including Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (C-reactive protein/erythrocyte sedimentation rate), Clinical/Simplified Disease Activity Index scores, American College of Rheumatology responses, and multiple measures of disease remission and low disease activity; for the majority of outcomes, there was no overlap in 95% confidence intervals between groups. A numerical advantage for CT-P13 SC was also observed for safety outcomes (adverse events, infections, and discontinuations). Similar, but less marked, trends were observed for comparison with historical efficacy and safety data for adalimumab/etanercept.
CONCLUSION
CT-P13 SC offers an improved or similar benefit-to-harm ratio compared with infliximab (intravenous) and adalimumab/etanercept, for the treatment of moderate-to-severe RA.
Topics: Adalimumab; Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Intravenous; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Etanercept; Humans; Infliximab; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33305638
DOI: 10.1080/1744666X.2020.1858803 -
Biomedicines Apr 2022The long-term use of anti-TNF-α agents can lead to adverse effects, such as infections and immune-mediated cutaneous reactions. Whether de-escalation by dose reduction... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The long-term use of anti-TNF-α agents can lead to adverse effects, such as infections and immune-mediated cutaneous reactions. Whether de-escalation by dose reduction or interval lengthening reduces these adverse effects is uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare the incidence of infections and skin manifestations after anti-TNF-α dose de-escalation with standard dosing.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 14 January 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing anti-TNF-α de-escalation strategies with standard dosing among patients with inflammatory conditions, that report on infections, skin manifestations, or both, were included. The risk of bias was assessed with the revised Cochrane risk-of bias tool (RCTs) or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (non-RCTs).
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs and six observational studies (or 2706 patients) were included. Eight RCTs had low risk of bias or some concerns. Four non-RCTs were of good methodological quality. The studies described patients with axial spondyloarthritis (8 studies, 780 patients), rheumatoid arthritis (7 studies, 1458 patients), psoriasis (3 studies, 332 patients), or inflammatory bowel disease (2 studies, 136 patients). De-escalation strategies included interval lengthening (12 studies, 1317 patients), dose reduction (6 studies, 1130 patients), or both (2 studies, 259 patients). Overall, the occurrence of infections and skin manifestations did not differ between standard treatment and de-escalation. The disappearance of infections or skin manifestations after de-escalation was only reported in two studies. The majority of studies focused on etanercept and adalimumab. Heterogeneity in reporting of infections and skin manifestations precluded meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
We found that anti-TNF-α de-escalation does not reduce infections or skin reactions. A de-escalation strategy should not be recommended for the sole purpose of reducing drug-related adverse effects. The meticulous documentation of adverse effects is recommended to further address this question.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021252977.
PubMed: 35625771
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10051034