-
JAMA Network Open Feb 2023Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of acute lower respiratory infection in children younger than 5 years; effective prevention strategies are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of acute lower respiratory infection in children younger than 5 years; effective prevention strategies are urgently needed.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies for the prevention of RSV infection in infants and children.
DATA SOURCES
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from database inception to March 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials that enrolled infants at high risk of RSV infection to receive a monoclonal antibody or placebo were included. Keywords and extensive vocabulary related to monoclonal antibodies, RSV, and randomized clinical trials were searched.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline was used. Teams of 2 reviewers independently performed literature screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Developments, and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A random-effects model network meta-analysis was conducted using a consistency model under the frequentist framework.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, RSV-related hospitalization, RSV-related infection, drug-related adverse events, intensive care unit admission, supplemental oxygen use, and mechanical ventilation use.
RESULTS
Fifteen randomized clinical trials involving 18 395 participants were eligible; 14 were synthesized, with 18 042 total participants (median age at study entry, 3.99 months [IQR, 3.25-6.58 months]; median proportion of males, 52.37% [IQR, 50.49%-53.85%]). Compared with placebo, with moderate- to high-certainty evidence, nirsevimab, palivizumab, and motavizumab were associated with significantly reduced RSV-related infections per 1000 participants (nirsevimab: -123 [95% CI, -138 to -100]; palivizumab: -108 [95% CI, -127 to -82]; motavizumab: -136 [95% CI, -146 to -125]) and RSV-related hospitalizations per 1000 participants (nirsevimab: -54 [95% CI, -64 to -38; palivizumab: -39 [95% CI, -48 to -28]; motavizumab: -48 [95% CI, -58 to -33]). With moderate-certainty evidence, both motavizumab and palivizumab were associated with significant reductions in intensive care unit admissions per 1000 participants (-8 [95% CI, -9 to -4] and -5 [95% CI, -7 to 0], respectively) and supplemental oxygen use per 1000 participants (-59 [95% CI, -63 to -54] and -55 [95% CI, -61 to -41], respectively), and nirsevimab was associated with significantly reduced supplemental oxygen use per 1000 participants (-59 [95% CI, -65 to -40]). No significant differences were found in all-cause mortality and drug-related adverse events. Suptavumab did not show any significant benefits for the outcomes of interest.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this study, motavizumab, nirsevimab, and palivizumab were associated with substantial benefits in the prevention of RSV infection, without a significant increase in adverse events compared with placebo. However, more research is needed to confirm the present conclusions, especially for safety and cost-effectiveness.
Topics: Male; Infant; Child; Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Palivizumab; Respiratory Syncytial Viruses; Network Meta-Analysis; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections; Respiratory Tract Infections; Oxygen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36800182
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.0023 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2018To evaluate rates of serious organ specific immune-related adverse events, general adverse events related to immune activation, and adverse events consistent with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate rates of serious organ specific immune-related adverse events, general adverse events related to immune activation, and adverse events consistent with musculoskeletal problems for anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) drugs overall and compared with control treatments.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus searched to 16 March 2017 and combined with data from ClinicalTrials.gov.
STUDY SELECTION
Eligible studies included primary clinical trial data on patients with cancer with recurrent or metastatic disease.
DATA EXTRACTION
Three independent investigators extracted data on adverse events from ClinicalTrials.gov and the published studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool by three independent investigators.
RESULTS
13 relevant studies were included; adverse event data were available on ClinicalTrials.gov for eight. Studies compared nivolumab (n=6), pembrolizumab (5), or atezolizumab (2) with chemotherapy (11), targeted drugs (1), or both (1). Serious organ specific immune-related adverse events were rare, but compared with standard treatment, rates of hypothyroidism (odds ratio 7.56, 95% confidence interval 4.53 to 12.61), pneumonitis (5.37, 2.73 to 10.56), colitis (2.88, 1.30 to 6.37), and hypophysitis (3.38, 1.02 to 11.08) were increased with anti-PD-1 drugs. Of the general adverse events related to immune activation, only the rate of rash (2.34, 2.73 to 10.56) increased. Incidence of fatigue (32%) and diarrhea (19%) were high but similar to control. Reporting of adverse events consistent with musculoskeletal problems was inconsistent; rates varied but were over 20% in some studies for arthraligia and back pain.
CONCLUSIONS
Organ specific immune-related adverse events are uncommon with anti-PD-1 drugs but the risk is increased compared with control treatments. General adverse events related to immune activation are largely similar. Adverse events consistent with musculoskeletal problems are inconsistently reported but adverse events may be common.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; B7-H1 Antigen; Humans; Immunity; Neoplasms; Nivolumab; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor
PubMed: 29540345
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k793 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public-health problem that increases the risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), cardiovascular diseases, and other... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public-health problem that increases the risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), cardiovascular diseases, and other complications. Kidney transplantation is a renal-replacement therapy that offers better survival compared to dialysis. Antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) is a significant complication following kidney transplantation: it contributes to both short- and long-term injury. The standard-of-care (SOC) therapy combines plasmapheresis and Intravenous Immunoglobulins (IVIg) with or without steroids, with or without rituximab: however, despite this combined treatment, ABMR remains the main cause of graft loss. IL-6 is a key cytokine: it regulates inflammation, and the development, maturation, and activation of T cells, B cells, and plasma cells. Tocilizumab (TCZ) is the main humanized monoclonal aimed at IL-6R and appears to be a safe and possible strategy to manage ABMR in sensitized recipients. We conducted a literature review to assess the place of the anti-IL-6R monoclonal antibody TCZ within ABMR protocols.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We systematically reviewed the PubMed literature and reviewed six studies that included 117 patients and collected data on the utilization of TCZ to treat ABMR.
RESULTS
Most studies report a significant reduction in levels of Donor Specific Antibodies (DSAs) and reduced inflammation and microvascular lesions (as found in biopsies). Stabilization of the renal function was observed. Adverse events were light to moderate, and mortality was not linked with TCZ treatment. The main side effect noted was infection, but infections did not occur more frequently in patients receiving TCZ as compared to those receiving SOC therapy.
CONCLUSION
TCZ may be an alternative to SOC for ABMR kidney-transplant patients, either as a first-line treatment or after failure of SOC. Further randomized and controlled studies are needed to support these results.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Female; Graft Rejection; Graft Survival; HLA Antigens; Humans; Inflammation; Isoantibodies; Kidney Transplantation; Male
PubMed: 35493469
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.839380 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune subepidermal bullous disease of the skin. First-line treatment of systemic corticosteroids may cause serious...
BACKGROUND
Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune subepidermal bullous disease of the skin. First-line treatment of systemic corticosteroids may cause serious adverse events. Rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab should be explored as alternative treatment options to improve outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab treatment outcomes in bullous pemphigoid.
METHODS
A PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library search were conducted on March 10, 2022. A total of 75 studies were included using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.
RESULTS
Use of rituximab (n=122), omalizumab (n=53) and dupilumab (n=36) were reported in 211 patients with BP. Rituximab led to complete remission in 70.5% (n=86/122) and partial remission in 23.8% (n=29/122) of patients within 5.7 months, with a recurrence rate of 20.5% (n=25/122). 9.0% (n=11/122) of patients died and infection (6.6%, n=8/122) was the most common adverse event. Omalizumab led to complete remission in 67.9% (n=36/53) and partial remission in 20.8% (n=11/53) of patients within 6.6 months, with a recurrence rate of 5.7% (n=3/53). 1.9% (n=1/53) of patients died and thrombocytopenia (1.9%, n=1/53) was observed as the most common adverse event. Dupilumab led to complete remission in 66.7% (n=24/36) and partial remission in 19.4% (n=7/36) of patients within 4.5 months of treatment without any reported adverse events, with a recurrence rate of 5.6% (n=2/36).
CONCLUSIONS
Rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab have similar clinical benefits for BP patients. However, rituximab resulted in higher recurrence rates, adverse events, and mortality rates.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022316454.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; Omalizumab; Pemphigoid, Bullous; Rituximab; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35769474
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.928621 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Nov 2018To provide a complete toxicity profile, toxicity spectrum, and a safety ranking of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) drugs for treatment of cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To provide a complete toxicity profile, toxicity spectrum, and a safety ranking of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) drugs for treatment of cancer.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were systematically searched to include relevant studies published in English between January 2007 and February 2018.
REVIEW METHODS
Only head-to-head phase II and III randomised controlled trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments or different doses of the same ICI drug were included: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, tremelimumab, atezolizumab, conventional therapy (chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and their combinations), two ICI drugs, or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Eligible studies must have reported site, organ, or system level data on treatment related adverse events. High quality, single arm trials and placebo controlled trials on ICI drugs were selected to establish a validation group.
RESULTS
36 head-to-head phase II and III randomised trials (n=15 370) were included. The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for all adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (probability 76%, pooled incidence 66.4%), nivolumab (56%, 71.8%), pembrolizumab (55%, 75.1%), ipilimumab (55%, 86.8%), and tremelimumab (54%, not applicable). The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for severe or life threatening adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (49%, 15.1%), nivolumab (46%, 14.1%), pembrolizumab (72%, 19.8%), ipilimumab (51%, 28.6%), and tremelimumab (28%, not applicable). Compared with conventional therapy, treatment-related adverse events for ICI drugs occurred mainly in the skin, endocrine, hepatic, and pulmonary systems. Taking one ICI drug was generally safer than taking two ICI drugs or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Among the five ICI drugs, atezolizumab had the highest risk of hypothyroidism, nausea, and vomiting. The predominant treatment-related adverse events for pembrolizumab were arthralgia, pneumonitis, and hepatic toxicities. The main treatment-related adverse events for ipilimumab were skin, gastrointestinal, and renal toxicities. Nivolumab had a narrow and mild toxicity spectrum, mainly causing endocrine toxicities. Integrated evidence from the pooled incidences, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses implied that nivolumab is the best option in terms of safety, especially for the treatment of lung cancer.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with other ICI drugs used to treat cancer, atezolizumab had the best safety profile in general, and nivolumab had the best safety profile in lung cancer when taking an integrated approach. The safety ranking of treatments based on ICI drugs is modulated by specific treatment-related adverse events.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017082553.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Ipilimumab; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Nivolumab; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30409774
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k4226 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.
SEARCH METHODS
The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.
Topics: Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Antibodies, Viral; Immunoglobulin G; COVID-19 Vaccines; Pandemics; Seroepidemiologic Studies; Immunoglobulin M
PubMed: 36394900
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013652.pub2 -
Journal of Neurology Mar 2022Current standard treatment in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) has been proved effective, but it is poorly effective in refractory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Current standard treatment in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) has been proved effective, but it is poorly effective in refractory patients and unclear for anti-IgG4 antibody-associated CIDP. Rituximab is a B cell-depleting monoclonal antibody. It has been applied as one of the management strategies in CIDP, but its efficacy is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review and a meta-analysis of the efficacy of rituximab treatment in CIDP patients.
METHODS
Through searches in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, BIOSOS, Web of Science, and Cochrane library on March 31st, 2021, 15 studies were identified. Patients' characteristics, treatment regime and outcome measure were extracted.
RESULTS
Ninety-six patients in 15 studies were included. The pooled estimate of responsiveness was 75% (95% CI 72-78%). The standard mean difference (SMD) of Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) disability score improvement was 1.7 (95% CI 1.0-2.3, p value < 0.0001) and the Medical Research Council (MRC) score for muscle power is 1.3 (95% CI - 2.6 to - 0.1, p value 0.04). All of the anti-IgG4 antibody-positive patients showed excellent responses to rituximab treatment.
CONCLUSION
Rituximab was effective in the treatment in CIDP patients, especially in anti-IgG4 antibody-positive patients. Randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the effectiveness and safety of rituximab in CIDP patients.
Topics: Humans; Immunoglobulin G; Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating; Rituximab
PubMed: 34120208
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-021-10646-y -
JAMA Network Open May 2023Biosimilar drugs are potentially lower-cost versions of biologics that may improve access to therapy. However, there is a lack of adequate systematic reviews... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Biosimilar drugs are potentially lower-cost versions of biologics that may improve access to therapy. However, there is a lack of adequate systematic reviews demonstrating equivalence between these drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity associated with biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab compared with their reference biologics in patients with RA.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS databases were searched from inception to September 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab and their biologic reference drugs for RA were assessed.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two authors independently abstracted all data. Meta-analysis was conducted with bayesian random effects using relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and trial sequential analysis. Specific domains were assessed for the risk of bias in equivalence and noninferiority trials. This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Equivalence was tested using prespecified margins for the American College of Rheumatology criteria, with at least 20% improvement in the core set measures (ACR20) (ie, RR, 0.94 to 1.06), and for the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (ie, SMD, -0.22 to 0.22). Secondary outcomes included 14 items measuring safety and immunogenicity.
RESULTS
A total of 25 head-to-head trials provided data on 10 642 randomized patients with moderate to severe RA. Biosimilars met equivalence with reference biologics in terms of ACR20 response (24 RCTs with 10 259 patients; RR, 1.01; 95% CrI, 0.98 to 1.04; τ2 = 0.000) and change of HAQ-DI scores (14 RCTs with 5579 patients; SMD, -0.04; 95% CrI, -0.11 to 0.02; τ2 = 0.002) considering prespecified margins of equivalence. Trial sequential analysis found evidence for equivalence for ACR20 since 2017 and HAQ-DI since 2016. Overall, biosimilars were associated with similar safety and immunogenicity profiles compared with reference biologics.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, biosimilars of adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept were associated with clinically equivalent treatment effects compared with their reference biologics for the treatment of RA.
Topics: Humans; Etanercept; Adalimumab; Infliximab; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Antirheumatic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Arthritis, Rheumatoid
PubMed: 37234004
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.15872 -
Health Technology Assessment... Apr 2016Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both... (Review)
Review
Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only: systematic...
OBJECTIVES
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX).
DATA SOURCES
The following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs.
METHODS
Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
RESULTS
Sixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX.
CONCLUSIONS
bDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission).
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Abatacept; Adalimumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Certolizumab Pegol; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Etanercept; Humans; Infliximab; Methotrexate; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 27140438
DOI: 10.3310/hta20350 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... May 2023Antidrug antibodies (ADAs) may worsen the efficacy and safety of biologics. However, little is known about the incidence of ADAs associated with the 6 biologics approved... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antidrug antibodies (ADAs) may worsen the efficacy and safety of biologics. However, little is known about the incidence of ADAs associated with the 6 biologics approved for the treatment of asthma in the United States.
OBJECTIVE
To elucidate the incidence of ADAs and their impact on reported clinical outcomes.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, open-label extension studies, and nonrandomized studies of biologics in patients with asthma indexed in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL between January 1, 2000, and July 9, 2022, were carried out. The primary outcomes were treatment-emergent ADAs (incidence) and ADA prevalence.
RESULTS
A total of 46 studies met the eligibility criteria. ADA incidence over follow-up was 2.91% (95% CI, 1.60-4.55) and was highest in the benralizumab studies (8.35%), with a risk ratio of 4.9 (2.69-8.92) when compared with placebo, and lowest in the omalizumab studies (0.00%). Incidence was 7.61% in the dupilumab studies, 4.39% in reslizumab, 3.63% in mepolizumab, and 1.12% in the tezepelumab studies. Incidence of neutralizing antibodies was 0.00% to 10.74% and was highest for benralizumab (7.12%). Incidence of neutralizing antibodies was higher in the benralizumab every 8 weeks (8.17%) versus every 4 weeks arms (5.81%). Results were consistent in subgroup analyses by study type and length of follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Approximately 2.9% of individuals in the included studies developed ADAs over study follow-up period. The incidence was highest in the benralizumab group and lowest in the omalizumab group. The subcutaneous route and longer dosing intervals were associated with higher ADA development.
Topics: Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Omalizumab; Incidence; Asthma; Biological Products; Antibodies, Neutralizing; Anti-Asthmatic Agents
PubMed: 36716995
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.12.046