-
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Oct 2019Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) and fusion proteins (FP) are increasingly being used in children and adolescents. In this review, we analyze the evidence for their safety...
BACKGROUND
Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) and fusion proteins (FP) are increasingly being used in children and adolescents. In this review, we analyze the evidence for their safety and efficacy in the treatment of the most common chronic inflammatory diseases.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, AWMF.org, and other databases for high-quality trials (i.e., randomized controlled trials with clinical primary endpoints) and guidelines published at any time up to 10 December 2018 that dealt with mAb and FP that are approved for pediatric use. The search term was "monoclonal anti- body/fusion protein [e. g. adalimumab] AND children."
RESULTS
The 620 hits included 25 high-quality trials (20 of them manufacturer- sponsored) on 9 mAb/FP (omalizumab, adalimumab, etanercept, ustekinumab, infliximab, golimumab, anakinra, canakinumab, tocilizumab, and abatacept), as well as 6 guidelines (3 each of levels S3 and S2k) on the treatment of bronchial asthma, psoriasis, juvenile idopathic arthritis, and chronic inflammatory bowel diseases. For none of these conditions are mAb and FP the drugs of first choice. Adverse drug effects are rare but sometimes severe (infection, immune dysregulation, tumors).
CONCLUSION
The retrieved trials have deficiencies that make it difficult to reliably evaluate the efficacy, safety, and utility of mAb/FP for children and adolescents with chronic inflammatory diseases. mAb/FP nonetheless represent a treatment option to be considered in case conventional immune-modulating drugs are ineffective. Researcher-initiated, high-quality trials and manufacturer-independent, systematic long-term evaluations of adverse effects (e.g., tumors) are sorely needed.
Topics: Adolescent; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Biological Products; Child; Humans; Proteins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31711560
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2019.0703 -
Biologics : Targets & Therapy 2019Greater understanding of the roles of tumor necrosis factor-α, IL-1β, IL-10, and the IL-23/T-helper (Th) 17 and IL-12/Th1 pathways in immune dysregulation in... (Review)
Review
Greater understanding of the roles of tumor necrosis factor-α, IL-1β, IL-10, and the IL-23/T-helper (Th) 17 and IL-12/Th1 pathways in immune dysregulation in moderate/severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has helped in developing new regimens. We aim to review the use of different immunomodulatory therapies used to manage HS. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov databases from 1 January 1947 to 31 December 2018. Only clinical trials, case reports, case series and retrospective analyses published in the English language were included. Our search yielded 107 articles and 35 clinical trials, of which 15 are still ongoing. The tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors adalimumab and infliximab were the most comprehensively studied agents. Published data from clinical trials support the efficacy of adalimumab, infliximab, anakinra, ustekinumab, bermekimab and apremilast but not etanercept and MEDI8968. Clinical trials for CJM112 have been completed, with results awaiting publication. Trials are underway for secukinumab, IFX-1, INCB054707 and bimekizumab. Biologics used in smaller cohorts include canakinumab, golimumab and rituximab. Most agents are well tolerated and demonstrate a good safety profile, with the most commonly reported adverse event being infections. To date, adalimumab is the only biologic which has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for HS. However, other agents also show promise, with further trials underway to evaluate their efficacy, tolerability and safety profiles. Different clinical measurement scores and endpoints used to make direct comparison difficult. Longitudinal surveillance and pooled registry data are paramount to evaluate the long-term safety profile and efficacy of therapy.
PubMed: 31190730
DOI: 10.2147/BTT.S199862 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Oct 2019The clinical impact of anti-drug antibodies (ADAbs) in paediatric patients with JIA remains unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The clinical impact of anti-drug antibodies (ADAbs) in paediatric patients with JIA remains unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the prevalence of ADAbs in JIA studies; investigate the effect of ADAbs on treatment efficacy and adverse events; and explore the effect of immunosuppressive therapy on antibody formation.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify relevant clinical trials and observational studies that reported prevalence of ADAbs. Studies were systematically reviewed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses and appropriate proportional and pairwise meta-analyses were performed.
RESULTS
A total of 5183 references were screened; 28 articles, involving 26 studies and 2354 JIA patients, met eligibility criteria. Prevalence of ADAbs ranged from 0% to 82% across nine biologic agents. Overall pooled prevalence of ADAbs was 16.9% (95% CI, 9.5, 25.9). Qualitative analysis of included studies indicated that antibodies to infliximab, adalimumab, anakinra and tocilizumab were associated with treatment failure and/or hypersensitivity reactions. Concomitant MTX uniformly reduced the risk of antibody formation during adalimumab treatment (risk ratio 0.33; 95% CI 0.21, 0.52).
CONCLUSION
The association of ADAbs with treatment failure and hypersensitivity reactions indicates their clinical relevance in paediatric patients with JIA. Based on our findings, we recommend a preliminary course of action regarding immunogenicity of biologic agents in patients with JIA. Further strategies to predict, prevent, detect and manage immunogenicity could optimize treatment outcomes and personalize treatment with biologic therapies.
Topics: Adalimumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antibody Formation; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Biological Factors; Child; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Infliximab; Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein; Methotrexate; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 30809664
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez030 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Familial Mediterranean fever, a hereditary auto-inflammatory disease, mainly affects ethnic groups living in the Mediterranean region. Early studies reported colchicine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Familial Mediterranean fever, a hereditary auto-inflammatory disease, mainly affects ethnic groups living in the Mediterranean region. Early studies reported colchicine as a potential drug for preventing attacks of familial Mediterranean fever. For those people who are colchicine-resistant or intolerant, drugs such as rilonacept, anakinra, canakinumab, etanercept, infliximab, thalidomide and interferon-alpha might be beneficial. This is an updated version of the review.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions for reducing inflammation in people with familial Mediterranean fever.
SEARCH METHODS
We used detailed search strategies to search the following databases: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM); China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI); Wan Fang; and VIP. In addition, we also searched the clinical trials registries including ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, as well as references listed in relevant reports.Date of last search: 21 August 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) of people diagnosed with familial Mediterranean fever, comparing active interventions (including colchicine, anakinra, rilonacept, canakinumab, etanercept, infliximab, thalidomide, interferon-alpha, ImmunoGuard™ (a herbal dietary supplement) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) with placebo or no treatment, or comparing active drugs to each other.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We pooled data to present the risk ratio or mean difference with their 95% confidence intervals. We assessed overall evidence quality according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs with a total of 249 participants (aged three to 53 years); five were of cross-over and four of parallel design. Six studies used oral colchicine, one used oral ImmunoGuard™ and the remaining two used rilonacept or anakinra as a subcutaneous injection. The duration of each study arm ranged from one to eight months.The three studies of ImmunoGuard™, rilonacept and anakinra were generally well-designed, except for an unclear risk of detection bias in one of these. However, some inadequacy existed in the four older studies on colchicine, which had an unclear risk of selection bias, detection bias and reporting bias, and also a high risk of attrition bias and other potential bias. Neither of the two studies comparing a single to a divided dose of colchicine were adequately blinded, furthermore one study had an unclear risk of selection bias and reporting bias, a high risk of attrition bias and other potential bias.We aimed to report on the number of participants experiencing an attack, the timing of attacks, the prevention of amyloid A amyloidosis, any adverse drug reactions and the response of a number of biochemical markers from the acute phase of an attack, but data were not available for all outcomes across all comparisons.One study (15 participants) reported a significant reduction in the number of people experiencing attacks at three months with 0.6 mg colchicine three times daily (14% versus 100%), risk ratio 0.21 (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.95) (low-quality evidence). A further study (22 participants) of 0.5 mg colchicine twice daily showed no significant reduction in the number of participants experiencing attacks at two months (low-quality evidence). A study of rilonacept in individuals who were colchicine-resistant or intolerant (14 participants) also showed no reduction at three months (moderate-quality evidence). Likewise, a study of anakinra given to colchicine-resistant people (25 participants) showed no reduction in the number of participants experiencing an attack at four months (moderate-quality evidence).Three studies reported no significant differences in duration of attacks: one comparing colchicine to placebo (15 participants) (very low-quality evidence); one comparing single-dose colchicine to divided-dose colchicine (90 participants) (moderate-quality evidence); and one comparing rilonacept to placebo (14 participants) (low-quality evidence). Three studies reported no significant differences in the number of days between attacks: two comparing colchicine to placebo (24 participants in total) (very low-quality evidence); and one comparing rilonacept to placebo (14 participants) (low-quality evidence).No study reported on the prevention of amyloid A amyloidosis.One study of colchicine reported loose stools and frequent bowel movements (very low-quality evidence) and a second reported diarrhoea (very low-quality evidence). The rilonacept study reported no significant differences in gastrointestinal symptoms, hypertension, headache, respiratory tract infections, injection site reactions and herpes, compared to placebo (low-quality evidence). The ImmunoGuard study observed no side effects (moderate-quality evidence). The anakinra study reported no significant differences between intervention and placebo, including injection site reaction, headache, presyncope, dyspnea and itching (moderate-quality evidence). When comparing single and divided doses of colchicine, one study reported no difference in adverse events (including anorexia, nausea, diarrhoea, abdominal pain, vomiting and elevated liver enzymes) between groups (moderate-quality evidence) and the second study reported no adverse effects were detected.The rilonacept study reported no significant reduction in acute phase response indicators after three months (low-quality evidence). In the ImmunoGuard™ study, these indicators were not reduced after one month of treatment (moderate-quality evidence). The anakinra study, reported that C-reactive protein was significantly reduced after four months (moderate-quality evidence). One of the single dose versus divided dose colchicine studies reported no significant reduction in acute phase response indicators after eight months (low-quality evidence), while the second study reported no significant reduction in serum amyloid A concentration after six months (moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There were limited RCTs assessing interventions for people with familial Mediterranean fever. Based on the evidence, three times daily colchicine appears to reduce the number of people experiencing attacks, colchicine single dose and divided dose might not be different for children with familial Mediterranean fever and anakinra might reduce C-reactive protein in colchicine-resistant participants; however, only a few RCTs contributed data for analysis. Further RCTs examining active interventions, not only colchicine, are necessary before a comprehensive conclusion regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for reducing inflammation in familial Mediterranean fever can be drawn.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Colchicine; Familial Mediterranean Fever; Female; Humans; Injections, Subcutaneous; Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein; Male; Middle Aged; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Fusion Proteins
PubMed: 30338514
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010893.pub3 -
Journal of Pharmacology &... 2017To analyze available evidence on the safety of different biological response modifiers which are used for a treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
OBJECTIVE
To analyze available evidence on the safety of different biological response modifiers which are used for a treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched systematically for randomized controlled clinical trials on treatment of RA with different biological response modifiers, followed by a systematic review with meta-analysis. Trials were searched from MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases. The following safety parameters reported in the selected trials were analyzed: number of patients suffering any adverse event (AE), withdrawal due to AEs, serious AE (SAEs), infections, serious infections, infusion reactions, injection site reactions, malignancies, and overall mortality. Undesired effects were estimated using combined relative risks (RR) and number needed to harm (NNH). Heterogeneity was evaluated by Cochrane's Q and statistics.
RESULTS
According to inclusion criteria, a total of 43 trials (20,504 patients) were included in this study. A total number of AEs were found more with abatacept (RR: 1.05, NNH: 21.93). Withdrawal due to AEs was found with all biologicals, highest with anakinra (RR: 3.48, NNH: 15.70). Patients receiving newer tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors, golimumab, were more likely to develop SAEs (RR: 2.44, NNH: 12.72) and infection (RR: 1.25, NNH: 10.09), and in certolizumab, serious infections (RR: 2.95, NNH: 37.31) were found more. Infusion reaction develops more with rituximab (RR: 1.52, NNH: 8.47). Etanercept showed the highest risk to develop infusion site reaction (RR: 5.33, NNH: 4.65). Biologicals showed no difference to their control counterparts in malignancy and mortality risk.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis helps to clarify some frequently encountered and unanswered safety questions of different biological response modifiers, a new class of drugs, in the clinical care of RA patients.
PubMed: 29081616
DOI: 10.4103/jpp.JPP_155_16 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica Oct 2017Interleukin-1α (IL-1α) and its receptor antagonist IL-1RA play a pivotal role in skin homeostasis and disease. Although the use of biopsies to sample these cytokines... (Review)
Review
Interleukin-1α (IL-1α) and its receptor antagonist IL-1RA play a pivotal role in skin homeostasis and disease. Although the use of biopsies to sample these cytokines from human skin is widely employed in dermatological practice, knowledge about less invasive, in vivo sampling methods is scarce. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of such methods by systematically reviewing studies in Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library using combinations of the terms "IL-1α", IL-1RA", "skin", "human", including all possible synonyms. Quality was assessed using the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. The search, performed on 14 October 2016, revealed 10 different sampling methods, with varying degrees of invasiveness and wide application spectrum, including assessment of both normal and diseased skin, from several body sites. The possibility to sample quantifiable amounts of cytokines from human skin with no or minimal discomfort holds promise for linking clinical outcomes to molecular profiles of skin inflammation.
Topics: Humans; Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein; Interleukin-1alpha; Skin; Specimen Handling
PubMed: 28536733
DOI: 10.2340/00015555-2709 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate.
METHODS
In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H).
MAIN RESULTS
Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.
Topics: Abatacept; Adalimumab; Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Bayes Theorem; Biological Products; Etanercept; Humans; Infliximab; Methotrexate; Methylprednisolone; Network Meta-Analysis; Piperidines; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rituximab
PubMed: 28481462
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012657 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.
METHODS
On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).
MAIN RESULTS
This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Bayes Theorem; Biological Products; Disease Progression; Humans; Methotrexate; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Piperidines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 28282491
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012591 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Dec 2016The aim of the present study was to provide an overview of the literature addressing the role of genetic factors and biomarkers predicting pain recovery in newly... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of the present study was to provide an overview of the literature addressing the role of genetic factors and biomarkers predicting pain recovery in newly diagnosed lumbar radicular pain (LRP) patients.
METHODS
The search was performed in Medline OVID, Embase, PsycInfo and Web of Science (2004 to 2015). Only prospective studies of patients with LRP addressing the role of genetic factors (genetic susceptibility) and pain biomarkers (proteins in serum) were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed methodological quality.
RESULTS
The search identified 880 citations of which 15 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five genetic variants; i.e., OPRM1 rs1799971 G allele, COMT rs4680 G allele, MMP1 rs1799750 2G allele, IL1α rs1800587 T allele, IL1RN rs2234677 A allele, were associated with reduced recovery of LRP. Three biomarkers; i.e., TNFα, IL6 and IFNα, were associated with persistent LRP.
CONCLUSION
The present results indicate that several genetic factors and biomarkers may predict slow recovery in LRP. Still, there is a need for replication of the findings. A stricter use of nomenclature is also highly necessary.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The review is registered PROSPERO 20 of November 2015. Registration number is CRD42015029125 .
Topics: Alleles; Biomarkers; Catechol O-Methyltransferase; Disabled Persons; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Interferon-alpha; Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein; Interleukin-1alpha; Interleukin-6; Low Back Pain; Lumbosacral Region; Matrix Metalloproteinase 1; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Prevalence; Receptors, Opioid, mu; Sciatica; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 27964712
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-1356-5 -
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