-
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jun 2020To inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Efficacy of pharmacological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature research informing the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS
A systematic literature research (SLR) to investigate the efficacy of any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) (conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD, biological (b) and biosimilar DMARD, targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD) or glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in patients with RA was done by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2016 and 8 March 2019.
RESULTS
234 abstracts were selected for detailed assessment, with 136 finally included. They comprised the efficacy of bDMARDs versus placebo or other bDMARDs, efficacy of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAKi) across different patient populations and head-to-head of different bDMARDs versus JAKi or other bDMARDs. Switching of bDMARDs to other bDMARDs or tsDMARDs, strategic trials and tapering studies of bDMARDs, csDMARDs and JAKi were assessed. The drugs evaluated included abatacept, adalimumab, ABT-122, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, SBI-087, CNTO6785, decernotinib, etanercept, filgotinib, golimumab, GCs, GS-9876, guselkumab, hydroxychloroquine, infliximab, leflunomide, mavrilimumab, methotrexate, olokizumab, otilimab, peficitinib, rituximab, sarilumab, salazopyrine, secukinumab, sirukumab, tacrolimus, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, tregalizumab, upadacitinib, ustekinumab and vobarilizumab. The efficacy of many bDMARDs and tsDMARDs was shown. Switching to another tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi bDMARDs after TNFi treatment failure is efficacious. Tapering of DMARDs is possible in patients achieving long-standing stringent clinical remission; in patients with residual disease activity (including patients in LDA) the risk of flares is increased during the tapering. Biosimilars are non-inferior to their reference products.
CONCLUSION
This SLR informed the task force regarding the evidence base of various therapeutic regimen for the development of the update of EULAR's RA management recommendation.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Drug Substitution; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Synthetic Drugs; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 32033937
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216656 -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2020There is no hierarchy in the use of biotherapies (bDMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and no published head-to-head comparative studies. Our purpose is to evaluate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
There is no hierarchy in the use of biotherapies (bDMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and no published head-to-head comparative studies. Our purpose is to evaluate the respective efficacy of TNF inhibitors, IL12/23 inhibitors (ustekinumab), IL17 inhibitors (secukinumab, ixekizumab) and CTLA4Ig (abatacept) on articular, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin and functional outcomes in PsA.
METHODS
Randomised controlled trials assessing bDMARDs in PsA were selected through the MedLine, Cochrane and Embase databases. ACR20/50/70 and PASI75/90 response rates, enthesitis and dactylitis reduction rates and HAQ-DI mean reductions were collected. Pooled meta-analyses were performed to assess relative risks (RR) with their 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for each class of bDMARDs in comparison with placebo.
RESULTS
17 RCTs were analysed. Compared to placebo, all bDMARDs showed higher ACR20 response rates, with RRs ranging from 1.77 (1.31, 2.39) to 3.21 (2.52, 4.08), and a greater HAQ-DI mean reduction. TNF inhibitors, secukinumab and IL17 inhibitors showed higher ACR50/70 and PASI75/90 response rates. TNF inhibitors, secukinumab and IL17 inhibitors showed higher enthesitis resolution rates and only TNF inhibitors and IL17 inhibitors showed higher dactylitis resolution rates, with RRs ranging from 1.41 (1.02, 1.95) to 2.31 (1.60, 3.34) and from 2.07 (1.38, 3.12) to 2.65 (1.79, 3.94), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
All bDMARDs showed higher ACR20 response rates and better HAQ-DI mean reduction compared to placebo. This meta-analysis highlights the variability of bDMARD efficacy on ACR50/70, PASI75/90 and enthesitis or dactylitis response rates. Head-to-head studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions on potential efficacy-related differences between bDMARDs in PsA.
Topics: Abatacept; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Enthesopathy; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Ustekinumab
PubMed: 31969228
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2020The objective of this study was to investigate whether anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) status is associated with clinical responses to abatacept or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Presence of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies is associated with better treatment response to abatacept but not to TNF inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to investigate whether anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) status is associated with clinical responses to abatacept or TNF-α-inhibitors (TNF-α-i) in RA patients.
METHODS
A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed in January 2018 to identify published studies and conference abstracts evaluating biologic DMARD response according to ACPA status. Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis methods were used to pool risk ratios (RRs). In the base-case, treatment response was assessed using EULAR measure, while a scenario analysis assessed response by combining ACR20, DAS28 and EULAR measures. Subgroup analyses were performed for duration of study follow-up.
RESULTS
Eighteen of the 30 SLR studies were included in the meta-analysis. The base-case showed a statistically significant positive association between ACPA positivity and EULAR response for patients treated with abatacept (RR: 1.13 [95% CI: 1.00, 1.26]), while ACPA positivity was associated with lower EULAR responses to TNF-α-i (RR: 0.91 [95% CI: 0.84, 0.98]). For the scenario analysis, results were consistent with the base-case for abatacept (RR 1.18 [95% CI 1.03, 1.35]), while for TNFα-i, no significant difference by ACPA status was observed (RR 0.97 [95% CI 0.86, 1.10]). Subgroups analyses showed results similar to the base-case for both abatacept and TNF-α-i.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis confirms that ACPA-positive RA patients are marginally more likely to achieve EULAR and ACR20 response to abatacept compared to ACPA-negative patients. Additionally, the analysis demonstrates that there is no association between ACPA status and response to TNF-α-i, consistent with findings of previously published studies.
Topics: Abatacept; Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibodies; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Peptides, Cyclic; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors
PubMed: 31770089
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
PloS One 2019Our objective was to compare the cardiovascular safety of tocilizumab and other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis using a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Our objective was to compare the cardiovascular safety of tocilizumab and other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis using a network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS
A systematic literature search through May 2018 identified randomized controlled trials (RCT) or observational studies (cohort only) reporting cardiovascular outcomes of tocilizumab (TCZ) and/or abatacept (ABA) and/or rituximab (RTX) and/or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in rheumatoid arthritis patients. The composite primary outcome was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (MACE, myocardial infarction (MI), peripheral artery disease (PAD) and cardiac heart failure (CHF)).
RESULTS
19 studies were included in the NMA, including 11 RCTs and 8 cohort studies. We found less events with RTX (5.41 [1.70;17.26]. We found no difference between TCZ and other treatments. Concerning MI, we found no difference between TCZ and csDMARD (4.23 [0.22;80.64]), no difference between TCZ and TNFi (2.00 [0.18;21.84]). There was no difference between TCZ and csDMARD (1.51[0.02;103.50] and between TCZ and TNFi (1.00 [0.06;15.85]) for stroke event. With cohorts and RCT NMA, we found no difference between TCZ and other treatments for MACE (0.66 [0.42;1.03] with ABA, 1.04 [0.60;1.81] with RTX, 0.78[0.53;1.16] and 0.91 [0.54;1.51] with csDMARD), but the risk of myocardial infarction was lower with TCZ compared to ABA (0.67 [0.47;0.97]). We lacked data to compare TCZ and other bDMARD for stoke and MI. Not enough data was available to perform a NMA for CHF and PAD.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite an increase in cholesterol levels, TCZ has safe cardiovascular outcomes compared to other bDMARD.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Patient Safety; Prognosis
PubMed: 31369575
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220178 -
The Journal of Rheumatology Jan 2020Understanding the placebo response is critical to interpreting treatment efficacy, particularly for agents with a ceiling to their therapeutic effect, where an...
OBJECTIVE
Understanding the placebo response is critical to interpreting treatment efficacy, particularly for agents with a ceiling to their therapeutic effect, where an increasing placebo response makes it harder to detect potential benefit. The objective of this study is to assess the change in placebo responses over time in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCT) for drug licensing authorization.
METHODS
The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register database was searched to identify RCT of biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in RA. Studies were excluded if patients were conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD)-naive, not receiving background csDMARD therapy, or were biologic experienced. Metaregression model was used to evaluate changes in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, ACR50, and ACR70 treatment response over time.
RESULTS
There were 32 trials in total: anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy (n = 15), tocilizumab (n = 4), abatacept (n = 2), rituximab (n = 2), and Janus kinase inhibitors (n = 9). From 1999 to 2018, there was no significant trend in the age or sex of patients in the placebo arm. Disease duration, swollen joint count, and 28-joint count Disease Activity Score using erythrocyte sedimentation rate at baseline all significantly declined over time. There was a statistically significant increase in placebo ACR50 and ACR70 responses (ACR50 β = 0.41, 95% CI 0.09-0.74, p = 0.01; ACR70 β = 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.31, p = 0.01) that remained significant after controlling for potential confounders.
CONCLUSION
There has been a rise in the placebo response in RA clinical trials over the last 2 decades. Shifting RA phenotype, changes in trial design, and expectation bias are possible explanations for this phenomenon. This observation has important implications when evaluating newer novel agents against established therapies.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Female; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Outcome Assessment; Placebo Effect; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 31043548
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.190008 -
Arthritis Care & Research Apr 2020We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative effects of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), non-TNFi biologics, and conventional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative Risk of Cardiovascular Events With Biologic and Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVE
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative effects of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), non-TNFi biologics, and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on cardiovascular risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS
Using a systematic search through May 8, 2018, we included 14 observational studies in adults with RA treated with TNFi, non-TNFi biologics, tofacitinib, or csDMARDs, reporting the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or stroke. Only studies reporting active comparators were included. We performed random effects meta-analysis and estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).
RESULTS
As compared to TNFi, tocilizumab was associated with a decreased risk of MACE (OR 0.59 [95% CI 0.34-1.00]), whereas csDMARDs were associated with an increased risk of MACE (csDMARDs including methotrexate OR 1.45 [95% CI 1.09-1.93]; without methotrexate OR 2.57 [95% CI 1.32-5.00]), without heterogeneity (I = 0%); there was no difference in risk of MACE between abatacept and TNFi (OR 0.89 [95% CI 0.71-1.11]), or between tocilizumab and abatacept (OR 0.81 [0.57-1.16]). Based on 11 cohorts (n = 135,053 patients), as compared to TNFi, csDMARDs were associated with an increased risk of stroke (OR 1.17 [95% CI 1.01-1.36]); there was no difference in risk of stroke between different biologics (tocilizumab versus TNFi OR 0.98 [95% CI 0.59-1.61]; abatacept versus TNFi OR 1.08 [0.86-1.34]; tocilizumab versus abatacept OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.39-1.38]), without heterogeneity (I = 0%). No comparative studies on cardiovascular risk with tofacitinib were identified.
CONCLUSION
Based on meta-analysis, as compared to TNFi, tocilizumab may be associated with a reduced risk of MACE, whereas csDMARDs may be associated with an increased risk of MACE and stroke.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Risk
PubMed: 30875456
DOI: 10.1002/acr.23875