-
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 -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism Dec 2019To summarize and investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
OBJECTIVE
To summarize and investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
METHODS
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy and safety of targeted synthetic DMARDs (tofacitinib, apremilast) as well as biological DMARDs (guselkumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, clazakizumab, abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab, and golimumab) were identified by systemic literature review. Traditional meta-analysis and network meta-analysis using a random effects model were performed to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI to compare and rank these treatments according to ACR20 response, 75% improvement in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI75), numbers of adverse events (AE) and serious adverse events (SAE). Similar analyses were conducted among biologic-naïve population and biologic-experienced/failed population.
RESULTS
We deemed 29 RCTs eligible, including 10,204 participants and 17 treatments. During induction therapy (first 12-16 weeks), all treatments except clazakizumab were more efficacious than placebo in achieving ACR20 and PASI75. Although tofacitinib, apremilast, and ixekinumab 80 mg every 2 weeks had a higher rate of AE, no significant difference was revealed for SAE among all treatments. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that infliximab, golimumab, etanercept, adalimumab, guselkumab, and secukinumab 300 mg outperformed other drugs in achieving both ACR20 and PASI75. Infliximab, guselkumab, adalimumab, golimumab, secukinumab (300 mg and 150 mg), and ustekinumab (45 mg and 90 mg) are characterized by both high efficacy and safety. Similar rankings were observed in the analysis among biologic-naïve patients. Moreover, ustekinumab, secukinumab (300 mg and 150 mg), ixekizumab, abatacept, certolizumab pegol, tofacitinib, and apremilast were still associated with higher ACR20 compared to placebo while ustekinumab, secukinumab (300 mg), ixekizumab and tofacitinib with higher PASI75 among biologic-experienced/failed patients.
CONCLUSION
Regarding the overall risk-benefit profile, infliximab, guselkumab, adalimumab, golimumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab may be safer and more efficacious treatments than the other targeted DMARDs for active PsA during induction therapy.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31272807
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2019.06.001 -
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety Aug 2019: Treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis has changed rapidly since the introduction of various biologics almost twenty years ago. Many clinical trials have been... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
: Treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis has changed rapidly since the introduction of various biologics almost twenty years ago. Many clinical trials have been performed to monitor efficacy and safety of new agents. The aim of this review is to summarize safety concerns, which were observed during prospective clinical trials. : Since etanercept was the first biologic approved and remains the most frequently used, as first biologic in polyarticular JIA patients, the authors calculated the relative risk of the adverse events for all examined biologicals and compared the values with the value of etanercept. : Relative rates for all adverse events showed similar rates for etanercept, infliximab, golimumab, and tocilizumab, whereas adalimumab showed higher rates and abatacept lower rates. Comparison of rates for serious adverse events demonstrated, that rates seemed comparable for etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, and tocilizumab. Again, abatacept showed a lower rate, whereas golimumab seems to have a higher relative risk for serious adverse events. Rate of infection was lowest in patients treated with abatacept or tocilizumab, patients treated with etanercept, adalimumab and Infliximab again had similar rates. : The safety profiles of actually approved biologics are highly acceptable. However, further observation, especially long-term observation through registry studies, is required.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Biological Products; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk
PubMed: 31204508
DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2019.1632288 -
Expert Review of Clinical Immunology Aug 2019: Innate immune response and bone remodeling are key factors contributing to the pathogenesis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Moreover, the evidence of autoantibodies in...
: Innate immune response and bone remodeling are key factors contributing to the pathogenesis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Moreover, the evidence of autoantibodies in patients' sera suggests an autoimmune side in PsA. Besides the immune pathways, studies strongly support the role of genetic risk alleles in affecting the clinical heterogeneity of PsA as well as the response to therapy. A good clinical response to treatment, indeed, represents a challenge in PsA patients and the identification of patient-targeted therapies is still a critical issue. : We performed a systematic review aiming at describing new evidence on PsA pathogenesis and treatments. Reported items for systematic reviews (PRISMA checklist) were analyzed. Studies included from the PubMed database addressed the following items: innate immunity, autoimmunity, bone remodeling, and therapeutic targets in PsA; time frame of research 1970-2019. Specifically, we reviewed data on IL-17 inhibitors, abatacept, JAK inhibitors, ABT 122, and A (3) adenosine receptors agonist, CF101. : In PsA an intriguing pathogenetic network has been documented. Several biological and synthetic drugs are promising in terms of efficacy and safety profile.
Topics: Abatacept; Adenosine; Alleles; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; HLA Antigens; Humans; Immunoglobulins; Immunosuppressive Agents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31177868
DOI: 10.1080/1744666X.2019.1627876 -
Oral Diseases Jun 2019This systematic review evaluated the efficacy of immunobiologics for the management of oral disease in Sjögren's syndrome (SS).
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review evaluated the efficacy of immunobiologics for the management of oral disease in Sjögren's syndrome (SS).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE , Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched for evidence on the use of immunobiologics for management of glandular disease in SS. Primary outcomes were xerostomia and salivary gland dysfunction, assessed via visual analogue scales, disease-specific scales for SS, measurement of salivary flow, ultrasound data, and quality of life measures.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies (11 randomized controlled trials and 6 observational studies) met inclusion criteria. Rituximab showed efficacy in improving salivary gland function but not xerostomia. Abatacept showed promise in improving both xerostomia and salivary flow. Belimumab exhibited long-term improvement of salivary flow and subjective measures. The novel agent CFZ533 improved both disease activity and patient-reported indexes.
CONCLUSIONS
There is strong evidence pointing to the efficacy of rituximab in the management of oral disease in SS. Future controlled trials may elucidate the efficacy of belimumab and abatacept. The new drug CFZ533 is a promising alternative for the management of SS and its salivary gland involvement. In considering these agents, the promise of efficacy must be balanced against the harmful effects associated with biologic agents.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Biological Factors; Congresses as Topic; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rituximab; Saliva; Salivary Gland Diseases; Salivary Glands; Sjogren's Syndrome; Visual Analog Scale; Xerostomia
PubMed: 31140693
DOI: 10.1111/odi.13062 -
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 -
Autoimmunity Reviews May 2019Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is burdened by a significant increase in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Amongst CVD risk factors, endothelial dysfunction and arterial...
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is burdened by a significant increase in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Amongst CVD risk factors, endothelial dysfunction and arterial stiffness represent powerful predictors of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular events in the general population and in RA patients.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify the available data on the effect of non-TNF-targeted biologics licensed for the treatment of RA on endothelial function, arterial stiffness or subclinical atherosclerosis. MedLine (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Web of Science (WOS) databases were searched using a predefined strategy to identify relevant articles.
RESULTS
The search strategy initially retrieved 389 records. After screening titles and abstracts, a total of 362 studies were excluded. Amongst the remaining 27 studies selected for final examination, 16 articles were included in the systematic literature review. Included studies demonstrated a significant effect of abatacept, anakinra, rituximab and tocilizumab in improving endothelial dysfunction associated with RA; the effect on arterial stiffness was less consistent and deserves further investigation. No significant effect of non-TNF-targeted biologics was observed for measures of subclinical atherosclerosis.
CONCLUSION
Non-TNF-targeted biologics have been associated with favorable effects on endothelial dysfunction as already demonstrated for TNF inhibitors. Future studies are needed to ascertain the impact of this mediations on arterial stiffness in RA patients.
Topics: Abatacept; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Factors; Biological Products; Humans; Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein; Rituximab; Vascular Diseases
PubMed: 30844558
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2019.03.008