-
Pediatric Rheumatology Online Journal Mar 2021Biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors are prescribed in adult and paediatric rheumatology. Due to age-dependent...
Biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs and Janus kinase inhibitors in paediatric rheumatology - what we know and what we do not know from randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors are prescribed in adult and paediatric rheumatology. Due to age-dependent changes, disease course, and pharmacokinetic processes paediatric patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (PiRD) differ from adult rheumatology patients.
METHODS
A systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in PiRD treated with bDMARDs/JAK inhibitors was conducted on Medline, clinicaltrials.gov , clinicaltrialsregister.eu and conference abstracts as of July 2020. RCTs were included if (i) patients were aged ≤20 years, (ii) patients had a predefined rheumatic diagnosis and (iii) RCT reported predefined outcomes. Selected studies were excluded in case of (i) observational or single arm study or (ii) sample size ≤5 patients. Study characteristics were extracted.
RESULTS
Out of 608 screened references, 65 references were selected, reporting 35 unique RCTs. All 35 RCTs reported efficacy while 34/3 provided safety outcomes and 16/35 provided pharmacokinetic data. The most common investigated treatments were TNF inhibitors (60%), IL-1 inhibitors (17%) and IL-6 inhibitors (9%). No RCTs with published results were identified for baricitinib, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, guselkumab, risankizumab, rituximab, sarilumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab, or upadacitinib. In patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) 25/35 RCTs were conducted. The remaining 10 RCTs were performed in non-JIA patients including plaque psoriasis, Kawasaki Disease, systemic lupus erythematosus and non-infectious uveitis. In JIA-RCTs, the control arm was mainly placebo and the concomitant treatments were either methotrexate, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) or corticosteroids. Non-JIA patients mostly received NSAID. There are ongoing trials investigating abatacept, adalimumab, baricitinib, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, guselkumab, infliximab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tofacitinib and tildrakizumab.
CONCLUSION
Despite the FDA Modernization Act and support of major paediatric rheumatology networks, such as the Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group (PRCSG) and the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO), which resulted in drug approval for PiRD indications, there are limited RCTs in PiRD patients. As therapy response is influenced by age-dependent changes, pharmacokinetic processes and disease course it is important to consider developmental changes in bDMARDs/JAK inhibitor use in PiRD patients. As such it is critical to collaborate and conduct international RCTs to appropriately investigate and characterize efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of bDMARDs/JAK inhibitors in paediatric rheumatology.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Child; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rheumatic Diseases
PubMed: 33766063
DOI: 10.1186/s12969-021-00514-4 -
Joint Bone Spine Jul 2021To explore current evidence on the management of poor prognostic factors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to investigate whether this evidence is taken into account by...
OBJECTIVES
To explore current evidence on the management of poor prognostic factors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to investigate whether this evidence is taken into account by clinicians when deciding on treatment in daily clinical practice.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) to analyse the effects of currently available biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) on the classically accepted poor prognostic factors of RA. All randomized controlled trials reporting subgroup analyses about effects on prognostic factors were identified and synthesized. In a second phase, a two-round Delphi survey was carried out to contrast the SLR results with the grade of agreement of a large group of rheumatologists about the effectiveness of each drug class on each prognostic factor.
RESULTS
According to the Delphi results, the only prognostic factor that significantly influenced the selection of treatment was the presence of interstitial lung disease (ILD), being the preferred treatment in this scenario abatacept or rituximab. The rest of the poor prognostic factors (including high disease activity at baseline, disability as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire index, seropositivity, elevated acute-phase reactants, and evidence of erosions based on plain radiography or ultrasonography) did not seem to significantly influence rheumatologists when choosing a treatment. The results of the SLR results did not show solid evidence regarding the use of any specific therapy in the management of patients with specific poor factors, except in the case of RA-ILD, although the data in the literature in this regard are not free of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
The only prognostic factor that seems to significantly influence the selection of treatment is the presence of RA-ILD.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Prescriptions; Prognosis; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 33689842
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2021.105172 -
BioDrugs : Clinical Immunotherapeutics,... Mar 2021Our objective was to update the understanding of the development of paradoxical immune-mediated glomerular disorders (IGDs) in patients with rheumatic diseases treated...
OBJECTIVE
Our objective was to update the understanding of the development of paradoxical immune-mediated glomerular disorders (IGDs) in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with biologics and targeted synthetic drugs (ts-drugs).
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed by searching PubMed for articles published between 1 January 2014 and 1 January 2020 reporting on the development of IGD in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who were receiving biologics or ts-drugs. IGDs were classified on the basis of clinical, laboratory and histopathological data as (1) glomerulonephritis associated with systemic vasculitis (GNSV), (2) isolated autoimmune renal disorder (IARD) or (3) glomerulonephritis in SLE and in lupus-like syndrome (GNLS). The World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) system for standardized case causality assessment was applied to evaluate the causal relationship between IGD and specific drugs. The classification was based on a six-category scale, where the "certain" and "probable" categories were deemed clinically relevant relationships.
RESULTS
The literature search retrieved 875 articles. Of these, 16 articles reported IGD data, for a total of 25 cases. According to the WHO-UMC assessment, the strength of the causal relationship between IGDs and investigated drugs was higher for anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents (a clinically relevant relationship was found in four of six cases), abatacept (one of two cases), tocilizumab (two cases), ustekinumab (one case) and tofacitinib (one case) than for rituximab (nine cases), belimumab (three cases) or secukinumab (one case), which showed a weak causal relationship with these paradoxical events. No cases associated with apremilast or baricitinib were found. The retrieved cases were classified as 11 GNLS, seven IARD and seven GNSV.
CONCLUSIONS
Biologics and ts-drugs can cause IGDs. These events are rare, and the causative effect of a specific drug is hard to establish. When a patient is suspected of having an IGD, the drug should be discontinued, and treatment for the new-onset renal disorder should be promptly started.
Topics: Abatacept; Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Humans; Synthetic Drugs
PubMed: 33595833
DOI: 10.1007/s40259-021-00467-w -
European Review For Medical and... Jan 2021We aimed to systematically review biological agents' efficacy and safety in patients with Takayasu arteritis (TAK). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to systematically review biological agents' efficacy and safety in patients with Takayasu arteritis (TAK).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search of 7 electronic databases, including MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Elsevier ScienceDirect, EBSCO, Springer Link, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library on the efficacy of biological agents on patients with TAK was conducted. Only studies published in English and with a sample size >5 patients with TAK were included. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed its methodological quality. Random effects meta-analyses of various effect measures were performed.
RESULTS
According to the title and abstract, 961 studies were identified and screened. Subsequently, 31 studies from 29 observational studies and 2 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), which included a total of 517 patients with TAK that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, were selected. Observational studies showed a high risk of bias. Pooled remission rates of biological agents were 66% (95% CI: 58%-73%; I2=59%), and the remission rates of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents and tocilizumab (TCZ) were similar: 65% (95% CI: 56%-73%; I2=49%) and 70% (95% CI: 55%-86%; I2=69%), respectively. Pooled relapse rates were 23% (95% CI: 15%-31%; I2=66%). The relapse rate was 28% (95% CI: 16%-40%; I2=68%) for anti-TNF agents and 17% (95% CI: 7%-26%; I2=49%) for TCZ. The remission rate of TCZ was slightly higher (p>0.05), but the relapse rate was statistically significantly lower than that of anti-TNF agents (p=0.017). Furthermore, biological agents significantly decreased the doses of glucocorticoid (GC) and levels of acute phase inflammation markers (ESR, CRP) while the proportion of patients with new angiographic lesions or progression of previously noted lesions were 11% (95% CI: 4%-18%; I2=59%). RCTs with a small sample size showed abatacept was ineffective, and TCZ was underpowered to detect a difference in time to relapse compared to placebo. The most common adverse event of biological agents was infection (6%, 95%CI: 2%-10%). No deaths were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the beneficial effects of biological agents are encouraging in enhancing disease remission, reducing the levels of acute phase inflammation markers and decreasing the treatment doses of GC in patients with TAK, there is still a risk of relapse. More refined studies with larger cohorts are necessary before drawing a definitive opinion.
Topics: Biological Factors; Humans; Takayasu Arteritis
PubMed: 33506914
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202101_24391 -
BMC Rheumatology 2020Dose loading of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in auto-immune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) is performed to achieve steady state drug...
The pharmacological and clinical aspects behind dose loading of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in auto-immune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs): rationale and systematic narrative review of clinical evidence.
BACKGROUND
Dose loading of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in auto-immune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) is performed to achieve steady state drug concentrations earlier after treatment start compared to dosing regimens without loading. Although loading inherently results in increased costs, treatment targets in terms of reduced disease activity may be achieved at an earlier state. It is an interesting topic that, surprisingly, has not received much attention in literature.
METHODS
In this review, we aimed at providing a theoretical description of the pharmacodynamic / -kinetic rationale for dose loading of bDMARDs in AIRDs and to systematically review the clinical evidence on the effectiveness of dose loading on disease activity in AIRDs.
RESULTS
Only a small number of studies ( = 5) has been published comparing the effectiveness of dose loading versus a regimen without dose loading of bDMARDs in AIRDs, addressing abatacept ( = 2), certolizumab pegol ( = 1), and secukinumab (n = 2). These studies provide insufficient evidence on superiority of dose loading in terms of disease activity compared to a dosing regimen without loading, while safety issues might be comparable.
CONCLUSIONS
Although dose loading is commonly adopted for several bDMARDs in AIRDs, scientific evidence on its effectiveness and safety is surprisingly scarce and does not suggest superiority compared to a regimen without dose loading. More research in this field, also with regard to the pharmaco-economic consequences of dose loading, is urgently needed.
PubMed: 32743343
DOI: 10.1186/s41927-020-00130-x -
Reumatologia Clinica Jun 2020To review the available evidence on the impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments in associated diffuse interstitial lung disease (ILD).
OBJECTIVE
To review the available evidence on the impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments in associated diffuse interstitial lung disease (ILD).
METHODS
Systematic review of studies evaluating the impact of pharmacological treatment in patients with RA and ILD. A bibliographic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane, a selection of articles and the methodological quality assessment (FLC 3.0 OSTEBA) and grading of the level of evidence (SING) of the selected articles were performed.
RESULTS
1,720 references were identified in primary search and 7 in manual or indirect. Forty-three articles were included: 7 systematic reviews, 2 randomized clinical trials, 5 cohort studies, 8 case-control studies and 21 case series. Methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide (LEF) do not increase incidence, complications or mortality due to ILD. Although the results are not uniform, anti-TNF have often had worse outcomes in incidence, progression and mortality due to ILD than MTX, LEF, abatacept (ABA) and rituximab (RTX). The evidence found is scarce for JAK kinase and antifibrotic inhibitors, and controversial for IL-6 inhibitors.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence that MTX or LEF worsens the prognosis of patients with AR-EPID. RTX and ABA seem to have better results than other biologicals, such as anti-TNF, often achieving stabilization and, in some cases, the improvement of ILD in patients with RA.
PubMed: 32571732
DOI: 10.1016/j.reuma.2020.04.015 -
JAMA Dermatology Jul 2020Biologic therapies are widely prescribed immunomodulatory agents. There are concerns that compared with treatment with conventional systemic therapy, long-term biologic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Biologic therapies are widely prescribed immunomodulatory agents. There are concerns that compared with treatment with conventional systemic therapy, long-term biologic treatment for common immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, namely inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and psoriasis, may be associated with increased risk of melanoma.
OBJECTIVE
To examine whether biologic treatment of IBD, RA, or psoriasis is associated with an increased risk of melanoma compared with conventional systemic therapy.
DATA SOURCES
Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for articles published from January 1, 1995, to February 7, 2019, for eligible studies.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and nested case-control studies quantifying the risk of melanoma in biologic-treated patients with IBD, RA, and psoriasis compared with patients treated with conventional systemic therapy were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted key study characteristics and outcomes. Study-specific risk estimates were pooled, and random- and fixed-effects model meta-analyses were conducted. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines were followed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The pooled relative risk (pRR) of melanoma in biologic-treated patients with IBD, RA, and psoriasis compared with biologic-naive patients treated with conventional systemic therapy.
RESULTS
Seven cohort studies comprising 34 029 biologic-treated patients and 135 370 biologic-naive patients treated with conventional systemic therapy were eligible for inclusion. Biologic treatment was positively associated with melanoma in patients with IBD (pRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.60-2.40), RA (pRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.83-1.74), or psoriasis (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.61-4.09) compared with those who received conventional systemic therapy, but the differences were not statistically significant. Adjustment for other risk factors was absent from most studies.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings suggest that clinically important increases in melanoma risk in patients treated with biologic therapy for common inflammatory diseases cannot be ruled out based on current evidence. However, further studies with large patient numbers that adjust for key risk factors are needed to resolve the issue of long-term safety of biologic therapy.
Topics: Abatacept; Adalimumab; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Etanercept; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Infliximab; Melanoma; Psoriasis; Risk Factors; Rituximab; Skin Neoplasms; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors
PubMed: 32432649
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1300 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jun 2020To perform an update of a review of the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
Pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature research for the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis.
OBJECTIVE
To perform an update of a review of the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
METHODS
This is a systematic literature research of 2015-2018 publications on all DMARDs in patients with PsA, searching Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Efficacy was assessed in randomised controlled trials. For safety, cohort studies, case-control studies and long-term extensions (LTEs) were analysed.
RESULTS
56 publications (efficacy: n=33; safety n=23) were analysed. The articles were on tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (n=6; golimumab, etanercept and biosimilars), interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitors (n=10; ixekizumab, secukinumab), IL-23-p19 inhibitors (n=2; guselkumab, risankizumab), clazakizumab (IL-6 inhibitor), abatacept (CD80/86 inhibitor) and ABT-122 (anti-TNF/IL-17A), respectively. One study compared ustekinumab (IL-12/23i) with TNF inhibitor therapy in patients with entheseal disease. Three articles investigated DMARD tapering. Trials on targeted synthetic DMARDs investigated apremilast (phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi; tofacitinib, filgotinib). Biosimilar comparison with bio-originator showed non-inferiority. Safety was evaluated in 13 LTEs, 9 cohort studies and 1 case-control study investigating malignancies, infections, infusion reactions, multiple sclerosis and major cardiovascular events, as well as efficacy and safety of vaccination. No new safety signals were identified; however, warnings on the risk of venous thromboembolic events including pulmonary embolism when using JAKi were issued by regulators based on other studies.
CONCLUSION
Many drugs in PsA are available and have demonstrated efficacy against placebo. Efficacy varies across PsA manifestations. Safety must also be taken into account. This review informed the development of the European League Against Rheumatism 2019 updated PsA management recommendations.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Biological Products; Humans; Interleukin-17; Interleukin-23 Subunit p19; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Synthetic Drugs; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 32381564
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217163 -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2020This systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) was aimed at comparing the relative efficacy and safety of abatacept (ABA) with other currently... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) was aimed at comparing the relative efficacy and safety of abatacept (ABA) with other currently recommended therapies for patients with early RA.
METHODS
An SLR (January 1998 to June 2018) was conducted including MEDLINE®, Embase, and CENTRAL databases, and grey literature. Population was adults with active RA for ≤2 years treated with biologic DMARDs as monotherapy or in combination with conventional DMARDs. A Bayesian NMA was performed using randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparisons for ACR50, DAS28 remission, withdrawal due to adverse events and total withdrawal where reported.
RESULTS
Ninety publications pertaining to 69 studies (43 RCTs and 26 observational studies) were identified. Twenty-eight RCTs were eligible to be included in the NMA. ABA as monotherapy was similar to the combination of ABA+methotrexate (MTX) for ACR50 (RR: 0.82 [95% CI 0.51-1.35]), and DAS28 remission (RR: 0.69 [95% CI 0.37-1.3]), as well as for withdrawal due to AEs (RR: 2.35 [95% CI 0.69-7.38]) and all-cause withdrawal (RR: 1.73 [95% CI 0.905-3.35]). ABA as monotherapy and ABA+MTX were both comparable to all other therapies for the main efficacy and safety outcomes. Observational study data reported was congruous with the RCT analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this NMA show similar efficacy and safety between ABA (as monotherapy or in combination with MTX) and other biologics in early RA. Further comparison of different treatment options for early RA is warranted as growing research provides evidence for the application of new novel therapies for RA.
Topics: Abatacept; Adult; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Methotrexate; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 32301430
DOI: No ID Found -
RMD Open Feb 2020Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs are used in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but few studies directly... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs are used in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but few studies directly compare their clinical efficacy. In such situations, network meta-analysis (NMA) can inform evidence-based decision-making.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of approved bDMARDs in patients with PsA.
METHODS
Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of bDMARDs at weeks 12‒16 in bDMARD-naïve patients with PsA in terms of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). Safety end points were evaluated in the overall mixed population of bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-experienced patients.
RESULTS
For ACR, all treatments except abatacept were statistically superior to placebo. Infliximab was most effective, followed by golimumab and etanercept, which were statistically superior to most other treatments. Ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) was statistically superior to abatacept subcutaneous, apremilast and both regimens of ustekinumab; similar findings were observed for ixekizumab 80 mg Q4W. For PsARC response, ixekizumab did not significantly differ from other therapies, except for golimumab, infliximab and etanercept, which were superior to most other agents including ixekizumab. For PASI response, infliximab was numerically most effective, but was not statistically superior to ixekizumab, which was the next best performing agent. Analysis of safety end points identified few differences between treatments.
CONCLUSION
Our NMA confirms the efficacy and acceptable safety profile of bDMARDs in patients with active PsA. There were generally few statistically significant differences between most treatments.
Topics: Abatacept; Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Biological Products; Clinical Decision-Making; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Interleukin-17; Network Meta-Analysis; Placebos; Safety; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32094304
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-001117