-
International Journal of Molecular... Oct 2020Psoriasis is an immune cell-mediated inflammatory skin disease. The interleukin (IL)23/IL17 axis plays an important role in the development of psoriasis. The... (Review)
Review
Psoriasis is an immune cell-mediated inflammatory skin disease. The interleukin (IL)23/IL17 axis plays an important role in the development of psoriasis. The effectiveness of biologic treatments such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α inhibitors (infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol), IL23 inhibitors (ustekinumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab), and IL17 inhibitors (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab) have verified these findings. Immune-related cells such as dendritic cells (DCs) and macrophages, in addition to Toll-like receptors and cytokines such as interferon (IFN)α, TNFα, IFNɤ, IL12, IL22, IL23, and IL17, are related to the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Here, we first review new insights regarding the pathogenesis of psoriasis, as it relates to DCs, Langerhans cells, macrophages, the signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 pathway, and aryl hydrocarbon receptor in cutaneous vascular endothelial cells. Based on these findings, we summarize currently available oral treatments and biologics. Furthermore, we describe a new treatment option including Janus kinase inhibitor, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, modulator of sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 1, and Rho-associated kinase 2 inhibitor.
Topics: Animals; Biomarkers; Dendritic Cells; Disease Management; Disease Susceptibility; Humans; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Psoriasis; Signal Transduction
PubMed: 33050592
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21207488 -
International Journal of Molecular... Mar 2021Tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) is a multifunctional Th1 cytokine and one of the most important inflammatory cytokines. In pregnancy, TNF-α influences hormone... (Review)
Review
Tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) is a multifunctional Th1 cytokine and one of the most important inflammatory cytokines. In pregnancy, TNF-α influences hormone synthesis, placental architecture, and embryonic development. It was also shown that increased levels of TNF-α are associated with pregnancy loss and preeclampsia. Increased TNF-α levels in complicated pregnancy draw attention to trophoblast biology, especially migratory activity, syncytialisation, and endocrine function. Additionally, elevated TNF-α levels may affect the maternal-fetal relationship by altering the secretory profile of placental immunomodulatory factors, which in turn affects maternal immune cells. There is growing evidence that metabolic/pro-inflammatory cytokines can program early placental functions and growth in the first trimester of pregnancy. Furthermore, early pregnancy placenta has a direct impact on fetal development and maternal immune system diseases that release inflammatory (e.g., TNF-α) and immunomodulatory factors, such as chronic inflammatory rheumatic, gastroenterological, or dermatological diseases, and may result in an abnormal release of cytokines and chemokines in syncytiotrophoblasts. Pregnancy poses a challenge in the treatment of chronic disease in patients who plan to have children. The activity of the disease, the impact of pregnancy on the course of the disease, and the safety of pharmacotherapy, including anti-rheumatic agents, in pregnancy should be considered.
Topics: Adalimumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Breast Feeding; Certolizumab Pegol; Etanercept; Female; Gastritis; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Infliximab; Parturition; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Th1-Th2 Balance; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 33805757
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22062922 -
Health Technology Assessment... Apr 2016Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both... (Review)
Review
Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only: systematic...
OBJECTIVES
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX).
DATA SOURCES
The following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs.
METHODS
Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
RESULTS
Sixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX.
CONCLUSIONS
bDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission).
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Abatacept; Adalimumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Certolizumab Pegol; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Etanercept; Humans; Infliximab; Methotrexate; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 27140438
DOI: 10.3310/hta20350 -
MAbs 2010Certolizumab pegol (Cimzia(®)) is currently the only PEGylated anti-TNFα biologic approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn disease. The product,... (Review)
Review
Certolizumab pegol (Cimzia(®)) is currently the only PEGylated anti-TNFα biologic approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn disease. The product, developed by UCB, is a humanized antigen-binding fragment (Fab') of a monoclonal antibody that has been conjugated to polyethylene glycol. Certolizumab pegol was approved as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in the EU, US and Canada in 2009, and as a treatment for Crohn disease in Switzerland in 2007 and the US in 2008. Certolizumab pegol is entering into an increasingly competitive marketplace, especially in rheumatoid arthritis, but clinical data demonstrate benefits across a range of clinical, radiographic and patient reported outcomes.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Canada; Certolizumab Pegol; Clinical Trials as Topic; Crohn Disease; Drug Approval; European Union; Humans; Immunoglobulin Fab Fragments; Immunotherapy; Marketing; Polyethylene Glycols; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; United States
PubMed: 20190560
DOI: 10.4161/mabs.2.2.11271 -
Postepy Dermatologii I Alergologii Dec 2020Information on the possibility of using biological drugs in psoriasis patients planning to conceive, patients who are pregnant or during lactation is limited. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Information on the possibility of using biological drugs in psoriasis patients planning to conceive, patients who are pregnant or during lactation is limited.
AIM
Presenting recommendations published in clinical guidelines regarding the use of biological drugs - adalimumab, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab, by psoriasis patients in the period of planning pregnancy, during pregnancy or during lactation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The paper was based on a comprehensive review of over 40 websites of HTA agencies, dermatological associations worldwide and medical databases (PubMed, Embase), the objective of which was to identify clinical guidelines relating to biological treatment of women of childbearing potential, published after 2018, which used GRADE - a system for rating the quality of a body of evidence.
FINDINGS
Certolizumab pegol is recommended in women who are planning to conceive. Furthermore, guidelines indicate other TNF-α inhibitors as possible treatment. Certolizumab pegol is also recommended as first-line treatment in pregnant patients. Furthermore, for trimesters 2 and 3, guidelines allow using other TNF-α inhibitors. Treatment with secukinumab and ustekinumab should be discontinued when planning pregnancy or when pregnancy was diagnosed. Biological treatment during pregnancy and lactation (continuation or initiation of treatment) can be used only after an analysis of risks and benefits has been conducted.
CONCLUSIONS
TNF-α inhibitors seem to be the safest and most researched biological drugs used in psoriasis treatment of patients planning to conceive, during pregnancy or lactation. Given its non-existent or minimal placental permeability, most likely the safest alternative is certolizumab pegol.
PubMed: 33603597
DOI: 10.5114/ada.2020.102089 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Dec 2020To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis: phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.
DESIGN
Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study.
SETTING
Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein.
INTERVENTIONS
Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms.
RESULTS
812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms.
CONCLUSIONS
All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
EudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815.
Topics: Abatacept; Adult; Aged; Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibodies; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; C-Reactive Protein; Certolizumab Pegol; Denmark; Drug Therapy, Combination; Early Medical Intervention; Female; Finland; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Injections, Intra-Articular; Male; Methotrexate; Middle Aged; Netherlands; Norway; Prednisolone; Rheumatoid Factor; Severity of Illness Index; Single-Blind Method; Sulfasalazine; Sweden; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33268527
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m4328 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2011Biologics are used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many other conditions. While the efficacy of biologics has been established, there is uncertainty... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Biologics are used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many other conditions. While the efficacy of biologics has been established, there is uncertainty regarding the adverse effects of this treatment. Since serious risks such as tuberculosis (TB) reactivation, serious infections, and lymphomas may be common to the biologics but occur in small numbers across the various indications, we planned to combine the results from biologics used in many conditions to obtain the much needed risk estimates.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the adverse effects of tumor necrosis factor blocker (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab), interleukin (IL)-1 antagonist (anakinra), IL-6 antagonist (tocilizumab), anti-CD28 (abatacept), and anti-B cell (rituximab) therapy in patients with any disease condition except human immunodeficiency disease (HIV/AIDS).
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and open-label extension (OLE) studies that studied one of the nine biologics for use in any indication (with the exception of HIV/AIDS) and that reported our pre-specified adverse outcomes were considered for inclusion. We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (to January 2010). Identifying search results and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. For the network meta-analysis, we performed mixed-effects logistic regression using an arm-based, random-effects model within an empirical Bayes framework.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 163 RCTs with 50,010 participants and 46 extension studies with 11,954 participants. The median duration of RCTs was six months and 13 months for OLEs. Data were limited for tuberculosis (TB) reactivation, lymphoma, and congestive heart failure. Adjusted for dose, biologics as a group were associated with a statistically significant higher rate of total adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 30, 95% CI 21 to 60) and withdrawals due to adverse events (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.64; NNTH = 37, 95% CI 19 to 190) and an increased risk of TB reactivation (OR 4.68, 95% CI 1.18 to 18.60; NNTH = 681, 95% CI 143 to 14706) compared to control.The rate of serious adverse events, serious infections, lymphoma, and congestive heart failure were not statistically significantly different between biologics and control treatment. Certolizumab pegol was associated with significantly higher risk of serious infections compared to control treatment (OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.59 to 7.79; NNTH = 17, 95% CI 7 to 68). Infliximab was associated with significantly higher risk of withdrawals due to adverse events compared to control (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.91; NNTH = 12, 95% CI 8 to 28). Indirect comparisons revealed that abatacept and anakinra were associated with a significantly lower risk of serious adverse events compared to most other biologics. Although the overall numbers are relatively small, certolizumab pegol was associated with significantly higher odds of serious infections compared to etanercept, adalimumab, abatacept, anakinra, golimumab, infliximab, and rituximab; abatacept was significantly less likely than infliximab and tocilizumab to be associated with serious infections. Abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and golimumab were significantly less likely than infliximab to result in withdrawals due to adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, in the short term biologics were associated with significantly higher rates of total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and TB reactivation. Some biologics had a statistically higher association with certain adverse outcomes compared to control, but there was no consistency across the outcomes so caution is needed in interpreting these results.There is an urgent need for more research regarding the long-term safety of biologics and the comparative safety of different biologics. National and international registries and other types of large databases are relevant sources for providing complementary evidence regarding the short- and longer-term safety of biologics.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Biological Products; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 21328309
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008794.pub2