1
|
Sapart E, Sokolova T, de Montjoye S, Dierckx S, Nzeusseu A, Avramovska A, Meric de Bellefon L, Durez P. Should We Use bDMARDs as an Induction Therapy in Early and Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis? Results at 5 years from the ERA UCLouvain Brussels Cohort. Rheumatol Ther 2023; 10:875-886. [PMID: 37183237 PMCID: PMC10326217 DOI: 10.1007/s40744-023-00551-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2022] [Accepted: 04/11/2023] [Indexed: 05/16/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This study sought to analyze the benefit of an early induction therapy with a biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD) during the first year of treatment with a 5-year follow-up in early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA). METHODS We included ERA patients from the UCLouvain Brussels cohort who met the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2010 classification criteria and were naïve to DMARDs. ERA patients were divided into two groups according to whether they received an induction bDMARD therapy or a standard therapy with methotrexate (MTX). Clinical response after the induction treatment at 6 and 12 months followed by a MTX maintenance therapy at 36 and 60 months was evaluated. RESULTS Data from 470 ERA patients were collected, 189 received a bDMARD and 281 initiated MTX alone. In the bDMARD group, disease activity and HAQ were higher at baseline. A total of 391 patients were followed up to 5 years. We then divided each group into two subgroups according to the last treatment they received at 5 years: bDMARD > MTX (n = 95), bDMARD > bDMARD (n = 59); MTX > MTX (n = 134), MTX > bDMARD (n = 103). During the induction, we observed a clinical response with a large number of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission. According to a treat-to-target (T2T) approach, remission rate was stable on MTX monotherapy or rescued by the addition or prolongation of a bDMARD. Interestingly, bDMARD followed by a MTX maintenance therapy experienced a stable and sustained DAS28-CRP remission rate in 53% of the ERA patients at year 5. CONCLUSIONS Long-term remission is an achievable goal in ERA. Our results suggest that a bDMARD induction therapy followed by MTX maintenance therapy could be an interesting option.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sapart
- Department of Rheumatology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), 10, Avenue Hippocrate, 1200, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Tatiana Sokolova
- Department of Rheumatology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), 10, Avenue Hippocrate, 1200, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Stéphanie de Montjoye
- Department of Rheumatology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), 10, Avenue Hippocrate, 1200, Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Adrien Nzeusseu
- Department of Rheumatology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), 10, Avenue Hippocrate, 1200, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Aleksandra Avramovska
- Department of Rheumatology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), 10, Avenue Hippocrate, 1200, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Laurent Meric de Bellefon
- Department of Rheumatology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), 10, Avenue Hippocrate, 1200, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Patrick Durez
- Department of Rheumatology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), 10, Avenue Hippocrate, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Narváez J, Otón T, Calvo-Alén J, Escudero-Contreras A, Muñoz-Fernández S, Rodríguez-Heredia JM, Romero-Yuste S, Vela-Casasempere P, Luján S, Baquero JL, Carmona L. Influence of prognosis factors on the prescription of targeted treatments in rheumatoid arthritis: A Delphi survey. Joint Bone Spine 2021; 88:105172. [PMID: 33689842 DOI: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2021.105172] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2021] [Accepted: 02/17/2021] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Teresa Otón
- Instituto de Salud Musculoesquelética (InMusc), Calle Ofelia Nieto, 10, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Alejandro Escudero-Contreras
- Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía, Instituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba (IMIBIC), Universidad de Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | - Sara Luján
- Medical Department, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Loreto Carmona
- Instituto de Salud Musculoesquelética (InMusc), Calle Ofelia Nieto, 10, Madrid, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Archer R, Hock E, Hamilton J, Stevens J, Essat M, Poku E, Clowes M, Pandor A, Stevenson M. Assessing prognosis and prediction of treatment response in early rheumatoid arthritis: systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess 2019; 22:1-294. [PMID: 30501821 DOI: 10.3310/hta22660] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, debilitating disease associated with reduced quality of life and substantial costs. It is unclear which tests and assessment tools allow the best assessment of prognosis in people with early RA and whether or not variables predict the response of patients to different drug treatments. OBJECTIVE To systematically review evidence on the use of selected tests and assessment tools in patients with early RA (1) in the evaluation of a prognosis (review 1) and (2) as predictive markers of treatment response (review 2). DATA SOURCES Electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science Conference Proceedings; searched to September 2016), registers, key websites, hand-searching of reference lists of included studies and key systematic reviews and contact with experts. STUDY SELECTION Review 1 - primary studies on the development, external validation and impact of clinical prediction models for selected outcomes in adult early RA patients. Review 2 - primary studies on the interaction between selected baseline covariates and treatment (conventional and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) on salient outcomes in adult early RA patients. RESULTS Review 1 - 22 model development studies and one combined model development/external validation study reporting 39 clinical prediction models were included. Five external validation studies evaluating eight clinical prediction models for radiographic joint damage were also included. c-statistics from internal validation ranged from 0.63 to 0.87 for radiographic progression (different definitions, six studies) and 0.78 to 0.82 for the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Predictive performance in external validations varied considerably. Three models [(1) Active controlled Study of Patients receiving Infliximab for the treatment of Rheumatoid arthritis of Early onset (ASPIRE) C-reactive protein (ASPIRE CRP), (2) ASPIRE erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASPIRE ESR) and (3) Behandelings Strategie (BeSt)] were externally validated using the same outcome definition in more than one population. Results of the random-effects meta-analysis suggested substantial uncertainty in the expected predictive performance of models in a new sample of patients. Review 2 - 12 studies were identified. Covariates examined included anti-citrullinated protein/peptide anti-body (ACPA) status, smoking status, erosions, rheumatoid factor status, C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, swollen joint count (SJC), body mass index and vascularity of synovium on power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS). Outcomes examined included erosions/radiographic progression, disease activity, physical function and Disease Activity Score-28 remission. There was statistical evidence to suggest that ACPA status, SJC and PDUS status at baseline may be treatment effect modifiers, but not necessarily that they are prognostic of response for all treatments. Most of the results were subject to considerable uncertainty and were not statistically significant. LIMITATIONS The meta-analysis in review 1 was limited by the availability of only a small number of external validation studies. Studies rarely investigated the interaction between predictors and treatment. SUGGESTED RESEARCH PRIORITIES Collaborative research (including the use of individual participant data) is needed to further develop and externally validate the clinical prediction models. The clinical prediction models should be validated with respect to individual treatments. Future assessments of treatment by covariate interactions should follow good statistical practice. CONCLUSIONS Review 1 - uncertainty remains over the optimal prediction model(s) for use in clinical practice. Review 2 - in general, there was insufficient evidence that the effect of treatment depended on baseline characteristics. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042402. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Archer
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Emma Hock
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Jean Hamilton
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - John Stevens
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Munira Essat
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Edith Poku
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Mark Clowes
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Abdullah Pandor
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Matt Stevenson
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
Golimumab (Simponi®), a fully human monoclonal antibody against tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα), is given once monthly by subcutaneous injection. In the EU, golimumab is approved as monotherapy and/or in combination with methotrexate for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis [comprising ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA)] in adults, and polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) in children. These approvals were based on the observations that golimumab was generally well tolerated and conferred some or all of the following benefits in pivotal studies in these settings: reduced signs and symptoms of arthritis; improved physical functioning and health-related quality of life; and slowed radiographic progression. Of note, data from long-term extensions (LTEs) of pivotal studies in RA, PsA and AS have confirmed that the safety and efficacy of golimumab are sustained through 5 years of treatment; the long-term tolerability profile of the drug is similar to that of other TNFα inhibitors (TNFis). Like other subcutaneous TNFis, golimumab offers patients the convenience and flexibility of home-based self-injection, although it has the added potential advantage of requiring less frequent administration, in particular compared with older, first generation agents, such as etanercept and adalimumab. Thus, golimumab is an effective, generally well tolerated and potentially convenient option for the treatment of RA, PsA, AS and nr-axSpA in adults, and pJIA in children.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James E Frampton
- Springer, Private Bag 65901, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, 0754, New Zealand.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Singh JA, Hossain A, Mudano AS, Tanjong Ghogomu E, Suarez‐Almazor ME, Buchbinder R, Maxwell LJ, Tugwell P, Wells GA. Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 5:CD012657. [PMID: 28481462 PMCID: PMC6481641 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012657] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jasvinder A Singh
- Birmingham VA Medical CenterDepartment of MedicineFaculty Office Tower 805B510 20th Street SouthBirminghamALUSA35294
| | - Alomgir Hossain
- University of Ottawa Heart InstituteCardiovascular Research Methods Centre40 Ruskin StreetRoom H‐2265OttawaONCanadaK1Y 4W7
| | - Amy S Mudano
- University of Alabama at BirminghamDepartment of Medicine ‐ RheumatologyBirminghamUSA
| | | | - Maria E Suarez‐Almazor
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer CenterDepartment of General Internal Medicine1515 Holcombe BlvdUnit 1465HoustonTexasUSA77030
| | - Rachelle Buchbinder
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityMonash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini HospitalSuite 41, Cabrini Medical Centre183 Wattletree RoadMalvernVictoriaAustralia3144
| | - Lara J Maxwell
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), The Ottawa Hospital ‐ General CampusCentre for Practice‐Changing Research (CPCR)501 Smyth Road, Box 711OttawaONCanadaK1H 8L6
| | - Peter Tugwell
- Faculty of Medicine, University of OttawaDepartment of MedicineOttawaONCanadaK1H 8M5
| | - George A Wells
- University of OttawaDepartment of Epidemiology and Community MedicineRoom H128140 Ruskin StreetOttawaONCanadaK1Y 4W7
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Singh JA, Hossain A, Tanjong Ghogomu E, Mudano AS, Maxwell LJ, Buchbinder R, Lopez‐Olivo MA, Suarez‐Almazor ME, Tugwell P, Wells GA. Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 3:CD012591. [PMID: 28282491 PMCID: PMC6472522 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012591] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jasvinder A Singh
- Birmingham VA Medical CenterDepartment of MedicineFaculty Office Tower 805B510 20th Street SouthBirminghamALUSA35294
| | - Alomgir Hossain
- University of Ottawa Heart InstituteCardiovascular Research Methods Centre40 Ruskin StreetRoom H‐2265OttawaONCanadaK1Y 4W7
| | | | - Amy S Mudano
- University of Alabama at BirminghamDepartment of Medicine ‐ RheumatologyBirminghamUSA
| | - Lara J Maxwell
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), The Ottawa Hospital ‐ General CampusCentre for Practice‐Changing Research (CPCR)501 Smyth Road, Box 711OttawaONCanadaK1H 8L6
| | - Rachelle Buchbinder
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityMonash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini HospitalSuite 41, Cabrini Medical Centre183 Wattletree RoadMalvernVictoriaAustralia3144
| | - Maria Angeles Lopez‐Olivo
- The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterDepartment of General Internal Medicine1515 Holcombe BlvdUnit 1465HoustonTexasUSA77030
| | - Maria E Suarez‐Almazor
- The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterDepartment of General Internal Medicine1515 Holcombe BlvdUnit 1465HoustonTexasUSA77030
| | - Peter Tugwell
- Faculty of Medicine, University of OttawaDepartment of MedicineOttawaONCanadaK1H 8M5
| | - George A Wells
- University of OttawaDepartment of Epidemiology and Community MedicineRoom H128140 Ruskin StreetOttawaONCanadaK1Y 4W7
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Singh JA, Hossain A, Tanjong Ghogomu E, Mudano AS, Tugwell P, Wells GA. Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 11:CD012437. [PMID: 27855242 PMCID: PMC6469573 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012437] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced). OBJECTIVES To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced. METHODS We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). MAIN RESULTS This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jasvinder A Singh
- Birmingham VA Medical CenterDepartment of MedicineFaculty Office Tower 805B510 20th Street SouthBirminghamALUSA35294
| | - Alomgir Hossain
- University of Ottawa Heart InstituteCardiovascular Research Methods Centre40 Ruskin StreetRoom H‐2265OttawaONCanadaK1Y 4W7
| | | | - Amy S Mudano
- University of Alabama at BirminghamDepartment of Medicine ‐ RheumatologyBirminghamUSA
| | - Peter Tugwell
- Faculty of Medicine, University of OttawaDepartment of MedicineOttawaONCanadaK1H 8M5
| | - George A Wells
- University of OttawaDepartment of Epidemiology and Community MedicineRoom H128140 Ruskin StreetOttawaONCanadaK1Y 4W7
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Singh JA, Hossain A, Tanjong Ghogomu E, Kotb A, Christensen R, Mudano AS, Maxwell LJ, Shah NP, Tugwell P, Wells GA. Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2016:CD012183. [PMID: 27175934 PMCID: PMC7068903 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012183] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). OBJECTIVES To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR). METHODS We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation. MAIN RESULTS This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jasvinder A Singh
- Birmingham VA Medical CenterDepartment of MedicineFaculty Office Tower 805B510 20th Street SouthBirminghamALUSA35294
| | - Alomgir Hossain
- University of Ottawa Heart InstituteCardiovascular Research Methods Centre40 Ruskin StreetRoom H‐2265OttawaONCanadaK1Y 4W7
| | | | - Ahmed Kotb
- University of Ottawa Heart InstituteCardiovascular Research Methods Centre40 Ruskin StreetRoom H‐2265OttawaONCanadaK1Y 4W7
| | - Robin Christensen
- Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg og FrederiksbergMusculoskeletal Statistics Unit, The Parker InstituteNordre Fasanvej 57CopenhagenDenmarkDK‐2000
| | - Amy S Mudano
- University of Alabama at BirminghamDepartment of Medicine ‐ RheumatologyBirminghamUSA
| | - Lara J Maxwell
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), The Ottawa Hospital ‐ General CampusCentre for Practice‐Changing Research (CPCR)501 Smyth Road, Box 711OttawaONCanadaK1H 8L6
| | - Nipam P Shah
- University of Alabama at BirminghamDepartment of Clinical Immunology and RheumatologyFaculty Office Tower, Suite 805, 510 20th Street SouthBirminghamALUSA35294
| | - Peter Tugwell
- Faculty of Medicine, University of OttawaDepartment of MedicineOttawaONCanadaK1H 8M5
| | - George A Wells
- University of OttawaDepartment of Epidemiology and Community MedicineRoom H128140 Ruskin StreetOttawaONCanadaK1Y 4W7
| | | |
Collapse
|