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)

被引:31
|
作者
Singh, Jasvinder A. [1 ]
Hossain, Alomgir [2 ]
Ghogomu, Elizabeth Tanjong [3 ]
Mudano, Amy S. [4 ]
Tugwella, Peter [5 ]
Wellsb, George A. [6 ]
机构
[1] Birmingham VA Med Ctr, Dept Med, Fac Off Tower 805B,510 20th St South, Birmingham, AL 35294 USA
[2] Univ Ottawa, Inst Heart, Cardiovasc Res Methods Ctr, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Ottawa, Bruyere Res Inst, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Alabama Birmingham, Dept Med Rheumatol, Birmingham, AL USA
[5] Univ Ottawa, Fac Med, Dept Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[6] Univ Ottawa, Dept Epidemiol & Community Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
关键词
ANTITUMOR NECROSIS FACTOR; RANDOMIZED-CONTROLLED-TRIAL; PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL; ADALIMUMAB PLUS METHOTREXATE; ALPHA MONOCLONAL-ANTIBODY; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; RECEIVING CONCOMITANT METHOTREXATE; INTERLEUKIN-1 RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES; TREAT-TO-TARGET;
D O I
10.1002/14651858.CD012437
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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 (viaOVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID1947 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 placebo Based 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 onmoderate-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.
引用
收藏
页数:124
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Utilization of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and cancer
    Xerxes Pundole
    Natalia V. Zamora
    Harish Siddhanamatha
    Heather Lin
    Jean Tayar
    Leung Cheuk Hong
    Liang Li
    Maria E. Suarez-Almazor
    Clinical Rheumatology, 2020, 39 : 787 - 794
  • [22] Comment on “The effect of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs on skeletal muscle mass in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis”
    Hiroto Minamino
    Mie Torii
    Masao Katsushima
    Yoshihito Fujita
    Motomu Hashimoto
    Arthritis Research & Therapy, 24
  • [23] Utilization of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and cancer
    Pundole, Xerxes
    Zamora, Natalia V.
    Siddhanamatha, Harish
    Lin, Heather
    Tayar, Jean
    Hong, Leung Cheuk
    Li, Liang
    Suarez-Almazor, Maria E.
    CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY, 2020, 39 (03) : 787 - 794
  • [24] Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug effect of denosumab on radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of the literature
    Boleto, Goncalo
    Drame, Moustapha
    Lambrecht, Isabelle
    Eschard, Jean-Paul
    Salmon, Jean-Hugues
    CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY, 2017, 36 (08) : 1699 - 1706
  • [25] Tofacitinib for acute rheumatoid arthritis patients who have had an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD): a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Xingming Zhang
    Fuxiang Liang
    Xiaoxue Yin
    Xiaojuan Xiao
    Peiyu Shi
    Dang Wei
    Liang Yao
    Qi Wang
    Yaolong Chen
    Clinical Rheumatology, 2014, 33 : 165 - 173
  • [26] Tofacitinib for acute rheumatoid arthritis patients who have had an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD): a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhang, Xingming
    Liang, Fuxiang
    Yin, Xiaoxue
    Xiao, Juan
    Shi, Peiyu
    Wei, Dang
    Yao, Liang
    Wang, Qi
    Chen, Yaolong
    CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY, 2014, 33 (02) : 165 - 173
  • [27] Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug effect of denosumab on radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of the literature
    Gonçalo Boleto
    Moustapha Dramé
    Isabelle Lambrecht
    Jean-Paul Eschard
    Jean-Hugues Salmon
    Clinical Rheumatology, 2017, 36 : 1699 - 1706
  • [28] The role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs
    Pombo-Suarez, Manuel
    Gomez-Reino, Juan
    PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 2019, 148
  • [29] Utilizing biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic treatment sequences to subphenotype rheumatoid arthritis
    Priyam Das
    Dana Weisenfeld
    Kumar Dahal
    Debsurya De
    Vivi Feathers
    Jonathan S. Coblyn
    Michael E. Weinblatt
    Nancy A. Shadick
    Tianxi Cai
    Katherine P. Liao
    Arthritis Research & Therapy, 25
  • [30] Is cholecalciferol a potential disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug for the management of rheumatoid arthritis?
    Bellan, M.
    Andreoli, L.
    Nerviani, A.
    Piantoni, S.
    Avanzi, G. C.
    Soddu, D.
    Hayden, E.
    Pirisi, M.
    Sainaghi, P. P.
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RHEUMATOLOGY, 2020, 38 (02) : 343 - 349