Etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

The Role of Etanercept in Controlling Clinical and Radiological Progression in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review

Etanercept (ETN) is a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that works as a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF inhibitor) by blocking the effects of naturally occurring TNF. This review will evaluate the effect of ETN as a monotherapy or combination therapy with methotrexate (MTX) in the treatment of RA. This systematic review was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. A systematic search was done on PubMed and Google Scholar from 1999 to 2023. Predefined eligibility criteria were set for selected studies, which include: free full-text articles published; randomized control trials (RCTs); systematic reviews and meta-analyses; and observational studies in a patient with RA treated with ETN as initial therapy or as an add-on to conventional disease-modified therapy. Hence, the data had been extracted, and a quality assessment of each study was done by two individual authors. When comparing patients who received 15-25 mg of MTX with those who also received 25 mg of ETN in combination, 71% achieved American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) by 24 weeks, compared to 27% in the MTX and placebo groups (p<0.001), and 39% achieved American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50), compared to 3% in the placebo + MTX group (p<0.001). Low disease activity (DAS 28) was more common in patients who had both MTX and ETN (64.5% with DAS <2.4 and 56.3% with DAS 28 <3.2) compared to patients who received only one medication (44.4% with DAS <2.4 and 33.2% with DAS 28 <3.2 for ETN and 38.6% with DAS <2.4 and 28.5% with DAS 28 <3.2 for MTX, with P<0.01). ETN demonstrated smaller changes from baseline in the modified Sharp score (TSS) and erosion scores (ES) at 12 months and two years, as well as a decreased change in the ES score at one year (with a trend of P value = 0.06 for the TSS score), in comparison to those receiving DMARD. Reactions at the injection site (42% vs. 7%, P<0.001) were the only events that occurred significantly more frequently in the ETN plus-MTX group. Combining ETN and MTX appears to help control RA symptoms by decreasing the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response and DAS score, as well as halting the disease's progression on X-rays. The most common adverse effects were reactions to ETN administered alone at the injection site, likely because of patient awareness of the treatment received. There was also concern about tuberculosis and malignancy, but no recent data is available. Therefore, a larger clinical trial with longer follow-up is required to ascertain long-term safety and benefits.

Biomineralized Nanoscavenger Abrogates Proinflammatory Macrophage Polarization and Induces Neutrophil Clearance through Reverse Migration during Gouty Arthritis

The deposition of monosodium urate (MSU) crystals induces the overexpression of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and proinflammatory cytokines in residential macrophages, further promoting the infiltration of inflammatory leukocytes in the joints of gouty arthritis. Herein, a peroxidase-mimicking nanoscavenger was developed by forming manganese dioxide over albumin nanoparticles loaded with an anti-inflammatory drug, indomethacin (BIM), to block the secretion of ROS and COX2-induced proinflammatory cytokines in the MSU-induced gouty arthritis model. In the MSU-induced arthritis mouse model, the BIM nanoparticles alleviated joint swelling, which is attributed to the abrogation of ROS and inflammatory cytokine secretions from proinflammatory macrophages that induces neutrophil infiltration and fluid building up in the inflammation site. Further, the BIM nanoparticle treatment reduced the influx of macrophages and neutrophils in the injured region by blocking migration and inducing reverse migration in the zebrafish larva tail amputation model as well as in MSU-induced peritonitis and air pouch mouse models. Overall, the current strategy of employing biomineralized nanoscavengers for arthritis demonstrates clinical significance in dual blocking of peroxides and COX2 to prevent influx of inflammatory cells into the sites of inflammation.

Down-titration and discontinuation strategies of tumour necrosis factor-blocking agents for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with low disease activity

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective in treating people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but are associated with (dose-dependent) adverse effects and high costs. To prevent overtreatment, several trials have assessed the effectiveness of down-titration compared with continuation of the standard dose. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, or disease activity-guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents on disease activity, functioning, costs, safety, and radiographic damage compared with usual care in people with RA and low disease activity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL (29 March 2018) and four trial registries (11 April 2018) together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We screened conference proceedings (American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism 2005-2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, disease activity-guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) to usual care/no down-titration in people with RA and low disease activity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

One previously included trial was excluded retrospectively in this update because it was not an RCT/CCT. We included eight additional trials, for a total of 14 studies (13 RCTs and one CCT, 3315 participants in total) reporting anti-TNF down-titration. Six studies (1148 participants) reported anti-TNF dose reduction compared with anti-TNF continuation. Eight studies (2111 participants) reported anti-TNF discontinuation compared with anti-TNF continuation (three studies assessed both anti-TNF discontinuation and dose reduction), and three studies assessed disease activity-guided anti-TNF dose tapering (365 participants). These studies included data on all anti-TNF agents, but primarily adalimumab and etanercept. Thirteen studies were available in full text, one was available as abstract. We assessed the included studies generally at low to moderate risk of bias; our main concerns were bias due to open-label treatment and unblinded outcome assessment. Clinical heterogeneity between the trials was high. The included studies were performed at clinical centres around the world and included people with early as well as established RA, the majority of whom were female with mean ages between 47 and 60. Study durations ranged from 6 months to 3.5 years.We found that anti-TNF dose reduction leads to little or no difference in mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 26 to 52 weeks (high-certainty evidence, mean difference (MD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.24, absolute risk difference (ARD) 1%) compared with continuation. Also, anti-TNF dose reduction does not result in an important deterioration in function after 26 to 52 weeks (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI)) (high-certainty evidence, MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.19, ARD 3%). Next to this, anti-TNF dose reduction may slightly reduce the proportion of participants switched to another biologic (low-certainty evidence), but probably slightly increases the proportion of participants with minimal radiographic progression after 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence, risk ratio (RR) 1.22, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.95, ARD 2% higher). Anti-TNF dose reduction may cause little or no difference in serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and proportion of participants with persistent remission (low-certainty evidence).Results show that anti-TNF discontinuation probably slightly increases the mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 28 to 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence, MD 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.25, ARD 14%), and that the RR of persistent remission lies between 0.16 and 0.77 (low-certainty evidence). Anti-TNF discontinuation increases the proportion participants with minimal radiographic progression after 52 weeks (high-certainty evidence, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.59, ARD 7%) and may lead to a slight deterioration in function (HAQ-DI) (low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether anti-TNF discontinuation influences the number of serious adverse events (due to very low-certainty evidence) and the number of withdrawals due to adverse events after 28 to 52 weeks probably increases slightly (moderate-certainty evidence, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.84, ARD 1% higher).Anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering may result in little or no difference in mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 72 to 78 weeks (low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering results in little or no difference in the proportion of participants with persistent remission after 18 months (high-certainty evidence, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06, ARD -9%) and may result in little or no difference in switching to another biologic (low-certainty evidence). Anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering may slightly increase proportion of participants with minimal radiographic progression (low-certainty evidence) and probably leads to a slight deterioration of function after 18 months (moderate-certainty evidence, MD 0.2 higher, 0.02 lower to 0.42 higher, ARD 7% higher), It is uncertain whether anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering influences the number of serious adverse events due to very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that fixed-dose reduction of anti-TNF, after at least three to 12 months of low disease activity, is comparable to continuation of the standard dose regarding disease activity and function, and may be comparable with regards to the proportion of participants with persistent remission. Discontinuation (also without disease activity-guided adaptation) of anti-TNF is probably inferior to continuation of treatment with respect to disease activity, the proportion of participants with persistent remission, function, and minimal radiographic damage. Disease activity-guided dose tapering of anti-TNF is comparable to continuation of treatment with respect to the proportion of participants with persistent remission and may be comparable regarding disease activity.Caveats of this review are that available data are mainly limited to etanercept and adalimumab, the heterogeneity between studies, and the use of superiority instead of non-inferiority designs.Future research should focus on the anti-TNF agents infliximab and golimumab; assessment of disease activity, function, and radiographic outcomes after longer follow-up; and assessment of long-term safety, cost-effectiveness, and predictors for successful down-titration. Also, use of a validated flare criterion, non-inferiority designs, and disease activity-guided tapering instead of fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation would allow researchers to better interpret study findings and generalise to clinical practice.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of treatment effectiveness with selected biologic treatment in rheumatoid arthritis therapy

Objectives

Modern treatment of autoimmune diseases is becoming increasingly widely used. We owe it to the continuous and rapid development of biotechnology, molecular biology, immunology, and biochemistry. The proven effectiveness of biological therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should result in its widespread use. At present, only about 1% of patients with RA have access to biological therapy in Poland.

Material and methods

The study material was retrospectively collected in the Rheumatology and Systemic Tissue Diseases Clinic and Rheumatology Outpatient Clinic in dr Jan Biziel University Hospital No. 2 in Bydgoszcz 2009–2014. Patients were divided into 3 groups: patient receiving infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab.

Results

The study involved analyses of cost effectiveness. The time horizon of patient documentation analysis ranged from the time a patient was enrolled to infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab therapy until remission of the disease. The majority of patients achieved remission in the case of adalimumab treatment (85.29%), followed by etanercept (74.07%), then infliximab (37.21%). Taking into account the DAS28 parameter, analysis was performed using medical costs of the analyzed treatment regimens. For this purpose, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. According to the analysis, obtaining one DAS28 unit, replacing infliximab with etanercept, would cost PLN 40 964 67. Higher costs would be required in the case of replacement of infliximab with adalimumab – PLN 43 076 08. Obtaining one additional DAS28 unit (in this case, a decrease in DAS28 by one unit) by introducing adalimumab instead of etanercept would amount to PLN 45 409 74.

Conclusions

Undoubtedly, the pharmacoeconomic analysis makes it easier to decide on the appropriate treatment. Therefore, its implementation should be a widely used solution not only for RA, but also for other diseases. Health care and other entities’ systems should also be improved in such a way that the data needed for pharmacoeconomic analysis are fully available.

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 review and economic evaluation

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.

Biologic interventions for fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Fatigue is a common and potentially distressing symptom for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with no accepted evidence-based management guidelines. Evidence suggests that biologic interventions improve symptoms and signs in RA as well as reducing joint damage.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of biologic interventions on fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases up to 1 April 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Current Controlled Trials Register, the National Research Register Archive, The UKCRN Portfolio Database, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, Web of Science, and Dissertation Abstracts International. In addition, we checked the reference lists of articles identified for inclusion for additional studies and contacted key authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials if they evaluated a biologic intervention in people with rheumatoid arthritis and had self reported fatigue as an outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 studies for inclusion in this current review. Twenty studies evaluated five anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic agents (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab), and 12 studies focused on five non-anti-TNF biologic agents (abatacept, canakinumab, rituximab, tocilizumab and an anti-interferon gamma monoclonal antibody). All but two of the studies were double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trials. In some trials, patients could receive concomitant disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). These studies added either biologics or placebo to DMARDs. Investigators did not change the dose of the latter from baseline. In total, these studies included 9946 participants in the intervention groups and 4682 participants in the control groups. Overall, quality of randomised controlled trials was moderate with a low to unclear risk of bias in the reporting of the outcome of fatigue. We downgraded the quality of the studies from high to moderate because of potential reporting bias (studies included post hoc analyses favouring reporting of positive result and did not always include all randomised individuals). Some studies recruited only participants with early disease. The studies used five different instruments to assess fatigue in these studies: the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Domain (FACIT-F), Short Form-36 Vitality Domain (SF-36 VT), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (0 to 100 or 0 to 10) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). We calculated standard mean differences for pooled data in meta-analyses. Overall treatment by biologic agents led to statistically significant reduction in fatigue with a standardised mean difference of -0.43 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.38 to -0.49). This equates to a difference of 6.45 units (95% CI 5.7 to 7.35) of FACIT-F score (range 0 to 52). Both types of biologic agents achieved a similar level of improvement: for anti-TNF agents, this stood at -0.42 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.49), equivalent to 6.3 units (95% CI 5.3 to 7.4) on the FACIT-F score; and for non-anti-TNF agents, it was -0.46 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.53), equivalent to 6.9 units (95% CI 5.85 to 7.95) on the FACIT-F score. In most studies, the double-blind period was 24 weeks or less. No study assessed long-term changes in fatigue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with biologic interventions in patients with active RA can lead to a small to moderate improvement in fatigue. The magnitude of improvement is similar for anti-TNF and non-anti-TNF biologics. However, it is unclear whether the improvement results from a direct action of the biologics on fatigue or indirectly through reduction in inflammation, disease activity or some other mechanism.

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

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.

Interleukin-1 as a common denominator from autoinflammatory to autoimmune disorders: premises, perils, and perspectives

A complex web of dynamic relationships between innate and adaptive immunity is now evident for many autoinflammatory and autoimmune disorders, the first deriving from abnormal activation of innate immune system without any conventional danger triggers and the latter from self-/non-self-discrimination loss of tolerance, and systemic inflammation. Due to clinical and pathophysiologic similarities giving a crucial role to the multifunctional cytokine interleukin-1, the concept of autoinflammation has been expanded to include nonhereditary collagen-like diseases, idiopathic inflammatory diseases, and metabolic diseases. As more patients are reported to have clinical features of autoinflammation and autoimmunity, the boundary between these two pathologic ends is becoming blurred. An overview of monogenic autoinflammatory disorders, PFAPA syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, uveitis, pericarditis, Behçet's disease, gout, Sjögren's syndrome, interstitial lung diseases, and Still's disease is presented to highlight the fundamental points that interleukin-1 displays in the cryptic interplay between innate and adaptive immune systems.

The comparative safety of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis update of 44 trials

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to evaluate and update the safety data from randomized controlled trials of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients treated for rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted from 1990 to May 2013. All studies included were randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis that evaluated adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab treatment. The serious adverse events and discontinuation rates were abstracted, and risk estimates were calculated by Peto odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

Forty-four randomized controlled trials involving 11,700 subjects receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and 5901 subjects receiving placebo or traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were included. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment as a group was associated with a higher risk of serious infection (OR, 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.78) and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.43) compared with placebo and traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatments. Specifically, patients taking adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and infliximab had an increased risk of serious infection (OR, 1.69, 1.98, and 1.63, respectively) and showed an increased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 1.38, 1.67, and 2.04, respectively). In contrast, patients taking etanercept had a decreased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). Although ORs for malignancy varied across the different tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, none reached statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

These meta-analysis updates of the comparative safety of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors suggest a higher risk of serious infection associated with adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and infliximab, which seems to contribute to higher rates of discontinuation. In contrast, etanercept use showed a lower rate of discontinuation. These data may help guide clinical comparative decision making in the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

Down-titration and discontinuation strategies of tumor necrosis factor-blocking agents for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with low disease activity

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective in treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but they are associated with (dose-dependent) adverse effects and high costs. To prevent overtreatment, several trials have assessed the effectiveness of down-titration compared with continuation of the standard dose.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation or disease activity guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) on disease activity, functioning, costs, safety and radiographic damage compared with usual care in patients with RA and low disease activity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 8, 2013; Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 8 September 2013); EMBASE (1947 to 8 September 2013); Science Citation Index (Web of Science); and conference proceedings of the American College of Rheumatology (2005 to 2012) and European League against Rheumatism (2005 to 2013). We contacted authors of the seven included studies to ask for additional information on their study; five responded.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, disease activity-guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) to usual care/no down-titration in patients with RA and a low disease activity state.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs and one CCT (total 1203 participants), reporting anti-TNF down-titration, were included. Three studies (559 participants) reported anti-TNF dose reduction compared with anti-TNF continuation. Five studies (732 participants) reported anti-TNF discontinuation compared with anti-TNF continuation (two studies assessed both anti-TNF discontinuation and dose reduction), and one study assessed disease activity-guided anti-TNF dose tapering (137 participants). These studies include only adalimumab and etanercept; controlled data on other anti-TNF agents are absent. Two studies were available in full text; one was assessed as having low risk of bias and the other high risk. Five studies were available only as one or more abstracts. Because data provided in these abstracts were limited, risk of bias was unclear. Clinical heterogeneity between the trials was high.Dose reduction of anti-TNF (etanercept data only) showed no statistically significant or clinical relevant difference in disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) (mean difference (MD) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.31) (scale 0.9 to 8; higher score indicates worse disease activity). The proportion of participants who maintained low disease activity was slightly lower among participants given reduced doses of the anti-TNF agent (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98, absolute risk difference (ARD) 9%). Radiographic outcome was slightly worse, but this was not clinically meaningful, compared with continuation of anti-TNF (MD 0.11, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.14) (scale 0 to 448; higher score indicates greater joint damage). Function was not statistically different between anti-TNF dose reduction and continuation (MD 0.10, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.20) (scale 0 to 3; higher score indicates worse functioning). Reinstalment of anti-TNF after failure of dose reduction showed a 5% risk of persistent flare. Data on numbers of serious adverse events (SAEs) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.45, ARD -2%) and withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17 to 1,92, ARD -1%) were inconclusive. Most outcomes were based on moderate quality evidence.Participants who discontinued anti-TNF (adalimumab and etanercept data) had higher mean DAS28 (DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR): MD 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.34) and DAS28-C-reactive protein (CRP): MD 0.57 95% CI -0.09 to 1.23) and were less likely to maintain a low disease activity state (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.68, ARD 40%). Also, radiographic and functional outcomes are worse after anti-TNF discontinuation (MD 0.66, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.69, and MD 0.30, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, respectively). Data on numbers of SAEs (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.63, ARD 2%) and withdrawals due to AEs (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.24, ARD -1%) were inconclusive. Most outcomes were based on moderate quality evidence.The one study comparing disease activity-guided anti-TNF dose tapering (adalimumab and etanercept data) reported no statistically significant differences in functional outcomes (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.42). Significantly higher mean disease activity was found among participants with tapered anti-TNF at study end (MD 0.50, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.89). No full text of this trial was available for this review. No other major outcomes were reported. All outcomes were based on low quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We can conclude, mostly based on moderate quality evidence, that non-disease activity guided dose reduction of etanercept 50 mg weekly to 25 mg weekly, after at least three to 12 months of low disease activity, seems as effective as continuing the standard dose with respect to disease activity and functional outcomes, although dose reduction significantly induces minimal and not clinically meaningful differences in radiological progression. Discontinuation (also without disease activity-guided adaptation) of adalimumab and etanercept is inferior to continuation of treatment with respect to disease activity and radiological outcomes and function. Disease activity-guided dose tapering of adalimumab and etanercept seems slightly inferior to continuation of treatment with respect to disease activity, with no difference in function. However the only study investigating this comparison included lower than projected numbers of participants.Caveats of this review are that available data are limited. Also, the heterogeneity between studies and the suboptimal design choices (including absence of disease activity-guided dose reduction and discontinuation and use of superiority designs) limit definitive conclusions. None of the included studies assessed long-term safety and costs, although these factors are specific reasons why clinicians consider lowering the dose or stopping the administration of anti-TNF agents.Future research should include other anti-TNF agents; assessment of disease activity, function and radiographic outcomes after longer follow-up; and assessment of long-term safety, cost-effectiveness and predictors for successful down-titration. Also use of a validated flare criterion, non-inferiority designs and disease activity-guided instead of fixed-dose tapering or stopping would allow researchers to better interpret study findings and generalise the information to clinical practice.

Etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Etanercept is a soluble tumour necrosis factor alpha-receptor disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review was to update the previous Cochrane systematic review published in 2003 assessing the benefits and harms of etanercept for the treatment of RA. In addition, we also evaluated the benefits and harms of etanercept plus DMARD compared with DMARD monotherapy in those people with RA who are partial responders to methotrexate (MTX) or any other traditional DMARD.

SEARCH METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched from 1966 to February 2003 with no language restriction. The search was updated to January 2012. Attempts were made to identify other studies by contact with experts, searching reference lists and searching trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All controlled trials (minimum 24 weeks' duration) comparing four possible combinations: 1) etanercept (10 mg or 25 mg twice weekly) plus a traditional DMARD (either MTX or sulphasalazine) versus a DMARD, 2) etanercept plus DMARD versus etanercept alone, 3) etanercept alone versus a DMARD or 4) etanercept versus placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials were included in the original version of the review. An additional six trials, giving a total of 2842 participants, were added to the 2012 update of the review. The trials were generally of moderate to low risk of bias, the majority funded by pharmaceutical companies. Follow-up ranged from six months to 36 months.BenefitAt six to 36 months the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response rate was statistically significantly improved with etanercept plus DMARD treatment when compared with a DMARD in those people who had an inadequate response to any traditional DMARD (risk ratio (RR) 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 2.9, absolute treatment benefit (ATB) 38%; 95% CI 13% to 59%) and in those people who were partial responders to MTX (RR 11.7; 95% CI 1.7 to 82.5, ATB 36%). Similar results were observed when pooling data from all participants (responders or not) (ACR 50 response rates at 24 months: RR 1.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.8, ATB 29%; 36 months: RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.3 to 1.9, ATB 24%). Statistically significant improvement in physical function and a higher proportion of disease remission were observed in combination-treated participants compared with DMARDs alone ((mean difference (MD) -0.36; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.28 in a 0-3 scale) and (RR 1.92; 95% CI 1.60 to 2.31), respectively) in those people who had an inadequate response to any traditional DMARD. All changes in radiographic scores were statistically significantly less with combination treatment (etanercept plus DMARD) compared with MTX alone for all participants (responders or not) (Total Sharp Score (TSS) (scale = 0 to 448): MD -2.2, 95% CI -3.0 to -1.4; Erosion Score (ES) (scale = 0 to 280): MD -1.6; 95% CI -2.4 to -0.9; Joint Space Narrowing Score (JSNS) (scale = 0 to 168): MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2), and with combination treatment compared with etanercept alone (TSS: MD -1.1; 95% CI -1.8 to -0.5; ES: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2; JSNS: MD -0.5, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2). The estimate of irreversible physical disability over 10 years given the radiographic findings was 0.45 out of 3.0.When etanercept monotherapy was compared with DMARD monotherapy, there was generally no evidence of a difference in ACR50 response rates when etanercept 10 mg or 25 mg was used; at six months etanercept 25 mg was significantly more likely to achieve ACR50 than DMARD monotherapy but this difference was not found at 12, 24 or 36 months. TSS and ES radiographic scores were statistically significantly improved with etanercept 25 mg monotherapy compared with DMARD (TSS: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.4 to 0.1; ES: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.0 to -0.3) but there was no evidence of a statistically significant difference between etanercept 10 mg monotherapy and MTX.HarmsThere was no evidence of statistically significant differences in infections or serious infections between etanercept plus DMARD and DMARD alone at any point in time. Infection rates were higher in people receiving etanercept monotherapy compared with DMARD; however, there were no differences regarding serious infections. For those participants who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, the rate of total withdrawals was lower for the etanercept plus DMARD group compared with DMARD alone (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.77, ATB 18%). No other statistically significant differences were observed in any of the assessed comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Etanercept 25 mg administered subcutaneously twice weekly together with MTX was more efficacious than either etanercept or MTX monotherapy for ACR50 and it slowed joint radiographic progression after up to three years of treatment for all participants (responders or not). There was no evidence of a difference in the rates of infections between groups.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic and systemic inflammatory disorder that mainly affects the small joints of the hands and feet. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents have been used to treat anemia, one of the extra-articular manifestations of RA. Although anemia is less of a problem now because of the reduction in inflammation due to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), it could still be an issue in countries where DMARDs are not yet accessible.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the clinical benefits and harms of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia in rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (issue 7 2012), Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (1948 to 7 August 2012), OVID EMBASE (1980 to 7 August 2012), LILACS (1982 to 7 August 2012), the Clinical Trials Search Portal of the World Health Organization, reference lists of the retrieved publications and review articles. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients aged 16 years or over, with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis affected by anemia. We considered health-related quality of life, fatigue and safety as the primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed trial selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. We estimated difference in means with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes. We estimated risk ratios with 95% CIs for binary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs with a total of 133 participants. All trials compared human recombinant erythropoietin (EPO), for different durations (8, 12 and 52 weeks), versus placebo. All RCTs assessed health-related quality of life. All trials had high or unclear risk of bias for most domains, and were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Two trials administered EPO by a subcutaneous route while the other used an intravenous route.We decided not to pool results from trials, due to inconsistencies in the reporting of results.Health-related quality of life: subcutaneous EPO - one trial with 70 patients at 52 weeks showed a statistically significant difference in improvement of patient global assessment (median and interquartile range 3.5 (1.0 to 6.0) compared with placebo 4.5 (2.0 to 7.5) (P = 0.027) on a VAS scale (0 to 10)). The other shorter term trials (12 weeks with subcutaneous EPO and eight weeks with intravenous administration) did not find statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups in health-related quality of life outcomes.Change in hemoglobin: both trials of subcutaneous EPO showed a statistically significant difference in increasing hemoglobin levels; (i) at 52 weeks (one trial, 70 patients), intervention hemoglobin level (median 134, interquartile range 110 to 158 g/litre) compared with the placebo group level (median 112, interquartile range; 86 to 128 g/litre) (P = 0.0001); (ii) at 12 weeks (one trial, 24 patients) compared with placebo (difference in means 8.00, 95% CI 7.43 to 8.57). Intravenous EPO at eight weeks showed no statistically significant difference in increasing hematocrit level for EPO versus placebo (difference in means 4.69, 95% CI -0.17 to 9.55; P = 0.06).Information on withdrawals due to adverse events was not reported in two trials, and one trial found no serious adverse events leading to withdrawals. None of the trials reported withdrawals due to high blood pressure, or to lack of efficacy or to fatigue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found conflicting evidence for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to increase quality of life and hemoglobin level by treating anemia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. However, this conclusion is based on randomized controlled trials with a high risk of bias, and relies on trials assessing human recombinant erythropoietin (EPO). The safety profile of EPO is unclear. Future trials assessing erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia in rheumatoid arthritis should be conducted by independent researchers and reported according to the CONSORT statements. Trials should be based on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT) and The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) approaches for combining both clinician and patient perspectives.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of combination and monotherapy treatments in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-experienced patients with rheumatoid arthritis: analysis of American College of Rheumatology criteria scores 20, 50, and 70

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) extend the treatment choices for rheumatoid arthritis patients with suboptimal response or intolerance to conventional DMARDs. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the relative efficacy of EU-licensed bDMARD combination therapy or monotherapy for patients intolerant of or contraindicated to continued methotrexate.

METHODS

Comprehensive, structured literature searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, as well as hand-searching of conference proceedings and reference lists. Phase II or III randomized controlled trials reporting American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria scores of 20, 50, and 70 between 12 and 30 weeks' follow-up and enrolling adult patients meeting ACR classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with and with an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs were eligible. To estimate the relative efficacy of treatments whilst preserving the randomized comparisons within each trial, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted in WinBUGS using fixed and random-effects, logit-link models fitted to the binomial ACR 20/50/70 trial data.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 10,625 citations, and after a review of 2450 full-text papers, there were 29 and 14 eligible studies for the combination and monotherapy meta-analyses, respectively. In the combination analysis, all licensed bDMARD combinations had significantly higher odds of ACR 20/50/70 compared to DMARDs alone, except for the rituximab comparison, which did not reach significance for the ACR 70 outcome (based on the 95% credible interval). The etanercept combination was significantly better than the tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors adalimumab and infliximab in improving ACR 20/50/70 outcomes, with no significant differences between the etanercept combination and certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab. Licensed-dose etanercept, adalimumab, and tocilizumab monotherapy were significantly better than placebo in improving ACR 20/50/70 outcomes. Sensitivity analysis indicated that including studies outside the target population could affect the results.

CONCLUSION

Licensed bDMARDs are efficacious in patients with an inadequate response to conventional therapy, but tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor combination therapies are not equally effective.

Certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate provides broad relief from the burden of rheumatoid arthritis: analysis of patient-reported outcomes from the RAPID 2 trial

Objective

To assess the impact of certolizumab pegol (CZP) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to interpret these results using number needed to treat (NNT), and associations between PRO responses and longer term outcomes.

Methods

A total of 619 patients with active RA were randomised to CZP 200 or 400 mg, or placebo plus methotrexate (MTX). PROs assessed included pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), physical function, fatigue and health-related quality of life. Treatment impact on PROs, NNT to achieve simultaneous improvements in multiple PROs and correlations between PROs were calculated. Times to onset of improvements greater than or equal to minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in pain as a determinant of clinical outcomes at week 24 were compared between week 6 and 12 responders, and in patients with improvements in pain ≥MCID at week 12 (week 12 responders/non-responders).

Results

CZP 200 and 400 mg plus MTX were associated with rapid, clinically meaningful improvements in all PROs. The NNT for subjects to report changes ≥MCID in up to five PROs was two to three, and five for all six PROs (pain, PtGA, physical function, fatigue and short-form 36-item Physical and Mental Component Summary Scores). More patients with improvements ≥MCID in pain at week 6 than those at week 12 had lower disease activity at week 24. Week 12 pain responders had better clinical outcomes at week 24 than non-responders.

Conclusions

The data demonstrate that CZP provides broad relief from the burden of RA.

Trial registration number

NCT00160602.

Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta-analysis and Cochrane overview

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. 

Certolizumab pegol (CDP870) for rheumatoid arthritis in adults

BACKGROUND

TNF-alpha inhibitors have been shown to reduce the risk of joint damage and improve physical function and quality of life in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This is the first Cochrane review of certolizumab pegol, a new TNF-alpha inhibitor.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of certolizumab pegol (CDP870) in patients with RA who have not responded well to conventional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3),  MEDLINE (1966 to November 2009), EMBASE (1966 to November 2009), Scopus (January 2004 to November 2009), TOXLINE (until November 2009), Web of Knowledge (until November 2009); websites of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) (until November 2009), and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared certolizumab pegol with any other agent including placebo or methotrexate (MTX) in adult RA patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite current or prior treatment with conventional DMARDs, such as methotrexate (MTX).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed search results, trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials were included. We included in the analysis 2394 people for effectiveness and 2094 people for safety. The duration of follow-up was from 12 to 52 weeks, and the range of doses of certolizumab pegol were from 50 to 400 mg subcutaneously (sc). In three trials the control was placebo plus methotrexate (MTX) and in two trials it was just placebo. Significant improvements were observed at 24 weeks with the approved dose of 200 mg certolizumab pegol: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50% improvement: risk ratio (RR) 6.01 (95% CI 3.84 to 9.40) with an absolute benefit of 29% (95% CI 25% to 34%), number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) of 4 (3 to 5) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) mean difference (MD) - 0.39 (95% CI -0.45 to -0.32) (scale 0 to 3). At 52 weeks the results were quite similar: ACR 50% improvement RR 5.27 (95% CI 3.19 to 8.71), HAQ mean difference (MD) - 0.42 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.32). Serious adverse events were more frequent for certolizumab pegol 200 mg, Peto OR 2.02 (95% CI 1.24 to 3.30). The most common adverse events with certolizumab pegol 200 mg were: upper respiratory tract infections, Peto OR 2.21 (95% CI 1.15 to 4.25); hypertension, Peto OR 2.81 (95% CI 1.38 to 5.75); and nasopharyngitis, Peto OR 2.71 (95% CI 1.30 to 5.66).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With an overall high grade of evidence this review revealed an improvement of clinical results (ACR50, 28 joint disease activity score (DAS-28) remission and HAQ scores) with certolizumab pegol. Adverse events were more frequent with certolizumab; there was a statistically significant increase in the number of serious adverse events, infections and hypertension.

Tocilizumab for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Tocilizumab, a new biologic that inhibits interleukin-6, is approved for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Europe, Japan and the US.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in patients with RA using the data from published randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We performed a search of the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to issue 3, 2009; OVID MEDLINE(1966 to 1 October 2009); CINAHL(1982 to 2009); EMBASE (1980 to week 39, 2009); Science Citation Index (Web of Science) (1945 to 2009) and Current Controlled Trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Tocilizumab alone or in combination with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or biologics compared to placebo or other DMARDs or biologics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted all data including major (ACR50, adverse events, serious adverse events, withdrawals, specific adverse events) and secondary outcomes. We calculated the risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included in this systematic review with 3334 participants; 2233 treated with tocilizumab and 1101 controls. Of the 2233, 1561 were treated with tocilizumab 8 mg/kg every four weeks, which is the approved dose. In patients taking concomitant methotrexate, compared to placebo, tocilizumab-treated patients were four times more likely to achieve ACR50 (absolute %, 38.8% versus 9.6%), 11 times more likely to achieve Disease Activity Score (DAS) remission (absolute %, 30.5% versus 2.7%), 1.8 times more likely to achieve clinically meaningful decrease in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ/mHAQ) scores (absolute %, 60.5% versus 34%), 1.2 times more likely to have any adverse event (absolute %, 74% versus 65%) and 0.6 times less likely to withdraw from therapy for any reason (absolute %, 8.1% versus 14.9%). With the limitation that none of the studies were powered for safety as primary outcome, there were no statistically significant differences in serious adverse effects, or withdrawals due to adverse events. A significant increase in total, HDL and LDL cholesterol and triglyceride level was seen in the tocilizumab treated patients.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tocilizumab is beneficial in decreasing RA disease activity and improving function. Tocilizumab treatment was associated with significant increase in cholesterol levels and in total adverse events. Larger safety studies are needed to address these safety concerns.

The relationship between change in subjective outcome and change in disease: a potential paradox

BACKGROUND

Response shift theory suggests that improvements in health lead patients to change their internal standards and re-assess former health states as worse than initially rated when using retrospective ratings via the then-test. The predictions of response shift theory can be illustrated using prospect theory, whereby a change in current health causes a change in reference frame. Therefore, if health deteriorates, the former health state will receive a better rating, whereas if it improves, the former health state will receive a worse rating.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the predictions of response shift and prospect theory by relating subjective change to objective change.

METHODS

Baseline and 3-month follow-up data from a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients (N = 197) starting on TNFalpha-blocking agents were used. Objective disease change was classified according to a disease-specific clinical outcome measure (DAS28). Visual analogue scales (VAS) for general health (GH) and pain were used as self-reported measures. Three months after starting on anti-TNFalpha, patients used the then-test to re-rate their baseline health with regard to general health and pain. Differences between then-test value and baseline values were calculated and tested between improved, non-improved and deteriorated patients by the Student t-test.

RESULTS

At 3 months, 51 (25.9%) patients had good improvement in health, 83 (42.1%) had moderate improvement, and 63 (32.0%) had no improvement or deteriorated in health. All patients no matter whether they improved, did not improve, or even became worse rated their health as worse retrospectively. The difference between the then-test rating and the baseline value was similarly sized in all groups.

CONCLUSION

More positive ratings of retrospective health are independent of disease change. This suggests that patients do not necessarily change their standards in line with their disease change, and therefore it is inappropriate to use the then-test to correct for such a change. If a then-test is used to correct for shifts in internal standards, it might lead to the paradoxical result that patients who do not improve or even deteriorate increase significantly on self-reported health and pain. An alternative explanation for differences in retrospective and prospective ratings of health is the implicit theory of change which is more successful in explaining our results than prospect theory.

Golimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review

Objective.

To perform a Cochrane systematic review of benefit (American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement criteria; ACR50) and safety (adverse events and withdrawals) of golimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), OVID Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Science Citation Index (Web of Science), and Current Controlled Trials databases for randomized or controlled clinical trials of golimumab compared to placebo or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in adults with RA. Two authors independently selected appropriate studies and abstracted study characteristics and safety and efficacy data and performed risk-of-bias assessment. We calculated mean differences for continuous measures, and relative risks for categorical measures.

Results.

Four randomized controlled trials with 1231 golimumab-treated and 483 placebo-treated patients were included. Of these, 436 were treated with golimumab at 50 mg every 4 weeks [a dosage approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)]. At an average of 4–6 months, compared to patients treated with placebo and methotrexate (MTX), patients treated with the FDA-approved dosage of golimumab and MTX were 2.6 times more likely to reach ACR50 (p = 0.005, 95% CI 1.3, 4.9; absolute percentage, 38% vs 15%) and 0.5 times as likely to have overall withdrawals (p = 0.005, 95% CI 0.3, 0.8; absolute percentage, 5% vs 10%). Golimumab-treated patients were significantly more likely than those taking placebo to achieve remission (22% vs 4%; p < 0.00001), and to have improvement in functional ability on the Health Assessment questionnaire [0.2 points lower (p < 0.00001, 95% CI 0.25, 0.15); absolute risk difference, −20% (95% CI −25% to −15%); relative percentage difference, −11% (95% CI −14% to −8.3%)]. The studies were too small and short to be powered sufficiently for safety outcomes, but no substantive statistically significant differences were noted between golimumab and placebo regarding adverse events, serious adverse events, infections, serious infections, lung infections, tuberculosis, cancer, withdrawals due to adverse events, and withdrawals due to inefficacy and deaths.

Conclusion.

At the approved dosage, in patients with active RA taking background MTX, golimumab is significantly more beneficial than placebo. The short-term safety profile is reasonable. Longterm surveillance studies are needed for safety assessment.

Golimumab for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Golimumab is a humanized inhibitor of Tumor necrosis factor-alpha, recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of Rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy and safety of golimumab (alone or in combination with DMARDs or biologics) to placebo (alone or in combination with DMARDs or biologics) in randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials in adults with RA.

SEARCH STRATEGY

An expert librarian searched six databases for any clinical trials of golimumab in RA, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), OVID MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Science Citation Index (Web of Science) and Current Controlled Trials databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they used golimumab in adults with RA, were randomized or quasi-randomized and provided clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JS, SN) independently reviewed all titles and abstracts, selected appropriate studies for full review and reviewed the full-text articles for the final selection of included studies. For each study, they independently abstracted study characteristics, safety and efficacy data and performed risk of bias assessment. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. For continuous measures, we calculated mean differences or standardized mean differences and for categorical measures, relative risks. 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs with 1,231 patients treated with golimumab and 483 patients treated with placebo were included. Of these, 436 were treated with the FDA-approved dose of golimumab 50 mg every four weeks. Compared to patients treated with placebo+methotrexate, patients treated with the FDA-approved dose of golimumab+methotrexate were 2.6 times more likely to reach ACR50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 4.9; P=0.005 and NNT= 5, 95% confidence interval 2 to 20), no more likely to have any adverse event (relative risk 1.1, 95% Cl 0.9 to 1.2; P=0.44), and 0.5 times as likely to have overall withdrawals (95% Cl 0.3 to 0.8; P=0.005). Golimumab-treated patients were significantly more likely to achieve remission, low disease activity and improvement in functional ability compared to placebo (all statistically significant). No significant differences were noted between golimumab and placebo regarding serious adverse events, infections, serious infections, lung infections, tuberculosis, cancer, withdrawals due to adverse events and inefficacy and deaths. No radiographic data were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With an overall high grade of evidence, at the FDA-approved dose, golimumab is significantly more efficacious than placebo in treatment of patients with active RA , when used in combination with methotrexate. The short-term safety profile, based on short-term RCTs, is reasonable with no differences in total adverse events, serious infections, cancer, tuberculosis or deaths. Long-term surveillance studies are needed for safety assessment.

A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: a Cochrane overview

BACKGROUND

We sought to compare the benefits and safety of 6 biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, infliximab and rituximab) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

In this network meta-analysis, we included all completed and updated Cochrane reviews on biologics for rheumatoid arthritis. We included data from all placebo-controlled trials that used standard dosing regimens. The major outcomes were benefit (defined as a 50% improvement in patient- and physician-reported criteria of the American College of Rheumatology [ACR50]) and safety (determined by the number of withdrawals related to adverse events). We used mixed-effects logistic regression to carry out an indirect comparison of the treatment effects between biologics.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, biologics were associated with a clinically important higher ACR50 rate (odds ratio [OR] 3.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.62-4.29) and a number needed to treat for benefit of 4 (95% CI 4-6). However, biologics were associated with more withdrawals related to adverse events (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.13-1.71), with a number needed to treat for harm of 52 (95% CI 29-152). Anakinra was less effective than all of the other biologics, although this difference was statistically significant only for the comparison with adalimumab (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.99) and etanercept (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.81). Adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab were more likely than etanercept to lead to withdrawals related to adverse events (adalimumab OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.18-3.04; anakinra OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.27-3.29; and infliximab OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.43-5.26).

INTERPRETATION

Given the limitations of indirect comparisons, anakinra was less effective than adalimumab and etanercept, and etanercept was safer than adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab. This summary of the evidence will help physicians and patients to make evidence-based choices about biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

TNF-alpha antagonist survival rate in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients observed under conditions of standard clinical practice

A cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in the Lombardy Rheumatology Network (LOHREN) registry and receiving anti-TNF therapy was evaluated after 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Of the 1114 patients in the registry 1064 met the clinical criteria for inclusion with 519 receiving infliximab, 303 adalimumab, and 242 etanercept. The therapeutic survival curve of these patients showed that the likelihood of continuing anti-TNF therapy was 78.8% after 12 months, 65.2% after 24 months, and 52.9% after 36 months, with a risk of dropout similar for inefficacy and adverse events. There were 405 anti-TNF therapy discontinuations (38.1%): 180 (16.9%) due to inefficacy, 194 (18.2%) adverse events, and 31 (2.9%) other reasons. Four deaths (2 septicemia, 1 postinfective cerebritis, 1 heart failure) were considered to be related to anti-TNF therapy. Of the discontinuations, 219 (54.1%) occurred within the first 12 months: 110 due to adverse events, 89 inefficacy, and 20 due to other reasons. After 36 months, the likelihood of survival on etanercept (62.5%) was significantly greater than the likelihood of survival on infliximab (49.1%) or adalimumab (53.6%). A higher risk of therapy discontinuations due to adverse events was associated with increasing age, a corticosteroid > 5 mg/day, a high erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), a higher risk of therapy discontinuations due to inefficacy was associated with the previous use of > or = 4 disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and a high ESR. Comorbidities, increasing DAS28 values and co-therapy with methotrexate were associated with a lower risk of discontinuation.

The impact of patient-perceived restricted access to anti-TNF therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To explore rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients' experience of access to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy in the UK, and of switching therapies after an initial failure.

METHODS

Patients were asked about their experience of accessing, receiving and discontinuing anti-TNF therapy in face-to-face indepth interviews, within the context of the larger study about treatment outcomes. Seventeen individuals with a diagnosis of RA and experience of receiving anti-TNF therapy were interviewed in one hospital trust in England.

RESULTS

Different emotions (Theme 1) surrounded the process of accessing anti-TNF therapy: hope, desperation, apprehension, anxiety and frustration. Experience of receiving anti-TNF therapy (Theme 2) included not only positive transformation, but also fear of failure and discontinuation. The subsequent value that patients placed on anti-TNF therapy (Theme 3) included having a right to receive therapy and being lucky. These three themes were underpinned by the core category of 'willing to try anything'. Those switching therapies reported increased caution over the possibility of recurring side effects, but some suggestion of benefit. There was a perception that access to anti-TNF therapy was restricted by cost, rather than being recommended for those in clinical need.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-TNF therapies may have a sudden and dramatic impact on RA patients' lives that contrast with other available medications. However, the stress of the patient's journey through the need to 'qualify' for anti-TNF therapy, and the fear of failing or discontinuation of therapy, should not be underestimated by clinicians.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of etanercept for treating rheumatoid arthritis

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of etanercept (ETA) for treating rheumatoid arthritis. A systematic review was performed to search for randomized clinical trials comparing subcutaneous doses of ETA at 25 mg twice a week or 50 mg weekly to a placebo group, with or without methotrexate. Studies of low quality (less than 3 points on Jadad's scale) were excluded. The efficacy was assessed by using the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). Safety data were evaluated based on serious adverse events, serious infections, malignancy and deaths. Withdrawals as a result of adverse events or lack of efficacy were also evaluated. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 2385 patients. In the efficacy meta-analysis, a greater number of ETA-treated patients achieved the efficacy criteria within 6 months of treatment, where the relative risk (RR) was 2.94 [2.27, 3.81] for achieving ACR20, 5.28 [3.12, 8.92] for ACR50 and 4.83 [1.74, 13.47] for ACR70. After 1 year, the RR for achieving ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 were 1.14 [1.07, 1.23], 1.36 [1.21, 1.53] and 1.56 [1.30, 1.88], respectively. This response rates were higher for ETA-treated patients in comparison with control group patients. For safety, there were no statistically significant differences between treated patients and controls. This was also confirmed by withdrawals as a result of adverse events, which were not statistically different between the two groups. However, more patients withdrew from control groups because of a lack of efficacy as compared with ETA groups (RR = 0.48 [0.30, 0.78]).

Abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Abatacept inhibits the co-stimulation of T cells and disrupts the inflammatory chain of events that leads to joint inflammation, pain, and damage in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept in reducing disease activity, pain, and improving function in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (from 1966), EMBASE (from 1980), ACP Journal Club (from 2000), and Biosis Previews (from 1990) in March 2007 and December 2008. We contacted authors of included studies and the abatacept manufacturer.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing abatacept alone, or in combination with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or biologics, to placebo or other DMARDs or biologics in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed search results and risk of bias, and extracted data. We obtained adverse event data from trials, long-term extension studies, and regulatory agencies.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials with 2908 patients were included. Compared with placebo, patients in the abatacept group were 2.2 times more likely to achieve an ACR 50 response at one year (RR 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73 to 2.82) with a 21% (95% CI 16% to 27%) absolute risk difference between groups. The number needed to treat to achieve an ACR 50 response was 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Significant improvements in physical function and a reduction in disease activity and pain were found in abatacept-treated patients compared to placebo. One RCT found abatacept significantly slowed the radiographic progression of joint damage at 12 months compared to placebo, although it is not clear what the clinical relevance of this difference may be. There may be a risk of attrition bias. Total adverse events were greater in the abatacept group (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08). Other harm outcomes were not significant with the exception of a greater number of serious infections at 12 months in the abatacept group (Peto odds ratio 1.91 (95% CI 1.07 to 3.42). Serious adverse events were increased when abatacept was given in combination with other biologics (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.62).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-level evidence that abatacept is efficacious and safe in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Abatacept should not be used in combination with other biologics to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The withdrawal and toxicity profile appears acceptable at the present time but further long-term studies and post-marketing surveillance are required to assess harms and sustained efficacy.

Anakinra for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and safety of anakinra in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the reference lists of included articles for randomized controlled trials comparing anakinra to placebo in adults with RA.

RESULTS

Five trials involving 2846 patients, 781 randomized to placebo and 2065 to anakinra, were included. There was a significant improvement in the number of participants achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 (38% vs 23%) treated with anakinra 50-150 mg daily versus placebo after 24 weeks. ACR50 (18% vs 7%), ACR70 (7% vs 2%), Health Assessment Questionnaire, visual analog scale for pain, Larsen radiographic scores, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate all demonstrated significant improvement with anakinra versus placebo as well. There were no statistically significant differences noted in the number of withdrawals, deaths, adverse events (total and serious), and infections (total and serious). An increase in incidence of serious infections in anakinra versus the placebo group (1.8% vs 0.6%) was noted that may be clinically significant. Injection site reactions were significantly increased, occurring in 71% of anakinra versus 28% of placebo group.

CONCLUSION

Anakinra is a relatively safe and modestly efficacious biologic therapy for RA. More studies are needed to evaluate safety and efficacy, especially in comparison to other therapies, and adverse event data for the longterm use of anakinra have yet to be assessed.

Anakinra for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

In the past decade, a novel class of therapies directed against specific cytokines implicated in the disease process of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), called the 'Biologics' have greatly improved and expanded treatment for RA. Anakinra is an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist that is currently FDA-approved for moderate-severe RA that has been unresponsive to initial disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of anakinra in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2008), MEDLINE (1950 to Week 4 2008) , EMBASE (1980 to Week 5 2008), CINAHL (1982 to November 2007) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing anakinra alone or in combination with DMARDs or biologics to placebo or other DMARDs or biologics in patients >18 years old with rheumatoid arthritis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials involving 2876 patients, 781 randomized to placebo and 2065 to anakinra, were included. There was a significant improvement in number of participants achieving ACR20 (38% versus 23%) who were treated with anakinra 50 to 150 mg daily versus placebo after 24 weeks. This 15% increase in patients achieving ACR20 with anakinra versus placebo is felt to be a clinically meaningful, though modest, outcome. Other efficacy data - including ACR50 (18% versus 7%), ACR70 (7% versus 2%), HAQ, visual analog score (VAS), Larsen radiographic scores, and change in erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) - all demonstrated significant improvement with anakinra 50 to 150 mg daily versus placebo as well. There were no statistically significant differences noted in most safety outcomes with treatment with anakinra versus placebo - including number of withdrawals, deaths, adverse events (total and serious), and infections (total and serious). Injection site reactions were significantly increased, occurring in 1235/1729 (71%) versus 204/729 (28%) of patients treated with anakinra versus placebo, respectively. The incidence of serious infections was clinically higher, but not statistically different, in the anakinra (25/1366 patients, 1.8%) versus placebo group (3/534 patients, 0.6%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Anakinra is a relatively safe and modestly efficacious biologic therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Although head to head comparison trials have not been carried out, the amount of improvement is notably less when compared to studies using other biologic therapies. More studies are needed to evaluate safety and efficacy, especially in comparison to other therapies, and adverse event data for the long-term use of Anakinra has yet to be assessed.

Is health equity considered in systematic reviews of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG) systematic reviews and corresponding primary studies of rheumatoid arthritis interventions report and analyze the data needed to assess the effectiveness of interventions in reducing socioeconomic differences in health and/or improving the health of the poor.

METHODS

We selected all CMSG reviews on rheumatoid arthritis published since issue 1, 2003. Fourteen reviews were identified; 147 of the 156 primary studies included in these reviews were obtained and assessed. We extracted data on whether the dimensions place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture, occupation, gender, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital and networks (PROGRESS) were reported or analyzed, and whether any interventions were aimed at disadvantaged or low- and middle-income country populations.

RESULTS

Among the dimensions of PROGRESS reported at baseline in 147 primary studies, gender (89%) was the most commonly reported, followed by education (25%) and race/ethnicity (18%). Less than 50% of the systematic reviews reported dimensions of PROGRESS even when they had been reported in the primary study. Of 147 primary studies, 6 (5%) were aimed specifically at disadvantaged populations; another 6 reported on effectiveness by at least 1 dimension of PROGRESS.

CONCLUSION

Primary studies of interventions for rheumatoid arthritis generally reported few variables necessary to answer questions about health inequalities. Most CMSG systematic reviews failed to assess those variables even when described in the primary studies. The Cochrane Health Equity Field welcomes the opportunity to provide guidance to systematic review authors on incorporating equity considerations into their reviews.

Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of reviews about etanercept (ETN) and infliximab (IFX), two biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

STUDY DESIGN

A comprehensive, systematic review, including searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other electronic databases and hand-searches for published and unpublished literature. Two raters independently examined each article and identified systematic reviews as those including either a description of: (1) sources for identification and data retrieval; or (2) search strategy. They applied the quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUOROM) instrument to systematic reviews.

RESULTS

Of 3,620 total citations, 281 were identified as reviews. Of these, 26 (9%) qualified as systematic rather than narrative. Overall, few reviews described selection of sources, critical appraisal, or quantitative summary or synthesis. Systematic reviews most often failed to explain validity assessment. Several articles did not disclose authors' participation in industry-funded clinical trials. Most reviews published in high impact factor and rheumatology journals did not meet many quality standards. Significant associations existed between review type (narrative vs. systematic) and reported funding (P=0.05), conflicts of interest (P=0.005), and country of publication (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

More than 90% of the published reviews were narrative and did not report methods and conflicts of interest in sufficient detail, raising concerns about selection and reporting bias.

Drug insight: tumor necrosis factor-converting enzyme as a pharmaceutical target for rheumatoid arthritis

The success of agents that inhibit tumor necrosis factor (TNF), such as infliximab, adalimumab and etanercept, has led to a desire for orally available small molecules that have a better safety profile and are less costly to produce than current agents. One target for anti-TNF therapy that is currently under investigation is TNF-converting enzyme, which promotes the release of soluble TNF from its membrane-bound precursor. Inhibitors of this enzyme with drug-like properties have been made and tested in the clinic. These inhibitors include TMI-005 and BMS-561392, both of which have entered into phase II clinical trials. This article summarizes preclinical and clinical findings regarding the use of inhibitors of TNF-converting enzyme for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

[Toward a non-empirical treatment for rheumatoid arthritis based on its molecular pathology]

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, disabbling disease that affects individuals during the productive years of their lives. Modern treatment for RA includes the so called "biologic" therapy, which is based on recombinant proteins that modify the biologic processes. These agents have potent therapeutic effects and different mechanisms of action. Nevertheless, therapeutic failure still prevails. Treatment that prevents disability in RA must be started in an early manner, before the development of complications and, ideally, with a minimum possibility of therapeutic failure. As yet, there are no clinical or laboratory criteria to identify those patients with a higher probability of responding to particular types of therapy, delaying control of RA ad affecting the prevention of incapacity. Research into gene diversity through single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) by means of microarray systems, allows the detailed analysis of gene factors associated to a given disease. SNPs have been recently applied to the study of RA, where the major polymorphisms associated to RA occur primarily in genes that code for proteins related to the initiation of an immune response and/or the control of cellular activity in the immune system, in addition to genes related to tissue repair. The specific meaning of these findings is in its initial stages of research. On the other hand, proteomics relate to the analysis of protein expression profiles at multiple levels. Both types of studies will contribute to the knowledge of patterns of gene expression in RA compared to the general population, and will allow an understanding of the pathogenesis of RA. Moreover, proteomic and genomic profiles can be employed to designs probes that identify individuals with the risk of developing RA, individually predict the response to different therapeutic modalities (pharmacogenomics) and for the follow-up of the biologic response to therapy.

B-cell depletion in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractant to multiple TNF blockers and the interleukin 1 receptor-antagonist anakinra

To evaluate the efficacy of Rituximab in a negatively selected patient cohort, with inadequate response to different disease modifying drugs (DMARDs) and to at least two biologicals. Fifteen patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis with inefficacy of an average of 5 DMARDS and 2.5 TNF antagonists were treated with Rituximab. Eight patients were ineffectively pretreated with Anakinra as well. The disease activity score (DAS28) and the morning stiffness served for assessment of the clinical response. For maintenance treatment different conventional DMARDs were used (4xMTX, 4xLeflunomide, 1xmycophenolate, 1xsirolimus, 1xhydroxychloroquine). At baseline visit the mean DAS 28 was 5.9. The mean duration of morning stiffness was 99.6 min. At month 6 the mean DAS28 was 3.95. Forty percent (6 patients) showed a good and 33% (5 patients) a moderate response. Morning stiffness improved to 43 min. In this negatively selected group of patients Rituximab was safe and effective.

Preliminary evaluation in rheumatoid arthritis activity in patients treated with TNF-alpha blocker plus methotrexate versus methotrexate or leflunomide alone

Methotrexate (MTX) is a first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Leflunomide (LEF) and the biologic agents entered the arsenal of DMARDs in 1998. Therapeutic properties of new drugs are still under survey. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of MTX, LEF and a biologic agent (TNF-alpha blocker) combined with MTX in reducing disease activity in RA. Seventy-eight patients with active RA underwent a 24-week treatment with MTX 15 mg/week (30 pts), LEF 20 mg/day (30 pts) or a TNF-alpha blocker (etanercept 25 mg 2x weekly or infliximab 3 mg/kg in the week 0, 2, 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter) plus MTX 15 mg/week (18 pts). Only patients with RA resistant to MTX were included in groups receiving LEF or a biologic agent. During follow-up, patients' characteristics, disease characteristics, and clinical and laboratory data were registered. RA activity was evaluated using the ESR, tender and swollen joint counts, the duration of morning stiffness, disease activity score-28 (DAS 28), visual analogue scale (VAS) and health assessment questionnaire (HAQ). Treatment efficacy was demonstrated with ACR 20, 50 and 70 criteria. All groups revealed statistically significant improvement in all disease activity parameters measured. The percentage improvements were similar in groups treated with MTX and LEF and--except for VAS--significantly greater in the group treated with a biologic agent. Disease activity assessed by DAS 28 decreased significantly in all groups: the results were comparable in groups treated with MTX and LEF and significantly more prominent in the group treated with a TNF-alpha blocker. The ACR 20, 50 and 70 improvements amounted, respectively: 100, 50 and 7% in MTX group 87, 60 and 13% in LEF group and 100, 83 and 50% in a biologic agent group. The study revealed equal effectiveness of MTX and LEF in reducing disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. The efficacy of a TNF-alpha blocker combined with MTX was higher than that of each conventional DMARDs, especially with regard to ACR 70 criteria (considerable improvement after treatment). LEF was equally effective as MTX in patients unable to continue MTX treatment due to the drug's ineffectiveness.

Treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis in developing countries. Biologics or disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs?

Biologics are highly effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but they are very expensive. The costs of biologics should limit their usage in patients with RA, especially in the developing countries. Therefore, it is necessary to develop suitable strategies for treating RA patients in these countries. In this article, the efficacy, toxicity, and cost-effectiveness of conventional DMARDs and biologics will be investigated. The therapeutic strategies for treating early RA will also be proposed.

Recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology. TNFalpha antagonist therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To develop recommendations for TNFalpha-antagonist therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) seen in everyday practice, under the aegis of the French Society for Rheumatology.

METHOD

We used the methods recommended by the French Agency for Healthcare Accreditation and Evaluation, the AGREE collaboration, and the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR). The recommendations focus on patient selection, monitoring, and treatment adjustments.

RESULTS

Criteria for selecting patients eligible for TNFalpha-antagonist treatment of RA include: 1) a definitive diagnosis of RA; 2) disease activity for longer than 1 month, including presence of objective signs of inflammation; or radiographic progression; 3) previous failure of methotrexate in the highest tolerated dosage or of another disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in patients with contraindications to methotrexate; 4) absence of contraindications to TNFalpha-antagonist therapy. When starting TNFalpha-antagonist therapy 1) a thorough baseline evaluation should be conducted; 2) any of the three available agents can be used, as no differences in efficacy have been identified in patient populations; 3) concomitant methotrexate therapy is recommended regardless of the TNFalpha antagonist used; and 4) patients should receive standardized follow-up at regular intervals. Treatment adjustments should be based on the following: 1) the treatment objective is achievement of a EULAR response; 2) when such a response is not achieved, the dosage or dosing interval can be changed, or the patient can be switched to another TNFalpha antagonist; 3) in patients who experience intolerance to a TNFalpha antagonist, another TNFalpha antagonist may be tried, depending on the nature of the adverse event; 4) occurrence of a remission should lead to a reduction in symptomatic medications, most notably glucocorticoids where used; in the event of a prolonged remission, either the TNFalpha antagonist or the concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug may be reduced.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations are intended to help physicians use TNFalpha antagonists in their everyday practice with RA patients. They do not constitute regulations.

Adalimumab for treating rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab is a fully human anti-TNFalpha monoclonal antibody. Published studies indicate that its use in patients with RA can be effective and safe.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in the treatment of RA.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases were searched up to August, 2004: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EBM Reviews (CDSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE and CENTRAL) and Health STAR. Conference proceedings were hand searched and pharmaceutical companies were contacted to obtain additional unpublished data from published trials. Adalimumab was searched as a text word as it is not currently indexed. The search was not limited by language, year of publication or type of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing adalimumab alone or in combination with DMARDs to placebo or other DMARDs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently collected the data in a standardized form and assessed the methodological quality of the trial using validated criteria. Outcome measures included ACR and EULAR responses, DAS 28 and components of ACR response and radiographic data. Safety data were also included. Continuous data were reported as weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI), absolute benefit (AB) and relative difference (RD). Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% CI, absolute risk difference (ARD) or risk difference (RDiff) with 95%CI and number needed to treat (NNT) or to harm (NNH). When significant heterogeneity was not found, data were pooled.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies with 2381 patients were included in this review. Two comparisons were done: A. adalimumab subcutaneously (sc) + methotrexate (or DMARDs) versus placebo sc + methotrexate (or DMARDs). B. adalimumab sc in monotherapy versus placebo sc. In the comparison A, with adalimumab 40 mg every other week (e.o.w.), the RR to achieve an ACR 20 response at 24 weeks ranged in the included studies from 1.52 to 4.63, and the NNT ranged from 1.9 to 5.4. The RR (95%CI) to achieve an ACR 50 response was 4.63 (3.04-7.05), and the NNT was 3.0 (95%CI 2.0-6.0). The RR (95%CI) to achieve an ACR 70 response was 5.14 (3.14-8.41) and the number needed to treat was 7.0 (95%CI 5.0-13.0). At 52 weeks, the RRs (95%CI) to achieve an ACR 20, 50, and 70 response were 2.46 (1.87-3.22), 4.37 (2.77-6.91), and 5.15 (2.60-10.22), with NNTs of 2.9, 3.1, and 5.3, respectively. At 52 weeks, adalimumab 40 mg e.o.w. and 20 mg every week (e.w.) significantly slowed the radiological progression including Sharp modified index, erosion score, and joint space score (only with 40 mg e.o.w.). In the comparison B, with adalimumab 40 mg e.o w. , the RRs to achieve an ACR 20, 50, and 70 response at 24/26 weeks were 1.91 (1.17-3.10), 2.84 (1.58-5.12), and 7.33 (2.25-33.90) with NNTs of 5.0 (95%CI 3.0-9.0), 7.0 (4.0-20.0), and 9.0 (3.0-38.0), respectively. In most of the analysed studies and comparisons, there were not significant differences in safety outcomes between adalimumab and control groups. The development of positive antinuclear antibodies was significantly more frequent in adalimumab patients than in placebo patients. Serious infections were significantly more frequent in adalimumab patients in only one study (Keystone 2004) with a RR (95%CI) of 7.64(1.02-57.18) and a NNH of 30.2.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the studies reviewed here, adalimumab in combination with methotrexate is efficacious and safe in the treatment of the rheumatoid arthritis. Adalimumab 40 mg sc e.o.w. and 20 mg e.w. slows the radiographic progression at 52 weeks. Adalimumab in combination with DMARDs other than methotrexate is also efficacious and safe, even though data from one only study are available and the number of patients in each group is low. Adalimumab in monotherapy is efficacious and safe in the treatment of the rheumatoid arthritis but the effect size is lower than with combined therapy.

Results from a nationwide postmarketing cohort study of patients in Sweden treated with etanercept

OBJECTIVES

To describe a nationwide system for postmarketing follow up of new antirheumatic drugs in Sweden, and to analyse safety and effectiveness in an etanercept treated patient cohort.

METHODS

Etanercept became available in Sweden for prescribing on a named patient basis in 1999. All patients treated were included in a follow up of intensified adverse event reporting and recording of clinical outcome during 24 months, according to the EULAR core set.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) disease activity score (DAS 28) value at inclusion among 820 patients recruited on a named patient basis during year 1 was 5.99 (1.19). After two years, 21% (n = 172) of these patients had discontinued the treatment. Of the remaining 648 patients, 68% (n = 442) responded to the treatment. However, in 55% of the responders, the disease activity was intermediate or high (mean DAS 28, 3.37 (1.20)). In all, 540 adverse events were reported in 421 adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports, in 294 patients. The events in 80 reports (19%) were serious. Twenty two per cent of the events were infections, of which 24% (n = 29) were serious. The incidence of serious adverse events remained constant over time.

CONCLUSIONS

At start of etanercept treatment, patients had high disease activity. Activity remained high in a large proportion of the responding patients. Although serious ADRs occurred during late phases of treatment, no unexpected safety problems arose. No specific indicators of ADR risk were found. The monitoring system that was established may be useful in future postmarketing surveillance.

Etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Etanercept is a soluble tumour necrosis factor alpha-receptor DMARD for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of etanercept for the treatment of RA.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Five electronic databases were searched from 1966 to February 2003 with no language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (minimum 6 month duration) comparing three possible combinations 1) etanercept (10 mg or 25 mg twice weekly) with methotrexate (MTX) to MTX alone 2) etanercept to MTX, or 3) etanercept to placebo were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the trails. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set of disease activity measures for RA clinical trials, radiographic, withdrawals and toxicity outcomes were analyzed.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials were included in this review. Two trials compared an experimental group who were started on etanercept compared to a control group; both groups had the same ongoing background therapy of nonsteroidals in both trials plus in one trial one group was on stable methotrexate. In these two trials the ACR 20, ACR 50 and ACR 70 response rates at 6 months were statistically significantly and clinically important with etanercept 25 mg subcutaneous injections (SC) twice weekly. Sixty-four percent of people receiving etanercept ache vied an ACR 20 response compared to 15% of controls and the number needed to treat (NNT) with etanercept is 2 people. Thirty-nine percent of those receiving etanercept achieved an ACR 50 response compared to 4% of taking control treatment and the NNT is three. Fifteen percent of people taking etanercept achieved an ACR 70 compared to 1% of controls with a NNT of 7 people. In the third trial of starting etanercept compared to starting methotrexate the number of participants who achieved an ACR 20, 50 or response at 6 and 12 months were not statistically significant for either etanercept dose. Etanercept treatment showed a statistically significantly and clinically important affect on joint damage as measured by the Sharp erosion score. Among participants who received etanercept 72% had no increase in their erosion score compared to 60% of participants in the methotrexate group. Withdrawal and toxicity results were acceptable.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Etanercept 25 mg SC twice weekly was more efficacious than control treatment for ACR 20, 50 and 70 at 6 months, and over 12 months it slowed joint damage.