A randomised comparative study of the short term clinical and biological effects of intravenous pulse methylprednisolone and infliximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment

Metalloproteinases as Biomarkers and Sociomarkers in Human Health and Disease

Metalloproteinases (MPs) are zinc-dependent enzymes with proteolytic activity and a variety of functions in the pathophysiology of human diseases. The main objectives of this review are to analyze a specific family of MPs, the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), in the most common chronic and complex diseases that affect patients' social lives and to better understand the nature of the associations between MMPs and the psychosocial environment. In accordance with the PRISMA extension for a scoping review, an examination was carried out. A collection of 24 studies was analyzed, focusing on the molecular mechanisms of MMP and their connection to the manifestation of social aspects in human disease. The complexity of the relationship between MMP and social problems is presented via an interdisciplinary approach based on complexity paradigm as a new approach for conceptualizing knowledge in health research. Finally, two implications emerge from the study: first, the psychosocial states of individuals have a profound impact on their overall health and disease conditions, which implies the importance of adopting a holistic perspective on human well-being, encompassing both physical and psychosocial aspects. Second, the use of MPs as biomarkers may provide physicians with valuable tools for a better understanding of disease when used in conjunction with "sociomarkers" to develop mathematical predictive models.

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.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate.

METHODS

In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H).

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.

METHODS

On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor-methotrexate combination therapy versus triple therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials have not consistently demonstrated differences between tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) plus methotrexate and triple therapy (methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine plus sulfasalazine) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The study objective was to estimate the efficacy, radiographic benefits, safety and patient-reported outcomes of TNFi-methotrexate versus triple therapy in patients with RA.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials of TNFi-methotrexate or triple therapy as one of the treatment arms in patients with an inadequate response to or who were naive to methotrexate was conducted. American College of Rheumatology 70% response criteria (ACR70) at 6 months was the prespecified primary endpoint to evaluate depth of response. Data from direct and indirect comparisons between TNFi-methotrexate and triple therapy were pooled and quantitatively analysed using fixed-effects and random-effects Bayesian models.

RESULTS

We analysed 33 studies in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate and 19 in patients naive to methotrexate. In inadequate responders, triple therapy was associated with lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.35, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.19 to 0.64). Most secondary endpoints tended to favour TNFi-methotrexate in terms of OR direction; however, no clear increased likelihood of achieving these endpoints was observed for either therapy. The odds of infection were lower with triple therapy than with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.08, 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.57). There were no differences observed between the two regimens in patients naive to methotrexate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this NMA, triple therapy was associated with 65% lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate. Although secondary endpoints numerically favoured TNFi-methotrexate, no clear differences were observed. The odds of infection were greater with TNFi-methotrexate. No differences were observed for patients naive to methotrexate. These results may help inform care of patients who fail methotrexate first-line therapy.

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

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.

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.

Are sample sizes of randomized clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis too large?

OBJECTIVE

We had the impression that randomized clinical trials (RCTs) frequently over enrolled patients. Thus, we surveyed power calculations in publications of RCTs of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to assess over enrollment.

METHODS

A PubMed search identified 40 reports of original RCTs testing the efficacy of infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, abatacept, rituximab and tocilizumab in patients with RA. As a first analysis, based on a two equal arms study with an alpha error of 0·05 and a power of 80% and of 90%, recalculation of the sample size was performed using the primary outcome results. In the second analysis, only those studies with equal number of patients in both arms and also in which all elements of a power calculation were given, were considered. New sample sizes were calculated based on the presented power elements in the related publications.

RESULTS

In the first analysis, when we assigned a power of 80% and of 90%, 32 of 40 (80%) studies enrolled more than required number of patients, with a mean 131 ± 147 (SD), and 31 of 40 (78%) studies having had enrolled extra patients, with a mean 121 ± 147 (SD) in their treatment arms, respectively. Eleven studies qualified for the second analysis. There were still more patients with a mean of 48 ± 30 (SD) extra patients enrolled in the treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Most RCTs in RA enrol more patients than needed. This is costly and has the immediate consequence of exposing needless number of patients to potential harm.

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.

Monitoring of nonsteroidal immunosuppressive drugs in patients with lung disease and lung transplant recipients: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVES

Immunosuppressive pharmacologic agents prescribed to patients with diffuse interstitial and inflammatory lung disease and lung transplant recipients are associated with potential risks for adverse reactions. Strategies for minimizing such risks include administering these drugs according to established, safe protocols; monitoring to detect manifestations of toxicity; and patient education. Hence, an evidence-based guideline for physicians can improve safety and optimize the likelihood of a successful outcome. To maximize the likelihood that these agents will be used safely, the American College of Chest Physicians established a committee to examine the clinical evidence for the administration and monitoring of immunosuppressive drugs (with the exception of corticosteroids) to identify associated toxicities associated with each drug and appropriate protocols for monitoring these agents.

METHODS

Committee members developed and refined a series of questions about toxicities of immunosuppressives and current approaches to administration and monitoring. A systematic review was carried out by the American College of Chest Physicians. Committee members were supplied with this information and created this evidence-based guideline.

CONCLUSIONS

It is hoped that these guidelines will improve patient safety when immunosuppressive drugs are given to lung transplant recipients and to patients with diffuse interstitial lung disease.

Systemic inflammatory profile and response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by progressive worsening of airflow limitation associated with abnormally inflamed airways in older smokers. Despite correlative evidence for a role for tumor necrosis factor-alpha in the pathogenesis of COPD, the anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha, infliximab did not show clinical efficacy in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial. This study sought to evaluate the systemic inflammatory profile associated with COPD and to assess the impact of tumor necrosis factor neutralization on systemic inflammation.

Methods

Serum samples (n = 234) from the phase II trial were collected at baseline and after 24 weeks of placebo or infliximab. Additionally, baseline serum samples were obtained from an independent COPD cohort (n = 160) and 2 healthy control cohorts (n = 50; n = 109). Serum concentrations of a broad panel of inflammation-associated analytes were measured using a 92-analyte multiplex assay.

Results

Twenty-five proteins were significantly elevated and 2 were decreased in COPD, including highly elevated CD40 ligand, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, epidermal growth factor, acute-phase proteins, and neutrophil-associated proteins. This profile was largely independent of smoking status, age, and clinical phenotype. The majority of these associations of serum analytes with COPD are novel findings. Increased serum creatine kinase-muscle/brain and myoglobin correlated modestly with decreased forced expiratory volume at 1 second, suggesting cardiac involvement. Infliximab did not affect this systemic inflammatory profile.

Conclusions

A robust systemic inflammatory profile was associated with COPD. This profile was generally independent of disease severity. Because anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha did not influence systemic inflammation, how to control the underlying pathology beyond symptom suppression remains unclear.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, No.: NCT00056264.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of existing TNF blocking agents in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Background and Objectives

Five-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-blockers (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol and golimumab) are available for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Only few clinical trials compare one TNF-blocker to another. Hence, a systematic review is required to indirectly compare the substances. The aim of our study is to estimate the efficacy and the safety of TNF-blockers in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and indirectly compare all five currently available blockers by combining the results from included randomized clinical trials (RCT).

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted using databases including: MEDLINE, SCOPUS (including EMBASE), Cochrane library and electronic search alerts. Only articles reporting double-blind RCTs of TNF-blockers vs. placebo, with or without concomitant methotrexate (MTX), in treatment of RA were selected. Data collected were information of patients, interventions, controls, outcomes, study methods and eventual sources of bias.

Results

Forty-one articles reporting on 26 RCTs were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Five RCTs studied infliximab, seven etanercept, eight adalimumab, three golimumab and three certolizumab. TNF-blockers were more efficacious than placebo at all time points but were comparable to MTX. TNF-blocker and MTX combination was superior to either MTX or TNF-blocker alone. Increasing doses did not improve the efficacy. TNF-blockers were relatively safe compared to either MTX or placebo.

Conclusions

No single substance clearly rose above others in efficacy, but the results of the safety analyses suggest that etanercept might be the safest alternative. Interestingly, MTX performs nearly identically considering both efficacy and safety aspects with a margin of costs.

The association between systemic glucocorticoid therapy and the risk of infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION

Infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of glucocorticoid (GC) therapy on the risk of infection in patients with RA.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database to January 2010 to identify studies among populations of patients with RA that reported a comparison of infection incidence between patients treated with GC therapy and patients not exposed to GC therapy.

RESULTS

In total, 21 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 42 observational studies were included. In the RCTs, GC therapy was not associated with a risk of infection (relative risk (RR), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.69, 1.36)). Small numbers of events in the RCTs meant that a clinically important increased or decreased risk could not be ruled out. The observational studies generated a RR of 1.67 (1.49, 1.87), although significant heterogeneity was present. The increased risk (and heterogeneity) persisted when analyses were stratified by varying definitions of exposure, outcome, and adjustment for confounders. A positive dose-response effect was seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas observational studies suggested an increased risk of infection with GC therapy, RCTs suggested no increased risk. Inconsistent reporting of safety outcomes in the RCTs, as well as marked heterogeneity, probable residual confounding, and publication bias in the observational studies, limits the opportunity for a definitive conclusion. Clinicians should remain vigilant for infection in patients with RA treated with GC therapy.

Effectiveness and safety of etanercept in subjects with RA who have failed infliximab therapy: 16-week, open-label, observational study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, including etanercept (a soluble TNF receptor) and infliximab (an anti-TNF monoclonal antibody) are used in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of 50 mg etanercept weekly in subjects with RA who have failed infliximab therapy.

METHODS

This phase 4, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, 16-week observational study enrolled subjects who had experienced primary (failure to achieve an initial response) or secondary (failure to maintain an initial response) infliximab failures. Effectiveness was measured using European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria and laboratory assessments were used to evaluate levels of inflammation, lymphotoxin alpha, drug concentrations, and antibodies to infliximab. Safety endpoints included incidence of serious adverse events.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered under U.S. National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00099554.

RESULTS

At week 16, over half (62%; 95% CI = 55, 69) of all subjects in the trial achieved a good or moderate EULAR response (DAS28) with etanercept. Using ACR criteria, after 16 weeks of etanercept therapy, 45% (95% CI = 38, 52) of all subjects had achieved an ACR20 response. Benefits were noted in tender and swollen joint counts, subject and physician global assessments, joint pain, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire. Outcomes were similar between subjects with primary and secondary infliximab failures. Levels of lymphotoxin alpha did not appear to affect response to etanercept. Potential limitations included the lack of a washout period, short duration of the trial, and the number of subjects who did not receive all doses of etanercept.

CONCLUSION

In this open-label, uncontrolled study, subjects with moderate to severe RA who failed to respond or who lost their initial response to infliximab safely benefited from receiving etanercept.

Quality of life evaluated by Short Form-8 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were receiving infusion of infliximab

In this study, influences of infliximab to health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and active status of RA were assessed. Between 2003 and 2006, 22 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) began receiving infusion of infliximab. Of all the patients, 17 patients who were followed for at least 30 weeks (102 weeks at maximum) after the start of infliximab were included in this study. The mean age was 54.6+/-10 years. HRQOL was evaluated with use of the SF-8trade mark, which is a simple version of the Medical Outcome Study Short Form 36. As an index of active status of RA, C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and rheumatoid factor (RF) were collected. CRP and ESR significantly improved at the final follow-up, but RF did not. All subscales of the SF-8 were significantly improved after the start of infliximab. However, there were three patients whose laboratory data were improved, but HRQOL was not. We should not be prepossessed only with laboratory data in treating patients with RA. We recommend that the SF-8 to evaluate HRQOL of patients with RA in busy outpatient clinics because it is both simple and convenient.

Psychological adjustment to chronic disease

This Review discusses physiological, emotional, behavioural, and cognitive aspects of psychological adjustment to chronic illness. Reviewing the reports of the past decade, we identify four innovative and promising themes that are relevant for understanding and explaining psychological adjustment. In particular, the emphasis on the reasons why people fail to achieve a healthy adjustment has shifted to the identification of factors that help patients make that adjustment. To promote psychological adjustment, patients should remain as active as is reasonably possible, acknowledge and express their emotions in a way that allows them to take control of their lives, engage in self-management, and try to focus on potential positive outcomes of their illness. Patients who can use these strategies have the best chance of successfully adjusting to the challenges posed by a chronic illness.

Most tumour necrosis factor inhibitor trials in rheumatology are undeservedly called 'efficacy and safety' trials: a survey of power considerations

OBJECTIVES

Many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are labelled efficacy and safety while due consideration for power is provided only for efficacy outcomes. This in turn necessitates a discussion of the inadequacy of sample size (type II error) for identifying harm. This is particularly important in RCTs of TNF inhibitors as harm related to these agents is still a matter of debate.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for all RCTs published examining TNF inhibitors in RA, PsA and AS. Only original study reports were surveyed for whether: (i) they were labelled as efficacy, safety or both; (ii) the methods sections included safety as a primary or secondary end point; (iii) power calculations were adequately explained; (iv) statistical tests of significance were given for harm; and finally (v) any discussion of type II error for harm was present.

RESULTS

Of the 34 articles surveyed, 24 (71%) were labelled as efficacy and safety. Among these, 23 (96%) did not include safety as a formal primary or secondary end point. In only 2/24 (8%) power calculations were given for safety. Finally, in only 3/22 (14%) any discussion about the inadequate sample size (type II error) for detecting harm could be found.

CONCLUSIONS

Most reports of RCTs of TNF inhibitors in rheumatological diseases are inappropriately labelled as addressing efficacy and safety. Their lack of power in detecting harm is not adequately discussed, either.

Tumor necrosis factor alpha drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and metaanalysis of efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

To analyse available evidence on the efficacy and safety of anti-TNFalpha drugs (infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab) for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We searched systematically for randomised controlled clinical trials on treatment of RA with anti-TNFalpha drugs, followed by a systematic review with metaanalysis. Trials were searched from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) efficacy response criteria were used. Safety parameters provided by the trials were also assessed. Positive and undesired effects were estimated using combined relative risks (RR), number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH). Heterogeneity was evaluated by Cochrane's Q and I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials (7087 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The combined RR to achieve a therapeutic response to treatment with recommended doses of any anti-TNFalpha drug was 1.81 (95% CI 1.43-2.29) with a NNT of 5 (5-6) for ACR20. NNT for ACR50 [5 (5-6)] and ACR70 [7 (7-9)] were similar. Overall therapeutic effects were also similar regardless of the specific anti-TNFalpha drug used and when higher than recommended doses were administered. However, lower than recommended doses elicited low ACR70 responses (NNT 15). Comparison of anti-TNFalpha drugs plus methotrexate (MTX) with MTX alone in patients with insufficient prior responses to MTX showed NNT values of 3 for ACR20, 4 for ACR50 and 8 for ACR70. Comparison of anti-TNFalpha drugs with placebo showed a similar pattern. Comparisons of anti-TNFalpha drugs plus MTX with MTX alone in patients with no previous resistance to MTX showed somewhat lower effects. Etanercept and adalimumab administered as monotherapy showed effects similar to those of MTX. Side effects were more common among patients receiving anti-TNFalpha drugs than controls (overall combined NNH 27). Patients receiving infliximab were more likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH 24) and to suffer severe side effects (NNH 31), infections (NNH 10) and infusion reactions (NNH 9). Patients receiving adalimumab were also more likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH 47) and to suffer injection site reactions (NNH 22). Patients receiving etanercept were less likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH for control versus etanercept 26) but more likely to experience injection site reactions (NNH 5).

CONCLUSION

Anti-TNFalpha drugs are effective in RA patients, with apparently similar results irrespective of the drug administered. Doses other than those recommended are also beneficial. The main factor influencing therapeutic efficacy is the prior response to DMARD treatment. The effect of treatment with etanercept or adalimumab does not differ from that obtained with MTX. The published safety profile for etanercept is superior but the fact that no patients are treated with higher than recommended doses requires explanation.

Efficacy and tolerability of valdecoxib in treating the signs and symptoms of severe rheumatoid arthritis: A 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of the cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitor valdecoxib with the nonselective NSAID naproxen and with placebo in treating severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and tolerability of valdecoxib 10 mg QD (n = 170) or naproxen 500 mg BID (n = 167) with placebo (n = 171) in treating the signs and symptoms of severe RA. Study patients were aged >or=18 years and were diagnosed as having RA for >or=6 months that was stable due to a treatment regimen. Severe RA was defined as a physician's and patient's global assessment of disease activity of fair, poor, or very poor at baseline; >or=6 tender or painful joints; >or=3 swollen joints; >or=45 minutes of morning stiffness; a visual analog scale pain rating of >or=40 mm; or increases since baseline in these measures. Efficacy outcome measures included the percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology Responder Index 20% (ACR-20) at weeks 1, 6 and 12. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by the investigator as mild, moderate, or severe at weeks 1, 6, and 12.

RESULTS

Of the 508 patients randomized, 340 completed the study. The study groups were comparable for age, ethnic origin, weight, height, and concomitant medications, but the naproxen group had significantly more men (29% [49/167]) than the valdecoxib (18% [31/170]) and placebo (16% [27/171]) groups. The percentage of patients achieving an ACR-20 response was significantly greater in the valdecoxib and naproxen treatment groups (58.8% [100/170] and 60.8% [101/166], respectively) than in the placebo group (39.6% [67/169]) at week 12 (both, P < 0.001). The percentage of patients achieving an ACR-20 response was significantly greater in the naproxen group than in the placebo group at both week 1 (53.6% [89/166] vs 37.9% [64/169]; P = 0.003) and week 6 (64.5% [107/166] vs 46.7% [79/169]; P = 0.001), and in the valdecoxib group compared with placebo at week 1 (52.9% [90/170]; P = 0.008) but not at week 6. Patients in the valdecoxib and naproxen groups had significantly improved efficacy compared with placebo in most of the other secondary assessments of inflammation, pain, and function. The incidence of AEs was similar in all groups (valdecoxib, 54.1% [92/170]; naproxen, 55.4% [92/166]; and placebo, 52.9% [90/170]).

CONCLUSION

Valdecoxib 10 mg QD administered over 12 weeks was significantly better than placebo and similar to naproxen 500 mg BID in treating the signs and symptoms of severe RA in these patients.

A survey of inclusion of the time element when reporting adverse effects in randomised controlled trials of cyclo-oxygenase-2 and tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors

BACKGROUND

The adequacy of reporting the time element in adverse effects in articles on randomised clinical trials of cyclo-oxygenase-2 and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)alpha antagonists was surveyed.

METHODS

Prominent rheumatology and general/internal medicine journals were searched for all randomised controlled trials published about cyclo-oxygenase-2 and TNFalpha inhibitor use in rheumatological diseases up to November 2005. Reporting of time to the occurrence of the adverse effects, the use of patient years as the time frame of the reported adverse effects and the use of annual standard incidence ratios based on the surveillance, epidemiology and end-results (SEER) programme when reporting neoplasms as potential adverse effects of TNFalpha antagonists were specifically tabulated.

RESULTS

Only 23 of 70 (33%) of all articles gave the specific time of onset of an adverse effect. Nine studies used patient years to report the adverse effects and six studies used annual standard incidence ratios, using SEER, as the comparator.

CONCLUSION

In reporting of adverse effects in randomised clinical trials, a particularly neglected issue is the reporting of the time dimension of adverse effects.

Characterization of the neutralizing activity of three anti-human TNF monoclonal antibodies and prediction of their TNF epitopes by molecular modeling and mutant protein approach

The neutralizing activity of three anti-human TNF monoclonal antibodies, designated D2, E6, and F6 were investigated by three experimental systems. The results from the systems showed that all the three mAbs could neutralize TNF-mediated cytotoxicity in L929 cells, TNF-induced NF-kappaB activation in ECV304 cells, and TNF-upregulated ICAM-1 surface expression on ECV304 cells in dose-dependent manners. D2 had the highest neutralizing activity of the three mAbs, and F6 had higher level of neutralizing activity than E6. We also cloned the VH and VL cDNAs and obtained their cDNA sequences. The sequences were used in molecular modeling to establish the complex structures of TNF with variable regions of the three mAbs, respectively. In the structures, the TNF epitopes of D2, E6, and F6 were predicted at amino acids of (A109, A111-A112, C19, C21-C29, C44-C46, C66-C75, C77, C79, C90, C101, C103, C105, C114, C134-C148), (C18-C19, C21-C30, C32, C37, C43-C47, C67-C75, C83, C105-C106, C131, C135-C141), and (C21-C32, C45-C47, C65, C67-C72, C74, C81, C83, C90-C95, C105-C113, C133-C147), respectively, and the affinities of D2, E6, and F6 to TNF were predicted as -252.69, -232.83, and -299.92 kcal, respectively. Moreover, we proved the binding ability of F6 to the epitopes of amino acids of 141-146 in TNF molecule was better than that of E6, and that of D2 was the best of the three mAbs by Western blot and ELISA, in which the mutant TNF deleted the amino acids of 141-146 in TNF molecule was employed. These results make a basic foundation for selecting candidate mAbs for various purposes, such as construction of chimeric or humanized mAbs for therapeutic purpose, establishment of ELISA kits for determination of TNF, and production of affinity columns to purify TNF.

Duration of rheumatoid arthritis influences the degree of functional improvement in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Functional capacity is an important outcome in rheumatoid arthritis and is generally measured using the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ). Functional limitation incorporates both activity and damage. Because irreversible damage increases over time, the HAQ may be less likely to show improvement in late than in early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relation between sensitivity to change of the HAQ and duration of rheumatoid arthritis in reports of clinical trials.

METHODS

Data were pooled from clinical trials that measured responses of HAQ scores at three or six months. The effect size of the HAQ was calculated and linear regression used to predict the effect size by duration of rheumatoid arthritis at group level. Treatment effect was adjusted for by including the effect sizes of pain scores and of tender joint counts as additional independent variables in separate models. Subgroup analysis employed contemporary regimens (methotrexate, leflunomide, combination therapies, and TNF inhibitors) only.

RESULTS

36 studies with 64 active treatment arms and 7628 patients (disease duration 2.5 months to 12.2 years) were included. The effect sizes of the HAQ decreased by 0.02 for each additional year of mean disease duration using all trials, and by 0.04/year in the subgroup analysis (p<or=0.01 for both analyses, except for pain adjusted models at three months).

CONCLUSIONS

In individual trials, less improvement in the HAQ might be expected in late than in early rheumatoid arthritis. Comparison of changes in HAQ among rheumatoid arthritis trials should take into consideration the disease stage of the treated groups.