A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of voclosporin or tacrolimus plus mycophenolate mofetil as induction treatment for lupus nephritis

AIM

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of voclosporin + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), tacrolimus + MMF, and monotherapy with MMF or cyclophosphamide as induction treatment for lupus nephritis.

METHODS

The study included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of voclosporin + MMF, tacrolimus + MMF, and monotherapy for induction treatment in patients with lupus nephritis. To incorporate direct and indirect evidence from RCTs, we used a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Four RCTs, including 936 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Tacrolimus + MMF substantially increased the incidence of complete remission relative to that following monotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 2.85; 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.87-4.39). Tacrolimus + MMF was also more effective than voclosporin + MMF (OR 1.43; 95% CrI 0.80-2.57). Tacrolimus + MMF showed the greatest chance of being the optimal treatment for overall response (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 0.942), followed by voclosporin + MMF (SUCRA = 0.558) and monotherapy (SUCRA = 0.001). In terms of safety based on severe event rates, monotherapy had the greatest chance of being the safest treatment (SUCRA = 0.903), followed by voclosporin + MMF (SUCRA = 0.517) and tacrolimus + MMF (SUCRA = 0.081).

CONCLUSION

Tacrolimus + MMF and voclosporin + MMF were more effective than monotherapy, and tacrolimus + MMF was the most effective induction treatment for lupus nephritis patients. However, tacrolimus + MMF did pose a greater risk of serious adverse events than monotherapy.

Comparative efficacy and safety of infliximab and its biosimilars in patients with rheumatoid arthritis presenting an insufficient response to methotrexate : A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative efficacy and safety of infliximab and its biosimilars in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who showed an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing the efficacy and safety of infliximab biosimilars versus the originator product in patients with active RA despite receiving MTX.

RESULTS

Overall, 7 RCTs involving 3168 patients, including 7 biologic agents, met the inclusion criteria. The NI-071 was listed at the top left of the diagonal of the league table because it was associated with the most favorable surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response rate. SB2 was listed at the bottom right of the diagonal of the league table because it was associated with the least favorable results. Based on SUCRA, NI-071 had the highest probability of being the best treatment agent in terms of the ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.731), followed by ABP 710, CT-P13, BCD-055, infliximab, Exemptia, PF-06438179, and SB2 (SUCRA = 0.311). Although statistically non-significant differences in safety ranking were observed for serious adverse events (SAEs) among the treatment options, ABP 710 presented the highest safety probability (SUCRA = 0.739) while BCD-055 showed the lowest safety profile (SUCRA = 0.289).

CONCLUSION

No significant difference in ACR20 response rates and SAEs were detected between infliximab biosimilars and the originator in the investigated study populations.

Comparative efficacy and safety of adalimumab biosimilars and adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis presenting an insufficient response to methotrexate: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the relative efficacy and safety of adalimumab and biosimilars in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) presenting an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining efficacy and safety of adalimumab biosimilars versus adalimumab in patients with active RA despite MTX therapy.

RESULTS

Overall, 8 RCTs involving 3577 patients, including 8 biologic types, met the inclusion criteria. MSB11022 is listed at the top left of the diagonal of the league table, as it was associated with the most favorable surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response rate; FKB327 is listed at the bottom right of the diagonal of the league table, as it was associated with the least favorable results. Based on SUCRA, MSB11022 presented the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving the ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.623), followed by PF-06410293, CinnoRA, BI 695501, ABP 50, Exemptia, SB5, adalimumab, and FKB327 (SUCRA = 0.390); no difference was observed in ACR20 response rates between biosimilars and adalimumab. Although statistically non-significant, differences in safety ranking were observed for serious adverse events (SAEs) among the interventions, with MSB11022 presenting the highest probability of being safe (SUCRA = 0.865) and Exemptia the lowest (SUCRA = 0.300).

CONCLUSION

No significant difference was detected between adalimumab biosimilars and the originator in terms of ACR20 response rates and SAEs in the studied patients.

Risk of New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus Associated with Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Nationwide Population Study

Background: This study aimed to investigate the effect of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on diabetes mellitus (DM) development in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: This nested case−control study with a cohort of 69,779 DM-naïve adult patients with RA was conducted from 2011 to 2019 in South Korea. Cases with incident DM were identified and individually matched to randomly selected controls (1:4). DMARDs use was measured for 1 year before the index date and stratified by exposure duration. The association of each DMARD use with DM risk was estimated using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbidities and concomitant drug use. Results: Of the patients, 5.4% were newly diagnosed with DM. The use of statins and a higher cumulative dose of corticosteroids were associated with an increased DM risk. In a multivariable-adjusted analysis, cumulative duration of exposure (CDE) >270 days/year, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.76) and methotrexate (MTX; aOR, 0.81) were associated with a significant decrease in DM risk, and tacrolimus (TAC; aOR, 1.27) was associated with an increased risk. Conclusions: Long-term use of HCQ and MTX (>270 days/year) was associated with a reduction in DM incidence as opposed to TAC.

Mendelian Randomization Research on the Relationship Between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and the Risk of Autistic Spectrum Disorder

Objective

The purpose of this study was to examine whether there is a causal link between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Methods

We used inverse variance weighted (IVW), weighted median, and MR-Egger regression methods to perform two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study using publicly available summary statistics datasets In addition, we employed genome-wide association studies (GWASs) for RA and SLE as exposure and an ASD GWAS as an outcome.

Results

Thirty-three and 28 single-nucleotide polymorphisms from RA and SLE GWASs were selected as instrumental variables for ASD The IVW method revealed no evidence supporting a causal association between RA and SLE and risk for ASD (beta=-0077, standard error [SE]=0041, p=0062; beta=0014, SE=0021, p=0493) The weighted median approach yielded no evidence of any causal association between RA and SLE and risk for ASD (beta=-0071, SE=0058, p=0223; beta=0045, SE=0030, p=0130) MR-Egger analysis demonstrated no causal association between RA and SLE and risk for ASD (beta=-0062, SE=0079, p=0434; beta=0048, SE=0043, p=0273) The MR results calculated using IVW, the median weighted and the MR-Egger regression approaches were consistent.

Conclusion

The findings of the MR analysis did not support a causal relationship between RA or SLE and the risk of ASD.

Relative efficacy and safety of Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib 30 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, tofacitinib 10 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, and filgotinib 200 mg in active PsA patients.

RESULTS

Five RCTs including 2539 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) revealed that filgotinib 200 mg had the highest probability of reaching a 20% American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) response rate, followed by upadacitinib 30 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, tofacitinib 10 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, and placebo. Upadacitinib 30 mg had the highest probability of achieving the ACR50 and ACR70 response rates, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, tofacitinib 10 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, and placebo. The SUCRA rating based on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index response rate of at least 75% (PASI75) showed that tofacitinib 10 mg had the highest probability of achieving this response, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, and placebo. Safety analyses evaluated adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs), but no statistically relevant differences were found.

CONCLUSION

Based on the ACR response rates, filgotinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg were the most effective, whereas tofacitinib 10 mg was the most effective treatment for PsA based on PASI75. However, treatment options were similar with regard to AEs and SAEs.

Comparative efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide in patients with active antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus cyclophosphamide (CYC) in patients with active antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV).

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of four randomized clinical trials (RCTs; 300 patients) to examine the relative efficacy and safety of MMF compared to CYC in patients with active AAV.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in remission at 6 months between MMF and CYC (odds ratio [OR] 1.311, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.570-3.017, P = 0.524). Additionally, the relapse rate did not differ between the MMF and CYC groups (OR 1.331, 95% CI 0.497-3.568, P = 0.570). There was no significant difference in serious adverse event (SAE; OR 1.232, 95% CI 0.754-2.014, P = 0.404) and infection rates (OR 0.958, 95% CI 0.561-1.634, P = 0.873) between the MMF and CYC groups. Some heterogeneity was found in the meta-analysis of remission and relapse rates (I² = 57.4%, 63.4%), but no between-study heterogeneity was found during the meta-analysis of SAE and infection rate. Egger's regression test showed no evidence of publication bias (Egger's regression test P-values >0.1).

CONCLUSION

MMF was an equally effective alternative treatment to CYC and MMF was comparable to CYC in patients with active AAV in terms of safety, suggesting that MMF can be used as an alternative to CYC for remission induction in AAV.

Comparative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib in active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

OBJECTIVE

The relative efficacy and tolerability of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib were assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs).

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib in RA patients with inadequate responses to bDMARDs.

RESULTS

Four RCTs comprising 1399 patients met the inclusion criteria. Tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib achieved significant American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) responses versus placebo. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that upadacitinib 15 mg had the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving the ACR20 response rate, followed by filgotinib 200 mg, baricitinib 4 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, and placebo. The ranking in SUCRA based on the ACR50 response rate indicated that baricitinib 4 mg had the highest probability of achieving the ACR50 response rate, followed by filgotinib 200 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, and placebo. Tofacitinib 5 mg showed a significantly higher ACR70 response rate than filgotinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg. Tofacitinib 5 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, and placebo showed a significantly lower serious adverse event rate than upadacitinib 15 mg.

CONCLUSION

Tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib were effective treatment options for RA patients with an inadequate response to bDMARDs but with different efficacy and safety profiles.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-tumour necrosis factor biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis showing insufficient response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Both biologic and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor therapies have demonstrated substantial effectiveness in placebo-controlled studies in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showing inadequate responses to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. The purpose of this study was to determine the relative effectiveness and safety of non-TNF biologics and JAK inhibitors in patients with RA showing insufficient response to TNF inhibitors.

METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis incorporating direct and indirect data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was used to investigate the effectiveness and safety of non-TNF biologics (abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, salirumab and sirukumab) and JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib and filgotinib) in patients with RA showing insufficient response to TNF inhibitors.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs, evaluating 3577 patients for 12 weeks fulfilled the inclusion requirements. JAK inhibitors and non-TNF biologics achieved a significant American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response relative to the placebo. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) showed that JAK inhibitor treatment was most likely to achieve the highest ACR20 response rate, followed by non-TNF biologics and placebo. The ACR50 rate displayed similar patterns as the ACR20 response rate, but non-TNF biologics have a higher value than JAK inhibitors based on the ACR70 response rate. Adverse events did not reach statistical significance nor did serious adverse events when looking at safety over 12 weeks. The confidence intervals overlap, and there is no clinical significance to these safety data, even compared with placebo.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Both non-TNF biologics and JAK inhibitors have similar effects in patients with active RA that are refractory to anti-TNF treatment, and there were no differences with regard to safety among the treatments.

Causal association between periodontitis and risk of rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus: a Mendelian randomization

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether periodontitis is causally associated with risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

METHODS

We performed two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis using the inverse variance-weighted (IVW), weighted median, and MR-Egger regression methods on publicly available summary statistics datasets using a periodontitis genome-wide association study (GWAS) as an exposure and RA and SLE GWASs on individuals of European descent as outcomes.

RESULTS

We selected 7 or 20 single-nucleotide polymorphisms from a periodontitis GWAS as instrumental variables for RA or SLE. The IVW method results support a causal association between periodontitis and RA (beta = 0.168, SE = 0.080, p = 0.035) and SLE (beta = 0.0001, SE = 0.0001, p = 0.046) risk; however, the weighted median approach did not indicate a significant causal association. MR-Egger regression revealed that directional pleiotropy was unlikely to be biasing the RA (intercept = -0.115, p = 0.078) or SLE results (intercept = 4.68E-05, p = 0.394); no significant causal association was found between periodontitis and RA and SLE. The MR estimates from the IVW, weighted median, and MR-Egger regression analyses were not consistent.

CONCLUSION

Only the results of MR analysis by the IVW method indicated that periodontitis is likely causally associated with an increased risk of RA and SLE incidence. Our MR showed weak causal association between periodontitis and RA or SLE. These findings may assist in elucidating the underlying mechanisms of the effects of periodontitis on RA and SLE incidence.

Anifrolumab for the treatment of active systemic lupus erythematosus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

We surveyed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab 300 mg in patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) despite receiving standard therapy, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and manual searches. Meta-analysis performed to determine treatment efficacy and safety outcomes of three RCTs (459 patients and 468 controls) revealed that the BICLA responses were significantly higher in the anifrolumab group than in the placebo group (OR = 2.071, 95%CI 1.575-2.725, p < 0.001). Steroid reduction and CLASI reduction were also significantly higher in the anifrolumab group than in the placebo group (OR = 1.811, 95%CI = 1.308-2.506, p < 0.001; OR = 2.245, 95%CI = 1.437-3.506, p < 0.001). Compared with placebo, anifrolumab significantly increased the SRI7 and SRI8 responses in SLE patients (OR = 1.866, 95%CI = 1.372-2.536, p < 0.001; OR = 1.925, 95%CI = 1.387-2.672, p < 0.001). The SRI4, 5, and 6 responses also tended to be higher in the anifrolumab group than in the placebo group. Adverse event incidence was significantly higher in the anifrolumab group than in the placebo group (OR = 1.815, 95%CI = 1.262-2.611, p = 0.001); serious adverse events were significantly lower in the anifrolumab group than in the placebo group (OR = 0.679, 95%CI = 0.468-0.986, p = 0.042). Herpes zoster infection was significantly higher in the anifrolumab group than in the placebo group (OR = 4.089, 95%CI = 1.750-9.522, p = 0.001). Anifrolumab is effective for treating active SLE. However, anifrolumab increased the incidence of herpes zoster infection compared with placebo.

Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib versus methotrexate for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis

An assessment of the relative efficacy and tolerability of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib compared to those of methotrexate (MTX) was performed in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) so as to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib, and MTX in DMARD-naïve RA patients. Four RCTs comprising 2185 patients met the inclusion criteria. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that upadacitinib 15 mg had the highest probability of achieving the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate, followed by baricitinib 4 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, and MTX. Tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib treatments achieved significantly higher ACR50 and ACR70 responses compared to MTX. Tofacitinib 5 mg had the highest probability of achieving the ACR50 and ACR70 response rates, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg, baricitinib 4 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, and MTX. The safety analysis based on serious adverse events, adverse events (AEs), and withdrawals due to AEs revealed no statistically significant differences between the respective intervention groups. In conclusion, tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib were effective treatment options for DMARD-naïve RA patients, suggesting a difference in efficacy and safety among the different JAK inhibitors.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and peficitinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

The relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and peficitinib were assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

METHOD

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and peficitinib in combination with DMARDs in patients with an inadequate response to DMARDs.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs, including 3836 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen pairwise comparisons were performed, including six direct comparisons of seven interventions. Tofacitinib 10 mg+methotrexate (MTX) and peficitinib 150 mg+MTX were among the most effective treatments for patients with active RA with an inadequate DMARD response. The efficacy of tofacitinib 10 mg+MTX, peficitinib 150 mg+MTX or tofacitinib 5 mg+MTX tended to be higher than that of adalimumab+MTX. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve indicated that tofacitinib 10 mg+MTX had the greatest probability of being the best treatment to achieve the American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate, followed by peficitinib 150 mg+MTX, tofacitinib 5 mg+MTX, adalimumab+MTX, peficitinib 100 mg+MTX, and placebo+MTX. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of serious adverse events after treatment with tofacitinib+MTX, peficitinib+MTX, adalimumab+MTX, or placebo+MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with RA with an inadequate response to DMARDs, tofacitinib 10 mg+MTX and peficitinib 150 mg+MTX were the most efficacious interventions and were not associated with a significant risk of serious adverse events.