Risk of serious adverse effects of biological and targeted drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES: To determine possible differences in serious adverse effects among the 10 currently approved biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/ts-DMARDs) for RA.METHODS: Systematic review in bibliographic databases, trial registries and websites of regulatory agencies identified randomized trials of approved b/ts-DMARDs for RA. Network meta-analyses using mixed-effects Poisson regression models were conducted to calculate rate ratios for serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths between each of the 10 drugs and control (i.e. no b/ts-DMARD treatment), based on subjects experiencing an event in relation to person-years. Confidence in the estimates was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE).RESULTS: A total of 117 trials (47 615 patients) were included. SAEs were more common with certolizumab compared with abatacept (rate ratio = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.14), adalimumab (1.36, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.81), etanercept (1.60, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.17), golimumab (1.45, 95% CI: 1.00, 2.08), rituximab (1.63, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.30), tofacitinib (1.44, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.02) and control (1.45, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.87); and tocilizumab compared with abatacept (1.30, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.65), etanercept (1.31, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.67) and rituximab (1.34, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.78). No other comparisons were statistically significant. Accounting for study duration confirmed our findings for up to 6 months' treatment but not for longer-term treatment (6-24 months). No differences in mortality between b/ts-DMARDs and control were found. Based on the GRADE approach, confidence in the estimates was low due to lack of head-to-head comparison trials and imprecision in indirect estimates.CONCLUSION: Despite low confidence in the estimates, our analysis found potential differences in rates of SAEs. Our data suggest caution should be taken when deciding among available drugs. OBJECTIVES: To determine possible differences in serious adverse effects among the 10 currently approved biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/ts-DMARDs) for RA.METHODS: Systematic review in bibliographic databases, trial registries and websites of regulatory agencies identified randomized trials of approved b/ts-DMARDs for RA. Network meta-analyses using mixed-effects Poisson regression models were conducted to calculate rate ratios for serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths between each of the 10 drugs and control (i.e. no b/ts-DMARD treatment), based on subjects experiencing an event in relation to person-years. Confidence in the estimates was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE).RESULTS: A total of 117 trials (47 615 patients) were included. SAEs were more common with certolizumab compared with abatacept (rate ratio = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.14), adalimumab (1.36, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.81), etanercept (1.60, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.17), golimumab (1.45, 95% CI: 1.00, 2.08), rituximab (1.63, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.30), tofacitinib (1.44, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.02) and control (1.45, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.87); and tocilizumab compared with abatacept (1.30, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.65), etanercept (1.31, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.67) and rituximab (1.34, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.78). No other comparisons were statistically significant. Accounting for study duration confirmed our findings for up to 6 months' treatment but not for longer-term treatment (6-24 months). No differences in mortality between b/ts-DMARDs and control were found. Based on the GRADE approach, confidence in the estimates was low due to lack of head-to-head comparison trials and imprecision in indirect estimates.CONCLUSION: Despite low confidence in the estimates, our analysis found potential differences in rates of SAEs. Our data suggest caution should be taken when deciding among available drugs.SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42014014842

Defining the optimal biological monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

Objectives To summarize and compare the benefits and harms of biological agents used as monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in order to inform decisions for patients who are intolerant to conventional DMARD therapy. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and other sources for randomised trials that compared biological monotherapy with methotrexate, placebo, or other biological monotherapies. Primary outcomes were ACR50 and the number of patients who discontinued due to adverse events. Our network meta-analysis was based on mixed-effects logistic regression, including both direct and indirect comparisons of the treatment effects, while preserving the randomised comparisons within each trial. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42012002800. Results The analysis comprises 28 trials (8602 patients), including all nine biological agents approved for RA. Eight trials included “DMARD-naïve”, and 20 “DMARD-Inadequate responder” (DMARD-IR) patients. All agents except anakinra and infliximab were superior (p 0.52). However, because rituximab was evaluated in just 40 patients, our confidence in the estimates is limited. When including only DMARD-IR trials, the same statistical pattern emerged; in addition etanercept and tocilizumab were superior to abatacept. At recommended doses, both etanercept and tocilizumab were superior to adalimumab and certolizumab. No statistically significant differences among biological agents were found with respect to discontinuation due to adverse events (p > 0.068). Conclusions Evidence from randomised trials suggests that most biological agents are effective as monotherapy. Although our confidence in the estimates is limited, etanercept or tocilizumab may be the optimal choice for most patients who need treatment with biological monotherapy. However, given our limited confidence in the estimates including possibility of bias, it is appropriate to strongly weight patients׳ preferences and values in the final treatment choice

Risk of serious adverse effects of biological and targeted drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis:a systematic review meta-analysis

Objectives. To determine possible differences in serious adverse effects among the 10 currently approved biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/ts-DMARDs) for RA. Methods. Systematic review in bibliographic databases, trial registries and websites of regulatory agencies identified randomized trials of approved b/ts-DMARDs for RA. Network meta-analyses using mixedeffects Poisson regression models were conducted to calculate rate ratios for serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths between each of the 10 drugs and control (i.e. no b/ts-DMARD treatment), based on subjects experiencing an event in relation to person-years. Confidence in the estimates was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). Results. A total of 117 trials (47 615 patients) were included. SAEs were more common with certolizumab compared with abatacept (rate ratio = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.14), adalimumab (1.36, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.81), etanercept (1.60, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.17), golimumab (1.45, 95% CI: 1.00, 2.08), rituximab (1.63, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.30), tofacitinib (1.44, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.02) and control (1.45, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.87); and tocilizumab compared with abatacept (1.30, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.65), etanercept (1.31, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.67) and rituximab (1.34, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.78). No other comparisons were statistically significant. Accounting for study duration confirmed our findings for up to 6 months' treatment but not for longer-term treatment (6-24 months). No differences in mortality between b/ts-DMARDs and control were found. Based on the GRADE approach, confidence in the estimates was low due to lack of head-to-head comparison trials and imprecision in indirect estimates. Conclusion. Despite low confidence in the estimates, our analysis found potential differences in rates of SAEs. Our data suggest caution should be taken when deciding among available drugs

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for hand osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

Objective To explore the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for hand osteoarthritis (OA).Methods We systematically searched Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 26 December 2021, for randomised trials of pharmacological interventions for people with hand OA. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated the effect sizes for pain (standardised mean differences) using Bayesian random effects models for network meta-analysis (NMA) and pairwise meta-analysis. Based on a pre-specified protocol, we prospectively registered the study at PROSPERO, CRD42021215393.Results We included 72 trials with 7609 participants. 65 trials (n=5957) were eligible for the quantitative synthesis, investigating 29 pharmacological interventions. Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and oral glucocorticoids’ NMA effect sizes were −0.18 (95% credible interval −0.36 to 0.02) and −0.54 (−0.83 to −0.24), respectively, compared with placebo, and the result was consistent when limiting evidence to the pairwise meta-analysis of trials without high risk of bias. Intra-articular hyaluronate, intra-articular glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, and topical NSAIDs’ NMA effect sizes were 0.22 (−0.08 to 0.51), 0.25 (0.00 to 0.51), −0.01 (−0.19 to 0.18), and −0.14 (−0.33 to 0.08), respectively, compared with placebo. Oral NSAIDs were inferior to oral glucocorticoids with an NMA effect size of 0.36 (0.01 to 0.72). No intervention was superior to placebo when stratifying for thumb and finger OA.Conclusion Oral NSAIDs and glucocorticoids are apparently effective pharmacological interventions in hand OA. Intra-articular therapies and topical NSAIDs were not superior to placebo