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

Es reproducción del documento publicado en http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-9-52Background: To analyse available evidence on the efficacy and safety of anti-TNF alpha 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-TNF alpha 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 I-2 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-TNF alpha 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-TNF alpha drug used and when higher than recommended doses were administered. However, lower than recommended doses elicited low ACR70 responses (NNT 15). Comparison of anti-TNF alpha 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-TNF alpha drugs with placebo showed a similar pattern. Comparisons of anti-TNF alpha 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-TNF alpha 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-TNF alpha 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

Treatment with the C5a receptor antagonist ADC-1004 reduces myocardial infarction in a porcine ischemia-reperfusion model

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Polymorphonuclear neutrophils, stimulated by the activated complement factor C5a, have been implicated in cardiac ischemia/reperfusion injury. ADC-1004 is a competitive C5a receptor antagonist that has been shown to inhibit complement related neutrophil activation. ADC-1004 shields the neutrophils from C5a activation before they enter the reperfused area, which could be a mechanistic advantage compared to previous C5a directed reperfusion therapies. We investigated if treatment with ADC-1004, according to a clinically applicable protocol, would reduce infarct size and microvascular obstruction in a large animal myocardial infarct model.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In anesthetized pigs (42-53 kg), a percutaneous coronary intervention balloon was inflated in the left anterior descending artery for 40 minutes, followed by 4 hours of reperfusion. Twenty minutes after balloon inflation the pigs were randomized to an intravenous bolus administration of ADC-1004 (175 mg, n = 8) or saline (9 mg/ml, n = 8). Area at risk (AAR) was evaluated by ex vivo SPECT. Infarct size and microvascular obstruction were evaluated by ex vivo MRI. The observers were blinded to the treatment at randomization and analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>ADC-1004 treatment reduced infarct size by 21% (ADC-1004: 58.3 ± 3.4 vs control: 74.1 ± 2.9%AAR, p = 0.007). Microvascular obstruction was similar between the groups (ADC-1004: 2.2 ± 1.2 vs control: 5.3 ± 2.5%AAR, p = 0.23). The mean plasma concentration of ADC-1004 was 83 ± 8 nM at sacrifice. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to heart rate, mean arterial pressure, cardiac output and blood-gas data.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>ADC-1004 treatment reduces myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury and represents a novel treatment strategy of myocardial infarct with potential clinical applicability.</p

The impact of biologics and tofacitinib on cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes in patients with rheumatic disease: a systematic literature review

Introduction Rheumatic diseases are autoimmune, inflammatory diseases often associated with cardiovascular (CV) disease, a major cause of mortality in these patients. In recent years, treatment with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), either as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs, have become the standard of treatment. In this systematic literature review, we evaluated the effect of treatment with biologic or tofacitinib on the CV risk and outcomes in these patients. Methods A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for articles reporting on CV risk and events in patients with rheumatic disease treated with a biologic agent or tofacitinib. Articles identified were subjected to two levels of screening. Articles that passed the first level based on title and abstract were assessed on full-text evaluation. The quality of randomized clinical trials was assessed by Jadad scoring system and the quality of the other studies and abstracts was assessed using the Downs and Black instrument. The data extracted included study design, baseline patient characteristics, and measurements of CV risk and events. Results Of the 5722 articles identified in the initial search, screening yielded 105 unique publications from 90 unique studies (33 clinical trials, 39 prospective cohort studies, and an additional 18 retrospective studies) that reported CV risk outcomes. A risk of bias analysis for each type of report indicated that they were of good or excellent quality. Importantly, despite some limitations in data reported, there were no indications of significant increase in adverse CV events or risk in response to treatment with the agents evaluated. Conclusions Treatment with biologic or tofacitinib appears to be well-tolerated with respect to CV outcomes in these patients

Infliximab and methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Background: Neutralization of tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) for three to six months reduces the symptoms and signs of rheumatoid arthritis. However, the capacity of this approach to effect a more sustained benefit and its effect on joint damage are not known. Methods: We treated 428 patients who had active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy with placebo or infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody against TNF-α in intravenous doses of 3 or 10 mg per kilogram of body weight every 4 or 8 weeks in combination with oral methotrexate for 54 weeks. We assessed clinical responses with use of the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology, the quality of life with a health-status questionnaire, and the effect on joint damage radiographically. Results: The combination of infliximab and methotrexate was well tolerated and resulted in a sustained reduction in the symptoms and signs of rheumatoid arthritis that was significantly greater than the reduction associated with methotrexate therapy alone (clinical response, 51.8 percent vs. 17.0 percent; P&lt;0.001). The quality of life was also significantly better with infliximab plus methotrexate than with methotrexate alone. Radiographic evidence of joint damage increased in the group given methotrexate, but not in the groups given infliximab and methotrexate (mean change in radiographic score, 7.0 vs. 0.6; P&lt;0.001). Radiographic evidence of progression of joint damage was absent in infliximab-treated patients whether or not they had a clinical response. Conclusions: In patients with persistently active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy, repeated doses of infliximab in combination with methotrexate provided clinical benefit and halted the progression of joint damage. ©2000, Massachusetts Medical Society

Infliximab and methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Concomitant Therapy Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Neutralization of tumor necrosis factor a (TNF-alpha) for three to six months reduces the symptoms and signs of rheumatoid arthritis. However, the capacity of this approach to effect a more sustained benefit and its effect on joint damage are not known. METHODS: We treated 428 patients who had active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy with placebo or infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody against TNF-alpha, in intravenous doses of 3 or 10 mg per kilogram of body weight every 4 or 8 weeks in combination with oral methotrexate for 54 weeks. We assessed clinical responses with use of the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology, the quality of life with a health-status questionnaire, and the effect on joint damage radiographically. RESULTS: The combination of infliximab and methotrexate was well tolerated and resulted in a sustained reduction in the symptoms and signs of rheumatoid arthritis that was significantly greater than the reduction associated with methotrexate therapy alone (clinical response, 51.8 percent vs. 17.0 percent; P&lt;0.001). The quality of life was also significantly better with infliximab plus methotrexate than with methotrexate alone. Radiographic evidence of joint damage increased in the group given methotrexate, but not in the groups given infliximab and methotrexate (mean change in radiographic score, 7.0 vs. 0.6, P&lt;0.001). Radiographic evidence of progression of joint damage was absent in infliximab-treated patients whether or not they had a clinical response. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with persistently active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy, repeated doses of infliximab in combination with methotrexate provided clinical benefit and halted the progression of joint damage