Systematic review with network meta-analysis: the efficacy of anti-TNF agents for the treatment of Crohn’s disease

BACKGROUND: Anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha agents (anti-TNF) are effective therapies for the treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD), but their comparative efficacy is unknown. AIM: To perform a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of anti-TNF therapies in CD. METHODS: After screening 506 studies, reviewers extracted information on 10 studies. Traditional meta-analysis (TMA) was used to compare each anti-TNF agent to placebo. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare the effects of anti-TNF agents to placebo. In addition, sample sizes for comparative efficacy trials were calculated. RESULTS: Compared to placebo, TMA revealed that anti-TNF agents result in a higher likelihood of induction of remission and response (RR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.17–2.36 and RR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.17–1.73, respectively) as well as maintenance of remission and response (RR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.51–2.09 and RR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.46–1.93, respectively). NMA found nonsignificant trends between infliximab and adalimumab or certolizumab pegol. Among subcutaneous therapies, NMA demonstrated superiority of adalimumab to certolizumab pegol for induction of remission (RR: 2.93, 95% CrI: 1.21–7.75). Sample size calculations suggest that adequately powered head-to-head comparative efficacy trials would require greater than 3000 patients. CONCLUSIONS: All anti-TNF agents are effective for induction and maintenance of response and remission in the treatment of CD. Although adalimumab is superior to certolizumab pegol for induction of remission, there is no evidence of clinical superiority among anti-TNF agents. Head-to-head trials among the anti-TNF agents are impractical in terms of size and cost

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: the efficacy of anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha agents for the treatment of ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND: Antibodies against tumour necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) are effective therapies in the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC), but their comparative efficacy is unknown. AIM: To perform a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of anti-TNF agents in UC. METHODS: After screening 506 studies, reviewers extracted information on seven studies. Traditional meta-analysis (TMA) was used to compare each anti-TNF agent to placebo. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare the effects of anti-TNF agents to placebo. In addition, sample sizes for comparative efficacy trials were calculated. RESULTS: Compared to placebo, TMA revealed that anti-TNF agents result in a higher likelihood of induction of remission and response (RR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.72–3.47 and RR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.37–1.99 respectively) as well as maintenance of remission and response (RR: 2.00, 95% CI: 1.52–2.62 and RR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.46–2.14 respectively). Individually, infliximab, adalimumab and goliumumab resulted in a higher likelihood of induction and maintenance for both remission and response. NMA found nonsignificant trends in comparisons of the individual agents. The required sample sizes for direct head-to-head trials between infliximab and adalimumab for induction and maintenance are 174 and 204 subjects respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that, compared to placebo, infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab are all effective for the induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. However, network meta-analysis demonstrates that no single agent is clinically superior to the others and therefore, other factors such as cost, safety, route of administration and patient preference should dictate our choice of anti-TNF agents. A randomised comparative efficacy trial between infliximab and adalimumab in UC is of practical size and should be performed