Literature DB >> 19821440

Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews.

Jasvinder A Singh1, Robin Christensen, George A Wells, Maria E Suarez-Almazor, Rachelle Buchbinder, Maria Angeles Lopez-Olivo, Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu, Peter Tugwell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are very effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there is a lack of head-to-head comparison studies.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab in patients with RA.
METHODS: This 'Overview of Reviews' was done by including all Cochrane Reviews on Biologics for RA available in The Cochrane Library. We included only data on standard dosing regimens for these biologic DMARDs from placebo-controlled trials. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were ACR50 and withdrawals due to adverse events. We calculated Risk Ratios (RR) for efficacy, Odds Ratio (OR) for safety and combined estimates of events across the placebo groups as the expected Control Event Rate (CER). Indirect comparisons of biologics were performed for efficacy and safety using a hierarchical linear mixed model incorporating the most important study-level characteristic (i.e. type of biologic) as a fixed factor and study as a random factor; reducing the between study heterogeneity by adjusting for the interaction between the proportion of patients responding on placebo and the duration of the trial. MAIN
RESULTS: From the six available Cochrane reviews, we obtained data from seven studies on abatacept, eight on adalimumab, five on anakinra, four on etanercept, four on infliximab, and three on rituximab.The indirect comparison estimates showed similar efficacy for the primary efficacy outcome for all biologics with three exceptions. Anakinra was less efficacious than etanercept with a ratio of RRs (95% CI; P value) of 0.44 (0.23 to 0.85; P = 0.014); anakinra was less efficacious than rituximab, 0.45 (0.22 to 0.90; P = 0.023); and likewise adalimumab was more efficacious than anakinra, 2.34 (1.32 to 4.13; P = 0.003).In terms of safety, adalimumab was more likely to lead to withdrawals compared to etanercept, with a ratio of ORs of 1.89 (1.18 to 3.04; P = 0.009); anakinra more likely than etanercept, 2.05 (1.27 to 3.29; P = 0.003); and likewise etanercept less likely than infliximab, 0.37 (0.19 to 0.70; P = 0.002). AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Based upon indirect comparisons, anakinra seemed less efficacious than etanercept, adalimumab and rituximab and etanercept seemed to cause fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab. Significant heterogeneity in characteristics of trial populations imply that these finding must be interpreted with caution. These findings can inform physicians and patients regarding their choice of biologic for treatment of RA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19821440     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007848.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  98 in total

1.  Pharmacotherapy: How well can we compare different biologic agents for RA?

Authors:  Josef S Smolen
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 20.543

2.  [Prescription of TNF-alpha inhibitors and regional differences in 2010].

Authors:  R Windt; G Glaeske; F Hoffmann
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.372

Review 3.  Nanotherapeutic approaches for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Christine T N Pham
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol       Date:  2011-08-11

Review 4.  Nanomedicines for chronic non-infectious arthritis: the clinician's perspective.

Authors:  Israel Rubinstein; Guy L Weinberg
Journal:  Nanomedicine       Date:  2012-05-26       Impact factor: 5.307

Review 5.  Including adverse drug events in economic evaluations of anti-tumour necrosis factor-α drugs for adult rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of economic decision analytic models.

Authors:  Eleanor M Heather; Katherine Payne; Mark Harrison; Deborah P M Symmons
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  Emerging opportunities for site-specific molecular and cellular interventions in autoimmune hepatitis.

Authors:  Albert J Czaja
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-01-27       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 7.  Biologic interventions for fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Celia Almeida; Ernest H S Choy; Sarah Hewlett; John R Kirwan; Fiona Cramp; Trudie Chalder; Jon Pollock; Robin Christensen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-06-06

8.  Osteoimmunology at the nexus of arthritis, osteoporosis, cancer, and infection.

Authors:  Dallas Jones; Laurie H Glimcher; Antonios O Aliprantis
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 14.808

Review 9.  Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Glen S Hazlewood; Cheryl Barnabe; George Tomlinson; Deborah Marshall; Daniel J A Devoe; Claire Bombardier
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-08-29

Review 10.  Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Arturo J Martí-Carvajal; Luis H Agreda-Pérez; Ivan Solà; Daniel Simancas-Racines
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.