BACKGROUND: Improved understanding of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pathogenesis has led to the development of new biologic treatments that target specific elements of RA inflammatory response. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to provide a comprehensive review of biologic therapies currently used for the treatment of RA. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE (up to October 2010) was conducted. Preference for article inclusion was given to English language meta-analyses and large, Phase III, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biologic treatments in patients with RA. RESULTS: In large RCTs, significantly more patients treated with tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) antagonists (as monotherapy, or as an adjunct to methotrexate) versus controls (35%-67% vs 9%-33% of patients; P ≤ 0.01) achieved an American College of Rheumatology 20 response as a primary study end point. However, safety concerns-especially the potential for serious infections and malignancy-remain for TNF-α blockade. For example, 1 meta-analysis (>5000 patients) reported a 2-fold increase (95% CI, 1.3-3.1) in the risk of serious infections and a 3.3-fold increase (95% CI, 1.2-9.1) in the risk of malignancy. Abatacept and rituximab (given in combination with methotrexate) may be useful clinical alternatives for RA patients with an inadequate response to TNF-α antagonists. These agents do not appear to increase the risk of serious infections (OR, 1.35-1.45; 95% CI, 0.56-3.73), although rituximab may rarely cause progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (0.4 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations). CONCLUSIONS: Over the last decade, targeted biologic agents have transformed RA treatment. Although relatively expensive in the short term, the direct costs of these biologics may be offset by slowed disease progression and significant improvements in RA symptoms, physical function, and quality of life.
BACKGROUND: Improved understanding of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pathogenesis has led to the development of new biologic treatments that target specific elements of RA inflammatory response. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to provide a comprehensive review of biologic therapies currently used for the treatment of RA. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE (up to October 2010) was conducted. Preference for article inclusion was given to English language meta-analyses and large, Phase III, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biologic treatments in patients with RA. RESULTS: In large RCTs, significantly more patients treated with tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) antagonists (as monotherapy, or as an adjunct to methotrexate) versus controls (35%-67% vs 9%-33% of patients; P ≤ 0.01) achieved an American College of Rheumatology 20 response as a primary study end point. However, safety concerns-especially the potential for serious infections and malignancy-remain for TNF-α blockade. For example, 1 meta-analysis (>5000 patients) reported a 2-fold increase (95% CI, 1.3-3.1) in the risk of serious infections and a 3.3-fold increase (95% CI, 1.2-9.1) in the risk of malignancy. Abatacept and rituximab (given in combination with methotrexate) may be useful clinical alternatives for RApatients with an inadequate response to TNF-α antagonists. These agents do not appear to increase the risk of serious infections (OR, 1.35-1.45; 95% CI, 0.56-3.73), although rituximab may rarely cause progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (0.4 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations). CONCLUSIONS: Over the last decade, targeted biologic agents have transformed RA treatment. Although relatively expensive in the short term, the direct costs of these biologics may be offset by slowed disease progression and significant improvements in RA symptoms, physical function, and quality of life.
Authors: Monika Schoels; John Wong; David L Scott; Angela Zink; Pamela Richards; Robert Landewé; Josef S Smolen; Daniel Aletaha Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2010-05-06 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Jeffrey R Curtis; Lang Chen; Leslie R Harrold; Pongthorn Narongroeknawin; George Reed; Daniel H Solomon Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Theodore Pincus; Christopher J Swearingen; Martin J Bergman; C Lee Colglazier; Alan T Kaell; Arthur M Kunath; Evan L Siegel; Yusuf Yazici Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Paul Emery; Roy M Fleischmann; Larry W Moreland; Elizabeth C Hsia; Ingrid Strusberg; Patrick Durez; Peter Nash; Eric Jason B Amante; Melvin Churchill; Won Park; Bernardo Antonio Pons-Estel; Mittie K Doyle; Sudha Visvanathan; Weichun Xu; Mahboob U Rahman Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2009-08
Authors: Jasvinder A Singh; Robin Christensen; George A Wells; Maria E Suarez-Almazor; Rachelle Buchbinder; Maria Angeles Lopez-Olivo; Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu; Peter Tugwell Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-10-07
Authors: Steven R Cummings; Javier San Martin; Michael R McClung; Ethel S Siris; Richard Eastell; Ian R Reid; Pierre Delmas; Holly B Zoog; Matt Austin; Andrea Wang; Stepan Kutilek; Silvano Adami; Jose Zanchetta; Cesar Libanati; Suresh Siddhanti; Claus Christiansen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rakeshchandra R Meka; Shivaprasad H Venkatesha; Bodhraj Acharya; Kamal D Moudgil Journal: Nanomedicine (Lond) Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 5.307
Authors: Elizabeth Pigott; James B DuHadaway; Alexander J Muller; Susan Gilmour; George C Prendergast; Laura Mandik-Nayak Journal: Autoimmunity Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 2.815
Authors: Kenneth S Rosenthal; Katalin Mikecz; Harold L Steiner; Tibor T Glant; Alison Finnegan; Roy E Carambula; Daniel H Zimmerman Journal: Expert Rev Vaccines Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 5.217