Simon Tarp1, Gil Amarilyo2, Ivan Foeldvari3, Robin Christensen1, Jennifer M P Woo4, Neta Cohen2, Tracy D Pope4, Daniel E Furst5. 1. Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Denmark. 2. Pediatric Rheumatology Unit, Schneider Children's Medical Center of Israel, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Hamburger Zentrum für Kinder- und Jugend Rheumatologie, Klinikum Eilbek, Hamburg, Germany and. 4. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA defurst@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To define the optimal biologic agent for systemic JIA (sJIA) based on safety and efficacy data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Through a systematic literature search, sJIA RCTs evaluating biologic agents were identified. The primary efficacy outcome was defined as a 30% improvement according to the modified American College of Rheumatology Paediatric 30 response criteria (JIA ACR30). The primary safety outcome was defined as serious adverse events (SAEs). Outcomes were analysed by pairwise and network meta-analyses. The quality of evidence between biologic agents was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: From the 493 citations originally identified, 5 RCTs were eligible for inclusion-one each for anakinra, canakinumab and tocilizumab and two for rilonacept: all vs placebo. While all were effective, the network meta-analysis indicated with low-quality evidence (due to indirect comparison and inconsistency) that rilonacept-treated patients were less likely to respond than those treated with canakinumab [odds ratio (OR) 0.10 (95% CI 0.02, 0.38), P = 0.001] or tocilizumab [OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.03, 0.44), P = 0.001]. Risks of SAEs were similar among the biologic agents (supported by very low-quality evidence) and not different from placebo. CONCLUSION: Despite heterogeneous eligibility criteria and study designs across the five studies and different modified JIA ACR30 criteria, this meta-analysis of short-term RCTs presents empirical evidence that canakinumab and tocilizumab are more effective than rilonacept. Biologic agents in sJIA seem safe and comparable with respect to SAE risk in the short term.
OBJECTIVE: To define the optimal biologic agent for systemic JIA (sJIA) based on safety and efficacy data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Through a systematic literature search, sJIA RCTs evaluating biologic agents were identified. The primary efficacy outcome was defined as a 30% improvement according to the modified American College of Rheumatology Paediatric 30 response criteria (JIA ACR30). The primary safety outcome was defined as serious adverse events (SAEs). Outcomes were analysed by pairwise and network meta-analyses. The quality of evidence between biologic agents was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: From the 493 citations originally identified, 5 RCTs were eligible for inclusion-one each for anakinra, canakinumab and tocilizumab and two for rilonacept: all vs placebo. While all were effective, the network meta-analysis indicated with low-quality evidence (due to indirect comparison and inconsistency) that rilonacept-treated patients were less likely to respond than those treated with canakinumab [odds ratio (OR) 0.10 (95% CI 0.02, 0.38), P = 0.001] or tocilizumab [OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.03, 0.44), P = 0.001]. Risks of SAEs were similar among the biologic agents (supported by very low-quality evidence) and not different from placebo. CONCLUSION: Despite heterogeneous eligibility criteria and study designs across the five studies and different modified JIA ACR30 criteria, this meta-analysis of short-term RCTs presents empirical evidence that canakinumab and tocilizumab are more effective than rilonacept. Biologic agents in sJIA seem safe and comparable with respect to SAE risk in the short term.
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Alex J Sutton; John P A Ioannidis; Norma Terrin; David R Jones; Joseph Lau; James Carpenter; Gerta Rücker; Roger M Harbord; Christopher H Schmid; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Jonathan J Deeks; Jaime Peters; Petra Macaskill; Guido Schwarzer; Sue Duval; Douglas G Altman; David Moher; Julian P T Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-07-22
Authors: Sarah Ringold; Pamela F Weiss; Timothy Beukelman; Esi Morgan DeWitt; Norman T Ilowite; Yukiko Kimura; Ronald M Laxer; Daniel J Lovell; Peter A Nigrovic; Angela Byun Robinson; Richard K Vehe Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2013-10
Authors: Yujuan Zhang; Saloni Gupta; Alexandra Ilstad-Minnihan; Sashi Ayyangar; Arielle D Hay; Virginia Pascual; Norman T Ilowite; Claudia Macaubas; Elizabeth D Mellins Journal: Clin Immunol Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Charles F Schuler; Carrie-Anne Malinczak; Shannon K K Best; Susan B Morris; Andrew J Rasky; Catherine Ptaschinski; Nicholas W Lukacs; Wendy Fonseca Journal: Allergy Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 13.146
Authors: M Bielak; E Husmann; N Weyandt; J-P Haas; B Hügle; G Horneff; U Neudorf; T Lutz; E Lilienthal; T Kallinich; K Tenbrock; R Berendes; T Niehues; H Wittkowski; E Weißbarth-Riedel; G Heubner; P Oommen; J Klotsche; Dirk Foell; E Lainka Journal: Pediatr Rheumatol Online J Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 3.054
Authors: Claudia Kedor; Joachim Listing; Jan Zernicke; Anja Weiß; Frank Behrens; Norbert Blank; Joerg Christoph Henes; Joern Kekow; Andrea Rubbert-Roth; Hendrik Schulze-Koops; Eva Seipelt; Christof Specker; Eugen Feist Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 27.973