Sofia Ramiro1, Alexandre Sepriano1,2, Katerina Chatzidionysiou3, Jackie L Nam4,5, Josef S Smolen6,7, Désirée van der Heijde1, Maxime Dougados8, Ronald van Vollenhoven9, Johannes W Bijlsma10, Gerd R Burmester11, Marieke Scholte-Voshaar12,13, Louise Falzon14, Robert B M Landewé9,15. 1. Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 2. CEDOC, Nova Medical School, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal. 3. Unit for Clinical Therapy Research, Inflammatory Diseases (ClinTRID), The Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital Leeds, Leeds, UK. 5. NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK. 6. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine 3, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 7. Department of Medicine, Hietzing Hospital, Vienna, Austria. 8. Department of Rheumatology, Paris Descartes University, Cochin Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, INSERM (U1153): Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Paris, France. 9. Department of Clinical Immunology & Rheumatology, Amsterdam Rheumatology Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 10. Department of Rheumatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 11. Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 12. Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. 13. EULAR Standing Committee of People with Arthritis/Rheumatism in Europe. 14. Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, USA. 15. Department of Rheumatology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the management of RA. METHODS: Systematic literature review (SLR) of observational studies comparing any DMARD with another intervention for the management of patients with RA. All safety outcomes were included. A comparator group was required for the study to be included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Hayden's tool. RESULTS: Twenty-six observational studies addressing diverse safety outcomes of therapy with bDMARDs met eligibility criteria (15 on serious infections, 4 on malignancies). Substantial heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Together with the evidence from the 2013 SLR, based on 15 studies, 7 at low risk of bias, patients on bDMARDs compared with patients on conventional sDMARDs had a higher risk of serious infections (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.1 to 1.8)-without differences across bDMARDs-a higher risk of tuberculosis (aHR 2.7 to 12.5), but no increased risk of infection by herpes zoster. Patients on bDMARDs did not have an increased risk of malignancies in general, lymphoma or non-melanoma skin cancer, but the risk of melanoma may be slightly increased (aHR 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the known safety pattern of bDMARDs, including both tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) and non-TNFi, for the treatment of RA. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the management of RA. METHODS: Systematic literature review (SLR) of observational studies comparing any DMARD with another intervention for the management of patients with RA. All safety outcomes were included. A comparator group was required for the study to be included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Hayden's tool. RESULTS: Twenty-six observational studies addressing diverse safety outcomes of therapy with bDMARDs met eligibility criteria (15 on serious infections, 4 on malignancies). Substantial heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Together with the evidence from the 2013 SLR, based on 15 studies, 7 at low risk of bias, patients on bDMARDs compared with patients on conventional sDMARDs had a higher risk of serious infections (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.1 to 1.8)-without differences across bDMARDs-a higher risk of tuberculosis (aHR 2.7 to 12.5), but no increased risk of infection by herpes zoster. Patients on bDMARDs did not have an increased risk of malignancies in general, lymphoma or non-melanoma skin cancer, but the risk of melanoma may be slightly increased (aHR 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the known safety pattern of bDMARDs, including both tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) and non-TNFi, for the treatment of RA. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Rakeshchandra R Meka; Shivaprasad H Venkatesha; Bodhraj Acharya; Kamal D Moudgil Journal: Nanomedicine (Lond) Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 5.307
Authors: Devin Incerti; Jeffrey R Curtis; Jason Shafrin; Darius N Lakdawalla; Jeroen P Jansen Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Sarah Patterson; Gabriela Schmajuk; Michael Evans; Ishita Aggarwal; Zara Izadi; Milena Gianfrancesco; Jinoos Yazdany Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2019-01-25