BACKGROUND: This systematic review update summarizes the current evidence on the use of natalizumab for induction of remission in Crohn's disease (CD).
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of natalizumab for induction of remission in CD.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 10 May 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing natalizumab to a placebo or control therapy for induction of remission in CD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was failure to enter clinical remission. Secondary outcomes included clinical response, mean change in Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI), adverse events (AEs), withdrawal due to AEs and serious AEs. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. Data were pooled for meta-analysis when the interventions, patient groups and outcomes were sufficiently similar (determined by consensus). We used GRADE to assess the overall quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: A total of five RCTs (1771 participants) were included. Four studies (1692 participants) compared one, two or three infusions of natalizumab (300 mg or 3 mg/kg or 6mg/kg) to placebo. One study (79 participants) compared three infusions of natalizumab (300 mg) and infliximab (5 mg/kg) to infliximab and placebo. Four studies were rated as low risk of bias. One study was rated as unclear risk of bias for selective reporting.One, two and three infusions of natalizumab were superior to placebo for induction of remission and clinical response. Infusions were administered at weeks zero, four and eight. After one infusion, 76% (849/1117) of natalizumab participants failed to enter remission at 4 weeks compared to 83% (411/494) of placebo participants (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.96, 3 studies, GRADE high quality). At 4 weeks, the RR for clinical response was 0.78 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.92, 3 studies, 1611 participants, GRADE moderate quality). After two infusions, after 8 weeks, 66% (693/1049) of natalizumab participants failed to enter remission compared to 77% (382/494) of placebo participants (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95; 3 studies, GRADE moderate quality). At 8 weeks, the RR for clinical response was 0.73 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.91, 3 studies, 1543 participants, GRADE low quality). After three infusions, at 12 weeks, 61% (596/983) of natalizumab participants failed to enter remission compared to 73% (313/431) of placebo participants (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.92, 2 studies, GRADE high quality). At 12 weeks, the RR for clinical response was 0.76 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, 2 studies, 1414 participants, GRADE high quality). One study (507 participants) reported on change in CADI from baseline. Natalizumab participants had a larger drop in mean CDAI scores than placebo participants at 4, 8 and 12 weeks.The rates of AEs, withdrawals due to AEs and serious AEs were similar across groups at 4, 8 and 12 weeks. After one infusion, 74% (50/68) of natalizumab participants experienced an AE compared to 81% (51/63) of placebo participants (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09, GRADE moderate quality). Withdrawal due to an AE occurred in 1% (1/68) of natalizumab participants and 3% of placebo participants (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.98, GRADE low quality). SAEs occurred in 10% (7/68) of natalizumab participants compared to 11% (7/63) of placebo participants (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.49, GRADE low quality). After two infusions, 86% (57/66) of natalizumab participants experienced an AE compared to 81% (51/63) of placebo participants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.24, GRADE moderate quality). Withdrawal due to an AE occurred in 3% (2/66) natalizumab participants compared to 3% (2/63) placebo participants (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.57, GRADE low quality). SAEs occurred in 9% (6/66) of natalizumab participants and 11% (7/63) of placebo participants (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.30, GRADE low quality). After three infusions, 86% (848/984) of natalizumab participants experienced an AE compared to 83% (359/431) placebo participants (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.08, GRADE high quality). Withdrawals due to AEs occurred in 8% (82/984) of natalizumab participants compared to 10% (45/431) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.26, GRADE moderate quality). SAEs occurred in 7% (65/983) of natalizumab participants and 8% (36/431) of placebo participants (RR 0.76. 95% CI 0.37 to 1.56, GRADE low quality). Adverse events included headache, nausea, nasopharyngitis, abdominal pain, fatigue, vomiting, and exacerbation of CD.The study comparing combination therapy with natalizumab and infliximab to infliximab and placebo demonstrated similar remission rates at 10 weeks. Sixty-four per cent (33/52) of participants assigned to natalizumab and infliximab failed to achieve remission compared to 70% (19/27) assigned to placebo and infliximab (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.24, GRADE moderate quality). The rates of AEs (moderate quality evidence), withdrawals due to AEs (low quality evidence) and serious AEs (low quality evidence) were similar across groups at 10 weeks. Adverse events included headache, exacerbation of CD, nausea, and nasopharyngitis.Natalizumab is associated with the development of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) resulting in some patient deaths. There are currently no tests which can reliably predict those at risk of developing PML.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High quality data suggest that natalizumab is effective for induction of clinical remission and response in some patients with moderately to severely active CD. However, none of the included studies had the power to detect rare but serious adverse events such as PML. Due to the association with PML, and the availability of alternative agents that are not associated with PML, natalizumab is not likely to be used in patients who fail currently available medical therapy. The use of natalizumab in select patients (e.g. patients allergic to different biologics) needs to be carefully considered against the potential risk of developing PML. Futher studies of natalizumab are not likely to be done.
BACKGROUND: Etanercept is a soluble tumour necrosis factor alpha-receptor disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review was to update the previous Cochrane systematic review published in 2003 assessing the benefits and harms of etanercept for the treatment of RA. In addition, we also evaluated the benefits and harms of etanercept plus DMARD compared with DMARD monotherapy in those people with RA who are partial responders to methotrexate (MTX) or any other traditional DMARD.
SEARCH METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched from 1966 to February 2003 with no language restriction. The search was updated to January 2012. Attempts were made to identify other studies by contact with experts, searching reference lists and searching trial registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All controlled trials (minimum 24 weeks' duration) comparing four possible combinations: 1) etanercept (10 mg or 25 mg twice weekly) plus a traditional DMARD (either MTX or sulphasalazine) versus a DMARD, 2) etanercept plus DMARD versus etanercept alone, 3) etanercept alone versus a DMARD or 4) etanercept versus placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials.
MAIN RESULTS: Three trials were included in the original version of the review. An additional six trials, giving a total of 2842 participants, were added to the 2012 update of the review. The trials were generally of moderate to low risk of bias, the majority funded by pharmaceutical companies. Follow-up ranged from six months to 36 months.
Benefit
At six to 36 months the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response rate was statistically significantly improved with etanercept plus DMARD treatment when compared with a DMARD in those people who had an inadequate response to any traditional DMARD (risk ratio (RR) 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 2.9, absolute treatment benefit (ATB) 38%; 95% CI 13% to 59%) and in those people who were partial responders to MTX (RR 11.7; 95% CI 1.7 to 82.5, ATB 36%). Similar results were observed when pooling data from all participants (responders or not) (ACR 50 response rates at 24 months: RR 1.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.8, ATB 29%; 36 months: RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.3 to 1.9, ATB 24%). Statistically significant improvement in physical function and a higher proportion of disease remission were observed in combination-treated participants compared with DMARDs alone ((mean difference (MD) -0.36; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.28 in a 0-3 scale) and (RR 1.92; 95% CI 1.60 to 2.31), respectively) in those people who had an inadequate response to any traditional DMARD. All changes in radiographic scores were statistically significantly less with combination treatment (etanercept plus DMARD) compared with MTX alone for all participants (responders or not) (Total Sharp Score (TSS) (scale = 0 to 448): MD -2.2, 95% CI -3.0 to -1.4; Erosion Score (ES) (scale = 0 to 280): MD -1.6; 95% CI -2.4 to -0.9; Joint Space Narrowing Score (JSNS) (scale = 0 to 168): MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2), and with combination treatment compared with etanercept alone (TSS.: MD -1.1; 95% CI -1.8 to -0.5; ES: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2; JSNS.: MD -0.5, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2). The estimate of irreversible physical disability over 10 years given the radiographic findings was 0.45 out of 3.0.
When etanercept monotherapy was compared with DMARD monotherapy, there was generally no evidence of a difference in ACR50 response rates when etanercept 10 mg or 25 mg was used; at six months etanercept 25 mg was significantly more likely to achieve ACR50 than DMARD monotherapy but this difference was not found at 12, 24 or 36 months. TSS and ES radiographic scores were statistically significantly improved with etanercept 25 mg monotherapy compared with DMARD (TSS.: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.4 to 0.1; ES: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.0 to -0.3) but there was no evidence of a statistically significant difference between etanercept 10 mg monotherapy and MTX.
Harms
There was no evidence of statistically significant differences in infections or serious infections between etanercept plus DMARD and DMARD alone at any point in time. Infection rates were higher in people receiving etanercept monotherapy compared with DMARD; however, there were no differences regarding serious infections. For those participants who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, the rate of total withdrawals was lower for the etanercept plus DMARD group compared with DMARD alone (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.77, ATB 18%). No other statistically significant differences were observed in any of the assessed comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Etanercept 25 mg administered subcutaneously twice weekly together with MTX was more efficacious than either etanercept or MTX monotherapy for ACR50 and it slowed joint radiographic progression after up to three years of treatment for all participants (responders or not). There was no evidence of a difference in the rates of infections between groups.
Purpose: Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) plays an important role in inflammation and may affect tumour growth control. To assess the risk of malignancy with etanercept, a fusion protein that inhibits TNF action, a meta-analysis was performed using individual patient data from randomised controlled trials (RCT) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: A search was conducted of bibliographic databases, abstracts from annual meetings and any unpublished studies on file with manufacturers of etanercept to December 2006. Only RCT of etanercept used for 12 weeks or more in patients with RA were included. Nine trials met the inclusion criteria. To adjudicate endpoints, the case narratives of potential cases were reviewed. Patient-level data were extracted from the clinical trials databases. Results: The nine trials included 3316 patients, 2244 who received etanercept (contributing 2484 person-years of follow-up) and 1072 who received control therapy (1051 person-years). Malignancies were diagnosed in 26 patients in the etanercept group (incidence rate (IR) 10.47/1000 person-years) and seven patients in the control group (IR 6.66/1000 person-years). A Cox's proportional hazards, fixed-effect model stratified by trial yielded a hazard ratio of 1.84 (95% CI 0.79 to 4.28) for the etanercept group compared with the control group. Conclusions: In this analysis, the point estimate of malignancy risk was higher in etanercept-treated patients, although the results were not statistically significant. The approach of obtaining individual patient data of RCT in cooperation with trial sponsors allowed important insights into the methodological advantages and challenges of sparse adverse event data meta-analysis.
Background: Tumour necrosis factor a blockers in rheumatoid arthritis are known to increase the risk of serious infections defined as life-threatening, requiring hospitalisation or intravenous antibiotics. Recently, new biological agents have become available. Their safety is an important issue. Purpose: To assess if biological agents, ie rituximab, abatacept and anakinra increase the risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in published randomised controlled trials. Data source: A systematic review of the literature using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane library and abstracts databases (American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism annual meetings) was performed up to October 2007. This search was completed with data from the Food and Drug Administration, the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products and manufacturers. Data extraction: Three fixed-effect meta-analyses were performed to compare serious infection rates between each biological agent and placebo. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated, using the Mantel-Haenszel method with a continuity correction. Data synthesis: Twelve randomised controlled trials with data concerning serious infections were analysed (three for rituximab, five for abatacept and four for anakinra). They included 745 patients, 1960 patients, 2062 patients and 2112 patients treated by rituximab, abatacept, anakinra and placebo respectively. The overall pooled ORs did not reveal a statistically significant increased risk of serious infection for abatacept and rituximab; this risk was increased for high doses of anakinra (≥100 mg daily) versus low dose and placebo (ORs = 9.63 (95% CI, 1.31 to 70.91) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.11 to 10.46) respectively). Conclusions: These meta-analyses did not reveal a significant increase in the risk of serious infections during rituximab or abatacept treatments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis; however, high doses of anakinra may increase this risk, especially when patients have comorbidity factors. Large studies must be performed to confirm this safety profile in daily practice.
BACKGROUND: In the past decade, a novel class of therapies directed against specific cytokines implicated in the disease process of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), called the 'Biologics' have greatly improved and expanded treatment for RA. Anakinra is an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist that is currently FDA-approved for moderate-severe RA that has been unresponsive to initial disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) therapy.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of anakinra in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2008), MEDLINE (1950 to Week 4 2008) , EMBASE (1980 to Week 5 2008), CINAHL (1982 to November 2007) and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing anakinra alone or in combination with DMARDs or biologics to placebo or other DMARDs or biologics in patients >18 years old with rheumatoid arthritis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS: Five trials involving 2876 patients, 781 randomized to placebo and 2065 to anakinra, were included. There was a significant improvement in number of participants achieving ACR20 (38% versus 23%) who were treated with anakinra 50 to 150 mg daily versus placebo after 24 weeks. This 15% increase in patients achieving ACR20 with anakinra versus placebo is felt to be a clinically meaningful, though modest, outcome. Other efficacy data - including ACR50 (18% versus 7%), ACR70 (7% versus 2%), HAQ, visual analog score (VAS), Larsen radiographic scores, and change in erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) - all demonstrated significant improvement with anakinra 50 to 150 mg daily versus placebo as well. There were no statistically significant differences noted in most safety outcomes with treatment with anakinra versus placebo - including number of withdrawals, deaths, adverse events (total and serious), and infections (total and serious). Injection site reactions were significantly increased, occurring in 1235/1729 (71%) versus 204/729 (28%) of patients treated with anakinra versus placebo, respectively. The incidence of serious infections was clinically higher, but not statistically different, in the anakinra (25/1366 patients, 1.8%) versus placebo group (3/534 patients, 0.6%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Anakinra is a relatively safe and modestly efficacious biologic therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Although head to head comparison trials have not been carried out, the amount of improvement is notably less when compared to studies using other biologic therapies. More studies are needed to evaluate safety and efficacy, especially in comparison to other therapies, and adverse event data for the long-term use of Anakinra has yet to be assessed.
BACKGROUND: To analyse available evidence on the efficacy and safety of anti-TNFalpha drugs (infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab) for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: We searched systematically for randomised controlled clinical trials on treatment of RA with anti-TNFalpha drugs, followed by a systematic review with metaanalysis. Trials were searched from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) efficacy response criteria were used. Safety parameters provided by the trials were also assessed. Positive and undesired effects were estimated using combined relative risks (RR), number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH). Heterogeneity was evaluated by Cochrane's Q and I2 statistics.
RESULTS: Thirteen trials (7087 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The combined RR to achieve a therapeutic response to treatment with recommended doses of any anti-TNFalpha drug was 1.81 (95% CI 1.43-2.29) with a NNT of 5 (5-6) for ACR20. NNT for ACR50 [5 (5-6)] and ACR70 [7 (7-9)] were similar. Overall therapeutic effects were also similar regardless of the specific anti-TNFalpha drug used and when higher than recommended doses were administered. However, lower than recommended doses elicited low ACR70 responses (NNT 15). Comparison of anti-TNFalpha drugs plus methotrexate (MTX) with MTX alone in patients with insufficient prior responses to MTX showed NNT values of 3 for ACR20, 4 for ACR50 and 8 for ACR70. Comparison of anti-TNFalpha drugs with placebo showed a similar pattern. Comparisons of anti-TNFalpha drugs plus MTX with MTX alone in patients with no previous resistance to MTX showed somewhat lower effects. Etanercept and adalimumab administered as monotherapy showed effects similar to those of MTX. Side effects were more common among patients receiving anti-TNFalpha drugs than controls (overall combined NNH 27). Patients receiving infliximab were more likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH 24) and to suffer severe side effects (NNH 31), infections (NNH 10) and infusion reactions (NNH 9). Patients receiving adalimumab were also more likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH 47) and to suffer injection site reactions (NNH 22). Patients receiving etanercept were less likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH for control versus etanercept 26) but more likely to experience injection site reactions (NNH 5).
CONCLUSION: Anti-TNFalpha drugs are effective in RA patients, with apparently similar results irrespective of the drug administered. Doses other than those recommended are also beneficial. The main factor influencing therapeutic efficacy is the prior response to DMARD treatment. The effect of treatment with etanercept or adalimumab does not differ from that obtained with MTX. The published safety profile for etanercept is superior but the fact that no patients are treated with higher than recommended doses requires explanation.
BACKGROUND: The relatively recent introduction of biological agents to treat psoriasis presents clinicians with the need to objectively compare and contrast these agents to allow more effective treatment of their patients.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of biological agents in the treatment of plaque psoriasis.
METHODS: (i)
DATA SOURCES: Four parallel systematic reviews conducted through July 2006, including peer-reviewed data and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports. (ii)
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled, double-blind, monotherapy trials of alefacept (n = 3), efalizumab (n = 5), etanercept (n = 4) and infliximab (n = 4); 16 studies comprising 7931 patients met inclusion criteria. (iii)
DATA EXTRACTION: Efficacy was measured by Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 achievement after 10-14 weeks of treatment, using intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of one or more adverse event(s) (AEs) and serious adverse event(s) (SAEs) during 10-30 weeks of treatment.
RESULTS: Pooled relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat (NNT) of PASI 75 achievement compared with placebo was computed using Mantel-Haenszel methods and the random effects model. All biological agents for psoriasis were efficacious (P < 0.001); however, there was a graded response for achievement of PASI 75: infliximab (RR = 17.40, NNT = 2), etanercept (RR = 11.73, NNT = 3), efalizumab (RR = 7.34, NNT = 4) and alefacept (RR = 3.70, NNT = 8). The risk of one or more AEs was evaluated by RR and number needed to harm (NNH). This was increased in the alefacept (RR = 1.09, P = 0.03, NNH = 15), efalizumab (RR = 1.15, P < 0.001, NNH = 9) and infliximab (RR = 1.18, P < 0.001, NNH = 9) groups compared with placebo. SAEs were increased in a sensitivity analysis of four efalizumab trials (n = 2443, RR = 1.92, P = 0.03, NNH = 60).
CONCLUSIONS: The decreasing rank order for pooled efficacy was infliximab, etanercept, efalizumab and alefacept when compared with placebo. Pooling safety data revealed a previously unreported increased risk of AEs for alefacept, efalizumab and infliximab.
BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease may be refractory to conventional treatments including corticosteroids and immunosuppressives. Recent studies suggest TNF-α blocking agents may be effective in maintaining remission in Crohn's disease.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the evidence for the effectiveness of TNF-α blocking agents in the maintenance of remission in patients with Crohn's disease.
SEARCH METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the IBD/FBD Review Group Specialized Trials Register were searched for relevant studies published between 1966-2007. Manual searches of references from potentially relevant papers were performed to identify additional studies. Experts in the field and study authors were contacted to identify unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials involving patients > 18 years with Crohn's disease who had a clinical response or clinical remission with a TNF-α blocking agent, or patients with Crohn's disease in remission but unable to wean corticosteroids, who were then randomized to maintenance of remission with a TNF-α blocking agent or placebo
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors performed data extraction and assessment of the methodological quality of each trial. Outcome measures reported in the primary studies included clinical remission, clinical response, and steroid-sparing effects.
MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies met all inclusion criteria. Four different anti-TNF-α agents were evaluated (infliximab in 3 studies, CDP571 in 3 studies, adalimumab in 2 studies, and certolizumab in 1 study). There is evidence from three randomized controlled trials that infliximab maintains clinical remission (RR 2.50; 95% CI 1.64 to 3.80), maintains clinical response (RR 1.66; 95% CI 1.00 to 2.76), has corticosteroid-sparing effects (RR 3.13; 95% CI 1.25 to 7.81), and maintains fistula healing (RR 1.87; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.04) in patients with Crohn's disease with a response to infliximab induction therapy. There were no significant differences in remission rates between infliximab doses of 5 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg. There is evidence that adalimumab maintains clinical remission, clinical response, and has corticosteroid-sparing effects in patients with Crohn's disease who have responded or entered remission with adalimumab induction therapy. There were no significant differences in remission rates between adalimumab 40 mg weekly or every other week. There is evidence from one randomized controlled trial that certolizumab pegol maintains clinical remission (RR 1.68; 95% CI 1.30 to 2.16) and maintains clinical response (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.41 to 2.13) in patients who have responded to certolizumab induction therapy. There is no evidence to support the use of CDP571 for the maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab 5 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, given every 8 weeks, is effective for the maintenance of remission and maintenance of fistula healing in patients who have responded to infliximab induction therapy. Adalimumab 40 mg weekly or every other week is effective for the maintenance of remission in patients who have responded to adalimumab induction therapy. Certolizumab pegol 400 mg every 4 weeks is effective for the maintenance of remission in patients who have responded to certolizumab induction therapy. No comparative trials have evaluated the relative efficacy of these agents. Adverse events are similar in the infliximab, adalimumab, and certolizumab groups compared with placebo, but study size and duration generally are insufficient to allow an adequate assessment of serious adverse events associated with long-term use.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors in the management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: We searched electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab used in patients with PsA. Random effects metaanalysis was undertaken to produce pooled estimates of the relative risk, risk difference, or the weighted mean difference for efficacy and safety outcomes using Stata version 9.0. RESULTS: Six RCT met the inclusion criteria, including 982 patients. All 3 TNF-alpha inhibitors were significantly more effective than placebo on the basis of Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) and American College of Rheumatology response criteria ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 ratings. There were no significant differences between TNF-alpha inhibitors and placebo in the proportions of patients experiencing withdrawal for any reason (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20-1.18), or withdrawal due to adverse events (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.73-6.27), serious adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.55-1.77), or upper respiratory tract infections (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65-1.28). Pooled rates for injection site reactions were significantly higher for adalimumab and etanercept than for placebo (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.16-5.29), but there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients experiencing infusion reactions with infliximab (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.48-2.20) compared against placebo. Indirect analysis did not demonstrate any significant differences between the TNF-alpha inhibitors. CONCLUSION: TNF-alpha inhibitors are effective treatments for PsA with no important added risks associated with their short-term use. There is still a need for longterm risk-benefit assessment of using these drugs for the management of PsA.
This systematic review update summarizes the current evidence on the use of natalizumab for induction of remission in Crohn's disease (CD).
OBJECTIVES:
To determine the efficacy and safety of natalizumab for induction of remission in CD.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 10 May 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing natalizumab to a placebo or control therapy for induction of remission in CD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was failure to enter clinical remission. Secondary outcomes included clinical response, mean change in Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI), adverse events (AEs), withdrawal due to AEs and serious AEs. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. Data were pooled for meta-analysis when the interventions, patient groups and outcomes were sufficiently similar (determined by consensus). We used GRADE to assess the overall quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS:
A total of five RCTs (1771 participants) were included. Four studies (1692 participants) compared one, two or three infusions of natalizumab (300 mg or 3 mg/kg or 6mg/kg) to placebo. One study (79 participants) compared three infusions of natalizumab (300 mg) and infliximab (5 mg/kg) to infliximab and placebo. Four studies were rated as low risk of bias. One study was rated as unclear risk of bias for selective reporting.One, two and three infusions of natalizumab were superior to placebo for induction of remission and clinical response. Infusions were administered at weeks zero, four and eight. After one infusion, 76% (849/1117) of natalizumab participants failed to enter remission at 4 weeks compared to 83% (411/494) of placebo participants (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.96, 3 studies, GRADE high quality). At 4 weeks, the RR for clinical response was 0.78 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.92, 3 studies, 1611 participants, GRADE moderate quality). After two infusions, after 8 weeks, 66% (693/1049) of natalizumab participants failed to enter remission compared to 77% (382/494) of placebo participants (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95; 3 studies, GRADE moderate quality). At 8 weeks, the RR for clinical response was 0.73 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.91, 3 studies, 1543 participants, GRADE low quality). After three infusions, at 12 weeks, 61% (596/983) of natalizumab participants failed to enter remission compared to 73% (313/431) of placebo participants (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.92, 2 studies, GRADE high quality). At 12 weeks, the RR for clinical response was 0.76 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, 2 studies, 1414 participants, GRADE high quality). One study (507 participants) reported on change in CADI from baseline. Natalizumab participants had a larger drop in mean CDAI scores than placebo participants at 4, 8 and 12 weeks.The rates of AEs, withdrawals due to AEs and serious AEs were similar across groups at 4, 8 and 12 weeks. After one infusion, 74% (50/68) of natalizumab participants experienced an AE compared to 81% (51/63) of placebo participants (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09, GRADE moderate quality). Withdrawal due to an AE occurred in 1% (1/68) of natalizumab participants and 3% of placebo participants (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.98, GRADE low quality). SAEs occurred in 10% (7/68) of natalizumab participants compared to 11% (7/63) of placebo participants (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.49, GRADE low quality). After two infusions, 86% (57/66) of natalizumab participants experienced an AE compared to 81% (51/63) of placebo participants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.24, GRADE moderate quality). Withdrawal due to an AE occurred in 3% (2/66) natalizumab participants compared to 3% (2/63) placebo participants (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.57, GRADE low quality). SAEs occurred in 9% (6/66) of natalizumab participants and 11% (7/63) of placebo participants (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.30, GRADE low quality). After three infusions, 86% (848/984) of natalizumab participants experienced an AE compared to 83% (359/431) placebo participants (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.08, GRADE high quality). Withdrawals due to AEs occurred in 8% (82/984) of natalizumab participants compared to 10% (45/431) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.26, GRADE moderate quality). SAEs occurred in 7% (65/983) of natalizumab participants and 8% (36/431) of placebo participants (RR 0.76. 95% CI 0.37 to 1.56, GRADE low quality). Adverse events included headache, nausea, nasopharyngitis, abdominal pain, fatigue, vomiting, and exacerbation of CD.The study comparing combination therapy with natalizumab and infliximab to infliximab and placebo demonstrated similar remission rates at 10 weeks. Sixty-four per cent (33/52) of participants assigned to natalizumab and infliximab failed to achieve remission compared to 70% (19/27) assigned to placebo and infliximab (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.24, GRADE moderate quality). The rates of AEs (moderate quality evidence), withdrawals due to AEs (low quality evidence) and serious AEs (low quality evidence) were similar across groups at 10 weeks. Adverse events included headache, exacerbation of CD, nausea, and nasopharyngitis.Natalizumab is associated with the development of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) resulting in some patient deaths. There are currently no tests which can reliably predict those at risk of developing PML.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
High quality data suggest that natalizumab is effective for induction of clinical remission and response in some patients with moderately to severely active CD. However, none of the included studies had the power to detect rare but serious adverse events such as PML. Due to the association with PML, and the availability of alternative agents that are not associated with PML, natalizumab is not likely to be used in patients who fail currently available medical therapy. The use of natalizumab in select patients (e.g. patients allergic to different biologics) needs to be carefully considered against the potential risk of developing PML. Futher studies of natalizumab are not likely to be done.
