OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) concerning the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying anti rheumatic dugs (DMARDs) to inform the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: An SLR of observational studies comparing safety outcomes of any DMARD with another intervention for the management of RA. A comparator group was required for inclusion. For treatments still without registry data (eg, sarilumab and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib, upadacitinib), randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term extensions (LTEs) were used. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed according to standard procedures.
RESULTS: Forty-two observational studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, addressing safety outcomes with bDMARDs and sDMARDs. Nine studies showed no difference in the risk of serious infections across bDMARDs and two studies (high RoB) showed an increased risk with bDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (adjusted incidence rate ratio 3.1-3.9). The risk of Herpes zoster infection was similar across bDMARDs, but one study showed an increased risk with tofacitinib compared with abatacept (adjusted HR (aHR) 2.0). Five studies showed no increased risk of cancer for bDMARDs compared with csDMARDs. An increased risk of lower intestinal perforation was found for tocilizumab compared with csDMARDs (aHR 4.5) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (aHR 2.6-4.0). Sixty manuscripts reported safety data from RCTs/LTEs. Overall, no unexpected safety outcomes were found, except for the possibly increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with JAK inhibitors.
CONCLUSION: Data obtained by this SLR confirm the known safety profile of bDMARDs. The risk of VTE in RA, especially in patients on JAK inhibitors, needs further evaluation.
There is limited evidence relating to the impact of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) upon male fertility and peri-conception paternal exposure in men with rheumatic disease. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of available evidence to update information on this subject and guide paternal counselling. A systematic search of PubMed and Embase was carried out up to September 2017, to find relevant peer-reviewed papers, using keywords for fertility/spermatogenesis/conception, men, and disease modifying or biologic drugs commonly prescribed in patients with rheumatic disease. The search yielded 724 papers, and the titles/abstracts were screened independently by 2 authors, duplicates removed and 233 potentially relevant papers selected for full text review. A total of 84 papers were included in the final analysis which covered the impact on fertility of over 611 male exposures to relevant drugs, and over 5986 pregnancies conceived during paternal exposure to (or within 3 months of stopping) these drugs. Aside from the known adverse impact of cyclophosphamide and sulfasalazine on spermatogenesis, overall there was no firm evidence of harm to fertility or pregnancy outcomes with paternal exposure to anti-TNF therapies, abatacept, rituximab, azathioprine, cyclosporine A, hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, methotrexate or mycophenolate mofetil. There was no evidence found pertaining to the effects of male exposure to IVIG, tacrolimus, golimumab, anakinra or belimumab on fertility or pregnancy outcomes. These results provide further reassurance as to the safety of many DMARDs for men trying to conceive and will be useful when counselling men about risks of anti-rheumatic drugs to fertility and pregnancies, and following accidental conception.
OBJECTIVES: To address the efficacy and safety of secukinumab in comparison with placebo in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.
METHODS: Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify the relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated with the Mantel-Haenszel random effects method. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q and I2 tests.
RESULTS: A total of 1292 patients from three phase III RCT studies were included. Compared with placebo, secukinumab 150 mg was superior at 24 weeks in terms of ACR20 with RR (1.66, 95% CI 1.33, 2.08; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%), ACR50 (1.88, 95% CI 1.29, 2.72; P = 0.0009; I2 = 0%), and ACR70 (2.15, 95% CI 1.15, 4.02; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%). Consistent effects were also observed in pooled group of 150 mg and 75 mg secukinumab. For secukinumab 75 mg alone, ACR20 response rate was significantly higher compared with placebo (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.29, 2.03; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%). Although ACR50 and ACR70 response rates showed a favorable trend to be higher, no statistical difference was observed (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.99, 2.85, P = 0.05, I2 = 47%; RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.78, 4.21, P = 0.17, I2 = 34%, respectively). Compared with the placebo group, there was no increased risk of adverse effects (AEs) and serious AEs at 16 weeks in the pooled secukinumab group.
CONCLUSIONS: In active RA patients with an inadequate response to TNF inhibitors, secukinumab may be a therapeutic option. Secukinumab 150 mg showed significantly better clinical efficacy with no increased risk of AEs and serious AEs compared with placebo.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT01770379, NCT01350804, NCT01377012 Key Points • Secukinumab 150 mg showed significantly better clinical efficacy in active RA patients with an inadequate response to TNF inhibitors. • No increased risk of AEs and serious AEs in secukinumab group compared with placebo.
BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation approaches for people with rheumatoid arthritis include joint protection, exercises and self-management strategies. Health interventions delivered via the web have the potential to improve access to health services overcoming time constraints, physical limitations, and socioeconomic and geographic barriers. The objective of this review is to determine the effects of web-based rehabilitation interventions in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials that compared web-based rehabilitation interventions with usual care, waiting list, no treatment or another web-based intervention in adults with rheumatoid arthritis were included. The outcomes were pain, function, quality of life, self-efficacy, rheumatoid arthritis knowledge, physical activity and adverse effects. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and quality of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Six source documents from four trials (<i>n</i> = 567) focusing on self-management, health information or physical activity were identified. The effects of web-based rehabilitation interventions on pain, function, quality of life, self-efficacy, rheumatoid arthritis knowledge and physical activity are uncertain because of the very low quality of evidence mostly from small single trials. Adverse effects were not reported. CONCLUSION: Large, well-designed trials are needed to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of web-based rehabilitation interventions in rheumatoid arthritis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is an inflammatory polyarthritis that frequently affects the hands and wrists. Hand exercises are prescribed to improve mobility and strength, and thereby hand function.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of hand exercise in adults with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), OTseeker, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to July 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared hand exercise with any non-exercise therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as outlined by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies involving 841 people (aged 20 to 94 years) in the review. Most studies used validated diagnostic criteria and involved home programmes.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from one study indicated uncertainty about whether exercise improves hand function in the short term (< 3 months). On a 0 to 80 points hand function test (higher scores mean better function), the exercise group (n = 11) scored 76.1 points and control group (n = 13) scored 75 points.Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that exercise compared to usual care probably slightly improves hand function (mean difference (MD) 4.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 7.42; n = 449) in the medium term (3 to 11 months) and in the long term (12 months or beyond) (MD 4.3, 95% CI 0.86 to 7.74; n = 438). The absolute change on a 0-to-100 hand function scale (higher scores mean better function) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) were 5% (95% CI 2% to 7%); 8 (95% CI 5 to 20) and 4% (95% CI 1% to 8%); 9 (95% CI 6 to 27), respectively. A 4% to 5% improvement indicates a minimal clinical benefit.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from two studies indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved pain (MD -27.98, 95% CI -48.93 to -7.03; n = 124) in the short term. The absolute change on a 0-to-100-millimetre scale (higher scores mean more pain) was -28% (95% CI -49% to -7%) and NNTB 2 (95% CI 2 to 11).Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that there is probably little or no difference between exercise and usual care on pain in the medium (MD -2.8, 95% CI - 6.96 to 1.36; n = 445) and long term (MD -3.7, 95% CI -8.1 to 0.7; n = 437). On a 0-to-100 scale, the absolute changes were -3% (95% CI -7% to 2%) and -4% (95% CI -8% to 1%), respectively.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from three studies (n = 141) indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved grip strength in the short term. The standardised mean difference for the left hand was 0.44 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.78), re-expressed as 3.5 kg (95% CI 0.87 to 6.1); and for the right hand 0.46 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.8), re-expressed as 4 kg (95% CI 1.13 to 7).High-quality evidence from one study showed that exercise compared to usual care has little or no benefit on mean grip strength (in kg) of both hands in the medium term (MD 1.4, 95% CI -0.27 to 3.07; n = 400), relative change 11% (95% CI -2% to 13%); and in the long term (MD 1.2, 95% CI -0.62 to 3.02; n = 355), relative change 9% (95% CI -5% to 23%).Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from two studies (n = 120) indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved pinch strength (in kg) in the short term. The MD and relative change for the left and right hands were 0.51 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.9) and 44% (95% CI 11% to 78%); and 0.82 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.21) and 68% (95% CI 36% to 101%).High-quality evidence from one study showed that exercise compared to usual care has little or no benefit on mean pinch strength of both hands in the medium (MD 0.3, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.74; n = 396) and long term (MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.88; n = 351). The relative changes were 8% (95% CI -4% to 19%) and 10% (95% CI -2% to 22%).No study evaluated the American College of Rheumatology 50 criteria.Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that people who also received exercise with strategies for adherence were probably more adherent than those who received routine care alone in the medium term (risk ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.48; n = 438) and NNTB 6 (95% CI 4 to 10). In the long term, the risk ratio was 1.09 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.28; n = 422).Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study (n = 246) indicated no adverse events with exercising. The other six studies did not report adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether exercise improves hand function or pain in the short term. It probably slightly improves function but has little or no difference on pain in the medium and long term. It is uncertain whether exercise improves grip and pinch strength in the short term, and probably has little or no difference in the medium and long term. The ACR50 response is unknown. People who received exercise with adherence strategies were probably more adherent in the medium term than who did not receive exercise, but with little or no difference in the long term. Hand exercise probably does not lead to adverse events. Future research should consider hand and wrist function as their primary outcome, describe exercise following the TIDieR guidelines, and evaluate behavioural strategies.
BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence for the efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Task Force treatment recommendations.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for phase III or IV (or phase II, if these studies were lacking) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2013 and February 2016. Abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR conferences were obtained.
RESULTS: The RCTs confirmed greater efficacy with a bDMARD+conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) versus a csDMARDs alone (level 1A evidence). Using a treat-to-target strategy approach, commencing and escalating csDMARD therapy and adding a bDMARD in cases of non-response, is an effective approach (1B). If a bDMARD had failed, improvements in clinical response were seen on switching to another bDMARD (1A), but no clear advantage was seen for switching to an agent with another mode of action. Maintenance of clinical response in patients in remission or low disease activity was best when continuing rather than stopping a bDMARD, but bDMARD dose reduction or 'spacing' was possible, with a substantial proportion of patients achieving bDMARD-free remission (2B). RCTs have also demonstrated efficacy of several new bDMARDs and biosimilar DMARDs (1B).
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic literature review consistently confirmed the previously reported efficacy of bDMARDs in RA and provided additional information on bDMARD switching and dose reduction.
BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.
METHODS: On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).
MAIN RESULTS: This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of embedded nurse-led versus conventional physician-led follow-up on disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: In a systematic literature search, we identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the efficacy of nurse-led follow-up on disease control in patients with RA compared with physician-led follow-up. Primary outcome was disease activity indicated by Disease Activity Score (DAS)-28. Secondary outcomes were: patient satisfaction, physical disability, fatigue, self-efficacy and quality of life. Outcomes were assessed after 1-year and 2 year follow-ups.
RESULTS: Seven studies representing five RCTs, including a total of 723 participants, were included. All but one study included stable patients in low disease activity or remission at baseline. No difference in DAS-28 was found after 1 year (mean difference (MD) -0.07 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.09)). After 2 years, a statistically significant difference was seen in favour of nurse-led follow-up (MD -0.28 (95% CI -0.53 to -0.04)). However, the difference did not reach a clinically relevant level. No difference was found in patient satisfaction after 1 year (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.17 (95 % CI -1.0 to 0.67), whereas a statistical significant difference in favour of nurse-led follow-up was seen after 2 years (SMD: 0.6 (95% CI -0.00 to 1.20)).
CONCLUSION: After 1 year no difference in disease activity, indicated by DAS-28, were found between embedded nurse-led follow-up compared with conventional physician-led follow-up, in RA patients with low disease activity or remission.
To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) concerning the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying anti rheumatic dugs (DMARDs) to inform the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS:
An SLR of observational studies comparing safety outcomes of any DMARD with another intervention for the management of RA. A comparator group was required for inclusion. For treatments still without registry data (eg, sarilumab and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib, upadacitinib), randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term extensions (LTEs) were used. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed according to standard procedures.
RESULTS:
Forty-two observational studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, addressing safety outcomes with bDMARDs and sDMARDs. Nine studies showed no difference in the risk of serious infections across bDMARDs and two studies (high RoB) showed an increased risk with bDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (adjusted incidence rate ratio 3.1-3.9). The risk of Herpes zoster infection was similar across bDMARDs, but one study showed an increased risk with tofacitinib compared with abatacept (adjusted HR (aHR) 2.0). Five studies showed no increased risk of cancer for bDMARDs compared with csDMARDs. An increased risk of lower intestinal perforation was found for tocilizumab compared with csDMARDs (aHR 4.5) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (aHR 2.6-4.0). Sixty manuscripts reported safety data from RCTs/LTEs. Overall, no unexpected safety outcomes were found, except for the possibly increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with JAK inhibitors.
CONCLUSION:
Data obtained by this SLR confirm the known safety profile of bDMARDs. The risk of VTE in RA, especially in patients on JAK inhibitors, needs further evaluation.
