OBJECTIVES: Compare the benefits and harms of corticosteroids, oral and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for adults with rheumatoid arthritis.
DATA SOURCES: English-language articles from 1980 to February 2011 identified through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts; unpublished literature including dossiers from pharmaceutical companies.
METHODS: Two people independently selected relevant head-to-head trials of any sample size, prospective cohort studies with at least 100 participants, and relevant good- or fair-quality meta-analyses that compared benefits or harms of 14 drug therapies. Retrospective cohort studies were also included for harms. For biologic DMARDs, placebo-controlled, double-blind RCTs were also included. We required trials and cohort studies to have a study duration of at least 12 weeks. Literature was synthesized qualitatively within and between the two main drug classes (oral and biologic DMARDs). Network meta-analysis also was performed to examine the relative efficacy of biologic DMARDs and comparing withdrawal rates from placebo controlled trials.
RESULTS: Head-to-head trials showed no clinically important differences in efficacy among oral DMARD comparisons (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide). The only head-to-head trial comparing biologic DMARDs (abatacept vs. infliximab) found no clinically important differences. Combination therapy of biologic DMARDs plus methotrexate improved clinical response rates and functional capacity more than monotherapy with methotrexate. Network meta-analyses found higher odds of reaching ACR 50 response for etanercept compared with most other biologic DMARDs (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) for methotrexate-resistant patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Similar overall tolerability profiles were found among oral and biologic DMARDs, but short-term adverse events were more common with biologic DMARDs. Adjusted indirect comparisons of biologic DMARDs found that certolizumab had the most favorable overall withdrawal profile, followed by etanercept and rituximab. Certolizumab had lower relative withdrawal rates due to lack of efficacy than adalimumab, anakinra, and infliximab. Certolizumab and infliximab had more, while etanercept had fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than most other drugs. Evidence was insufficient to assess comparative risk of serious adverse events among biologic DMARDs. Combinations of biologic DMARDs have higher rates of serious adverse events than biologic DMARD monotherapy. Limited data existed for subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: Limited head-to-head comparative evidence does not support one therapy over another for adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Network meta-analyses from placebo-controlled trials of biologics suggest some differences, including higher odds of reaching ACR 50 response, but strength of evidence was low.
PURPOSE: We systematically compared the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety (adverse events) of abatacept, adalimumab, alefacept, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, natalizumab, rituximab, tocilizumab, and ustekinumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis.
DATA SOURCES: To identify published studies, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, The Cochrane Library, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 2009 (January) to 2011 (October). We also searched the US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research website for additional unpublished data, requested dossiers of information from pharmaceutical manufacturers, and retrieved relevant citations from reference lists of included studies.
REVIEW METHODS: Study selection, data abstraction, validity assessment, grading the strength of the evidence, and data synthesis were all carried out according to our standard review methods.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Overall, targeted immune modulators are highly effective medications for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis that substantially improve the burden of disease and are generally safe for short-term treatment. For rheumatoid arthritis, low-and moderate-strength evidence indicated that some targeted immune modulators are more efficacious than others. These results were based on three head-to-head trials, several large observational studies, and indirect comparisons of placebo-controlled trials. The evidence is currently insufficient to reliably determine the comparative effectiveness for other indications and in subgroups. Low-strength evidence indicated that serious infections are less common with abatacept than the other drugs and that the rate of adverse events is greater with infliximab than adalimumab or etanercept. Likewise, more patients receiving infliximab withdrew due to adverse events than abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab. Infusion or allergic reactions contributed to the difference in risk.
Targeted immune modulators, commonly referred to as biological response modifiers or simply biologics, are a relatively new category of medications used in the treatment of certain types of immunologic and inflammatory diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. The US Food and Drug Administration approved the first of the biologics (infliximab) in 1998 and approved 9 additional agents since that time for treating various rheumatic conditions and plaque psoriasis: etanercept (1998), anakinra (2001), adalimumab (2002), alefacept (2003), efalizumab (2003), abatacept (2005), rituximab (2006), natalizumab (2008), and certolizumab pegol (2008). In this report, we review the comparative effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of targeted immune modulators.
Compare the benefits and harms of corticosteroids, oral and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for adults with rheumatoid arthritis.
DATA SOURCES:
English-language articles from 1980 to February 2011 identified through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts; unpublished literature including dossiers from pharmaceutical companies.
METHODS:
Two people independently selected relevant head-to-head trials of any sample size, prospective cohort studies with at least 100 participants, and relevant good- or fair-quality meta-analyses that compared benefits or harms of 14 drug therapies. Retrospective cohort studies were also included for harms. For biologic DMARDs, placebo-controlled, double-blind RCTs were also included. We required trials and cohort studies to have a study duration of at least 12 weeks. Literature was synthesized qualitatively within and between the two main drug classes (oral and biologic DMARDs). Network meta-analysis also was performed to examine the relative efficacy of biologic DMARDs and comparing withdrawal rates from placebo controlled trials.
RESULTS:
Head-to-head trials showed no clinically important differences in efficacy among oral DMARD comparisons (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide). The only head-to-head trial comparing biologic DMARDs (abatacept vs. infliximab) found no clinically important differences. Combination therapy of biologic DMARDs plus methotrexate improved clinical response rates and functional capacity more than monotherapy with methotrexate. Network meta-analyses found higher odds of reaching ACR 50 response for etanercept compared with most other biologic DMARDs (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) for methotrexate-resistant patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Similar overall tolerability profiles were found among oral and biologic DMARDs, but short-term adverse events were more common with biologic DMARDs. Adjusted indirect comparisons of biologic DMARDs found that certolizumab had the most favorable overall withdrawal profile, followed by etanercept and rituximab. Certolizumab had lower relative withdrawal rates due to lack of efficacy than adalimumab, anakinra, and infliximab. Certolizumab and infliximab had more, while etanercept had fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than most other drugs. Evidence was insufficient to assess comparative risk of serious adverse events among biologic DMARDs. Combinations of biologic DMARDs have higher rates of serious adverse events than biologic DMARD monotherapy. Limited data existed for subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS:
Limited head-to-head comparative evidence does not support one therapy over another for adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Network meta-analyses from placebo-controlled trials of biologics suggest some differences, including higher odds of reaching ACR 50 response, but strength of evidence was low.
