Despite recommendations suggesting that biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) should be used in combination with methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), up to one-third of patients with RA are treated with monotherapy. The objective of the systematic literature review reported here was to evaluate the clinical evidence regarding the efficacy of b/tsDMARDs as monotherapy in the treatment of RA. MEDLINE®, Embase®, and the Cochrane Central Trials Register (to April 11, 2017) and the American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism conference proceedings (2010-2016) were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of b/tsDMARDs as monotherapy for RA in adults. Forty-four monotherapy studies of abatacept, adalimumab, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, sarilumab, sirukumab, tocilizumab, and tofacitinib reported in 71 publications were identified. Tocilizumab had the most studies (14), followed by etanercept (10) and adalimumab (9). These b/tsDMARDs were consistently shown to be efficacious treatments, regardless of whether patients were intolerant of or had never used conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. However, better treatment outcomes were usually achieved with combination therapy, and this was observed for all b/tsDMARDs assessed by this review. Only a few studies provided a head-to-head comparison between b/tsDMARD treatments or between b/tsDMARD monotherapy and combination therapy, and as many were initial RA treatments they were not generalizable to usual care. In conclusion, evidence from randomized trials suggests that the b/tsDMARDs studied are effective as monotherapy. In general, some patient responses seem better with combination therapy and the durability of monotherapy is less than combination therapy. There is, however, a need for longer-term head-to-head trials to establish positioning of these interventions in the treatment algorithm for RA.
FUNDING: Pfizer.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available on the journal website.
BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs.
OBJECTIVES: To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.
METHODS: We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.
MAIN RESULTS: 158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine (“triple therapy”), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of etanercept (ETA) for treating active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared to placebo or methotrexate (MTX).
METHODS: We searched Medline, Cochrane Library and Wiley databases. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare efficacy.
RESULTS: In total, 12 studies with 3878 active RA patients (including 2046 patients treated with ETA and 1832 patients treated with placebo or MTX) were included. The overall RRs in ACR20, 50 and 70 (20%, 50%, 70% improvement based on the criteria of American Rheumatism Association) were 2.10 (95% CI: 1.45-3.02, P < 0.0001), 2.87 (95% CI: 1.66-4.97, P = 0.0002) and 2.16 (95% CI: 1.49-3.13, P < 0.0001) within 24 weeks, respectively and were 1.19 (95% CI: 1.11-1.28, P < 0.00001), 1.37 (95% CI: 1.22-1.53, P < 0.00001) and 1.57 (95% CI: 1.28-1.92, P < 0.00001) within 1-3 years, respectively. Further, the overall RRs of 25 mg versus 10 mg ETA twice weekly in ACR20, 50 and 70 were 1.10 (95% CI: 1.02-1.19, P < 0.02), 1.37 (95% CI: 0.98-1.92, P < 0.07) and 1.27 (95% CI: 1.02-1.58, P < 0.03), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In active RA patients treated with ETA, there was significantly higher efficacy compared to the treatment of placebo or MTX. High doses of ETA were more effective for active RA patients.
BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Tofacitinib modulates the signaling of cytokines that are integral to lymphocyte activation, proliferation, and function. Thus, tofacitinib therapy may result in suppression of multiple elements of the immune response. Serious infections have been reported in tofacitinib RA trials. However, limited head-to-head comparator data were available within the tofacitinib RA development program to directly compare rates of serious infections with tofacitinib relative to biologic agents, and specifically adalimumab (employed as an active control agent in two randomized controlled trials of tofacitinib).
METHODS: A systematic literature search of data from interventional randomized controlled trials and long-term extension studies with biologics in RA was carried out. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) consensus was followed for reporting results of the review and meta-analysis. Incidence rates (unique patients with events/100 patient-years) for each therapy were estimated based on data from randomized controlled trials and long-term extension studies using a random-effects model. Relative and absolute risk comparisons versus placebo used Mantel-Haenszel methods.
RESULTS: The search produced 657 hits. In total, 66 randomized controlled trials and 22 long-term extension studies met the selection criteria. Estimated incidence rates (95 % confidence intervals [CIs]) for abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors were 3.04 (2.49, 3.72), 3.72 (2.99, 4.62), 5.45 (4.26, 6.96), and 4.90 (4.41, 5.44), respectively. Incidence rates (95 % CIs) for tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily (BID) in phase 3 trials were 3.02 (2.25, 4.05) and 3.00 (2.24, 4.02), respectively. Corresponding incidence rates in long-term extension studies were 2.50 (2.05, 3.04) and 3.19 (2.74, 3.72). The risk ratios (95 % CIs) versus placebo for tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were 2.21 (0.60, 8.14) and 2.02 (0.56, 7.28), respectively. Risk differences (95 % CIs) versus placebo for tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were 0.38 % (-0.24 %, 0.99 %) and 0.40 % (-0.22 %, 1.02 %), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In interventional studies, the risk of serious infections with tofacitinib is comparable to published rates for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with moderate to severely active RA.
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.
Nonserious infections (NSIE) as colds, flu syndromes, and urinary tract infection, are the most common infections seen in patients with immune mediated inflammatory diseases. Yet, little is known about the impact of immunosuppression, particularly with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), on these infections. A systemic review of large, randomized controlled trials was conducted to identify incidence, types, and outcomes of NSIE associated with the most commonly prescribed TNFi: adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab.
CONTEXT: Concerns exist regarding the potential development of malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are receiving biologic response modifiers (BRMs).
OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of malignancy in patients with RA enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of BRMs.
DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, conference proceedings, and websites of regulatory agencies were searched for RCTs evaluating abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, and tocilizumab in RA from inception through July 9, 2012.
STUDY SELECTION: Independent selection of studies included RCTs that compared the safety of any BRMs used in RA patients with placebo and/or any traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with a minimum of 24 weeks of follow-up.
DATA EXTRACTION: Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data on quality and outcomes. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each BRM.
RESULTS: Sixty-three RCTs with 29,423 patients were analyzed. No statistically significant increased risk of developing malignancy was observed. Of the 29,423 patients, 211 developed a malignancy during the trial (118 solid tumors, 48 skin cancers, 14 lymphomas, 5 hematologic nonlymphomas, and 26 not specified). The incidence rate for any malignancy during the first year of therapy was very low in the BRM plus methotrexate group (0.77%; 95% CI, 0.65%-0.92%), the BRM monotherapy group (0.64%; 95% CI, 0.42%-0.95%), and the controls (0.66%; 95% CI, 0.52%-0.84%). Anakinra plus methotrexate showed lower odds compared with methotrexate alone (Peto odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03-0.45). No statistically significant risk was observed for specific cancer sites, although the Peto odds ratio for lymphoma was 2.1 (95% CI, 0.55-8.4) in patients receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitors compared with controls.
CONCLUSION: The use of BRMs among patients with RA included in RCTs of at least 6 months' duration was not significantly associated with an increased risk of malignancy compared with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or with placebo.
Study Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of using the anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) drugs adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Design. Systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 randomized, placebo-controlled trials (eight adalimumab, seven infliximab, six etanercept). Patients. Adults with rheumatoid arthritis who received adalimumab (1524 patients), infliximab (1116 patients), etanercept (1029 patients), or placebo (2834 patients) with or without concomitant methotrexate in all groups. Measurements and Main Results. A literature search of several databases from January 1995-December 2008 was performed. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication, and low-quality studies (based on Jadad score) were excluded. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% improvement criteria (ACR20), 50% improvement criteria (ACR50), and 70% improvement criteria (ACR70) were used to compare treatment efficacy. Safety was compared based on frequency of serious adverse events, serious infections, malignancy, and death. Withdrawals due to adverse events and lack of efficacy were also evaluated. With short-term treatment (12-30 wks), etanercept demonstrated the highest risk ratios (RRs) for reaching ACR20 and ACR50: 2.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.27-3.81) and 5.28 (95% CI 3.12-8.92), respectively. Adalimumab demonstrated the highest RR for achieving ACR70 (5.36, 95% CI 3.76- 7.64). Over a long-term treatment course (1-3 yrs), adalimumab demonstrated the highest RRs (95% CIs) for these parameters: 1.85 (1.07-3.19), 2.80 (1.16-6.77), and 3.23 (1.37-7.61) for ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70, respectively. No statistically significant differences were noted in the safety of any of the three drugs compared with placebo. Infliximab had the highest RRs for withdrawing from the study due to lack of efficacy (2.05, 95% CI 1.33-3.16) and adverse events (0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.95). Conclusion. With short-term treatment, etanercept and adalimumab had higher efficacy results; with long-term treatment, adalimumab appeared to be the most effective. Clinicians should be aware that each of the three drugs has different rates of efficacy and different safety considerations that must be taken into account when selecting the best treatment for an individual with rheumatoid arthritis.
Despite recommendations suggesting that biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) should be used in combination with methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), up to one-third of patients with RA are treated with monotherapy. The objective of the systematic literature review reported here was to evaluate the clinical evidence regarding the efficacy of b/tsDMARDs as monotherapy in the treatment of RA. MEDLINE®, Embase®, and the Cochrane Central Trials Register (to April 11, 2017) and the American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism conference proceedings (2010-2016) were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of b/tsDMARDs as monotherapy for RA in adults. Forty-four monotherapy studies of abatacept, adalimumab, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, sarilumab, sirukumab, tocilizumab, and tofacitinib reported in 71 publications were identified. Tocilizumab had the most studies (14), followed by etanercept (10) and adalimumab (9). These b/tsDMARDs were consistently shown to be efficacious treatments, regardless of whether patients were intolerant of or had never used conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. However, better treatment outcomes were usually achieved with combination therapy, and this was observed for all b/tsDMARDs assessed by this review. Only a few studies provided a head-to-head comparison between b/tsDMARD treatments or between b/tsDMARD monotherapy and combination therapy, and as many were initial RA treatments they were not generalizable to usual care. In conclusion, evidence from randomized trials suggests that the b/tsDMARDs studied are effective as monotherapy. In general, some patient responses seem better with combination therapy and the durability of monotherapy is less than combination therapy. There is, however, a need for longer-term head-to-head trials to establish positioning of these interventions in the treatment algorithm for RA.
FUNDING:
Pfizer.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available on the journal website.
