This study aims to estimate the effect of synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on radiographic progression and quality of life in adult patients with psoriatic arthritis. A comprehensive search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT). Clinical trials comparing DMARDs with placebo for ≥ 12 weeks were included. The meta-analysis was conducted with a random-effects model using mean differences (MD). A total of 16 trials with overall moderate quality of evidence were included. Exposure to a biologic agent reduced radiographic progression at 24 weeks of treatment (MD: - 0.66; [95% CI - 0.97 to - 0.34]; P < .00001; I2 = 100%). The reduction of the baseline score was more than two times higher for TNF blockers compared with IL-17 and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors (MD: - 0.94 vs - 0.41). Improvement in health-related quality of life scores was observed in biologic-treated populations (MD: - 0.21; [95% CI - 0.25 to - 0.18]; P < .00001; I2 = 97%). No sufficient data were available regarding conventional synthetic agents. Our data analyses suggest a better control of radiological damage with bDMARDs, as compared to placebo, after 24 weeks of treatment. However, the accuracy of these results in real life are jeopardized by the exceedingly high level of heterogeneity exhibited within and across included studies, and the true intervention effect cannot be determined with confidence. Further research is required to assess long-term outcomes and to control heterogeneity in the evaluation of treatments for psoriatic arthritis. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019122223. Key Points • Radiographic progression is not the primary outcome for most efficacy studies in psoriatic arthritis; hence, baseline data are substantially diverse in major clinical trials. • The best available evidence on this particular outcome is currently at a moderate risk of bias. • Existing reports of the effect of DMARDs on structural damage must be taken with caution. • Further research is required to assess long-term outcomes and to control heterogeneity between studies.
The rapid spread of the new Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has actually become the newest challenge for the healthcare system since, to date, there is not an effective treatment. Among all drugs tested, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has attracted significant attention. This systematic review aims to analyze preclinical and clinical studies on HCQ potential use in viral infection and chronic diseases. A systematic search of Scopus and PubMed databases was performed to identify clinical and preclinical studies on this argument; 2463 papers were identified and 133 studies were included. Regarding HCQ activity against COVID-19, it was noticed that despite the first data were promising, the latest outcomes highlighted the ineffectiveness of HCQ in the treatment of viral infection. Several trials have seen that HCQ administration did not improve severe illness and did not prevent the infection outbreak after virus exposure. By contrast, HCQ arises as a first-line treatment in managing autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus erythematosus, and Sjögren syndrome. It also improves glucose and lipid homeostasis and reveals significant antibacterial activity.
Background: Chloroquine (CQ) and its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have recently emerged as potential antiviral and immunomodulatory options for the treatment of 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). To examine the safety profiles of these medications, we systematically evaluated the adverse events (AEs) of these medications from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the ClinicalTrials.gov for all the RCTs comparing CQ or HCQ with placebo or other active agents, published before June 20, 2020. The random-effects or fixed-effects models were used to pool the risk estimates relative ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the outcomes. Results: The literature search yielded 23 and 19 studies for CQ and HCQ, respectively, that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these studies, we performed meta-analysis on 6 studies for CQ and 18 studies for HCQ. We did not limit our analysis to published records involving viral treatment alone; data also included the usage of either CQ or HCQ for the treatment of other diseases. The trials for the CQ consisted of a total of 2,137 participants (n = 1,077 CQ, n = 1,060 placebo), while the trials for HCQ involved 2,675 participants (n = 1,345 HCQ and n = 1,330 control). The overall mild and total AEs were significantly higher in CQ-treated non–COVID-19 patients, HCQ-treated non–COVID-19 patients, and HCQ-treated COVID-19 patients. The AEs were further categorized into four groups and analyses revealed that neurologic, gastrointestinal (GI), dermatologic, and sensory AEs were higher in participants taking CQ compared to placebo, while GI, dermatologic, sensory, and cardiovascular AEs were higher in HCQ-treated COVID-19 patients compared to control patients. Moreover, subgroup analysis suggested higher AEs with respect to dosage and duration in HCQ group. Data were acquired from studies with perceived low risk of bias, so plausible bias is unlikely to seriously affect the main findings of the current study. Conclusions: Taken together, we found that participants taking either CQ or HCQ exhibited more AEs than participants taking placebo or control. Precautionary measures should be taken when using these drugs to treat COVID-19. The meta-analysis was registered on OSF (https://osf.io/jm3d9). Registration: The meta-analysis was registered on OSF (https://osf.io/jm3d9).
BackgroundRecently, chloroquine (CQ) and its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have emerged as potential antiviral and immunomodulatory options for the treatment of 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). To examine the safety profiles of these medications, we systematically evaluated the adverse events (AEs) of these medications from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and the ClinicalTrials.gov for all the RCTs comparing CQ or HCQ with placebo or other active agents, published before March 31, 2020. The random-effects or fixed-effects models were used to pool the risk estimates relative ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the outcomes.
ResultsThe literature search yielded 23 and 17 studies for CQ and HCQ, respectively, that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these studies, we performed meta-analysis on the ones that were placebo-controlled, which included 6 studies for CQ and 14 studies for HCQ. We did not limit our analysis to published reports involving viral treatment alone; data also included the usage of either CQ or HCQ for the treatment of other diseases. The trials for the CQ consisted of a total of 2,137 participants (n=1,077 CQ, n=1,060 placebo), while the trials for HCQ involved 1,096 participants (n=558 HCQ and n=538 placebo). The overall mild or total AEs were statistically higher comparing CQ or HCQ to placebo. The AEs were further categorized into four groups and analyses revealed that neurologic, gastrointestinal, dermatologic, and ophthalmic AEs were higher in participants taking CQ compared to placebo. Although this was not evident in HCQ treated groups, further analyses suggested that there were more AEs attributed to other organ system that were not included in the categorized meta-analyses. Additionally, meta-regression analyses revealed that total AEs was affected by dosage for the CQ group.
ConclusionsTaken together, we found that participants taking either CQ or HCQ have more AEs than participants taking placebo. Precautionary measures should be taken when using these drugs to treat COVID-19.
BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is currently being examined for COVID-19. No previous meta-analysis has evaluated its side effects versus placebo. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the safety of HCQ versus placebo.
METHODS: Two authors independently searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults comparing the adverse events (AEs) of HCQ versus placebo for any indication. Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on random-effects models. The heterogeneity (I2) was assessed using Cochran's Q test.
RESULTS: Nine RCTs (eight were double-blind) with a total of 916 patients were included. HCQ caused significantly more skin pigmentation than placebo (Peto OR, 4.64; 95% CI, 1.13 to 19.00; P-value = 0.033; I2 = 0%). The increase in other AEs did not reach statistical significance: rash (Peto OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.3 to 3.77; P-value = 0.03; I2 = 0%); gastrointestinal AEs (Peto OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.55 to 3.72; P-value = 0.46; I2 = 15.17%); headache (Peto OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.65 to 5.78; P-value = 0.23; I2 = 9.99%); dizziness (Peto OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.49 to 3.52; P-value = 0.58; I2 = 0%); fatigue (Peto OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.76 to 5.98; P-value = 0.15; I2 = 0%); and visual AEs (Peto OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.76 to 3.41; P-value = 0.22; I2 = 0%). Cardiac toxicity was not reported.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of RCTs found a significantly higher risk of skin pigmentation in HCQ users versus placebo. More data are needed to evaluate HCQ in the context of COVID-19 treatment.
Objetivo: Evaluar la eficacia y los efectos secundarios del metotrexato o la leflunomida en pacientes con AR como primer fármaco modificador de la enfermedad (FAME). Métodos: Se realizó una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de estudios clínicos que incluyeron a pacientes que tomaron metotrexato, leflunomida, placebo u otro FAME para el tratamiento de la AR. Después de una revisión sistemática, se encontraron 1.971 artículos, una vez revisados completamente, se seleccionaron 73 ensayos que completaron los criterios de inclusión. En talleres estructurados para el debate y la evaluación de cada artículo, 6 pudieron ser metaanalizados para los resultados primarios y secundarios: logro de ACR 20 y sus componentes básicos, así como el cambio de los niveles séricos de PCR, HAQ-DI, enzimas hepáticas AST/ALT, nuevos efectos secundarios gastrointestinales (GI) e infecciones. Resultados: Se incluyó a un total de 1.984 pacientes, 986 tomaron leflunomida y 998 metotrexato. La probabilidad de alcanzar ACR 20 reveló una OR 0,88 (IC del 95%: 0,74; 1,06) con una tendencia a favorecer el metotrexato; la reducción del recuento de articulaciones inflamadas fue mayor para metotrexato: diferencia de medias (MD)=0,82 (IC del 95%: 0,24, 1,39); el recuento de articulaciones sensibles, la evaluación global de médicos, el HAQ-DI, y los niveles séricos de PCR no revelaron diferencias entre los grupos. El aumento de las enzimas hepáticas fue más frecuente en el grupo con leflunomida, OR=0,38 (IC del 95%: 0,27, 0,53) y las nuevas quejas GI fueron más frecuentes en el metotrexato, OR=1,44 (IC del 95% 1,17, 1,79). No hubo diferencias en la incidencia de infecciones no graves. Conclusión: La leflunomida utilizada como el primer FAME en la AR parece ser tan eficaz como el metotrexato; solo la reducción de las articulaciones inflamadas fue mayor para el metotrexato. La leflunomida está relacionada con una mayor elevación de las enzimas hepáticas, pero presenta menos molestias GI
The effect of five approved tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab) on joint destruction in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been compared versus methotrexate (MTX) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but have not been compared directly to each other or to an otherwise untreated placebo control. The present analysis compares effects of standard doses, high doses, and low doses of TNFis on radiographic joint destruction in RA and relate these effects to MTX and placebo by means of a Bayesian network meta-analysis. We identified 31 RCTs of the effect of TNFis on joint destruction and 5 RCTs with controls, which indirectly could link otherwise untreated placebo controls to the TNFi treatments in the network. The previously untested comparison with placebo was performed to estimate not only the effect relative to another drug, but also the absolute attainable effect. Compared to placebo there was a highly significant inhibitory effect on joint destruction of infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab, which was about 0.9% per year as monotherapy and about 1.2% per year when combined with MTX. Although significantly better than MTX and placebo, golimumab seemed inferior to the remaining TNFis. There was no difference between original reference drugs (Remicade, Enbrel) and the almost identical copy drugs (biosimilars).
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pharmacotherapy may impact mental health outcomes by improving pain and stiffness, potentially by targeting inflammatory processes common to RA and depression. The objectives of this review were to ascertain the frequency of mental health assessments in RA pharmacotherapy trials, quantify the efficacy of RA pharmacotherapy for mental health outcomes, and explore the clinical and demographic factors related to mental health outcomes. Effective pharmacotherapy alone is unlikely to substantially improve mental health outcomes in most patients with RA. Integrated mental health care provided within routine clinical practice is essential to optimize mental and physical health outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: Compare the benefits and harms of drug therapies for adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within 1 year of diagnosis, updating the findings on early RA from the 2012 review.
DATA SOURCES: English-language articles identified through MEDLINE®, Cochrane Library, Embase®, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, gray literature, the previous 2012 review, expert recommendations, reference lists of published literature, and supplemental evidence data requests from January 2011 to October 5, 2017.
REVIEW METHODS: Literature was synthesized qualitatively in narrative form and summary tables within and between corticosteroids and classes of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Additionally, combination treatment strategies were examined. We conducted network meta-analysis for five outcomes: American College of Rheumatology 50-percent improvement (ACR50), remission based on Disease Activity Score (DAS), radiographic joint damage, all discontinuations, and discontinuations due to adverse events. Eligibility for network meta-analyses required the following: (1) patients with early RA had not attempted prior treatment with methotrexate (MTX), (2) doses of treatments were within ranges approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), (3) length of followup was similar, and (4) studies were double-blinded randomized controlled trials of low or medium risk of bias.
RESULTS: We analyzed 49 studies: 41 RCTs and 8 observational studies reported in 124 published articles. All included studies enrolled patients with moderate to high disease activity at baseline as measured with mean or median DAS 28 scores. A combination of corticosteroids plus MTX achieved higher remission rates than with MTX monotherapy (low strength of evidence [SOE]). Combination therapy with TNF (tumor necrosis factor) or non-TNF biologics plus MTX improved disease control, remission, and functional capacity compared with monotherapy with either MTX or a biologic (low to moderate SOE). Network meta-analyses found higher ACR50 response for combination therapy of biologics plus MTX than for MTX monotherapy (range of relative risk, 1.20 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04 to 1.38] to 1.57 [95% CI, 1.30 to 1.88]). In available data, consisting mostly of clinical trials, no significant differences emerged between any DMARDs for rates of discontinuation attributable to adverse events or serious adverse events (low SOE for adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, infliximab, or abatacept with MTX, and moderate SOE for rituximab or tocilizumab with MTX). Data about subgroups (based on disease activity, prior therapy, demographics, and the presence of other serious conditions) were insufficient. No difference in findings were noted in MTX naïve and resistant populations. We found no studies of biosimilars for patients with early RA.
CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative synthesis and network meta-analyses suggest that the combination of MTX with TNF or non-TNF biologics improves disease activity and remission when compared with biologic monotherapy or a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) monotherapy in patients with moderate to high disease activity at baseline as measured with mean or median DAS 28 scores. Overall rates of adverse events and discontinuation were similar among patients given csDMARDs, TNF biologics, and non-TNF biologics. We did not find eligible studies of biosimilars.
This study aims to estimate the effect of synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on radiographic progression and quality of life in adult patients with psoriatic arthritis. A comprehensive search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT). Clinical trials comparing DMARDs with placebo for ≥ 12 weeks were included. The meta-analysis was conducted with a random-effects model using mean differences (MD). A total of 16 trials with overall moderate quality of evidence were included. Exposure to a biologic agent reduced radiographic progression at 24 weeks of treatment (MD: - 0.66; [95% CI - 0.97 to - 0.34]; P < .00001; I2 = 100%). The reduction of the baseline score was more than two times higher for TNF blockers compared with IL-17 and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors (MD: - 0.94 vs - 0.41). Improvement in health-related quality of life scores was observed in biologic-treated populations (MD: - 0.21; [95% CI - 0.25 to - 0.18]; P < .00001; I2 = 97%). No sufficient data were available regarding conventional synthetic agents. Our data analyses suggest a better control of radiological damage with bDMARDs, as compared to placebo, after 24 weeks of treatment. However, the accuracy of these results in real life are jeopardized by the exceedingly high level of heterogeneity exhibited within and across included studies, and the true intervention effect cannot be determined with confidence. Further research is required to assess long-term outcomes and to control heterogeneity in the evaluation of treatments for psoriatic arthritis. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019122223. Key Points • Radiographic progression is not the primary outcome for most efficacy studies in psoriatic arthritis; hence, baseline data are substantially diverse in major clinical trials. • The best available evidence on this particular outcome is currently at a moderate risk of bias. • Existing reports of the effect of DMARDs on structural damage must be taken with caution. • Further research is required to assess long-term outcomes and to control heterogeneity between studies.
