Etanercept (ETN) is a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that works as a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF inhibitor) by blocking the effects of naturally occurring TNF. This review will evaluate the effect of ETN as a monotherapy or combination therapy with methotrexate (MTX) in the treatment of RA. This systematic review was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. A systematic search was done on PubMed and Google Scholar from 1999 to 2023. Predefined eligibility criteria were set for selected studies, which include: free full-text articles published; randomized control trials (RCTs); systematic reviews and meta-analyses; and observational studies in a patient with RA treated with ETN as initial therapy or as an add-on to conventional disease-modified therapy. Hence, the data had been extracted, and a quality assessment of each study was done by two individual authors. When comparing patients who received 15-25 mg of MTX with those who also received 25 mg of ETN in combination, 71% achieved American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) by 24 weeks, compared to 27% in the MTX and placebo groups (p<0.001), and 39% achieved American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50), compared to 3% in the placebo + MTX group (p<0.001). Low disease activity (DAS 28) was more common in patients who had both MTX and ETN (64.5% with DAS <2.4 and 56.3% with DAS 28 <3.2) compared to patients who received only one medication (44.4% with DAS <2.4 and 33.2% with DAS 28 <3.2 for ETN and 38.6% with DAS <2.4 and 28.5% with DAS 28 <3.2 for MTX, with P<0.01). ETN demonstrated smaller changes from baseline in the modified Sharp score (TSS) and erosion scores (ES) at 12 months and two years, as well as a decreased change in the ES score at one year (with a trend of P value = 0.06 for the TSS score), in comparison to those receiving DMARD. Reactions at the injection site (42% vs. 7%, P<0.001) were the only events that occurred significantly more frequently in the ETN plus-MTX group. Combining ETN and MTX appears to help control RA symptoms by decreasing the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response and DAS score, as well as halting the disease's progression on X-rays. The most common adverse effects were reactions to ETN administered alone at the injection site, likely because of patient awareness of the treatment received. There was also concern about tuberculosis and malignancy, but no recent data is available. Therefore, a larger clinical trial with longer follow-up is required to ascertain long-term safety and benefits.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic search and review aimed to evaluate the available literature on discontinuation of adalimumab and other tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) for patients with well-controlled chronic inflammatory arthritides.
METHODS: We conducted a publication search on adalimumab discontinuation from 2000-2023 using PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Included studies evaluated adalimumab discontinuation approaches, tapering schemes, and outcomes including successful discontinuation and recapture after flare, in patients with well-controlled disease. Studies included evaluated rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).
RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were included. Studies evaluating adalimumab alone were limited, and many reported TNFi outcomes as a single entity. Studies on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (32, 8 RCTs) reported flare rates from 33-87%. Flares with medication tapering were slightly lower than with abrupt stop, and successful recapture was generally high (80-100%). Studies on spondyloarthropathy (12, 4 RCTs), focused on tapering, noting lower flare rates in tapering rather than abruptly stopping, and high recapture rates (~ 90%). Studies on JIA (5) were observational and demonstrated modestly lower flare rates with tapering (17-63%) versus abrupt stopping (28-82%). There was notable variability in study design, follow-up duration, specificity for TNFi results, and controlled pediatric studies.
CONCLUSION: The literature evaluating adalimumab and other TNFi discontinuation, flare rates, and recapture success within the inflammatory arthritis population demonstrated less flare when medications were tapered, over abrupt stop in the RA, spondyloarthropathy, and JIA populations. When medications were restarted after flare, recapture of well-controlled disease was generally high in RA and spondyloarthropathy, and generally favorable in JIA.
BACKGROUND: Biologic drugs such as adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab represent major first-line and second-line treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, their high cost poses a massive burden on healthcare systems worldwide. The expiration of patents for these biologics has driven the production of biosimilar drugs, which are potentially less costly and remarkably similar, albeit not identical to the reference molecules. This paper aims to outline the protocol of a systematic review that will investigate the efficacy and safety profile of biosimilars compared to biologics (objective 1) and the impact of switching between biosimilar drugs and reference biologics on the management of RA patients (objective 2).
METHODS: We will investigate the effects of any biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on RA patients. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs to assess efficacy and safety outcomes and RCTs with two- or multiple-part designs to evaluate the consequences of switching from reference biologics to biosimilar drugs (and vice-versa). Electronic searches will be performed through MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL (from inception to April 2021). Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and evaluate the risk of bias. The latter will be carried out considering specific domains from equivalence trials and switching studies. Random-effects models will be fitted to obtain summary estimates using either relative risk or standardized mean difference as a metric. The primary outcome will be the rate of treatment success according to the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20), and the co-primary outcome will be the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Conclusions will be based on equivalence hypothesis testing using predefined margins of equivalence elicited from a group of experienced rheumatologists and prior studies. The overall certainty of the evidence will be assessed based on the GRADE system.
DISCUSSION: The present investigation proposes a comprehensive, clinician-oriented approach to assess the equivalence and the impact of switching between biosimilars and biologics on the management of patients with RA. Our results will elucidate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity of biosimilars, and the clinical consequences of substituting biologics with biosimilars in the management of RA.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019137152 and CRD42019137155.
Background: Adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, certolizumab, and etanercept are five anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) medicines that have been approved for use in rheumatology. Apart from their well-established therapeutic usefulness, -it is unclear to what extent -they are linked to an increased risk of various side effects. The present meta-analysis was carried out to assess the risk of infection and other side effects after anti-TNF- α for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cinahl (via Ebsco), Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases for trials comparing anti-TNF medications to placebo or no therapy in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis from August 2006 to August 2020. A total of 23 articles were used for meta-analysis. The Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. In addition, a random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratio, and Forest plots were constructed to determine the risk of infections and cancer following the use of anti-TNF treatment. Results: Treatment with anti-TNFα agents resulted in an increase in the risk of serious infections (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.56–1.90, p < 0.00001) and an increase in cancer risk (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.20–1.53, p < 0.00001) whereas the risk of developing tuberculosis was not significantly different with anti-TNFα agents versus those without treatment with anti-TNFα agents (OR: 2.55, 95% CI: 0.40–16.23, p = 0.32) although the number of studies is limited to make a definitive conclusion. The risk of bias of the included studies was unclear to high across most domains, and there was evidence of publication bias for most outcomes. Conclusion: The present meta-analysis suggests an increased risk of infectious adverse events, including overall adverse events and cancer following anti-TNFα treatment, whereas the risk of tuberculosis was not significantly different. Although anti-TNF agents have shown promise to treat inflammatory conditions, their use should be balanced by the risk-benefit ratio as suggested by the meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between the use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with systemic inflammatory conditions.
METHODS: Eligible cohort studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to January 2021 were included. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cardiovascular outcomes were calculated in the fixed- and random-effects model accordingly. Associated factors with risks of cardiovascular events were also studied in sensitivity analyses and metaregression analyses.
RESULTS: Compared with non-bDMARD users, the risks of myocardial infarction (MI) (OR = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.87), heart failure (OR = 0.84, 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95), cardiovascular (CV) death (OR = 0.62, 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.95), all-cause mortality (OR = 0.64, 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.70), and 3P-MACE (composite endpoint of MI, stroke, and CV death) (OR = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.89) were significantly reduced in bDMARD users, which were mainly driven by the risk reduction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). TNF-α inhibitors exhibited consistent benefits in reducing the risks of MI, heart failure, CV death, all-cause mortality, and 3P-MACE. Moreover, the risks of heart failure, CV death, all-cause mortality, and 3P-MACE were significantly reduced in bDMARD users with follow-up over one year.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of bDMARDs might be associated with the reduced risks of CV events, especially in patients with RA. The CV events might be less frequent in bDMARD users with TNF-α inhibitors or follow-up over one year. More investigations are needed to validate conclusions.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate flare risk when tapering or withdrawing biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b-/tsDMARDs) compared to continuation in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) in sustained remission or low disease activity.
METHODS: Articles were identified in Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Eligible trials were randomised, controlled trials comparing tapering and/or withdrawal of b- and/or tsDMARDs with standard dose in IA. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed with risk ratio (RR), or Peto's Odds Ratio (POR) for sparse events, and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).
RESULTS: The meta-analysis comprised 22 trials: 11 assessed tapering and 7 addressed withdrawal (4 assessed both). Only trials with a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) population were identified. An increased flare risk was demonstrated when b-/tsDMARD tapering was compared to continuation, RR = 1.45 (95%CI: 1.19 to 1.77, I2 = 42.5%), and potentially increased for persistent flare, POR = 1.56 (95%CI: 0.97 to 2.52, I2 = 0%). Comparing tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) withdrawal to continuation, a highly increased flare risk (RR = 2.28, 95%CI: 1.78 to 2.93, I2 = 78%) and increased odds of persistent flare (POR = 3.41, 95%CI: 1.91 to 6.09, I2 = 49%) was observed. No clear difference in flare risk between RA or axSpA was observed.
CONCLUSION: A high risk for flare and persistent flare was demonstrated for TNFi withdrawal whereas an increased risk for flare but not for persistent flare was observed for b-/tsDMARD tapering. Thus, tapering seems to be the more favourable approach.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42019136905).
OBJECTIVES: To inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: A systematic literature research (SLR) to investigate the efficacy of any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) (conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD, biological (b) and biosimilar DMARD, targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD) or glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in patients with RA was done by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2016 and 8 March 2019.
RESULTS: 234 abstracts were selected for detailed assessment, with 136 finally included. They comprised the efficacy of bDMARDs versus placebo or other bDMARDs, efficacy of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAKi) across different patient populations and head-to-head of different bDMARDs versus JAKi or other bDMARDs. Switching of bDMARDs to other bDMARDs or tsDMARDs, strategic trials and tapering studies of bDMARDs, csDMARDs and JAKi were assessed. The drugs evaluated included abatacept, adalimumab, ABT-122, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, SBI-087, CNTO6785, decernotinib, etanercept, filgotinib, golimumab, GCs, GS-9876, guselkumab, hydroxychloroquine, infliximab, leflunomide, mavrilimumab, methotrexate, olokizumab, otilimab, peficitinib, rituximab, sarilumab, salazopyrine, secukinumab, sirukumab, tacrolimus, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, tregalizumab, upadacitinib, ustekinumab and vobarilizumab. The efficacy of many bDMARDs and tsDMARDs was shown. Switching to another tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi bDMARDs after TNFi treatment failure is efficacious. Tapering of DMARDs is possible in patients achieving long-standing stringent clinical remission; in patients with residual disease activity (including patients in LDA) the risk of flares is increased during the tapering. Biosimilars are non-inferior to their reference products.
CONCLUSION: This SLR informed the task force regarding the evidence base of various therapeutic regimen for the development of the update of EULAR's RA management recommendation.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of first-line biologic disease modifying drugs(boDMARDs), and their approved biosimilars (bsDMARDs), compared with conventional (csDMARD) treatment, in terms of ACR (American College of Rheumatology) and EULAR (European League against Rheumatism) responses.
METHODS: Systematic literature search, on eight databases to January 2017, sought ACR and EULAR data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of boDMARDs / bsDMARDs (in combination with csDMARDs, or monotherapy). Two adult populations: methotrexate (MTX)-naïve patients with severe active RA; and csDMARD-experienced patients with moderate-to-severe active RA. Network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using a random effects model with a probit link function for ordered categorical.
RESULTS: Forty-six RCTs met the eligibility criteria. In the MTX-naïve severe active RA population, no biosimilar trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. MTX plus methylprednisolone (MP) was most likely to achieve the best ACR response. There was insufficient evidence that combination boDMARDs was superior to intensive (two or more) csDMARDs. In the csDMARD-experienced, moderate-to-severe RA population, the greatest effects for ACR responses were associated with tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy, and combination therapy (plus MTX) with bsDMARD etanercept (ETN) SB4, boDMARD ETN and TCZ. These treatments also had the greatest effects on EULAR responses. No clear differences were found between the boDMARDs and their bsDMARDs.
CONCLUSIONS: In MTX-naïve patients, there was insufficient evidence that combination boDMARDs was superior to two or more csDMARDs. In csDMARD-experienced patients, boDMARDs and bsDMARDs were comparable and all combination boDMARDs / bsDMARDs were superior to single csDMARD.
Introduction Early biological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may reverse the autoimmune response in some patients resulting in favorable long-term outcomes. Although the cost-effectiveness of this strategy has been questioned, biosimilar entries warrant the revision of clinical and pharmaco-economic evidence. Areas covered We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 24th May 2018 in Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL, comparing infliximab with non-biological therapy in patients with RA naïve to methotrexate. We performed meta-analyses for efficacy outcomes at month 6 and years 1 and 2. Six RCTs were identified, involving 1832 patients. At month 6 ACR70 response and remission, and at year 1 ACR20/ACR70 responses and remission were improved significantly with first-line infliximab versus control. The differences were not significant at year 2. We reviewed cost-utility studies, up to October 31, 2018 in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL and the CRD HTA databases. Four studies indicated that first-line use of originator infliximab calculated at 2005-2008 prices was not cost-effective. Expert opinion We demonstrated the efficacy benefits of first-line infliximab therapy up to 1 year in methotrexate-naïve RA. We highlighted the need for standardized reporting of outcomes and conducting cost-effectiveness analyses of first-line biosimilar therapy in RA.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate (MTX) in combination with an approved biological agent compared to biological monotherapy, in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and other sources were searched for randomised trials evaluating a biological agent plus MTX versus the same biological agent in monotherapy. Co-primary outcomes were ACR50 and the number of patients who discontinued due to adverse events (AEs). Random-effects models were applied for meta-analyses with risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals and the GRADE approach was used to assess confidence in the estimates.
RESULTS: The analysis comprised 16 trials (4965 patients), including all biological agents approved for RA except anakinra and certolizumab. The overall likelihood of responding to therapy (i.e. ACR50) after 6 months was 32% better when MTX was given concomitantly with biological agents (1.32 [1.20-1.45]; P < 0.001) corresponding to 11 more out of 100 patients (7-16 more); Moderate Quality Evidence. Discontinuing due to AEs from concomitant use of MTX was potentially 20% increased (1.21 [0.97-1.50]; P = 0.09) compared to biological monotherapy corresponding to 1 more out of 100 patients (0-3 more); Moderate Quality Evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Randomised trials provide Moderate Quality Evidence for a favourable benefit-harm balance supporting concomitant use of MTX rather than monotherapy when prescribing a biological agent in patients with RA although in absolute terms only 7-16 more out of 100 patients will achieve an ACR50 response after 6 months of this combination therapy.
Etanercept (ETN) is a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that works as a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF inhibitor) by blocking the effects of naturally occurring TNF. This review will evaluate the effect of ETN as a monotherapy or combination therapy with methotrexate (MTX) in the treatment of RA. This systematic review was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. A systematic search was done on PubMed and Google Scholar from 1999 to 2023. Predefined eligibility criteria were set for selected studies, which include: free full-text articles published; randomized control trials (RCTs); systematic reviews and meta-analyses; and observational studies in a patient with RA treated with ETN as initial therapy or as an add-on to conventional disease-modified therapy. Hence, the data had been extracted, and a quality assessment of each study was done by two individual authors. When comparing patients who received 15-25 mg of MTX with those who also received 25 mg of ETN in combination, 71% achieved American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) by 24 weeks, compared to 27% in the MTX and placebo groups (p<0.001), and 39% achieved American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50), compared to 3% in the placebo + MTX group (p<0.001). Low disease activity (DAS 28) was more common in patients who had both MTX and ETN (64.5% with DAS <2.4 and 56.3% with DAS 28 <3.2) compared to patients who received only one medication (44.4% with DAS <2.4 and 33.2% with DAS 28 <3.2 for ETN and 38.6% with DAS <2.4 and 28.5% with DAS 28 <3.2 for MTX, with P<0.01). ETN demonstrated smaller changes from baseline in the modified Sharp score (TSS) and erosion scores (ES) at 12 months and two years, as well as a decreased change in the ES score at one year (with a trend of P value = 0.06 for the TSS score), in comparison to those receiving DMARD. Reactions at the injection site (42% vs. 7%, P<0.001) were the only events that occurred significantly more frequently in the ETN plus-MTX group. Combining ETN and MTX appears to help control RA symptoms by decreasing the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response and DAS score, as well as halting the disease's progression on X-rays. The most common adverse effects were reactions to ETN administered alone at the injection site, likely because of patient awareness of the treatment received. There was also concern about tuberculosis and malignancy, but no recent data is available. Therefore, a larger clinical trial with longer follow-up is required to ascertain long-term safety and benefits.
