BACKGROUND: This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).
METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.
MAIN RESULTS: This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.
OBJETIVO: Desarrollar una nueva pauta de tratamiento farmacológico basado en la evidencia para la artritis reumatoide (AR).
MÉTODOS: Se realizó una revisión sistemática para sintetizar la evidencia de los beneficios y los daños de diferentes opciones de tratamiento. Se utilizó la clasificación de las recomendaciones de la evaluación, la metodología de Evaluación (GRADE) Desarrollo y en evaluar la calidad de las pruebas. Empleamos un proceso de consenso del grupo para clasificar la fuerza de las recomendaciones (ya sean fuertes o condicionales). Una recomendación sólida indica que los médicos están seguros de que los beneficios de una intervención son muy superiores a los daños (o viceversa). Una recomendación condicional denota incertidumbre sobre el equilibrio entre los beneficios y los daños y / o una mayor variabilidad significativa en los valores y las preferencias del paciente.
RESULTADOS: La guía cubre el uso de los fármacos tradicionales modificadores de la enfermedad (DMARD) antirreumáticos, agentes biológicos, tofacitinib, y los glucocorticoides en los primeros 6 meses (<) y estableció (6 meses o más) RA. Además, proporciona recomendaciones sobre el uso de un enfoque de tratar al objetivo, se estrecha y descontinuar medicamentos y el uso de agentes biológicos y FAME en pacientes con hepatitis, insuficiencia cardíaca congestiva, enfermedad maligna, y las infecciones graves. La directriz se refiere a la utilización de las vacunas en pacientes que inician / recepción de FARME o agentes biológicos, la detección de la tuberculosis en pacientes que inician / recepción de agentes biológicos o tofacitinib, y la vigilancia de laboratorio para los DMARD tradicionales. La guía incluye 74 recomendaciones: 23% son fuertes y el 77% son condicionales.
CONCLUSIÓN: Esta directriz RA debe servir como una herramienta para los médicos y pacientes (nuestros dos audiencias objetivo) para las decisiones de tratamiento farmacológico en situaciones clínicas más frecuentes. Estas recomendaciones no son prescriptivos, y las decisiones de tratamiento deben ser tomadas por los médicos y los pacientes a través de un proceso de toma de decisiones compartida, teniendo en cuenta los valores de los pacientes, las preferencias y las comorbilidades. Estas recomendaciones no deben ser utilizados para limitar o no permitir el acceso a las terapias.
OBJETIVO: Revisar la evidencia clínica sobre subcutánea (sc) abatacept y formular recomendaciones con el fin de aclarar los puntos relacionados con su uso en reumatología.
MÉTODO: Un panel de expertos de reumatólogos resumió objetivamente la evidencia sobre el mecanismo de acción, la practicidad, eficacia y seguridad de abatacept sc y formuló recomendaciones después de una revisión de la literatura.
Resultados: La eficacia y seguridad de abatacept sc se estudió en 7 ensayos clínicos, 3 doble ciego, 3 abierta, y uno mixto, con los siguientes criterios de valoración: la comparación contra iv abatacept, el impacto sobre la inmunogenicidad, efecto de la sustitución por iv sc, abatacept sc en monoterapia, y de no inferioridad a adalimumab. No se encontraron diferencias significativas entre sc y abatacept iv sobre la eficacia o la seguridad. El desarrollo de abatacept sc ha permitido un estudio complementario al iv, formulación, con lo que el perfil de abatacept mejor definidos.
Conclusiones: Se trata de un documento práctico para complementar el resumen de características del producto. En resumen, sc abatacept se presenta como un fármaco eficaz y seguro y, por tanto, como una alternativa para el uso dentro del amplio arsenal el reumatólogo tiene para tratar la AR. También tiene la ventaja de ser el único agente biológico que puede ser administrado iv y sc que puede facilitar su uso en ciertos pacientes.
OBJETIVOS: Revisar la evidencia de la eficacia y la seguridad de los agentes biológicos en pacientes con artritis reumatoide (AR) para proporcionar datos para desarrollar las recomendaciones de tratamiento por parte de la Liga Europea contra el Reumatismo (EULAR) Grupo de Tareas.
MÉTODOS: bases de datos Medline, Embase y Cochrane en busca de artículos pertinentes sobre infliximab (IFX), etanercept (ETN), adalimumab (ADA), certolizumab pegol-(CZP), golimumab (GLM), anakinra (ANA), abatacept (ABT) , rituximab (RTX) y tocilizumab (TCZ) publicados entre 1962 y febrero de 2009; Se obtuvieron los resúmenes publicados desde el 2007-2008 del Colegio Americano de Reumatología (ACR) y la conferencia EULAR.
Se identificaron 87 artículos y 40 resúmenes: RESULTADOS. En el metotrexato (MTX) pacientes no tratados previamente, la terapia biológica con IFX, ETN, ADA, GLM o ABT ha demostrado mejorar los resultados clínicos (nivel de evidencia 1B). En MTX / otras drogas sintéticas (DMARD) fallas de los nueve agentes biológicos confieren beneficios (1B), con menor eficacia que destaca por ANA modificador de la enfermedad. RTX, ABT, TCZ y GLM demuestran eficacia en inhibidores del factor de necrosis tumoral (TNFi) fracasos (1B). Existe menos evidencia para cambiar de IFX, ETN y ADA (3B). La terapia de combinación Biológica y MTX es más eficaz que un agente biológico solo (1B). Una revisión de seguridad no muestra un aumento del riesgo de malignidad en comparación con FAME convencionales (3B). TNFi generalmente están asociados con un mayor riesgo de infección bacteriana grave, sobre todo en los primeros 6 meses del inicio del tratamiento; aumento de la tuberculosis (TB) con tasas TNFi son más altos con los anticuerpos monoclonales (3B).
CONCLUSIONES: Hay buena evidencia de la eficacia de los agentes biológicos en pacientes con AR. Los datos de seguridad confirman un aumento del riesgo de infección bacteriana y TB con TNFi comparación con DMARDs convencionales.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas/ Revisión sistemática
ANTECEDENTES: Hemos tratado de comparar los beneficios y la seguridad de 6 productos biológicos (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, infliximab y rituximab) en pacientes con artritis reumatoide.
MÉTODOS: En este meta-análisis de la red, se incluyeron todos completos y actualizados revisiones Cochrane sobre tratamientos biológicos para la artritis reumatoide. Se incluyeron los datos de todos los ensayos controlados con placebo que utilizaron regímenes de dosis estándar. Los principales resultados fueron los beneficios (que se define como una mejora del 50% en el paciente y el médico-reporte de los criterios del American College of Rheumatology [ACR50]) y la seguridad (determinado por el número de retiros relacionados con eventos adversos). Se utilizó efectos mixtos de regresión logística para llevar a cabo una comparación indirecta de los efectos del tratamiento entre los biológicos.
RESULTADOS: En comparación con el placebo, los agentes biológicos se asociaron con un mayor índice de importancia clínica ACR50 (odds ratio [OR] 3,35, intervalo de confianza del 95% [IC]: 2.62-4.29) y un número necesario a tratar para el beneficio de 4 (95% CI 4 -6). Sin embargo, los productos biológicos se asociaron con más retiros relacionados con eventos adversos (OR 1,39, IC 95%: 1,13 a 1,71), con un número necesario a tratar para el daño de 52 (IC 95%: 29-152). La anakinra fue menos eficaz que todos los otros productos biológicos, aunque esta diferencia fue estadísticamente significativa sólo para la comparación con adalimumab (OR 0,45, IC 95% 0,21 a 0.99) y etanercept (OR 0,34, IC 95% 0.14-0.81). El adalimumab, anakinra e infliximab tuvieron más probabilidades de etanercept para liderar a los retiros relacionados con eventos adversos (OR 1,89 adalimumab, IC 95% 1.18-3.04; anakinra OR 2,05, IC 95% 1,27-3,29, y OR infliximab 2,70, IC del 95%: 1,43 -5,26).
INTERPRETACIÓN: Dadas las limitaciones de las comparaciones indirectas, anakinra fue menos eficaz que el etanercept y adalimumab, etanercept y era más seguro que adalimumab, anakinra e infliximab. Este resumen de la prueba ayudará a los médicos ya los pacientes a tomar decisiones basadas en la evidencia sobre productos biológicos para el tratamiento de la artritis reumatoide.
This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).
METHODS:
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.
MAIN RESULTS:
This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics +
MTX/DMARD:
1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.
Síntesis amplia»Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
