BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease dominated by chronic inflammation of the synovium of the joints. Methotrexate (MTX) is the most widely used in the treatment of RA. This study systematically evaluated the clinical efficacy of MTX on RA and provided a theoretical basis for the clinical treatment of RA.
METHODS: Four English databases (PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Web of Sciences) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MTX treatment of RA published from the date of establishment of the database to 2021. The Cochrane Handbook 5.0.2 was used to perform risk bias evaluation and Review Manager 5.3 was used to conduct a meta-analysis.
RESULTS: A total of eight articles were included. The meta-analysis showed that, compared to the control group, the number of patients with DAS28-ESR ≤2.6 [erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)] in the MTX alone or MTX combined treatment groups was higher, and the incidence of adverse events was also higher. However, there was no significant difference in the level of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) after treatment versus the control group.
DISCUSSION: MTX alone or MTX combined treatment can better control the condition of RA patients without causing damage to the patient's blood system or liver and kidney function, but may increase the probability of adverse events.
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.
Background: The mainstream medications for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs), which mostly are methotrexate (MTX), and biologic agents such as adalimumab (ADA), certolizumab (CZP), etanercept (ETN), golimumab (GOL), infliximab (IFX), and tocilizumab (TCZ). This network meta-analysis was aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of the medications above and interventions combining cDMARDs and biologic agents for patients with RA. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched systematically for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes concerning efficacy and safety were evaluated utilizing odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). The outcomes of efficacy would be evaluated through remission and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank each treatment on each index. Results: A total of 20 RCTs with 9,047 patients were included, and the efficacy and safety of the concerning interventions for RA were evaluated. Compared with cDMARDs alone, TCZ+MTX, ETN+MTX, IFX+MTX, TCZ, and ADA+MTX showed significant statistical advantage on ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70. Apart from that, as for remission, TCZ+MTX, IFX+MTX, TCZ, and CZP+MTX performed better compared to cDMARDs alone. The SUCRA ranking also indicated that TCZ+MTX was the intervention with best ranking in the entire four efficacy indexes followed by ETX+MTX and IFX+MTX. However, there was no obvious difference among these medications compared with cDMARDs when it comes to safety, which need more specific studies on that. Conclusion: TCZ+MTX was potentially the most recommended combination of medications for RA due to its good performance in all outcomes of efficacy. ETX+MTX and IFX+MTX, which also performed well, could be introduced as alternative treatments. However, considering the adverse events, the treatments concerning should be introduced with caution.
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.
OBJETIVOS: Actualizar las pruebas de la eficacia de los fármacos antirreumáticos modificadores de la enfermedad biológica (bDMARDs) en pacientes con artritis reumatoide (AR) para informar a las recomendaciones de tratamiento de la European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). Métodos: Se realizaron búsquedas en las bases de datos MEDLINE, EMBASE y Cochrane para los ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECA) entre los meses de enero de 2013 y febrero de 2016. Resúmenes del Colegio Americano de Reumatología y conferencias EULAR se obtuvieron. RESULTADOS: Los ECA confirmaron una mayor eficacia con un DMARD sintético convencional bDMARD + (csDMARD) versus un solo csDMARDs (evidencia de nivel 1A). El uso de un enfoque de estrategia de tratar a la meta, el inicio y la escalada de la terapia csDMARD y la adición de un bDMARD en casos de falta de respuesta, es un enfoque eficaz (1B). Si un bDMARD había fracasado, se observaron mejoras en la respuesta clínica al cambiar a otro bDMARD (1A), pero no se observó ninguna ventaja clara para cambiar a un agente con otro modo de acción. El mantenimiento de la respuesta clínica en pacientes en remisión o baja actividad de la enfermedad fue mejor cuando se continuó en lugar de detener un bDMARD, pero bDMARD reducción de la dosis o "espaciamiento" fue posible, con una proporción sustancial de los pacientes bDMARD-free remisión (2B). Los ECA también han demostrado la eficacia de varios nuevos DMARB y DMAR biosimilares (1B). CONCLUSIONES: Esta revisión sistemática de la literatura confirmó consistentemente la eficacia reportada previamente de los bDMARDs en la AR y proporcionó información adicional sobre la conmutación bDMARD y la reducción de la dosis.
BACKGROUND: Treat to target (TTT) is a broad concept for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It involves setting a treatment target, usually remission or low disease activity (LDA). This is often combined with frequent patient assessment and intensive and rapidly adjusted drug treatment, sometimes based on a formal protocol.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TTT compared with routine care.
DATA SOURCES: Databases including EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from 2008 to August 2016.
REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of clinical effectiveness was conducted. Studies were grouped according to comparisons made: (1) TTT compared with usual care, (2) different targets and (3) different treatment protocols. Trials were subgrouped by early or established disease populations. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses. Narrative synthesis was undertaken for the first two comparisons, but was not feasible for the third. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness was also undertaken. No model was constructed as a result of the heterogeneity among studies identified in the clinical effectiveness review. Instead, conclusions were drawn on the cost-effectiveness of TTT from papers relating to these studies.
RESULTS: Sixteen clinical effectiveness studies were included. They differed in terms of treatment target, treatment protocol (where one existed) and patient visit frequency. For several outcomes, mixed results or evidence of no difference between TTT and conventional care was found. In early disease, two studies found that TTT resulted in favourable remission rates, although the findings of one study were not statistically significant. In established disease, two studies showed that TTT may be beneficial in terms of LDA at 6 months, although, again, in one case the finding was not statistically significant. The TICORA (TIght COntrol for RA) trial found evidence of lower remission rates for TTT in a mixed population. Two studies reported cost-effectiveness: in one, TTT dominated usual care; in the other, step-up combination treatments were shown to be cost-effective. In 5 of the 16 studies included the clinical effectiveness review, no cost-effectiveness conclusion could be reached, and in one study no conclusion could be drawn in the case of patients denoted low risk. In the remaining 10 studies, and among patients denoted high risk in one study, cost-effectiveness was inferred. In most cases TTT is likely to be cost-effective, except where biological treatment in early disease is used initially. No conclusions could be drawn for established disease.
LIMITATIONS: TTT refers not to a single concept, but to a range of broad approaches. Evidence reflects this. Studies exhibit substantial heterogeneity, which hinders evidence synthesis. Many included studies are at risk of bias.
FUTURE WORK: Future studies comparing TTT with usual care must link to existing evidence. A consistent definition of remission in studies is required. There may be value in studies to establish the importance of different elements of TTT (the setting of a target, the intensive use of drug treatments and protocols pertaining to those drugs and the frequent assessment of patients).
CONCLUSION: In early RA and studies of mixed early and established RA populations, evidence suggests that TTT improves remission rates. In established disease, TTT may lead to improved rates of LDA. It remains unclear which element(s) of TTT (the target, treatment protocols or increased frequency of patient visits) drive these outcomes. Future trials comparing TTT with usual care and/or different TTT targets should use outcomes comparable with existing literature. Remission, defined in a consistent manner, should be the target of choice of future studies.
STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017336.
FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease dominated by chronic inflammation of the synovium of the joints. Methotrexate (MTX) is the most widely used in the treatment of RA. This study systematically evaluated the clinical efficacy of MTX on RA and provided a theoretical basis for the clinical treatment of RA.
METHODS:
Four English databases (PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Web of Sciences) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MTX treatment of RA published from the date of establishment of the database to 2021. The Cochrane Handbook 5.0.2 was used to perform risk bias evaluation and Review Manager 5.3 was used to conduct a meta-analysis.
RESULTS:
A total of eight articles were included. The meta-analysis showed that, compared to the control group, the number of patients with DAS28-ESR ≤2.6 [erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)] in the MTX alone or MTX combined treatment groups was higher, and the incidence of adverse events was also higher. However, there was no significant difference in the level of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) after treatment versus the control group.
DISCUSSION:
MTX alone or MTX combined treatment can better control the condition of RA patients without causing damage to the patient's blood system or liver and kidney function, but may increase the probability of adverse events.
