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.
INTRODUCTION: Synthesis of evidence on the long-term use of first-line biologic therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is required. We compared the efficacy of up to 5 years' treatment with first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) versus other treatment strategies in this population.
METHODS: Previous systematic reviews, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving treatment of methotrexate-naïve RA patients with first-line TNFis. Literature was synthesized qualitatively, and a meta-analysis conducted to evaluate American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, clinical remission defined by any standard measure, and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ) at Years 2 and/or 5.
RESULTS: Ten RCTs involving 4306 patients [first-line TNFi, n = 2234; other treatment strategies (control), n = 2072] were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies were double-blind for the first 2 years, while seven were partly/completely open label during this period. Five studies reported data at Year 5; all were open label at this time point. At Year 2, ACR50 response, ACR70 response and remission rates were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus control in double-blind RCTs [log-odds ratio (OR) 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02, 0.62; p = 0.035], log-OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.20, 0.77; p = 0.001), and log-OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.13, 0.74; p = 0.005), respectively], but not in open-label studies. No significant between-group differences were observed in mean HAQ at Year 2 in double-blind or open-label RCTs or in ACR response or remission outcomes at Year 5.
CONCLUSION: In double-blind studies, 2-year efficacy outcomes were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus other treatment strategies in patients with MTX-naïve RA. No significant differences in these outcomes were observed when data from open-label RCTs were considered on their own. Further data on the efficacy of TNFi therapy over ≥ 2 years in patients with methotrexate-naïve RA are required. Plain language summary available for this article.
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.
BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate.
METHODS: In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H).
MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.
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.
