Dataset Information

Risk of serious infection in biological treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Serious infections are a major concern for patients considering treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Evidence is inconsistent as to whether biological drugs are associated with an increased risk of serious infection compared with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of serious infections in patients treated with biological drugs compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs.We did a systematic literature search with Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to Feb 11, 2014. Search terms included "biologics", "rheumatoid arthritis" and their synonyms. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they included any of the approved biological drugs and reported serious infections. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis of published trials using a binomial likelihood model to assess the risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were treated with biological drugs, compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs. The odds ratio (OR) of serious infection was the primary measure of treatment effect and calculated 95% credible intervals using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods.The systematic review identified 106 trials that reported serious infections and included patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received biological drugs. Compared with traditional DMARDs, standard-dose biological drugs (OR 1.31, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.09-1.58) and high-dose biological drugs (1.90, 1.50-2.39) were associated with an increased risk of serious infections, although low-dose biological drugs (0.93, 0.65-1.33) were not. The risk was lower in patients who were methotrexate naive compared with traditional DMARD-experienced or anti-tumour necrosis factor biological drug-experienced patients. The absolute increase in the number of serious infections per 1000 patients treated each year ranged from six for standard-dose biological drugs to 55 for combination biological therapy, compared with traditional DMARDs.Standard-dose and high-dose biological drugs (with or without traditional DMARDs) are associated with an increase in serious infections in rheumatoid arthritis compared with traditional DMARDs, although low-dose biological drugs are not. Clinicians should discuss the balance between benefit and harm with the individual patient before starting biological treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.Rheumatology Division at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

SUBMITTER: Singh JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4580232 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk of serious infection in biological treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Singh Jasvinder A JA Cameron Chris C Noorbaloochi Shahrzad S Cullis Tyler T Tucker Matthew M Christensen Robin R Ghogomu Elizabeth Tanjong ET Coyle Doug D Clifford Tammy T Tugwell Peter P Wells George A GA

Lancet (London, England) 20150511 9990

<h4>Background</h4>Serious infections are a major concern for patients considering treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Evidence is inconsistent as to whether biological drugs are associated with an increased risk of serious infection compared with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of serious infections in patients treated with biological drugs compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs.<h4>Methods</h4>We did a syste ...[more]

PMID: 25975452

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Tofacitinib modulates the signaling of cytokines that are integral to lymphocyte activation, proliferation, and function. Thus, tofacitinib therapy may result in suppression of multiple elements of the immune response. Serious infections have been reported in tofacitinib RA trials. However, limited head-to-head comparator data were available within the tofacitinib RA development program to directly compare rates of serious infections with tofacitinib relative to biologic agents, and specifically adalimumab (employed as an active control agent in two randomized controlled trials of tofacitinib).MethodsA systematic literature search of data from interventional randomized controlled trials and long-term extension studies with biologics in RA was carried out. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) consensus was followed for reporting results of the review and meta-analysis. Incidence rates (unique patients with events/100 patient-years) for each therapy were estimated based on data from randomized controlled trials and long-term extension studies using a random-effects model. Relative and absolute risk comparisons versus placebo used Mantel-Haenszel methods.ResultsThe search produced 657 hits. In total, 66 randomized controlled trials and 22 long-term extension studies met the selection criteria. Estimated incidence rates (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors were 3.04 (2.49, 3.72), 3.72 (2.99, 4.62), 5.45 (4.26, 6.96), and 4.90 (4.41, 5.44), respectively. Incidence rates (95% CIs) for tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily (BID) in phase 3 trials were 3.02 (2.25, 4.05) and 3.00 (2.24, 4.02), respectively. Corresponding incidence rates in long-term extension studies were 2.50 (2.05, 3.04) and 3.19 (2.74, 3.72). The risk ratios (95% CIs) versus placebo for tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were 2.21 (0.60, 8.14) and 2.02 (0.56, 7.28), respectively. Risk differences (95% CIs) versus placebo for tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were 0.38% (-0.24%, 0.99%) and 0.40% (-0.22%, 1.02%), respectively.ConclusionsIn interventional studies, the risk of serious infections with tofacitinib is comparable to published rates for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with moderate to severely active RA.

Project description:BackgroundVitamin D is important for immunomodulation and may play a role in autoimmune diseases. Studies have reported a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, and vitamin D status, assessed by circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration, is inversely associated with RA disease activity. However, it is unclear whether vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of later developing RA. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of pre-diagnostic 25(OH)D concentrations and risk of RA.MethodsMedline and Embase databases were searched in December 2021 using various keywords for 'vitamin D', 'rheumatoid arthritis', and 'prospective study'. Publications identified from the search were screened for eligibility, studies were excluded if vitamin D status was measured at or after RA diagnosis, and data were extracted from relevant articles. Bayesian meta-analysis was used to estimate the summary relative risk (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) for risk of RA in relation to circulating 25(OH)D concentrations, as well as the between-study heterogeneity.ResultsThe search strategy yielded 908 records, of which 4 publications reporting on 7 studies, involving a total of 15,604 participants and 1049 incident RA cases, were included in the meta-analysis. There was no suggestion of an association between 25(OH)D concentration and subsequent risk of RA. The pooled RR per 25 nmol/L increment in 25(OH)D was 0.96 (95% CrI 0.82-1.13; I2 = 52%). No associations were evident in men (RR = 1.02, 95% CrI 0.65-1.61; I2 = 77%, 2 studies) or women (RR = 0.94, 95% CrI 0.73-1.22; I2 = 71%, 4 studies).ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis did not identify evidence of an association between 25(OH)D and RA risk, but there was notable between-study heterogeneity and a lack of precision. Investigations in large-scale prospective studies with long follow-up or suitably designed Mendelian randomisation studies with consideration of potential non-linear relationships are needed to determine whether vitamin D is involved in RA aetiology.

Project description:Background: The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a chronic systemic inflammatory autoimmune disease, is based on disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Typically, it starts with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), and depending on the patient's response to the treatment and the adverse events experienced, biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) are initiated. bDMARDs are more specific to inflammatory factors than csDMARDs and more efficient in inducing remission and low disease activity. Thus, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in administrative health databases. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 21 October 2021, to identify observational studies that evaluated the effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using administrative databases and real-world data. The methodological quality was assessed by the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). A fixed or random-effects model estimated risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. The analysis was divided into four groups: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) versus non-TNFi; TNFi versus TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab versus infliximab); bDMARDs versus Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi); and bDMARDs monotherapy versus combination therapy (bDMARDs and MTX). Results: Twenty-one records were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis; seven population-based cohorts, eight prospective, and six retrospective cohort studies. Overall, 182,098 rheumatoid arthritis patients were evaluated. In the meta-analysis, lower effectiveness was observed among TNFi users than in non-TNFi (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.81-0.95; p < 0.01; I2 = 94.0%) and bDMARDs than in JAKi (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79-0.94; p < 0.01; I2 = 93.0%). Higher effectiveness among adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab than in infliximab (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.05-1.36; p < 0.01; I2 = 96.0%) was found. No significant differences in the effectiveness of bDMARD monotherapy compared to combination therapy (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.68-1.00; p < 0.01; I2 = 81.0%) was observed. E-value analysis indicated that the estimates were not robust against unmeasured confounding. Conclusion: According to the available real-world data, our results suggest that biological therapy effectively treats patients with rheumatoid arthritis, indicating higher effectiveness with non-TNFi and JAKi than with TNFi. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID#CRD42020190838, identifier CRD42020190838.

Project description:Background Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and Parkinson's disease (PD) are two common chronic diseases worldwide, and any potential link between the two would significantly impact public health practice. Considering the current inconsistent evidence, we conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review to examine the risk of PD in patients with RA. Methods Two investigators (DL and XH) conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science using medical subject headings terms combined with free words to identify relevant papers published from inception through December 31, 2021. All studies that explored the relationship between RA and PD were included for quantitative analysis and qualitative review. Random- and fixed-effects models were used to pool the risk ratios (RRs) of PD in patients with RA. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of included studies. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guideline. Results Four population-based studies involving 353,246 patients and one Mendelian randomized study were included in our study. The pooled result showed a significantly reduced risk of PD in patients with RA than in the general population (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.56-0.98, P = 0.034). No apparent effects of gender, age, region, follow-up time, or study design on PD risk were observed. Sensitivity analysis showed that pooled results were relatively stable, and no publication bias was detected. The Mendelian randomization study indicated a significant inverse association between RA and PD (genetic correlation: −0.10, P = 0.0033) and that each one standard deviation increase in the risk of RA was significantly associated with a lower risk of PD. Of note, the current study is limited by the relatively small number of included studies and unmeasured confounding factors, especially for RA-related anti-inflammatory agents. Conclusions This study supports that people with RA had a lower PD risk than those without RA. Further studies are needed to explore the underlying molecular mechanisms of the interaction between the two diseases.

Dataset Information

Risk of serious infection in biological treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Risk of serious infection in biological treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets