Dataset Information

Baricitinib induces LDL-C and HDL-C increases in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Baricitinib, an oral-administrated selective inhibitor of the JAK1 and JAK2, is recently approved for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. With the aim to provide some insights on the clinical safety, the current study mainly focused on the effect of baricitinib on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels and cardiovascular risk. METHODS:The net change scores [least squares mean (LSM) and mean change] of LDL-C and HDL-C levels from baseline with the comparison of baricitinib versus placebo were pooled, respectively. Risk rations (RR) of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and differences of cardiovascular risk scores at the end of treatment across groups were compared. RESULTS:Six trials with randomized 3552 patients were finally included in summary analysis. Results showed that baricitinib significantly increased LDL-C levels, the net mean change was 13.15?mg/dl with 95% CI 8.89~17.42 (I2 =?0) and the net LSM was 11.94?mg/dl with 95% CI 7.52~16.37 (I2 =?84%). HDL-C also increased obviously with the net LSM change was 7.19?mg/dl (95% CI, 6.05~8.33, I2 =?47%) and net mean change was 5.40?mg/dl (95% CI, 3.07~7.74, I2 =?10%). Subgroup and meta-regression analysis demonstrated baricitinib induced LDL-C and HDL-C increases in a dose-response manner. However, both the pooled RRs of MACEs and differences of cardiovascular risk scores were not statistically significant across groups. CONCLUSION:This study confirmed that baricitinib induced a stable dose-response increase in LDL-C and HDL-C levels. Since the causality association between altered lipids and cardiovascular risk was not identified yet, this issue cannot be completely dismissed. Future research is needed to fully dissect the implications of these lipid changes.

SUBMITTER: Qiu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6380020 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Baricitinib induces LDL-C and HDL-C increases in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Qiu Chengfeng C Zhao Xiang X She Lang L Shi Zhihua Z Deng Ziwei Z Tan Liming L Tu Xiaojun X Jiang Shilong S Tang Bin B

Lipids in health and disease 20190218 1

<h4>Background</h4>Baricitinib, an oral-administrated selective inhibitor of the JAK1 and JAK2, is recently approved for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. With the aim to provide some insights on the clinical safety, the current study mainly focused on the effect of baricitinib on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels and cardiovascular risk.<h4>Methods</h4>The net change scores [least squares mean (LSM) and mean change] of LDL-C a ...[more]

PMID: 30777075

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication is a well-recognised complication in patients receiving disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Limited data exist on HBV reactivation among patients with RA treated with janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. The objective of the current study was to assess HBV reactivation in clinical trials of baricitinib, an oral selective JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor in RA. METHODS:Data were integrated from four completed Phase 3 trials and one ongoing long-term extension (data up to 1 April 2017) in patients naïve to DMARDs or who had inadequate response (IR) to DMARDs including methotrexate (MTX)-IR and/or other conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD)-IR, or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors-IR. Within the clinical programme, baricitinib-treated patients may have received concomitant csDMARDs including MTX, or previous treatment with active comparators including MTX or adalimumab + MTX. At screening, all patients were tested for HBV surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody (HBcAb) and surface antibody (HBsAb). Patients were excluded if they had (1) HBsAg+, (2) HBcAb+/HBsAb- (in Japan, could enrol if HBV DNA-) or (3) HBsAb+ and?HBV DNA+. HBV DNA monitoring, following randomisation in the originating Phase 3 studies, was performed in Japan for patients with HBcAb+ and/or HBsAb+ at screening, and was later instituted globally for HBcAb+ patients in accordance with evolving guidance for HBV monitoring and management with immunomodulatory therapy. RESULTS:In total, 2890 patients received at least one dose of baricitinib in Phase 3 (6993 patient-years exposure). Of 215 patients with baseline serology suggestive of prior HBV infection (HbcAb+) who received a post-baseline DNA test, 32 (14.9%) were HBV DNA+ at?some point following treatment initiation; 8 of 215 patients (3.7%) had a single quantifiable result (?29?IU/mL). Of these eight patients, four met the definition of reactivation of HBV (HBV DNA level ?100?IU/mL); baricitinib was permanently discontinued in four patients, and temporarily interrupted in two patients. No patient developed clinical evidence of hepatitis and in five of eight patients, antiviral therapy was not used. CONCLUSION:HBV reactivation can occur among RA patients treated with DMARDs, including baricitinib, with prior HBV exposure. Our data suggest that such patients should be monitored for HBV DNA during treatment and might be treated safely with the use of antiviral therapy as needed. The risk of HBV reactivation in patients with HBsAg treated with baricitinib is unknown.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the frequency of cardiovascular and venous thromboembolic events in clinical studies of baricitinib, an oral, selective JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor approved in more than 50 countries for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsData were pooled from 9 RA studies. Placebo comparison up to 24 weeks included data from 6 studies. Randomized dose comparison between baricitinib doses of 2 mg and 4 mg used data from 4 studies and from the associated long-term extension study. The data analysis set designated "All-bari-RA" included all baricitinib exposures at any dose.ResultsOverall, 3,492 RA patients received baricitinib (7,860 patient-years of exposure). No imbalance compared to the placebo group was seen in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (incidence rates [IRs] of 0.5 per 100 patient-years for placebo and 0.8 per 100 patient-years for 4 mg baricitinib), arterial thrombotic events (ATE) (IRs of 0.5 per 100 patient-years for placebo and 0.5 per 100 patient-years for 4 mg baricitinib), or congestive heart failure (CHF) broad term (IRs of 4.3 per 100 patient-years for placebo and 2.4 per 100 patient-years for 4 mg baricitinib). Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (PE) were reported in 0 of 1,070 patients treated with placebo and 6 of 997 patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib during the placebo-controlled period; these events were serious in 2 of 6 patients, while all 6 had risk factors and 1 patient developed DVT/PE after discontinuation of the study drug. In the 2 mg-4 mg-extended data analysis set, IRs of DVT/PE were comparable between the doses across event types (IRs of 0.5 per 100 patient-years in those receiving 2 mg baricitinib and 0.6 per 100 patient-years in those receiving 4 mg baricitinib). In the All-bari-RA data analysis set, the rates were stable over time, with an IR of DVT/PE of 0.5 per 100 patient-years.ConclusionIn RA clinical trials, no association was found between baricitinib treatment and the incidence of MACE, ATE, or CHF. With regard to incidence of DVT/PE, 6 events occurred in patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib, but no cases of DVT/PE were reported in the placebo group. During longer-term evaluation, the incidence of DVT/PE was similar between the baricitinib dose groups, with consistent IR values over time, and this was similar to the rates previously reported in patients with RA.

Project description:BackgroundPoor cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC) has been proposed to be an independent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. However, current evidence is inconsistent, especially in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. This meta-analysis aims to identify whether CEC is impaired or altered by drug therapy in RA.MethodsThe PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were browsed to identify studies on CEC in RA patients. The searches mainly focused on studies in human subjects that were published before November 14, 2020, without any language restrictions. The effect size was pooled by the standardized mean differences and mean differences (SMD & MD) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in a random or fixed effect model. Heterogeneity across the studies was tested using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistic. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Downs and Black scale (D&B) were applied to evaluate the quality of included studies. The GRADE-system with its 4-grade evidence scale was used to assess the quality of evidence.ResultsA total of 11 eligible articles, including 6 observational and 5 interventional studies, were retrieved. The pooled results showed that in patients with RA, CEC was not significantly different than in healthy controls (SMD: -0.34, 95% CI: - 0.83 to 0.14), whereas the plasma HDL-C levels was significantly lower (MD: -3.91, 95% CI: - 7.15 to - 0.68). Furthermore, in the before-after studies, the CEC of RA patients (SMD: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.37) increased, but the plasma HDL-C levels (MD: 3.63, 95% CI: - 0.13 to 7.39) remained at a comparable quantity after anti-rheumatic treatment comparing with the baseline. In addition, the funnel plot of included studies displayed a lightly asymmetry, while Egger's and Begg's test did not suggest the existence of publication bias. The quality of evidence was rated according to GRADE as moderate to very low.ConclusionThe current meta-analysis demonstrated that HDL-mediated CEC can be improved by the early control of inflammation and anti-rheumatic treatment in RA patients, which is independent of the plasma HDL-C levels. However, the results should be interpreted with caution because of low-quality and limited quantity of evidence. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether therapeutic strategies to enhance CEC in RA patients have beneficial effects for preventing CVD.

Project description:We aimed to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of probiotics supplementation on symptoms and disease activity in patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondylarthritis (SpA), or psoriatic arthritis). A systematic literature review and meta-analysis from RA and SpA randomized controlled trials were conducted searching for articles in MEDLINE/PubMed and abstracts from recent international rheumatology meetings. The control group was a placebo or another dietary intervention. The risk of bias of the selected studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the Jadad scale. The initial search yielded 173 articles. Of these, 13 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, 8 concerning a total of 344 RA patients and 2 concerning a total of 197 SpA patients. Three meta-analyses were also analyzed. Probiotic strains and quantities used were different among trials (5 studies using Lactobacillus sp., 1 trial Bacillus coagulans and the others a mix of different probiotic strains). Time to assess response ranged from 8 weeks to one year. Two studies associated probiotic supplementation with a dietary intervention. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant decrease of C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration (mean difference (MD)) -3.04 (95% CI -4.47, -1.62) mg/L, p < 0.001; I2 = 20%, n patients = 209) with probiotics in RA. However, after excluding high-risk-of-bias trials of meta-analysis, there was no difference between probiotics and placebo on DAS28 (standard MD -0.54; 95% CI -1.94 to 0.85, p = 0.45, I2 93%, n patients = 143). The two studies on SpA patients showed no efficacy of probiotics. Probiotic supplementation might decrease RA activity with a moderate decrease effect on CRP, but lack of evidence and studies' heterogeneity do not allow us to propose them to patients with inflammatory arthritis to control their disease. Further RCTs are required in the future to determinate the efficacy of probiotics and the optimal administration design.

Project description:BackgroundDespite significant cost differences, the comparative effect of combination treatments of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with and without biologic agents has rarely been examined. Thus we performed a network meta-analysis on the effect of combination therapies on progression of radiographic joint erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods and findingsThe following combination drug therapies compared versus single DMARD were investigated: Double DMARD: 2 DMARDs (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, injectable gold, cyclosporine, chloroquine, azathioprin, penicillamin) or 1 DMARD plus low dose glucocorticoid (LDGC); triple DMARD: 3 DMARDs or 2 DMARDs plus LDGC; biologic combination: 1 DMARD plus biologic agent (tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor (TNFi) or abatacept or tocilizumab or CD20 inhibitor (CD20i)). Randomized controlled trials were identified in a search of electronic archives of biomedical literature and included in a star-shaped network meta-analysis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement protocol. Effects are reported as standardized mean differences (SMD). The effects of data from 39 trials published in the period 1989-2012 were as follows: Double DMARD: -0.32 SMD (CI: -0.42, -0.22); triple DMARD: -0.46 SMD (CI: -0.60, -0.31); 1 DMARD plus TNFi: -0.30 SMD (CI: -0.36, -0.25); 1 DMARD plus abatacept: -0.20 SMD (CI: -0.33, -0.07); 1 DMARD plus tocilizumab: -0.34 SMD (CI: -0.48, -0.20); 1 DMARD plus CD20i: -0.32 SMD (CI: -0.40, -0.24). The indirect comparisons showed similar effects between combination treatments apart from triple DMARD being significantly better than abatacept plus methotrexate (-0.26 SMD (CI: -0.45, -0.07)) and TNFi plus methotrexate (-0.16 SMD (CI: -0.31, -0.01)).ConclusionCombination treatment of a biologic agent with 1 DMARD is not superior to 2-3 DMARDs including or excluding LDGC in preventing structural joint damage. Future randomized studies of biologic agents should be compared versus a combination of DMARDs.

Dataset Information

Baricitinib induces LDL-C and HDL-C increases in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Baricitinib induces LDL-C and HDL-C increases in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets