Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Singh JA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7068903 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7087436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom in patients with RA. Since 2007, fatigue has been included as one of the core outcome measures in RA. Clinical trials of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) have included fatigue as a secondary endpoint. A Cochrane review in 2016 concluded that the bDMARDs have a moderate effect on improving fatigue in RA. More recent clinical trials of the new biologic agent sarilumab and the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib and baricitinib showed similar benefits. It remains unclear whether the effect of bDMARDs and tsDMARDs on fatigue is mediated by direct effects or through a reduction in inflammation. As fatigue was a secondary endpoint, many analyses did not adjust for potential confounding factors, including pain, mood and anaemia, which is a significant limitation.
| S-EPMC6827260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare methotrexate based disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naive to or with an inadequate response to methotrexate.DesignSystematic review and Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis of trials assessing methotrexate used alone or in combination with other conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic drugs, or tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Data sourcesTrials were identified from Medline, Embase, and Central databases from inception to 19 January 2016; abstracts from two major rheumatology meetings from 2009 to 2015; two trial registers; and hand searches of Cochrane reviews.Study selection criteriaRandomized or quasi-randomized trials that compared methotrexate with any other DMARD or combination of DMARDs and contributed to the network of evidence between the treatments of interest.Main outcomesAmerican College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response (major clinical improvement), radiographic progression, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.Results158 trials were included, with between 10 and 53 trials available for each outcome. In methotrexate naive patients, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%), compared with 41% with methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression, but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 5 units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate plus infliximab. After an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy, methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate plus leflunomide, methotrexate plus intramuscular gold, methotrexate plus most biologics, and methotrexate plus tofacitinib. The probability of response was 61% with triple therapy and ranged widely (27-70%) with other treatments. No treatment was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate plus abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.ConclusionsTriple therapy (methotrexate plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine) and most regimens combining biologic DMARDs with methotrexate were effective in controlling disease activity, and all were generally well tolerated in both methotrexate naive and methotrexate exposed patients.
| S-EPMC4849170 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6481641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Anbainuo (ABN) plus methotrexate (MTX) (ABN + MTX) versus conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.Forty-eight moderate to severe RA patients underwent ABN + MTX or cDMARDs treatment were consecutively enrolled and assigned to ABN + MTX group (n = 26) and control group (n = 22). Patients were followed up and their disease activity and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated at 3rd month, 6th month and 12th month after initiation of treatment. Treatment costs of 2 groups were calculated, then pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed.ABN + MTX increased drug cost and total cost while decreased indirect cost compared with cDMARDs after 12-month treatment. ABN + MTX group gained additional 0.22 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥104,293.6 per QALY after treatment. Sensitivity analysis reveals that rising ABN price by 20% produced an ICER of ¥130,403.6 per QALY, which was still lower than 3 times of the mean gross domestic product (GDP) per capita during the same period in China (¥165,960). Besides, ABN + MTX was more cost-effective in severe RA patients compared to moderate RA patients.ABN + MTX is cost-effective in treating moderate to severe RA patients compared with cDMARDs, although the total cost of ABN + MTX is relatively higher.
| S-EPMC6890288 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6469573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to investigate the association between body-mass index (BMI) and remission in RA patients receiving conventional synthetic (cs-) or the biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug (DMARD), tocilizumab. Individual participant data (IPD) were pooled from five trials investigating tocilizumab and/or csDMARDs therapy (primarily methotrexate) for RA. Time to first remission was recorded according to the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). BMI was classified according to WHO definitions. Associations between baseline BMI and remission were assessed by Cox-proportional hazard analysis. IPD were available from 5428 patients treated with tocilizumab ± csDMARDs (n = 4098) or csDMARDs alone (n = 1330). Of these, 1839 (33.9%) had normal BMI, 1780 (32.8%) overweight, 1652 (30.4%) obese and 157 (2.9%) were underweight. Obesity, compared to normal BMI, was associated with less frequent remission using SDAI (adjusted HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.70-0.92]) and CDAI (adjusted HR 0.77 [0.68-0.87]). As continuous variable, increased BMI was associated with less frequent SDAI (P = 0.001) and CDAI (P = 0.001) defined remission. No heterogeneity in identified associations was observed between studies (P = 0.08) or treatments (P = 0.22). Obesity was negatively associated with RA disease remission regardless of RA therapy, suggesting that baseline BMI should be considered as a stratification factor in future RA trials.
| S-EPMC7596471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewPatients on disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) remain concerned about potential risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Meanwhile, several DMARDs have been proposed as COVID-19 therapies.Recent findingsIn patients with autoimmune diseases, baseline glucocorticoid use is associated with severe COVID-19. While classes of DMARDs (e.g., conventional synthetic, targeted synthetic, and biologic) do not appear to be associated with higher risk, specific medications such as rituximab and sulfasalazine may be associated. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) show that glucocorticoids reduce mortality in severe COVID-19. RCTs suggest other agents, such as baricitinib, may improve COVID-19 outcomes in certain populations. Baseline glucocorticoid use raises the risk of severe COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune diseases, but glucocorticoids are an effective treatment for those with severe COVID-19. Further research is needed to inform DMARD management in autoimmune disease patients during the pandemic and the role of DMARDs in COVID-19 treatment.
| S-EPMC8065312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundKnowledge of factors that contribute to non-persistence with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (NP) is essential to improve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) outcomes. Aims of the study were to investigate patient's motivations and risk factors for NP in a cohort of early RA patients.MethodsUp to September 2012, data from 149 patients, who had at least 1 year of follow-up, at least one drug indication, and at least 2 consecutive six-months-apart rheumatic evaluations that included assessment of compliance were reviewed. NP and patient's motivations of NP were evaluated according to a questionnaire. NP was defined when patients referred that they had completely stop RA medication, "Sometimes", "Almost always" or "Always". Patients had to pay for their medication.Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used. Statistical significance was set at a p value of less than 0.05. The study was approved by the internal review board.ResultsUp to cut-off, 715 questionnaires were applied to 149 patients, who had follow-up of 58.7?±?27.9 months and were indicated 2.4?±?0.7 DMARDs/patient/follow-up.Patients were most frequently female (88.6%), middle-aged ([mean?±?SD] age of 38.5?±?12.8 years) with lower-middle/lower socio-economic status (87.9%) and scholarship of 11?±?3.9 years.Ninety-nine (66.4%) patients were NP and filled 330 questionnaires. Multivariate analysis showed that years of formal education (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.1-1.24, p?=?0.03), perception of at least some difficulty to find arthritis medication (OR: 5.68, 95% CI: 2.48-13, p?=?0.000) and perception that arthritis medication is expensive (OR: 5.27, 95% CI: 2.1-13.84, p?=?0.001) at the first evaluation of patient's compliance were all predictors of NP.Among the 99 NP patients, 25 (25.3%) were recurrent-NP and accumulated more disease activity. The combination of both reasons of NP ("Because it was not available at the drugstore" and "Because the medication is very expensive") when selected at the first evaluation of compliance was the only variable to predict recurrent NP, OR: 4.8, 95% CI: 1.1-20.8, p?=?0.04.ConclusionsHealth systems should provide (first line) treatment for RA as a strategy to improve compliance with therapy and clinical outcomes, particularly in vulnerable populations.
| S-EPMC4219583 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Recent guideline updates have suggested de-escalating DMARDs when patients with rheumatoid arthritis achieve remission or low disease activity. We aim to evaluate whether it is cost-effective to de-escalate the biological form of DMARDs (bDMARDs). METHODS:Using a Markov model, we performed a cost-utility analysis for RA patients on bDMARD treatment. We compared continuing treatment (standard care) to a tapering approach (i.e., an immediate 50% dose reduction), withdrawal (i.e., an immediate 100% dose reduction) and tapering followed by withdrawal of bDMARDs. The parametrization is based on a comprehensive literature review. Results were computed for 30 years with a cycle length of three months. We applied the payer's perspective for Germany and conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS:Tapering or withdrawing bDMARD treatment resulted in ICERs of €526,254 (incr. costs -78,845, incr. QALYs -0.1498) or €216,879 (incr. costs -€121,691, incr. QALYs -0.5611) compared to standard care. Tapering followed by withdrawal resulted in a loss of 0.4354 QALYs and savings of €107,969 per patient, with an ICER of €247,987. Deterministic sensitivity analysis revealed that our results remained largely unaffected by parameter changes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that tapering, withdrawal and tapering followed by withdrawal were dominant in 39.8%, 28.2% and 29.0% of 10,000 iterations. CONCLUSION:Our findings suggest that de-escalating bDMARDs in patients with RA may result in high cost savings but also a decrease in quality of life compared to standard care. If decision makers choose to implement de-escalation in daily practice, our results suggest the tapering approach.
| S-EPMC6939943 | biostudies-literature