Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of Janus kinase inhibitors and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to April 2020. The active drugs included three JAK inhibitors and eight bDMARDs while the control drugs included placebo or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). Outcomes include American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and discontinuations for adverse events (AEs). We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) using network meta-analysis with random effects.

Results

Eighty-eight RCTs with 31,566 patients were included. All JAK inhibitors and bDMARDs were more effective than placebo in ACR20 (ORs ranging between 3.05 and 5.61), DAS28 (WMDs ranging between -1.91 and -0.80) and HAQ-DI (WMDs ranging between -0.34 and -0.21). Tocilizumab, certolizumab pegol and upadacitinib showed relatively good efficacy in these three outcomes according to their relative ranking. Notably, tocilizumab was more effective than other active drugs in DAS28 (WMDs ranging between -1.11 and -0.49). Compared with the lower recommended doses, increasing the doses of JAK inhibitors (baricitinib 4 mg versus 2 mg, tofacitinib 10 mg versus 5 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg versus 15 mg) cannot provide significant additional benefits. In terms of discontinuations for AEs, all active drugs showed no significant difference compared with placebo except certolizumab pegol [OR 1.65, 95% credible interval (CrI) 1.06-2.61] and rituximab (3.17, 1.11-10.80).

Conclusions

Tocilizumab, certolizumab pegol and upadacitinib may have relatively good efficacy in patients with RA after treatment failure with csDMARDs. RA patients taking a JAK inhibitor may have a preference for a lower recommended dose.

SUBMITTER: Weng C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7989112 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at 3 months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one bDMARD. Biosimilars are also addressed. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies and other stakeholders about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA with sDMARDs, glucocorticoids and bDMARDs. They are based on evidence and expert opinion and intended to improve outcome in patients with RA.

Project description:Recent research suggests that rheumatoid arthritis increases the risk of venous thromboembolism. This study compared the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis initiating a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) with those initiating methotrexate or a nonbiologic DMARD.We conducted a population-based cohort study using US insurance claims data (2001-2012). Three mutually exclusive, hierarchical DMARD groups were used: (1) a biologic DMARD with and without nonbiologic DMARDs; (2) methotrexate without a biologic DMARD; or (3) nonbiologic DMARDs without a biologic DMARD or methotrexate. We calculated the incidence rates of venous thromboembolism. Cox proportional hazard models stratified by propensity score (PS) deciles after asymmetric PS trimming were used for 3 pairwise comparisons, controlling for potential confounders at baseline.We identified 29,481 patients with rheumatoid arthritis with 39,647 treatment episodes. From the pairwise comparison after asymmetric PS trimming, the incidence rate of hospitalization for venous thromboembolism per 1000 person-years was 5.5 in biologic DMARD initiators versus 4.4 in nonbiologic DMARD initiators and 4.8 in biologic DMARD initiators versus 3.5 in methotrexate initiators. The PS decile-stratified hazard ratio of venous thromboembolism associated with biologic DMARDs was 1.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-3.66) versus nonbiologic DMARDs and 1.39 (95% CI, 0.73-2.63) versus methotrexate. The hazard ratio of venous thromboembolism in biologic DMARD initiators was the highest in the first 180 days versus nonbiologic DMARD initiators (2.48; 95% CI, 1.14-5.39) or methotrexate initiators (1.80; 95% CI, 0.90-3.62).The absolute risk for venous thromboembolism was low in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis. Initiation of a biologic DMARD seems to be associated with an increased short-term risk of hospitalization for venous thromboembolism compared with initiation of a nonbiologic DMARD or methotrexate.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the incidence rate of nonvertebral osteoporotic fractures (NVFs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating one of the nine biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs).MethodsWe analyzed claims data from Optum (2008 to March 2019), Medicare, and MarketScan (2008-2017) to identify adults with RA who newly initiated b/tsDMARDs. Adalimumab was the most frequently used and was thus selected as a reference. The primary outcome was a composite of incident NVFs, including hip, humerus, pelvis, and wrist fractures, based on validated algorithms. We adjusted for greater than 70 potential confounders in each database through propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting. Follow-up time started the day after cohort entry until the first occurrence of one of the following: outcome, treatment discontinuation, switching, nursing home admission, death, disenrollment, or end of study period. For each drug comparison, weighted Cox proportional hazards models estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary analyses were conducted in patients switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to a different b/tsDMARD.ResultsA total of 134,693 b/tsDMARD initiators were identified across three databases. The adjusted HRs showed similar risk of composite NVFs in all b/tsDMARD exposures compared with adalimumab: abatacept, HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.82-1.30); certolizumab, HR 1.08 (95% CI 0.79-1.49); etanercept, HR 1.12 (95% CI 0.89-1.40); golimumab, HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.59-1.39); infliximab, HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.84-1.28); rituximab, HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.74-1.55); tocilizumab, HR 1.24 (95% CI 0.71-2.17); and tofacitinib, HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.69-1.64). Secondary analyses showed similar results.ConclusionThis multidatabase cohort study found no differences in the risk of NVFs across individual b/tsDMARDs for RA, which provides reassurance to physicians prescribing b/tsDMARDs, especially to patients at high risk of developing NVFs.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of sarilumab plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with active moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response or intolerance to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. METHODS:Patients were randomly allocated to receive sarilumab 150 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo every 2 weeks for 24 weeks with background conventional synthetic DMARDs. The co-primary end points were the proportion of patients achieving a response according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement (ACR20) at week 24, and change from baseline in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ DI) at week 12. Each sarilumab dose was evaluated against placebo; differences between the 2 sarilumab doses were not assessed. RESULTS:The baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were similar. The ACR20 response rate at week 24 was significantly higher with sarilumab 150 mg and sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks compared with placebo (55.8%, 60.9%, and 33.7%, respectively; P?<?0.0001). The mean change from baseline in the HAQ DI score at week 12 was significantly greater for sarilumab (least squares mean change: for 150 mg, -0.46 [P?=?0.0007]; for 200 mg, -0.47 [P?=?0.0004]) versus placebo (-0.26). Infections were the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Serious infections occurred in 1.1%, 0.6%, and 1.1% of patients receiving placebo, sarilumab 150 mg, and sarilumab 200 mg, respectively. Laboratory abnormalities included decreased absolute neutrophil count and increased transaminase levels in both sarilumab groups compared with placebo. In this study, reductions in the absolute neutrophil count were not associated with an increased incidence of infections or serious infections. CONCLUSION:Sarilumab 150 mg and sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic DMARDs improved the signs and symptoms of RA and physical function in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to anti-TNF agents. Safety data were consistent with interleukin-6 receptor blockade and the known safety profile of sarilumab.