Dataset Information

Optimal Biologic Drugs for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis: Results from a Network Meta-Analysis and Network Metaregression

ABSTRACT:

Background

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a common immune-related systemic chronic inflammatory osteoarthropathy. Previous studies have proven that biologic agents, including IL-17A inhibitors (IL17Ai), TNF-α inhibitor FC fusion protein (TNFiFCP), or fully human monoclonal antibody (TNFiNMA) and JAK inhibitor (JAKi), are effective for AS treatment. Our study is aimed at comparing the clinical efficacy, tolerability, and safety of different biological agents, including novel IL-6 inhibitor (IL6i), IL-23 inhibitor (IL23i), and IL-17 A/F dual variable domain inhibitor (IL17AFi) in AS.

Method

PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CNKI, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched. A frequentist framework network meta-analysis with a random-effects model was performed. Ranking effects were calculated by surface under the cumulative ranking analysis (SUCRA) and cluster-rank analysis.

Results

IL17AFi reported both the highest ASAS40 (SUCRA = 91.4%) and ASAS20 (SUCRA = 92.5%) response, while IL6i and IL23i reported the lowest responses (SUCRA = 6.6% and 19.9%, respectively). With the exceptions of IL6i (RR 0.60, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.67) for ASAS40 and 1.36 (0.71 to 2.58) for ASAS20) and IL23i (0.98 (0.68 to 1.40) for ASAS40 and 0.91 (0.70 to 1.19) for ASAS20), all biological drugs demonstrated statistically superior ASAS responses than placebo. TNFiFMA performed best in the suppression of disease activity (SUCRA = 77.4%, SMD 2.35, and 95% CI (1.11 to 3.59)) and functional improvement (SUCRA = 68.8%, SMD 1.67, and 95% CI (0.59 to 2.74)). There were no significant differences in tolerability or safety between biologic drugs and placebo.

Conclusions

The novel IL-17 A/F dual variable domain inhibitor, bimekizumab, may be an ideal future treatment choice for AS, while IL-23 and IL-6 inhibitors demonstrate little potential in the treatment of AS. For patients with rapid disease progression and severe functional limitation, TNF-α inhibitors, especially infliximab, are safe and effective and could be a first-line treatment choice.

SUBMITTER: Cao Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9279076 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To establish the comparative effectiveness of all available biologic therapy regimens for ankylosing spondylitis, we performed a systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the inception of each database to June 2015. Systematic review and network meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses. The primary outcome was 20% improvement of Assessments in SpondyloArthritis International Society Response Criteria (ASAS20) at Week 12 or 14; secondary outcomes were ASAS40, ASAS5/6, ASAS partial remission and 50% improvement in baseline Bath ankylosing spondylitis (AS) disease activity index. We reported relative risks and 95% confidence intervals from direct meta-analysis and 95% credible intervals from Bayesian network meta-analysis, and ranked the treatment for outcomes. We also used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria to appraise quality of evidence. Fourteen RCTs comprising 2672 active AS patients were included in the network meta-analysis. Most biologic therapy regimens were more effective than placebo regarding all the outcomes assessed, except for secukinumab and tocilizumab. No differences between biologic therapies in the treatment of AS could be found, except for the finding that infliximab 5 mg was superior to tocilizumab. Infliximab 5 mg/kg had the highest probability of being ranked the best for achieving ASAS20, whereas notably, secukinumab had the highest probability of being ranked the second best. Our study suggests that no differences between biologic therapies in the treatment of AS could be found except that infliximab 5 mg was superior to tocilizumab. Infliximab 5 mg/kg seems to be the better biologic therapy regimen for AS. Secukinumab appears promising, though additional data is warranted. Nevertheless, these interpretations should be accepted very cautiously.

Project description:Background:Tofacitinib and other new treatments approved for use in psoriatic arthritis have only recently been included in psoriatic arthritis treatment guidelines, and studies evaluating the relative efficacy of available therapies are important to inform treatment decisions by healthcare professionals. Objective:To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of tofacitinib, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis naïve to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy (TNFi-naïve) or with an inadequate response (TNFi-IR). Methods:A systematic literature review used searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library on October 9, 2017. Randomized controlled trials including adult patients with psoriatic arthritis receiving treatment administered as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic DMARDs were selected. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20 response, change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, ?75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and change from baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index. Treatment effects were evaluated during placebo-controlled phases, using a binomial logit model for binary outcomes and a normal identify link model for other outcomes. Discontinuations due to adverse events and serious infection events were assessed as safety outcomes. Results:The network meta-analysis included 24 published randomized controlled trials, of which 13 enrolled TNFi-naïve patients only, 3 enrolled TNFi-IR patients only, and 8 enrolled both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-IR patients. Placebo-controlled treatment durations ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. Indirect comparisons showed tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID to have similar efficacy compared with most bDMARDs and apremilast in improving joint symptoms (based on American College of Rheumatology 20 response), and with some bDMARDs in improving skin symptoms (based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) (tofacitinib 10 mg BID only in TNFi-IR) in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were TNFi-naïve or TNFi-IR. Results also showed that, compared with placebo, the improvement in physical functioning (based on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID was similar to that observed with most bDMARDs and apremilast in TNFi-naïve patients, and similar to that observed with all bDMARDs with available data in the TNFi-IR population. Improvements in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index scores were comparable between treatments. Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were median-ranked 8 and 15, respectively, for discontinuation due to any adverse events, and 5 and 16, respectively, for a serious infection event out of a total of 20 treatments in the network (lower numbers are more favorable). Conclusions:Tofacitinib provides an additional treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis, both in patients naïve to TNFi and in those with TNFi-IR. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX-XXX).