Dataset Information

Relative Efficacy and Safety of Anti-Inflammatory Biologic Agents for Osteoarthritis: A Conventional and Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Previous studies have consistently revealed that both local and systemic inflammations are the key to the onset and progression of osteoarthritis (OA). Thus, anti-inflammatory biologic agents could potentially attenuate the progression of OA. We conducted this meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of ant-inflammatory biologic agents among OA patients.

Methods

Five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing biologics with placebo or each other in OA patients. Data of pain, physical function, stiffness, and adverse events (AEs) were extracted for a conventional and a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Results

15 studies with data for 1566 patients were analyzed. In the conventional meta-analysis, etanercept (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.89, -0.05) and infliximab (SMD -2.04; CI -2.56, -1.52) were superior to placebo for knee pain. In the network meta-analysis, infliximab was superior to all the other biologic agents in improving pain (vs. hyaluronic acid (SMD -22.95; CI -34.21, -10.43), vs. adalimumab (SMD -21.71; CI -32.65, -11.00), vs. anakinra (SMD -24.63; CI -38.79, -10.05), vs. canakinumab (SMD -32.83; CI -44.45, -20.68), vs. etanercept (SMD -18.40; CI -29.93, -5.73), vs. lutikizumab (SMD -25.11; CI -36.47, -14.78), vs. naproxen (SMD -30.16; CI -41.78, -17.38), vs. tocilizumab (SMD -24.02; CI -35.63, -11.86) and vs. placebo (SMD -25.88; CI -34.87, -16.60)). No significant differences were observed between biologics and placebo regarding physical function, stiffness, and risk of AEs.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that infliximab may relieve pain more than other biological agents in OA patients. No significant differences were observed between biologics and placebo regarding physical function, stiffness, and risk of AEs. The results must be interpreted cautiously; therefore, further randomized controlled trials are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Li Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9317938 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biologic agents targeting three main cytokines, that is, nerve growth factor (NGF), interleukin-1 (IL-1), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), for osteoarthritis (OA) treatment.MethodsDatabases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched for randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of biologic agents from inception to November 15, 2020. The outcomes were the mean change in pain, function scores, and the risk of adverse effects (AEs).ResultsOut of the 28 studies with 29 RCTs (8555 individuals) included, biologic agents were superior to placebo in pain relief (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.17-0.38, p < 0.001) and function improvement (SMD = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.18-0.43, p < 0.001). The incidence of any AEs (risk ratio [RR] = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.05-1.14, p < 0.001) and discontinuations due to AEs (RR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.05-1.83, p = 0.021) were higher following treatment with biologic agents while no significant difference was found in serious AEs. Subgroup analyses showed that NGF inhibitors provided superior pain relief (SMD = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.26-0.47, p < 0.001) and function improvement (SMD = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.30-0.51, p < 0.001), whereas IL-1 inhibitors and TNF-α inhibitors did not. Meanwhile, NGF inhibitors increased the incidence of any AEs (RR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.07-1.17, p < 0.001) and discontinuations due to AEs (RR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.07-2.06, p = 0.018). IL-1 inhibitors and TNF-α inhibitors showed no difference in safety compared with placebo.ConclusionsThe efficacy and safety of biologic agents vary by mechanism of action. NGF inhibitors can relieve OA-related pain and improve function but involve safety concerns. IL-1 inhibitors and TNF-α inhibitors are relatively safe options but with limited efficacy.

Project description:Background: With the growing importance of research about the association between neuroinflammation and major depressive disorder (MDD), anti-inflammatory agents have been used as a new antidepressant therapy in clinical practice. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) with up-to-date evidence to compare different anti-inflammatory agents for improving the treatment of MDD patients. Methods: To identify eligible randomized clinical trials, four databases (i.e, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed and Embase) were searched from inception date to May 31, 2020. Anti-inflammatory agents were defined as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, cytokine inhibitors, statins, pioglitazone, minocycline, N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and omega-3 fatty acid (Omega-3 FA). The main outcomes of this NMA were efficacy, acceptability and remission rate. Risk ratio (RR) was adopted for dichotomous outcomes, and the confidence interval (CI) was set at 95%. STATA 14.0 and R 3.6.3 were used to conduct the NMA. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020182531). Results: A total of 39 studies, involving 2871 participants, were included in quantitative data synthesis. For efficacy, NSAIDs (RR=0.50, 95%CI: 0.26-0.73) and pioglitazone (RR=0.45, 95%CI: 0.20-0.84) were more favorable than placebo. With respect to acceptability, NSAIDs were more acceptable than placebo (RR=0.89, 95%CI: 0.77-0.99) and minocycline (RR=1.22, 95%CI: 1.03-1.49). For remission, NSAIDs were more superior than placebo (RR=0.48, 95%CI: 0.27-0.79) and Omega-3 FA (RR=2.01, 95%CI: 1.09-3.90), while NACs were more favorable than placebo (RR=0.39, 95%CI: 0.13-0.99). Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value, corticosteroids (0.86) were the best anti-inflammatory agent for MDD patients in terms of efficacy, but the head-to-head comparisons for the efficacy of glucocorticoids and other agents were not statistically significant. As for acceptability, NSAIDs (0.81) were much better than other anti-inflammatory agents. Besides, NAC (0.80) was the best anti-inflammatory agent in the terms of remission. Conclusions: In summary, we found that corticosteroids were more superior than other agents in terms of efficacy according to the SUCRA value. However, this result must be interpreted with caution because the head-to-head comparisons for the efficacy of glucocorticoids and other agents did not reach statistical significance. NSAIDs were recommended for acceptability and NAC for remission rate.

Project description:Inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF agents) are the most effective therapy for Crohn's disease (CD). We evaluated the real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of different anti-TNF agents (infliximab, adalimumab, and certolizumab pegol) in biologic-naive patients with CD in a retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study using a national administrative claims database (Optum Labs Data Warehouse).We identified 3205 biologic-naive patients with CD (mean age, 41 ± 15 years; 45% male; median follow-up period after anti-TNF therapy, 19 months; 44.5% on infliximab and 38.9% on adalimumab) who received their first prescription for an anti-TNF agent (infliximab, adalimumab, or certolizumab pegol) after a 12-month period without any anti-TNF treatment (baseline), and with a minimum follow-up period of 6 months after their initial anti-TNF prescription, between 2006 and 2014. The primary outcomes were all-cause and CD-related hospitalization, abdominal surgery, corticosteroid use, and serious infections. We performed a propensity-matched, Cox proportional hazards analysis, accounting for baseline demographics, health care use, comorbidities, and use of CD-related medication.Compared with adalimumab-treated patients, infliximab-treated patients had a lower risk of CD-related hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.98), abdominal surgery (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58-0.99), and corticosteroid use (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96). Compared with certolizumab pegol-treated patients, infliximab-treated patients had a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.95) and CD-related hospitalization (aHR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.90). Adalimumab-treated patients had outcomes comparable with those of certolizumab pegol-treated patients. All agents had comparable risk of serious infections.In a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of biologic-naive patients with CD, we found infliximab to be superior to adalimumab and certolizumab pegol for patient-relevant outcomes, without increased risk of serious infections.