Dataset Information

Comparison of Biological Agent Monotherapy and Associations Including Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Update the available evidence comparing biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (CsDMARDs) to bDMARDs in monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods

Research was limited to randomized controlled trials. Major outcome: ACR 20 response criteria at 24 weeks.

Secondary outcomes

clinical and radiographic criteria at week 24, 52 and 104.

Results

23 trials (6358 patients), including seven bDMARDs and one other molecule: Anbainuo (anti-TNF-R). No study satisfied our search criteria for anakinra, certolizumab and infliximab. Compared to bDMARD monotherapy, combination therapy gives a better ACR 20 at 24 weeks (RR: 0.88 (0.84-0.94)) in fixed and random effect models, and this result is sustained at 52 and 104 weeks. The results were mostly similar for all other outcomes without increasing the risk of adverse effects.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis confirms the superiority of combination therapy over monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis, in accordance to the usual guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Delpech C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9821556 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Biological Agent Monotherapy and Associations Including Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Delpech Célia C Laborne François-Xavier FX Hilliquin Pascal P

Journal of clinical medicine 20221229 1

<h4>Objective</h4>Update the available evidence comparing biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (CsDMARDs) to bDMARDs in monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.<h4>Methods</h4>Research was limited to randomized controlled trials. Major outcome: ACR 20 response criteria at 24 weeks.<h4>Secondary outcomes</h4>clinical and radiographic criteria at week 24, 52 and 104.<h4>Results</h4>23 tri ...[more]

PMID: 36615086

Similar Datasets

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: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.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Biological Agent Monotherapy and Associations Including Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Objective

Methods

Secondary outcomes

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of Biological Agent Monotherapy and Associations Including Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets