Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

SUBMITTER: Singh JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7068903 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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.

Singh Jasvinder A JA Hossain Alomgir A Tanjong Ghogomu Elizabeth E Kotb Ahmed A Christensen Robin R Mudano Amy S AS Maxwell Lara J LJ Shah Nipam P NP Tugwell Peter P Wells George A GA

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20160513 5

<h4>Background</h4>This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate ( ...[more]

PMID: 27175934

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundWhile the variety of biologics (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) available for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has proved to be efficacious in randomized clinical trials, there is a growing importance to understand the benefits and potential drawbacks of these different therapies in real-world settings, which includes bio-experienced and older patients as well.ObjectiveTo evaluate the real-world adherence, drug survival, and discontinuation risk of bDMARDs and tsDMARDs among patients with PsA, comprising both younger and older patients.MethodsA retrospective study using a computerized database. Treatment-naïve and treatment-experiencedpatients with PsA, younger and older than 60 years, who initiated treatment with bDMARDs [TNF-α inhibitors (TNF-αis), IL-17 inhibitors (IL-17is), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i)] or tsDMARDs (the PDE-4 inhibitor apremilast) during 2015-2018 were included. Adherence was assessed using the proportion of days covered (PDC) method. Time to discontinuation was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Risk of discontinuation was estimated by Cox proportional hazard model.ResultsWe identified 427 eligible patients (22.2 % were older than 60 years), utilizing 673 treatment lines. The proportion of adherent patients (PDC ≥ 0.8) was similar (62.1-66.5%) across all lines of therapy and across different biologics (70.0-72.0%), while apremilast showed the lowest, in both treatment-naïve and experienced settings (43.6% and 25.5%, respectively). The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that in the treatment-naïve TNF-αis had higher drug survival compared with apremilast (P = 0.032). Apremilast also had the lowest drug survival in the treatment-experienced group (P < 0.0001). Kaplan-Meier analysis by age groups showed similar drug survival rates in older (≥ 60 years) and younger (age < 60 years) patients, regardless of treatment-experience status. The multivariable model showed that apremilast had increased risk for discontinuation compared with TNF-αis.ConclusionAdherence, drug survival and risk for discontinuation were similar for all included bDMARDs, regardless of treatment experience status, while apremilast showed lower rates and increased risk. Adherence and discontinuation rate were similar in older and younger patients. With the variety of drug modes of action available for patients with PsA, these findings may assist caregivers in selecting the appropriate treatment.

Dataset Information

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.

Publications

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.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets