Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Romanelli, Paulo Roberto Stocco
Publication Date: 2010
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: São Paulo medical journal (Online)
Download full: https://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1810
Summary: BACKGROUND: The biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are very effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there is a lack of head-to-head comparison studies. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab in patients with RA. METHODS: This ‘Overview of Reviews’ was done by including all Cochrane Reviews on Biologics for RA available in The Cochrane Library. We included only data on standard dosing regimens for these biologic DMARDs from placebo-controlled trials. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were ACR50 and withdrawals due to adverse events. We calculated Risk Ratios (RR) for efficacy, Odds Ratio (OR) for safety and combined estimates of events across the placebo groups as the expected Control Event Rate (CER). Indirect comparisons of biologics were performed for efficacy and safety using a hierarchical linear mixed model incorporating the most important study level characteristic (i.e. type of biologic) as a fixed factor and study as a random factor; reducing the between study heterogeneity by adjusting for the interaction between the proportion of patients responding on placebo and the duration of the trial. MAIN RESULTS: From the six available Cochrane reviews, we obtained data from seven studies on abatacept, eight on adalimumab, five on anakinra, four on etanercept, four on infliximab, and three on rituximab. The indirect comparison estimates showed similar efficacy for the primary efficacy outcome for all biologics with three exceptions. Anakinra was less efficacious than etanercept with a ratio of RRs (95% CI; P value) of 0.44 (0.23 to 0.85; P = 0.014); anakinra was less efficacious than rituximab, 0.45 (0.22 to 0.90; P = 0.023); and likewise adalimumab was more efficacious than anakinra, 2.34 (1.32 to 4.13; P = 0.003). In terms of safety, adalimumab was more likely to lead to withdrawals compared to etanercept, with a ratio of ORs of 1.89 (1.18 to 3.04; P = 0.009); anakinra more likely than etanercept, 2.05 (1.27 to 3.29; P = 0.003); and likewise etanercept less likely than infliximab, 0.37 (0.19 to 0.70; P = 0.002). AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: Based upon indirect comparisons, anakinra seemed less efficacious than etanercept, adalimumab and rituximab and etanercept seemed to cause fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab. Significant heterogeneity in characteristics of trial populations imply that these finding must be interpreted.
id APM-1_a43fa6ae1b131e9ac3b3c98ff30461b7
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.diagnosticoetratamento.emnuvens.com.br:article/1810
network_acronym_str APM-1
network_name_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviewsBACKGROUND: The biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are very effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there is a lack of head-to-head comparison studies. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab in patients with RA. METHODS: This ‘Overview of Reviews’ was done by including all Cochrane Reviews on Biologics for RA available in The Cochrane Library. We included only data on standard dosing regimens for these biologic DMARDs from placebo-controlled trials. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were ACR50 and withdrawals due to adverse events. We calculated Risk Ratios (RR) for efficacy, Odds Ratio (OR) for safety and combined estimates of events across the placebo groups as the expected Control Event Rate (CER). Indirect comparisons of biologics were performed for efficacy and safety using a hierarchical linear mixed model incorporating the most important study level characteristic (i.e. type of biologic) as a fixed factor and study as a random factor; reducing the between study heterogeneity by adjusting for the interaction between the proportion of patients responding on placebo and the duration of the trial. MAIN RESULTS: From the six available Cochrane reviews, we obtained data from seven studies on abatacept, eight on adalimumab, five on anakinra, four on etanercept, four on infliximab, and three on rituximab. The indirect comparison estimates showed similar efficacy for the primary efficacy outcome for all biologics with three exceptions. Anakinra was less efficacious than etanercept with a ratio of RRs (95% CI; P value) of 0.44 (0.23 to 0.85; P = 0.014); anakinra was less efficacious than rituximab, 0.45 (0.22 to 0.90; P = 0.023); and likewise adalimumab was more efficacious than anakinra, 2.34 (1.32 to 4.13; P = 0.003). In terms of safety, adalimumab was more likely to lead to withdrawals compared to etanercept, with a ratio of ORs of 1.89 (1.18 to 3.04; P = 0.009); anakinra more likely than etanercept, 2.05 (1.27 to 3.29; P = 0.003); and likewise etanercept less likely than infliximab, 0.37 (0.19 to 0.70; P = 0.002). AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: Based upon indirect comparisons, anakinra seemed less efficacious than etanercept, adalimumab and rituximab and etanercept seemed to cause fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab. Significant heterogeneity in characteristics of trial populations imply that these finding must be interpreted.São Paulo Medical JournalSão Paulo Medical Journal2010-09-09info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1810São Paulo Medical Journal; Vol. 128 No. 5 (2010); 309-310São Paulo Medical Journal; v. 128 n. 5 (2010); 309-3101806-9460reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)instname:Associação Paulista de Medicinainstacron:APMenghttps://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1810/1705https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRomanelli, Paulo Roberto Stocco2023-09-12T19:18:58Zoai:ojs.diagnosticoetratamento.emnuvens.com.br:article/1810Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/spmjPUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevistas@apm.org.br1806-94601516-3180opendoar:2023-09-12T19:18:58São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicinafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews
title Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews
spellingShingle Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews
Romanelli, Paulo Roberto Stocco
title_short Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews
title_full Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews
title_fullStr Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews
title_full_unstemmed Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews
title_sort Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews
author Romanelli, Paulo Roberto Stocco
author_facet Romanelli, Paulo Roberto Stocco
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Romanelli, Paulo Roberto Stocco
description BACKGROUND: The biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are very effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there is a lack of head-to-head comparison studies. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab in patients with RA. METHODS: This ‘Overview of Reviews’ was done by including all Cochrane Reviews on Biologics for RA available in The Cochrane Library. We included only data on standard dosing regimens for these biologic DMARDs from placebo-controlled trials. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were ACR50 and withdrawals due to adverse events. We calculated Risk Ratios (RR) for efficacy, Odds Ratio (OR) for safety and combined estimates of events across the placebo groups as the expected Control Event Rate (CER). Indirect comparisons of biologics were performed for efficacy and safety using a hierarchical linear mixed model incorporating the most important study level characteristic (i.e. type of biologic) as a fixed factor and study as a random factor; reducing the between study heterogeneity by adjusting for the interaction between the proportion of patients responding on placebo and the duration of the trial. MAIN RESULTS: From the six available Cochrane reviews, we obtained data from seven studies on abatacept, eight on adalimumab, five on anakinra, four on etanercept, four on infliximab, and three on rituximab. The indirect comparison estimates showed similar efficacy for the primary efficacy outcome for all biologics with three exceptions. Anakinra was less efficacious than etanercept with a ratio of RRs (95% CI; P value) of 0.44 (0.23 to 0.85; P = 0.014); anakinra was less efficacious than rituximab, 0.45 (0.22 to 0.90; P = 0.023); and likewise adalimumab was more efficacious than anakinra, 2.34 (1.32 to 4.13; P = 0.003). In terms of safety, adalimumab was more likely to lead to withdrawals compared to etanercept, with a ratio of ORs of 1.89 (1.18 to 3.04; P = 0.009); anakinra more likely than etanercept, 2.05 (1.27 to 3.29; P = 0.003); and likewise etanercept less likely than infliximab, 0.37 (0.19 to 0.70; P = 0.002). AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: Based upon indirect comparisons, anakinra seemed less efficacious than etanercept, adalimumab and rituximab and etanercept seemed to cause fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab. Significant heterogeneity in characteristics of trial populations imply that these finding must be interpreted.
publishDate 2010
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2010-09-09
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1810
url https://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1810
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1810/1705
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv São Paulo Medical Journal
São Paulo Medical Journal
publisher.none.fl_str_mv São Paulo Medical Journal
São Paulo Medical Journal
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv São Paulo Medical Journal; Vol. 128 No. 5 (2010); 309-310
São Paulo Medical Journal; v. 128 n. 5 (2010); 309-310
1806-9460
reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)
instname:Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron:APM
instname_str Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron_str APM
institution APM
reponame_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
collection São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicina
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revistas@apm.org.br
_version_ 1825135068398485504