Mixed Treatment Comparison of the Treatment Discontinuations of Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Adults with Rheumatoid Arthritis (November).

< Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Annals of Pharmacotherapy (Impact Factor: 2.06). 10/2012; 46(11). DOI: 10.1345/aph.1R203
Source: PubMed


BACKGROUND:Introduction of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs(DMARDs) has considerably changed treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over the past decade. Very little information is available on comparative discontinuation rates of the biologics.OBJECTIVE:To compare treatment discontinuations for 9 biologic DMARDs in adults with RA.METHODS:We searched electronic databases through May 2012 to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with RA that compared biologic DMARDs with placebo or another biologic DMARD. The primary outcome was treatment discontinuation during the blinded phase of the trials, measured as overall withdrawals, withdrawals resulting from lack of efficacy, and withdrawals resulting from adverse events. Random-effects meta-analysis estimated the effect size for individual agents, and adjusted indirect comparisons were made between biologics using mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) meta-analysis.RESULTS:Forty-four trials were included in the analysis. In comparison with placebo, biologics were less likely to be withdrawn because of lack of efficacy (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.27) and more likely to be withdrawn because of an adverse event (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.70). Based on the MTC, certolizumab had the most favorable overall withdrawal profile, followed by etanercept and rituximab. Certolizumab had lower relative withdrawal rates resulting from lack of efficacy than adalimumab, anakinra, and infliximab. Anakinra had higher relative withdrawal rates resulting from lack of efficacy than most other biologics. Certolizumab and infliximab had more, while etanercept had fewer, withdrawals because of adverse events than most other drugs.CONCLUSIONS:Based on MTC using data from RCTs, differences in discontinuation rates were observed, generally favoring certolizumab, etanercept, and rituximab over other biologic DMARDs. These potential differences need to be further explored in head-to-head trials or well-conducted observational studies.

Download full-text


Available from: Jaya K Rao,
97 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rheumatoid arthritis is a common autoimmune disease primarily manifesting as chronic synovitis, subsequently leading to a change in joint integrity. Progressive disability and systemic complications are strongly associated with a decreased quality of life. To maintain function and health in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, early, aggressive and guided immunosuppressive therapy is required to induce clinical remission. Antirheumatic drugs are capable of controlling synovial inflammation and are therefore named 'disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs' (DMARDs). This article aims to bridge the beginning of DMARD therapy with agents such as methotrexate, leflunomide, sulfasalazine, injectable gold and (hydroxy)chloroquine with biological therapies, and with the new era of kinase inhibitors. Mechanisms of action, as well as advantages and disadvantages of DMARDs, are discussed with respect to the current literature and current recommendations.
    Immunotherapy 09/2013; 5(9):955-74. DOI:10.2217/imt.13.94 · 2.07 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis remains a major clinical problem but introduction of biologics significantly improved therapeutical strategy. Biologics reduce inflammation and its sequelae, including structural joint damage. Single direct comparative trials of biologics are only available, and indirect comparison methods are applied for evaluation of the biologics. Obtained results are not conclusive and are limited by several factors. Metaanalyses and indirect treatment comparison studies of biologic used for management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis are reviewed.
    Reumatologia 01/2014; 2(2):112-119. DOI:10.5114/reum.2014.42796
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Rituximab (RTX) is licensed for second-line treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after first tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor failure. RTX is generally administered intravenously at 1 gm 2 weeks apart, and the retreatment is scheduled at the time of clinical relapse (regimen 1). A more intensive regimen is proposed with a fixed full cycle after 6 months (regimen 2) if remission is not reached. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) compared these 2 regimens of RTX administration in patients with longstanding RA based on data provided by an observational study. Methods: An observational retrospective study was conducted on 102 patients, enrolled in 3 hospitals and followed for ≥12 months. Forty-seven patients followed regimen 1, while 55 patients followed regimen 2. A CEA based on a Markov model was conducted. A lifelong and social perspective was adopted. CEA was conducted for the entire cohort and for the 2 subgroups separately (patients with positive rheumatoid factor and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide and failures to TNF inhibitors). Results: Results for the overall sample show at 10, 20, and 30 years that regimen 1 is less costly and associated with a higher quality of life compared to regimen 2. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis at 10 years estimated a probability of 95.1% for regimen 1 to be cost effective given a willingness to pay of €35,000/quality-adjusted life year, while for seropositive patients and for TNF failures it was estimated to be 92% and 92.7%, respectively. Conclusion: In longstanding RA, cost effectiveness of RTX retreatment at clinical relapse was found to be at least equivalent to the more intensive regimen proposed.
    12/2014; 67(7). DOI:10.1002/acr.22534