Singh Jasvinder A, Hossain Alomgir, Tanjong Ghogomu Elizabeth, Mudano Amy S, Tugwell Peter, Wells George A
Department of Medicine, Birmingham VA Medical Center, Faculty Office Tower 805B, 510 20th Street South, Birmingham, AL, USA, 35294.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 17;11(11):CD012437. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012437.
We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced).
To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced.
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB).
This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.
我们进行了一项系统评价、标准荟萃分析和网状荟萃分析(NMA),对2009年Cochrane综述《类风湿关节炎(RA)的生物制剂》进行更新。本综述聚焦于甲氨蝶呤(MTX)等传统改善病情抗风湿药物(DMARDs)治疗失败的RA患者(有MTX/其他DMARD治疗经历)的生物制剂单药治疗。
评估生物制剂单药治疗(包括抗肿瘤坏死因子(TNF)(阿达木单抗、聚乙二醇化赛妥珠单抗、依那西普、戈利木单抗、英夫利昔单抗)或非TNF(阿巴西普、阿那白滞素、利妥昔单抗、托珠单抗))或托法替布单药治疗(口服小分子药物)与对照(安慰剂或MTX/其他DMARDs)相比,对有MTX/其他DMARD治疗经历的成年RA患者的益处和危害。
我们在Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL;The Cochrane Library 2015年第6期,6月)、MEDLINE(通过OVID检索1946年至2015年6月)和Embase(通过OVID检索1947年至2015年6月)中检索随机对照试验(RCTs)。文章筛选、数据提取以及偏倚风险和GRADE评估均进行了重复操作。我们使用标准荟萃分析计算95%置信区间(CI)的直接估计值。我们采用贝叶斯混合治疗比较(MTC)方法进行NMA估计,并给出95%可信区间(CrI)。为便于理解,我们将比值比(OR)转换为风险比(RR)。我们计算了绝对测量值,如风险差(RD)和获得额外有益结局所需治疗人数(NNTB)。
本次更新纳入了另外40项新的RCT,共计46项RCT,其中41项研究(14,049名参与者)提供了数据。对照在16项RCT中为安慰剂(4,532例患者),在13项RCT中为MTX或其他DMARDs(5,602例患者),在12项RCT中为另一种生物制剂(3,915例患者)。单药治疗与安慰剂比较基于中等质量的直接证据,与安慰剂相比,生物制剂单药治疗(无同时使用MTX/其他DMARDs)与美国风湿病学会评分(ACR50)和身体功能在临床上有意义且具有统计学显著改善相关,身体功能通过健康评估问卷(HAQ)测量。ACR50的RR为4.68(95%CI,2.93至7.48);绝对获益RD为23%(95%CI,18%至29%);NNTB = 5(95%CI,3至8)。HAQ的平均差(MD)为 -0.32(95%CI, -0.42至 -0.23;负号表示HAQ改善更大);绝对获益为 -10.7%(95%CI, -14%至 -7.7%);NNTB = 4(95%CI,3至5)。TNF生物制剂、非TNF生物制剂或托法替布单药治疗的直接估计值和NMA估计值显示,ACR方面的结果相似,质量等级降为中等质量证据。TNF生物制剂、阿那白滞素或托法替布单药治疗与安慰剂相比,HAQ的直接估计值和NMA估计值显示结果相似,大多为中等质量证据。基于中等质量的直接证据,与安慰剂相比,生物制剂单药治疗与临床上有意义且具有统计学显著更高比例的疾病缓解相关,RR为1.12(95%CI 1.03至1.22);绝对获益为10%(95%CI,3%至17%;NNTB = 10(95%CI,8至21))。基于低质量的直接证据,生物制剂单药治疗因不良事件和严重不良事件导致的停药结果尚无定论,置信区间较宽,包含无效效应以及有重要增加的证据。TNF单药治疗因不良事件导致的停药直接估计值显示出临床上有意义且具有统计学显著结果,RR为2.02(95%CI,1.08至3.78),基于中等质量证据,绝对获益RD为3%(95%CI,1%至4%)。TNF生物制剂、非TNF生物制剂、阿那白滞素或托法替布单药治疗因不良事件和严重不良事件导致的停药NMA估计值均无定论,质量等级降为低质量证据。单药治疗与活性对照(MTX/其他DMARDs)比较基于中等质量的直接证据,与MTX/其他DMARDs相比,生物制剂单药治疗(无同时使用MTX/其他DMARDs)与ACR50和HAQ评分在临床上有意义且具有统计学显著改善相关,RR为1.54(95%CI,1.14至2.08);绝对获益为13%(95%CI,2%至23%),NNTB = 7(95%CI,4至26),HAQ的平均差为 -0.27(95%CI, -0.40至 -0.14);绝对获益为 -9%(95%CI, -13.3%至 -4.7%),NNTB = 2(95%CI,2至4)。基于中等质量证据,TNF单药治疗的直接估计值和NMA估计值以及非TNF生物制剂单药治疗的NMA估计值在ACR50方面显示出相似结果。基于大多中等质量证据,非TNF生物制剂单药治疗的直接估计值和NMA估计值显示出相似的HAQ改善情况,但TNF单药治疗并非如此。生物制剂单药治疗与活性对照在RA疾病缓解的直接估计值方面,无统计学显著或临床上有意义的差异。NMA估计值显示,TNF单药治疗(绝对改善7%(95%CI,2%至14%))和非TNF单药治疗(绝对改善19%(95%CrI,7%至36%))与活性对照相比有统计学显著且临床上有意义的差异,两者质量等级均降为中等质量。基于一项研究的中等质量直接证据,与活性对照相比,生物制剂单药治疗组的影像学进展(0至448分)在统计学上有显著降低,MD为 -4.34(95%CI, -7.56至 -1.12),尽管绝对降低幅度较小,为 -0.97%(95%CI, -1.69%至 -0.25%)。我们不确定这种降低的临床相关性。直接和NMA证据(质量等级降为低质量)显示,因不良事件、严重不良事件和癌症导致的停药结果尚无定论,置信区间较宽,包含无效效应以及有重要增加的证据。
主要基于对之前使用MTX/其他DMARDs治疗失败的RA患者进行的为期6至12个月的RCTs,与安慰剂或MTX/其他DMARDs相比,生物制剂单药治疗改善了ACR50、功能和RA缓解率。与活性对照相比,影像学进展有所降低,但其临床意义尚不清楚。与安慰剂(无癌症数据)或MTX/其他DMARDs相比,生物制剂单药治疗是否与因不良事件、严重不良事件或癌症导致的停药风险增加相关,结果尚无定论。