The comparison of effects of biologic agents on rheumatoid arthritis damage progression is biased by period of enrolment: Data from a systematic review and meta-analysis
Introduction
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory arthropathy whose progression is heterogeneous, and the outcome is difficult to predict. Some RA patients do not develop any erosion even after long-term disease, but the vast majority display bone erosions and cartilage breakdown, resulting in joint destruction, functional impairment, and increased mortality [1], [2].
The outcome of the disease improved considerably in recent years with the availability of new effective therapies. In particular, biological agents displayed a rapid and sustained disease control, associated with impressive prevention of joint destruction [3]. Biological agents target several immune effectors that play a key role in local and systemic inflammation, including TNF, IL-6 receptor and IL-1 β, while rituximab is a MoAb against CD20 positive B-cells and abatacept is a fusion protein against CTLA-4, inhibiting T-cell co-stimulation.
The large number of currently available biologic drugs provides a rationale for comparing the efficacy of these agents on damage progression in order to make a reasonable therapeutic choice. To date, all these agents have been tested versus methotrexate (MTX) for efficacy on disease progression prevention in several randomised clinical trials (RCTs), whereas only few direct head-to-head comparisons have been conducted.
The purpose of this investigation is to indirectly compare the 12-month effects of all available biologic drugs in slowing radiographic progression in RCTs. In particular, we thought that RCTs inclusion criteria have been subjected to gradual changes over the years making the reported radiographic damage progression much more related to the patients’ characteristics than to the efficacy of the tested biologic agent.
Section snippets
Literature search and study selection
A systematic review of literature was conducted using a PubMed searching of MEDLINE from Jan 1995 to May 2012, according to standard reporting guidelines [4]. PubMed was searched using the medical subject heading (MeSH) terms (‘arthritis, rheumatoid/radiography’ OR ‘disease progression’) combined with ‘arthritis, rheumatoid/drug therapy’, and limited to ‘randomised control trial’ as article type, ‘humans’ as species, ‘English’ as language, ‘adult’ as age and a period between 1 January 1995 and
Results
The PubMed search (Fig. 1) resulted in 183 references. Ninety-nine were excluded because they did not include any of the biologic agents under evaluation. Out of 84 remaining potentially relevant trials, 27 were excluded as not especially designed to evaluate radiographic progression in biologic versus non-biologic-treated patients, four because of the assessment of damage progression by MRI or ultrasound only, five because of the insufficient sample number and/or follow-up period, two because
Discussion
Our meta-analysis shows statistically significant differences regarding efficacy in slowing/stopping radiographic disease progression among the available biologic agents for RA. However, data analysis reveals how such differences are deeply influenced by the heterogeneity in baseline population characteristics. In fact, the main finding of current analysis is the demonstration that both the clinical response to MTX before trial beginning and the period of study enrolment play a crucial role on
References (47)
Methods of assessing radiographic change in rheumatoid arthritis
Am J Med
(1983)- et al.
Comparison of methotrexate monotherapy with a combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active, early, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (COMET): a randomised, double-blind, parallel treatment trial
Lancet
(2008) - et al.
Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial
Lancet
(2004) Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review
Contemp Clin Trials
(2008)- et al.
Immediate and late outcome of patients aged 80 years and older undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 48 studies
Am Heart J
(2012) - et al.
Mortality in rheumatoid arthritis: 2008 update
Clin Exp Rheumatol
(2008) - et al.
The relationship between disease activity and radiologic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a longitudinal analysis
Arthritis Rheum
(2004) - et al.
Clinical and radiographic outcomes of four different treatment strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (the BeSt study): a randomized, controlled trial
Arthritis Rheum
(2005) - et al.
PRISMA group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
Ann Intern Med
(2009) - et al.
Methods of scoring the progression of radiologic changes in rheumatoid arthritis. Correlation of radiologic, clinical and laboratory abnormalities
Arthritis Rheum
(1971)
How to read radiographs according to the Sharp/van der Heijde method
J Rheumatol
Pooled metaanalysis of radiographic progression: comparison of Sharp and Larsen methods
J Rheumatol
Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues
Int J Epidemiol
Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression
Stat Med
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis
Stat Med
Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees
Br Med J
Certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate is significantly more effective than placebo plus methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: findings of a fifty-two-week, phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study
Arthritis Rheum
Etanercept versus methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: two-year radiographic and clinical outcomes
Arthritis Rheum
Combination of infliximab and methotrexate therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled trial
Arthritis Rheum
Radiographic, clinical, and functional outcomes of treatment with adalimumab (a human anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis receiving concomitant methotrexate therapy: a randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trial
Arthritis Rheum
The PREMIER study: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of combination therapy with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone or adalimumab alone in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis who had not had previous methotrexate treatment
Arthritis Rheum
Effects of abatacept in patients with methotrexate-resistant active rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial
Ann Intern Med
Study of active controlled monotherapy used for rheumatoid arthritis, an IL-6 inhibitor (SAMURAI): evidence of clinical and radiographic benefit from an x ray reader-blinded randomised controlled trial of tocilizumab
Ann Rheum Dis
Cited by (7)
International consensus: What else can we do to improve diagnosis and therapeutic strategies in patients affected by autoimmune rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritides, systemic sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, antiphospholipid syndrome and Sjogren's syndrome)?: The unmet needs and the clinical grey zone in autoimmune disease management
2017, Autoimmunity ReviewsCitation Excerpt :The only available direct comparison between 2 biological drugs in association with MTX for the treatment of RA has been provided by the 2-year AMPLE trial, demonstrating a similar clinical and radiographic response between abatacept and adalimumab [11]. Several meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted with biologic agents in both MTX-naïve and insufficient responder populations similarly showed no significant difference among available biotherapies in terms of clinical response functional status, and radiographic progression [12–18]. The kinetics of response of subcutaneous abatacept and adalimumab are comparable.
Tailored first-line biologic therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, and psoriatic arthritis
2016, Seminars in Arthritis and RheumatismCitation Excerpt :A comparative analysis based on the calculation of number needed to treat (NNT) demonstrated all biologics to have approximately the same efficacy in both clinical and radiographic response [11]. Moreover, a meta-analysis of biologic drug efficacy in preventing radiographic progression failed to identify significant differences among biological agents because of the huge heterogeneity in RCT baseline population characteristics [12]. In the ATTEST trial [13], ABA and IFX have been indirectly compared against the same comparator group, showing no relevant difference in EULAR and ACR response.
2016 updated Thai Rheumatism Association Recommendations for the use of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
2017, International Journal of Rheumatic DiseasesWithdrawal of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2016, Clinical Rheumatology