Comparative efficacy of biological agents in methotrexate-refractory rheumatoid arthritis patients: a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison.
- Author:
Miyoung CHOI
1
;
Min Kyung HYUN
;
Seongmi CHOI
;
Ha Jin TCHOE
;
Sung Yeon LEE
;
Kyeong Min SON
;
Min Jeong KIM
;
Young Ok JUNG
;
Hyun Ah KIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Randomized Controlled Trial ; Original Article
- Keywords: Arthritis, rheumatoid; Antirheumatic agents; Biological products; Mixed treatment comparison
- MeSH: Adult; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid*; Bias (Epidemiology); Biological Factors*; Biological Products; Etanercept; Humans; Infliximab; Methotrexate; Necrosis; Outcome Assessment (Health Care); Rheumatology; Sulfasalazine; Treatment Outcome
- From:The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine 2017;32(3):536-547
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: BACKGROUND/AIMS: Biological agents (biologics) targeting proinflammatory signaling have emerged as an important treatment option in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Despite the clinical effectiveness of biologics for patients with RA who do not respond to ‘traditional’ disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), there are concerns regarding their cost and long-term safety. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of various biologics and traditional DMARDs in RA patients refractory to methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: Four DMARDs (hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, MTX, leflunomide) and five anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs (adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, and certolizumab) were selected. A systematic search of published studies was performed from inception through July 2013. Randomized trials of adults with MTX-refractory RA comparing two or more of the selected medications were included. Among 7,938 titles identified, in total, 16 head-to-head trials were selected. Two reviewers independently abstracted the study data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias. Comparative efficacy was analyzed using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC). RESULTS: In total, 9, 4, and 11 studies were included for the outcome measures of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Disease Activity Score 28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) < 2.6 (remission), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 70 response, respectively. The treatments with the highest efficacy for each outcome measure were certolizumab combined with MTX, golimumab combined with MTX, and certolizumab combined with MTX, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on MTC analysis, using data from published randomized controlled trials, certolizumab and golimumab combined with MTX showed the highest efficacy in the three outcome measures (HAQ, DAS28-ESR < 2.6, and ACR 70 response) in MTX-refractory RA patients.
