Risk of serious adverse effects of biological and targeted drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review meta-analysis

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk of serious adverse effects of biological and targeted drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

T2 - a systematic review meta-analysis

AU - Tarp, Simon

AU - Eric Furst, Daniel

AU - Boers, Maarten

AU - Luta, George

AU - Bliddal, Henning

AU - Tarp, Ulrik

AU - Heller Asmussen, Karsten

AU - Brock, Birgitte

AU - Dossing, Anna

AU - Schjødt Jørgensen, Tanja

AU - Thirstrup, Steffen

AU - Christensen, Robin

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Objectives. To determine possible differences in serious adverse effects among the 10 currently approved biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/ts-DMARDs) for RA. Methods. Systematic review in bibliographic databases, trial registries and websites of regulatory agencies identified randomized trials of approved b/ts-DMARDs for RA. Network meta-analyses using mixedeffects Poisson regression models were conducted to calculate rate ratios for serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths between each of the 10 drugs and control (i.e. no b/ts-DMARD treatment), based on subjects experiencing an event in relation to person-years. Confidence in the estimates was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). Results. A total of 117 trials (47 615 patients) were included. SAEs were more common with certolizumab compared with abatacept (rate ratio = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.14), adalimumab (1.36, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.81), etanercept (1.60, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.17), golimumab (1.45, 95% CI: 1.00, 2.08), rituximab (1.63, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.30), tofacitinib (1.44, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.02) and control (1.45, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.87); and tocilizumab compared with abatacept (1.30, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.65), etanercept (1.31, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.67) and rituximab (1.34, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.78). No other comparisons were statistically significant. Accounting for study duration confirmed our findings for up to 6 months' treatment but not for longer-term treatment (6-24 months). No differences in mortality between b/ts-DMARDs and control were found. Based on the GRADE approach, confidence in the estimates was low due to lack of head-to-head comparison trials and imprecision in indirect estimates. Conclusion. Despite low confidence in the estimates, our analysis found potential differences in rates of SAEs. Our data suggest caution should be taken when deciding among available drugs.

AB - Objectives. To determine possible differences in serious adverse effects among the 10 currently approved biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/ts-DMARDs) for RA. Methods. Systematic review in bibliographic databases, trial registries and websites of regulatory agencies identified randomized trials of approved b/ts-DMARDs for RA. Network meta-analyses using mixedeffects Poisson regression models were conducted to calculate rate ratios for serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths between each of the 10 drugs and control (i.e. no b/ts-DMARD treatment), based on subjects experiencing an event in relation to person-years. Confidence in the estimates was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). Results. A total of 117 trials (47 615 patients) were included. SAEs were more common with certolizumab compared with abatacept (rate ratio = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.14), adalimumab (1.36, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.81), etanercept (1.60, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.17), golimumab (1.45, 95% CI: 1.00, 2.08), rituximab (1.63, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.30), tofacitinib (1.44, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.02) and control (1.45, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.87); and tocilizumab compared with abatacept (1.30, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.65), etanercept (1.31, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.67) and rituximab (1.34, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.78). No other comparisons were statistically significant. Accounting for study duration confirmed our findings for up to 6 months' treatment but not for longer-term treatment (6-24 months). No differences in mortality between b/ts-DMARDs and control were found. Based on the GRADE approach, confidence in the estimates was low due to lack of head-to-head comparison trials and imprecision in indirect estimates. Conclusion. Despite low confidence in the estimates, our analysis found potential differences in rates of SAEs. Our data suggest caution should be taken when deciding among available drugs.

KW - Abatacept

KW - Adalimumab

KW - Antibodies, Monoclonal

KW - Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized

KW - Antirheumatic Agents

KW - Arthritis, Rheumatoid

KW - Biological Products

KW - Certolizumab Pegol

KW - Etanercept

KW - Humans

KW - Network Meta-Analysis

KW - Piperidines

KW - Poisson Distribution

KW - Pyrimidines

KW - Pyrroles

KW - Regression Analysis

KW - Risk

KW - Rituximab

KW - Journal Article

KW - Meta-Analysis

KW - Review

U2 - 10.1093/rheumatology/kew442

DO - 10.1093/rheumatology/kew442

M3 - Review

C2 - 28013201

SN - 1462-0324

VL - 56

SP - 417

EP - 425

JO - Rheumatology (Oxford, England)

JF - Rheumatology (Oxford, England)

IS - 3

ER -