Get More
Sign up to receive alerts for new Cochrane Journal Club articles.
Ask a Question
Ask the authors a question and receive a reply
Search Cochrane

You are currently viewing the Clinical version of this article. Click here for the Methodological version.


Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews

Clinical Summary

Rheumatoid arthritis is a common condition, affecting up to 1 in 100 people, and leading to chronic pain and inflammation in the joints. The symptoms are caused by an attack on the lining of the joint by the body’s own immune system. Standard treatments include disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as methotrexate. In recent years, a new class of drugs, the biologic DMARDS have been introduced that can also help patients, with fewer side effects but at greater cost.

There are now six up-to-date Cochrane reviews of the effects of different biologic DMARDs, each assessing one of these drugs in comparison with a placebo. The new issue of The Cochrane Library contains the first Overview of Cochrane reviews, bringing together the findings of these six reviews. This provides a summary of benefits and harms of each of the drugs and, in the absence of much-needed trials that directly compare the different drugs, also includes indirect comparisons between the drugs. The methods for doing an overview of reviews, and the indirect comparisons, are the subject of another Cochrane Journal Club, available alongside this one.

The six Cochrane reviews used two measures to compare the drugs. The first, for benefit, was doctor or patient assessment of signs and symptoms, including the number of swollen joints, which is a common composite measure for benefit known as the ACR50. For adalimumab, etanercept and rituximab, an increase of about 40% was seen in the number of people experiencing improved signs and symptoms, when the drugs were compared to placebo. Anakinra was the least effective of the six drugs, with an improvement of just 6% compared to placebo. This translated into a number needed to treat of between 3 and 5 patients with biologics (except anakinra). The second measure, used to estimate the safety of the drugs, compared the number of people who dropped out of studies due to adverse events. Less than 10% dropped out for each of the drugs. However, etanercept, abatacept and rituximab seemed to be responsible for the fewest withdrawals, with little difference between the numbers dropping out in the drug groups and in the placebo groups. Treatment with these biologics for one year was also associated with 92-100% less radiographic progression compared to placebos.

Lead researcher, Jasvinder Singh, based at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Minneapolis in the US, discusses the overview in the podcast. He concludes "Doctors are faced with a difficult dilemma when choosing biologics to prescribe to RA patients. Our Cochrane overview cannot identify the "best" biologic for any individual patient. That choice needs to use the more detailed knowledge available in the individual Cochrane reviews, for example on specific types of side effects, and other information, such as how much experience is there with a particular biologic in the clinical team and patient’s preferences about the different ways in which the drugs need to be taken."

Read the Paper

Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews (Review)
Jasvinder A Singh, Robin Christensen, George A Wells, Maria E Suarez-Almazor, Rachelle Buchbinder, Maria Angeles Lopez-Olivo, Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu, Peter Tugwell

Background: The biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are very effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there is a lack of head-to-head comparison studies.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab in patients with RA.

Methods: This 'Overview of Reviews' was done by including all Cochrane Reviews on Biologics for RA available in The Cochrane Library. We included only data on standard dosing regimens for these biologic DMARDs from placebo-controlled trials. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were ACR50 and withdrawals due to adverse events.We calculated Risk Ratios (RR) for efficacy, Odds Ratio (OR) for safety and combined estimates of events across the placebo groups as the expected Control Event Rate (CER). Indirect comparisons of biologics were performed for efficacy and safety using a hierarchical linear mixed model incorporating the most important studylevel characteristic (i.e. type of biologic) as a fixed factor and study as a random factor; reducing the between study heterogeneity by adjusting for the interaction between the proportion of patients responding on placebo and the duration of the trial.

Main results: From the six available Cochrane reviews, we obtained data from seven studies on abatacept, eight on adalimumab, five on anakinra, four on etanercept, four on infliximab, and three on rituximab. The indirect comparison estimates showed similar efficacy for the primary efficacy outcome for all biologics with three exceptions. Anakinra was less efficacious than etanercept with a ratio of RRs (95% CI; P value) of 0.44 (0.23 to 0.85; P = 0.014); anakinra was less efficacious than rituximab, 0.45 (0.22 to 0.90; P = 0.023); and likewise adalimumab was more efficacious than anakinra, 2.34 (1.32 to 4.13; P = 0.003).

In terms of safety, adalimumab was more likely to lead to withdrawals compared to etanercept, with a ratio of ORs of 1.89 (1.18 to 3.04; P = 0.009); anakinra more likely than etanercept, 2.05 (1.27 to 3.29; P = 0.003); and likewise etanercept less likely than infliximab, 0.37 (0.19 to 0.70; P = 0.002).

Authors' conclusions: Based upon indirect comparisons, anakinra seemed less efficacious than etanercept, adalimumab and rituximab and etanercept seemed to cause fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab. Significant heterogeneity in characteristics of trial populations imply that these finding must be interpreted.

Download Options: PDF Download Options Abstract PDF (67k) PDF Download Options Standard PDF (726k) PDF Download Options Full PDF (855k)

View Online Options: Access via Cochrane Library Access via Cochrane Library

Join the Club

Sign up to receive alerts for new Cochrane Journal Club articles.

  • Name:
  • Email:
  •  

Ask a Question

You can ask the Authors a question about "Biologics for Rheumatoid Arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews" using this form. We will aim to reply promptly, and reserve the right to post your question alongside an answer on this web site.

  • Name:
  • Email:
  • Country:
  • Question:
  •  
     
     
     
     

Questions and Answers

Q. Its a well thought review and really appreciate the authors effort is compiling the results from various published studies. Question: I was just wondering if it would have been better to present the results as NEAR measure. NEAR stands for Net Efficacy Adjusted Risk ratio. This is a new concept for presenting trial results which provides the added advantage to combine both the safety and efficacy data. In context with chronic diseases such as RA it would be helpful for the physicians to get the results in a forms which takes into consideration both safety and efficacy parameters. Just a thought; could we get the risk ratio as NEAR so that the overall interpretation for single drug becomes more evident and easily translatable for RA pt. management?

A. We took the traditional approach of presenting efficacy and safety separately, as this is most familiar with readers. However, the simple adjustment for safety using Net Efficacy Adjusted for Risk (NEAR) makes it an attractive addition to the presentation of results. After considering this question, and scrutinizing the papers by Boada et al, the statistical authors on this Cochrane overview believe that NEAR seems promising for evidence synthesis.

We would want the relative measures to continue to be complemented by absolute estimates. As part of the GRADE working group, we endorse both relative and absolute measures (e.g. ARR*1000) to assess how many individuals will experience an event either good or bad in the Summary of Findings (SoF) Tables.


Q. Are biologics cost effective compared to DMARDs in RA?

A. As this overview does not address cost effectiveness of the drugs, we don’t have a direct answer.


Q. Have you got any systematic reviews or meta analysis comparing the effectiveness of methotrexate - sulfasalazine combination against the single components in early rheumatoid arthritis? Any suggestions?

A. As far as Methorexate-sulfasalazine against single drugs, we are not aware of a meta-analysis, but you may want to do a quick pubmed search to be sure. Certainly some studies have compared these regimens, but more are needed.


Q. Some of the included reviews (i.e. on etanercept and infliximab) have not been updated for many years. Did you scan the literature for new studies with these substances that could change the conclusions?

A. The reviews on etanercept and infliximab are currently being updated. We contacted the authors who provided us data analyses based on new searches they did.


Q. The study BATHON 2000 that was included in the etancercept-review is not included in the present study. I think it would fulfil the inclusion criteria. I'm aware of a small study with infliximab (DUREZ 2007, DOI 10.1002/art.23055 ) that would have to be included if the original infliximab review were updated. Could you please comment on this issue?

A. We didn’t include the BATHON 2000 study because it did not consider the comparison between etanercept and placebo. The DUREZ 2007 study is not double-blind, thus not considered eligible for inclusion in our network meta-analysis.

Q. There is no perfect patient and no perfect drug. The main problem is that we don’t have good metrology for RA. We measure something with DAS, but the real disease activity is different, and there are several pathology pathways in RA. Can you give any advice about methods to measure the real RA activity?

A. We appreciate the comment. In our clinic we measure the RA disease activity using DAS28 or CDAI.

Q. Is there any role of physical therapy modalities in knee osteoarthritis?

A. Sorry, we have not performed any systematic review examining this question.

Q. I would like to know about the onset of action of diclofenac potassium in comparison to diclofenac sodium – could you provide a reference?

A. Sorry, we have not performed any systematic review examining this question.

Listen to the Podcast

Listen Now

Jump to Abstract View the transcript

Cochrane Library Podcasts

Presentations

View PowerPoint Presentation  View Web Presentation

Download slides describing the essential components of the paper.

Author Profile

Author

Dr. Singh is a Staff physician at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis, Minnesota and a visiting scientist at the Mayo Clinic, Rocheter, Minnesota, USA. Dr. Singh is an associate editor for the Biomedical Central Musculoskeletal medicine and is on the editorial team for the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.

Dr. Singh is interested in performing synthesis of literature by performing systematic review and meta-analyses of intereventions for rheumatic conditions. Dr. Singh is also interested in studying health and functional outcomes in patients with arthritis and those who have undergone joint replacement surgery. Dr. Singh is interesting in examining quality of care of various rheumatic conditions, including gout and examining the predictors of suboptimal care of rheumatic diseases.

Dr Singh represents the group of authors who collaborated on "Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews". The full author group is as follows: Jasvinder A Singh, Robin Christensen, George A Wells, Maria E Suarez-Almazor, Rachelle Buchbinder, Maria Angeles Lopez-Olivo, Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu and Peter Tugwell.

Discussion points: a critical appraisal

What are the questions you should be asking as you read this paper? – find out here.