Display options
Share it on

Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2015 Sep 01;11:1325-35. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S89678. eCollection 2015.

Efficacy of biological agents administered as monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a Bayesian mixed-treatment comparison analysis.

Therapeutics and clinical risk management

Alberto Migliore, Emanuele Bizzi, Colin Gerard Egan, Mauro Bernardi, Lea Petrella

Affiliations

  1. Rheumatology Unit, San Pietro Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Rome, Italy.
  2. Primula Multimedia SRL, Pisa, Italy.
  3. Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
  4. MEMOTEF Department, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

PMID: 26366085 PMCID: PMC4562742 DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S89678

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Biological agents provide an important therapeutic alternative for rheumatoid arthritis patients refractory to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Few head-to-head comparative trials are available.

PURPOSE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the relative efficacy of different biologic agents indicated for use as monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS: A systemic literature search was performed on electronic databases to identify articles reporting double-blind randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of biologic agents indicated for monotherapy. Efficacy was assessed using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 criteria at 16-24 weeks. Relative efficacy was estimated using Bayesian mixed-treatment comparison models. Outcome measures were expressed as odds ratio and 95% credible intervals.

RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials were selected for data extraction and analysis. Mixed-treatment comparison analysis revealed that tocilizumab offered 100% probability of being the best treatment for inducing an ACR20 response versus placebo, methotrexate, adalimumab, or etanercept. Likewise, for ACR50 and ACR70 outcome responses, tocilizumab had a 99.8% or 98.7% probability of being the best treatment, respectively, compared to other treatments or placebo. Tocilizumab increased the relative probability of being the best treatment (vs methotrexate) by 3.2-fold (odds ratio: 2.1-3.89) for all ACR outcomes.

CONCLUSION: Tocilizumab offered the greatest possibility of obtaining an ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 outcome vs other monotherapies or placebo.

Keywords: biologics; meta-analysis; mixed-treatment comparison; monotherapy; rheumatoid arthritis; tocilizumab

References

  1. Ann Intern Med. 1999 Mar 16;130(6):478-86 - PubMed
  2. N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1586-93 - PubMed
  3. Stat Methods Med Res. 2001 Aug;10(4):277-303 - PubMed
  4. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2002 Jun;29(3):271-307 - PubMed
  5. Lancet. 2004 Feb 28;363(9410):675-81 - PubMed
  6. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004 May;63(5):508-16 - PubMed
  7. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(2 Suppl 1):1-12 - PubMed
  8. BMJ. 2005 Oct 15;331(7521):897-900 - PubMed
  9. Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Jan;54(1):26-37 - PubMed
  10. Arthritis Res Ther. 2006;8(3):R66 - PubMed
  11. Stat Med. 2007 Mar 15;26(6):1237-54 - PubMed
  12. Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Sep;54(9):2817-29 - PubMed
  13. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007 Oct;66(10):1339-44 - PubMed
  14. Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Mar 15;57(2):193-202 - PubMed
  15. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007 Sep;66(9):1162-7 - PubMed
  16. Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Jan;58(1):15-25 - PubMed
  17. Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Feb 15;59(2):234-40 - PubMed
  18. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):77-85 - PubMed
  19. Mod Rheumatol. 2009;19(1):12-9 - PubMed
  20. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009 Jul;68(7):1100-4 - PubMed
  21. Lancet. 2009 Feb 28;373(9665):746-58 - PubMed
  22. Am J Epidemiol. 2009 May 1;169(9):1158-65 - PubMed
  23. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010 Jan;69(1):88-96 - PubMed
  24. J Rheumatol. 2009 Aug;36(8):1611-7 - PubMed
  25. Rheumatol Int. 2010 Sep;30(11):1441-8 - PubMed
  26. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2010 Jun;39(6):425-41 - PubMed
  27. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Feb;70(2):266-71 - PubMed
  28. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011 Jan;50(1):222-9 - PubMed
  29. Pharmacotherapy. 2011 Jan;31(1):39-51 - PubMed
  30. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 May;70(5):755-9 - PubMed
  31. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Feb 16;(2):CD008794 - PubMed
  32. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Apr;70(4):583-9 - PubMed
  33. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012 Jun;37(3):301-7 - PubMed
  34. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011 Oct;27(10):1885-97 - PubMed
  35. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Feb;71(2):225-30 - PubMed
  36. J Med Econ. 2012;15(2):340-51 - PubMed
  37. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e30275 - PubMed
  38. J Med Econ. 2012;15(3):576-85 - PubMed
  39. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013 Apr;72(4):583-9 - PubMed
  40. Biologics. 2012;6:429-64 - PubMed
  41. Lancet. 2013 May 4;381(9877):1541-50 - PubMed
  42. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013 Oct;29(10):1213-22 - PubMed
  43. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Mar;73(3):492-509 - PubMed
  44. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Mar;73(3):516-28 - PubMed
  45. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Mar;73(3):529-35 - PubMed
  46. Biologics. 2014 Apr 07;8:141-53 - PubMed
  47. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Jul 03;12:102 - PubMed
  48. Rheumatol Ther. 2015 Jun;2(1):85-96 - PubMed
  49. Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jun;38(6):727-35 - PubMed

Publication Types