Randomized, placebo controlled and double-blind trials of efficacy and safety of adalimumab for treating ankylosing spondylitis: a meta-analysis

Background:According to previous studies, the effectiveness of interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitors was higher in anti-TNF-naïve patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) [1,2]. Netakimab (NTK) is a humanized anti-IL-17A antibody approved for the treatment of AS, psoriatic arthritis, moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Russia and Belarus.Objectives:To compare the efficacy of NTK in anti-TNF-naïve patients with anti-TNF-experienced patients with active AS at week 16 of therapy.Methods:ASTERA (NCT03447704) is an ongoing phase 3 placebo (PBO)-controlled clinical study, aimed at evaluating NTK efficacy in AS [3]. 228 adult patients with active AS (BASDAI ≥ 4) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 120 mg NTK or PBO subcutaneously at week 0,1,2 and then q2w. This analysis includes 112 patients in NTK group. Efficacy endpoints included ASAS20/40, ASAS5/6 and ASAS partial remission (PR) at week 16 of therapy.Results:28 (25.0%) of 112 patients in NTK group had previous inadequate response/intolerance to anti-TNF (anti-TNF-IR): 24 (21.4%) – one anti-TNF, and 4 (3.6%) – two anti-TNF. 84 (75.0%) patients were TNF-naive. Achievement of ASAS criteria response at week 16 was similar in both groups (Table 1).Table 1.Efficacy of NTK at week 16ParameterTNF-naïve (n = 84)anti-TNF-IR (n = 28)p-value*ASAS20, n (%)52 (61.9%)17 (60.7%)0.91ASAS40, n (%)35 (41.7%)11 (39.3%)0.82ASAS5/6, n (%)39 (46.4%)11 (39.3%)0.51ASAS(PR), n (%)15 (17.9%) 4 (14.3%)0.78*- Fisher’s exact testConclusion:NTK 120 mg provided sustained improvements in signs and symptoms of AS in anti-TNF-naive and anti-TNF-IR patients at 16 weeks of therapy.References:[1]Blair HA, Dhillon S. Secukinumab: A Review in Ankylosing Spondylitis. Drugs. 2016;76(10):1023-30.[2]Dougados M, et al. Efficacy and safety of ixekizumab through 52 weeks in two phase 3, randomised, controlled clinical trials in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (COAST-V and COAST-W). Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(2):176-185.[3]Mazurov VI, et al. Efficacy and safety of Netakimab, anti-IL-17A monoclonal antibody, in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Results of phase III international, multicenter, randomized double-blind clinical trial BCD-085-5/ASTERA. Nauchno-Practicheskaya Revmatologia=Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2020;58 (4):376–386 (In Russ).Acknowledgements:This study was sponsored by JSC BIOCAD.Disclosure of Interests:Shandor Erdes: None declared, V Mazurov: None declared, Tatiana Dubinina: None declared, Inna Gaydukova Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Alena Kundzer: None declared, Nikolaj Soroka: None declared, Anna Eremeeva Employee of: Biocad

Download Full-text

SAT0136 RELATIVE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF TOFACITINIB, BARICITINIB, UPADACITINIB, AND FILGOTINIB, IN COMPARISON WITH ADALIMUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: A BAYESIAN NETWORK META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-eular.658 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽

pp. 1005.1-1005

Author(s):

Y. H. Lee ◽

G. G. Song

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Response Rate ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Double Blind ◽

Acr20 Response ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Acr20 Response Rate

Background:Methotrexate (MTX), an effective disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) [2], is the most widely used DMARD for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, not all patients are responsive to the drug; 30% of the patients discontinue therapy within 1 year of commencing the treatment, usually because of the lack of efficacy or undesirable adverse effects Small-molecule Janus kinase inhibitors are clinically developed for the treatment of RA.Objectives:The aim of this study is to investigate the relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib in comparison with adalimumab in patients with active RA and having inadequate responses to MTX.Methods:We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib, and adalimumab in RA patients having inadequate responses to MTX.Results:Four RCTs, comprising 5,451 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The baricitinib 4mg+MTX and upadacitinib 15mg+MTX group showed a significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate than the adalimumab 40mg+MTX group. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that baricitinib 4mg+MTX had the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving the ACR20 response rate, followed by upadacitinib 15mg+MTX, tofacitinib 5mg+MTX, filgotinib 200mg+MTX, filgotinib 100mg+MTX, adalimumab 40mg+MTX, and placebo+MTX. The upadacitinib 15mg+MTX and baricitinib 4mg+MTX groups showed significantly higher ACR50 and ACR70 response rates than adalimumab 40mg+MTX. In terms of Herpes zoster infection, the ranking probability based on the SUCRA indicated that placebo+MTX were likely to be the safest treatments, followed by filgotinib 200mg+MTX, filgotinib 100mg+MTX, adalimumab 40mg+MTX, tofacitinib 5mg+MTX, upadacitinib 15mg+MTX, and baricitinib 4mg+MTX. Regarding safety analysis, no statistically significant differences were found between the respective intervention groups.Conclusion:In RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX, baricitinib 4mg+MTX and upadacitinib 15mg+MTX showed the highest ACR response rates, suggesting a difference in efficacy among the different JAK inhibitors.References:[1]Fleischmann R, Mysler E, Hall S, Kivitz AJ, Moots RJ, Luo Z, DeMasi R, Soma K, Zhang R, Takiya LJTL (2017) Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib with methotrexate, and adalimumab with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (ORAL Strategy): a phase 3b/4, double-blind, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial. 390:457-468[2]Taylor PC, Keystone EC, van der Heijde D et al (2017) Baricitinib versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis. N Engl J Med 376:652-662[3]Fleischmann R, Pangan AL, Mysler E, Bessette L, Peterfy C, Durez P, Ostor A, Li Y, Zhou Y, Othman AA (2018) A phase 3, randomized, double-blind study comparing upadacitinib to placebo and to adalimumab, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to methotrexate. ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY. WILEY 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA, pp[4]Combe B, Kivitz A, Tanaka Y, van der Heijde D, Matzkies F, Bartok B, Ye L, Guo Y, Tasset C, Sundy J (2019) LB0001 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF FILGOTINIB FOR PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS WITH INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO METHOTREXATE: FINCH1 PRIMARY OUTCOME RESULTS. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, ppDisclosure of Interests:None declared

Download Full-text

QUESTION FOR META-ANALYSTS: CAN YOU MAKE A SILKEN PURSE OUT OF A SOW'S EAR?

PEDIATRICS ◽

10.1542/peds.84.4.a108 ◽

1989 ◽

Vol 84 (4) ◽

pp. A108-A108

Author(s):

Student

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Multiple Comparisons ◽

Measurement Scales ◽

Double Blind ◽

New Drug ◽

Baseline Difference ◽

Blind Trials

Choice of dose [in 196 double-blind trials of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis], multiple comparisons, wrong calculation, sub-group and within-group analyses, wrong sampling units. . . , change in measurement scales before analyses, baseline difference, and selecting reporting of significant results were some of the verified or possible causes for the large proportion of results that favored the [newly proposed] drug. Doubtful or invalid statements were found in 76% of the conclusions or abstracts. Bias consistently favored the new drug in 81 trials, and the control in only one trial. It is not obvious how a reliable meta-analysis could be done [reliably] in these trials.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Sinomenine Preparation for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Randomized Controlled Trials

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2020/4593412 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2020 ◽

pp. 1-16

Author(s):

Shan-Shan Lin ◽

Chun-Xiang Liu ◽

Jun-Hua Zhang ◽

Hui Wang ◽

Jing-Bo Zhai ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Morning Stiffness ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Objectives. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of sinomenine preparation (SP) for treating ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SP for treating AS were systematically identified in six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang Databases from the inception up to 31 October 2019. Cochrane’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyze data. Results. A total of 12 RCTs involving 835 patients were finally included. According to interventions, RCTs were divided into two types. The intervention in 10 RCTs was SP combined with conventional pharmacotherapy (CPT) versus CPT and that in 2 RCTs was SP alone versus CPT. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with CPT alone, SP combined with oral CPT has better improvement in BASDAI (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.31, −0.37], P=0.01), morning stiffness time (WMD = −13.46, 95% CI [−16.12, −10.79], P<0.00001), the Schober test (WMD = 1.26, 95% CI [0.72, 1.80], P<0.00001), the occipital wall test (WMD = −0.55, 95% CI [−0.96, −0.14], P=0.009), the finger-to-ground distance (WMD = −3.28, 95% CI [−5.64, −0.93], P=0.006), 15 m walking time (WMD = −8.81, 95% CI [−13.42, −4.20], P=0.0002), the C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.24, −0.45], P=0.01), and the total effective rate (RR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.01, 1.20], P=0.03). Besides, it also showed that oral SP alone may be more effective in improving morning stiffness time (WMD = −31.89, 95% CI [−34.91, −28.87], P<0.00001) compared with CPT alone. However, this study cannot provide evidence that loading the injectable SP based on CPT can significantly increase the efficacy due to the insufficient number of studies included. In terms of adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. Conclusions. This study shows that oral SP may be effective and safe in the treatment of AS. Due to the low methodological quality of the included RCTs and the limitations of the meta-analysis, it is still necessary to carry out more multicenter, large-sample, and high-quality RCTs to further verify the conclusions. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018099170), and the review was constructed following the PRISMA guidelines (Annex 1).

Download Full-text