CMAJ • November 24, 2009; 181 (11). First published November 2, 2009; doi:10.1503/cmaj.091391
© 2009 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors
All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association.
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Online Appendices
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
cmaj.091391v1
181/11/787    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Singh, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Tugwell, P.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Singh, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Tugwell, P.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article

Research

A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: a Cochrane overview

Jasvinder A. Singh, MD, Robin Christensen, PhD, George A. Wells, PhD, Maria E. Suarez-Almazor, MD, Rachelle Buchbinder, MD, Maria Angeles Lopez-Olivo, MD, Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu, MD and Peter Tugwell, MD

From the Department of Medicine (Singh), Minneapolis VA Medical Center and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis and Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, USA; the Parker Institute: Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit (Christensen), Frederiksberg Hospital, Frederiksberg, Denmark; the Cardiovascular Research Reference Centre (Wells), University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ont.; General Internal Medicine (Suarez-Almazor, Lopez-Olivo), Ambulatory Treatment and Emergency Care, University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA; the Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology at Cabrini Hospital (Buchbinder), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Malvern, Australia; and the Centre for Global Health (Ghogomu, Tugwell), Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.

Background: We sought to compare the benefits and safety of 6 biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, infliximab and rituximab) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods: In this network meta-analysis, we included all completed and updated Cochrane reviews on biologics for rheumatoid arthritis. We included data from all placebo-controlled trials that used standard dosing regimens. The major outcomes were benefit (defined as a 50% improvement in patient- and physician-reported criteria of the American College of Rheumatology [ACR50]) and safety (determined by the number of withdrawals related to adverse events). We used mixed-effects logistic regression to carry out an indirect comparison of the treatment effects between biologics.

Results: Compared with placebo, biologics were associated with a clinically important higher ACR50 rate (odds ratio [OR] 3.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.62–4.29) and a number needed to treat for benefit of 4 (95% CI 4–6). However, biologics were associated with more withdrawals related to adverse events (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.13–1.71), with a number needed to treat for harm of 52 (95% CI 29–152). Anakinra was less effective than all of the other biologics, although this difference was statistically significant only for the comparison with adalimumab (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21–0.99) and etanercept (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14–0.81). Adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab were more likely than etanercept to lead to withdrawals related to adverse events (adalimumab OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.18–3.04; anakinra OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.27–3.29; and infliximab OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.43–5.26).

Interpretation: Given the limitations of indirect comparisons, anakinra was less effective than adalimumab and etanercept, and etanercept was safer than adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab. This summary of the evidence will help physicians and patients to make evidence-based choices about biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.


Related Article

Highlights
Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2009 181: 769. [Full Text] [PDF]