iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25975452
Risk of serious infection in biological treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Jul 18;386(9990):258-65.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61704-9. Epub 2015 May 11.

Risk of serious infection in biological treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Review

Risk of serious infection in biological treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jasvinder A Singh et al. Lancet. .

Abstract

Background: Serious infections are a major concern for patients considering treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Evidence is inconsistent as to whether biological drugs are associated with an increased risk of serious infection compared with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of serious infections in patients treated with biological drugs compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs.

Methods: We did a systematic literature search with Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to Feb 11, 2014. Search terms included "biologics", "rheumatoid arthritis" and their synonyms. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they included any of the approved biological drugs and reported serious infections. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis of published trials using a binomial likelihood model to assess the risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were treated with biological drugs, compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs. The odds ratio (OR) of serious infection was the primary measure of treatment effect and calculated 95% credible intervals using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods.

Findings: The systematic review identified 106 trials that reported serious infections and included patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received biological drugs. Compared with traditional DMARDs, standard-dose biological drugs (OR 1.31, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.09-1.58) and high-dose biological drugs (1.90, 1.50-2.39) were associated with an increased risk of serious infections, although low-dose biological drugs (0.93, 0.65-1.33) were not. The risk was lower in patients who were methotrexate naive compared with traditional DMARD-experienced or anti-tumour necrosis factor biological drug-experienced patients. The absolute increase in the number of serious infections per 1000 patients treated each year ranged from six for standard-dose biological drugs to 55 for combination biological therapy, compared with traditional DMARDs.

Interpretation: Standard-dose and high-dose biological drugs (with or without traditional DMARDs) are associated with an increase in serious infections in rheumatoid arthritis compared with traditional DMARDs, although low-dose biological drugs are not. Clinicians should discuss the balance between benefit and harm with the individual patient before starting biological treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.

Funding: Rheumatology Division at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA Diagram of selection of studies
Figure 2
Figure 2
Evidence networks for serious infection among populations. The width of the lines is proportional to the number of randomized controlled trials comparing each pair of treatments, and the size of each treatment node is proportional to the number of randomized participants (sample size). DMARD= disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; MTX=methotrexate; RCT= randomized controlled trial
Figure 3
Figure 3
Summary of findings from traditional meta-analysis and network meta-analysis for serious infection among populations compared with traditional DMARD monotherapy. CI= confidence interval; CrI= Credible interval; DMARD= disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; RCT= randomized controlled trial
Figure 4
Figure 4
Cumulative meta-analysis – Risk of serious infection among patients using standard dose biologics +/− traditional DMARD compared with traditional DMARD monotherapy DMARDs= disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; RCT= randomized controlled trial

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Scott DL, Wolfe F, Huizinga TW. Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 2010;376(9746):1094–108. - PubMed
    1. Tugwell P, Singh JA, Wells GA. Biologicals for rheumatoid arthritis. BMJ. 2011;343:d4027. - PubMed
    1. Singh JA, Furst DE, Bharat A, et al. 2012 update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012;64(5):625–39. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smolen JS, Landewe R, Breedveld FC, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(3):492–509. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis JP, Karassa FB, Druyts E, Thorlund K, Mills EJ. Biologic agents in rheumatology: unmet issues after 200 trials and $200 billion sales. Nature reviews Rheumatology. 2013;9(11):665–73. - PubMed

MeSH terms