Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T11:01:57.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RITUXIMAB AND TOCILIZUMAB FOR THE TREATMENT OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2014

Nicolás González-Vacarezza ,
Alicia Alemán ,
Graciela González  and
Ana Pérez
Nicolás González-Vacarezza
Affiliation:
Ministry of Public Health and National Institute of Rheumatology
Alicia Alemán
Affiliation:
Ministry of Public Health and National Institute of Rheumatology
Graciela González
Affiliation:
Ministry of Public Health and National Institute of Rheumatology
Ana Pérez
Affiliation:
Ministry of Public Health and National Institute of Rheumatology
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab and tocilizumab compared with adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis not responding to first-line treatment, and to compare the efficacy and safety of rituximab versus tocilizumab in patients not responding to anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNF) therapy.

Methods: A literature search of randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and systematic reviews was performed to evaluate efficacy and safety of rituximab and tocilizumab.

Results: Twenty-four RCTs were included in this systematic review with 6,357 participants; 3,450 treated with biological DMARD and 2,907 with standard care. In patients not responding to first-line treatment, rituximab shows lower response rate in at least 50 percent improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR50) and ACR70 compared with etanercept, at 6 months of follow-up. Tocilizumab shows higher ACR70 response rate compared with infliximab, at the same follow-up time. Other results showed no significant differences. Indirect comparisons between rituximab and tocilizumab in patients not responding for at least one anti-TNF, shows higher ACR20 response rate for tocilizumab at 6 months of follow-up. Regarding safety, adalimumab and etanercept were associated with significant fewer withdrawals due to adverse events compared with infliximab.

Conclusions: Considering efficacy, safety, and the availability of 3 anti-TNFs in the National Medicines Formulary (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab), it seems appropriate to remove infliximab from the coverage, and introduce tocilizumab for patients not responding for at least one anti-TNF.

Keywords

RituximabTocilizumabRheumatoidArthritis
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 3: Theme: Adaptive Approaches to Licensing , July 2014 , pp. 282 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by chronic joint inflammation which can lead, in untreated patients, to bony erosion, joint destruction, and disability. Moreover, it can produce several important extra-articular manifestations such as lung and cardiovascular diseases, among others (Reference Patel and Moreland1). Patients with RA have an increased mortality rate compared with the general population, having also a reduced life expectancy by 3 to 10 years (Reference Carmona, Cross, Williams, Lassere and March2). The disease prevalence is 0.5 to 1.0 percent in Caucasian population, with women being affected up to three times more often than men, and with a peak onset at 30–55 years (Reference Silman and Pearson3).

The main treatment goal is to achieve remission or low disease activity, being the first-line treatment synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Methotrexate is the cornerstone of first-line treatment, but in not responding or intolerant patients it is possible to use leflunomide, sulfasalazine, or injectable gold. When treatment target is not achieved with synthetic DMARDs with or without glucocorticoids, the addition of biological DMARDs is recommended (Reference Smolen, Landewé and Breedveld4).

Alpha tumor necrosis factor antagonists (anti-TNF), adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab, are the most used in clinical practice, and are currently included in the National Medicines Formulary (NMF) of Uruguay. On the other hand, rituximab and tocilizumab were subjected to evaluation for admission to the NMF. These drugs are monoclonal antibodies against the phosphoprotein CD20 and the interleukin 6, respectively.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab and tocilizumab compared with adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab, in patients not responding to first-line treatment, and to compare the efficacy and safety of rituximab versus tocilizumab in patients not responding to anti-TNF therapy. At the time of conducting this health technology assessment report, we do not identify any systematic review answering these questions.

METHODS

A literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) was performed to evaluate efficacy and safety of rituximab and tocilizumab in patients not responding to first-line treatment (evaluating a second-line treatment), and in patients not responding to at least one anti-TNF (third-line treatment). When a Cochrane systematic review met the inclusion criteria it was updated, and when no studies comparing head to head biologic DMARDs were found, indirect comparisons including RCT with a placebo arm were performed.

Inclusion criteria for the studies included in the review are detailed above.

Type of Studies

We included all completed/updated/available Cochrane systematic reviews of biologic DMARDs for RA. RCTs or CCTs comparing rituximab or tocilizumab versus anti-TNFs, rituximab versus tocilizumab, biologic DMARD to placebo, biologic DMARD to methotrexate, or biologic DMARD plus methotrexate to methotrexate alone. The studies should have a follow-up period of at least 6 months. Studies with patients receiving another DMARDs treatment, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or corticosteroids provided on stable doses in both arms were included.

Types of Participants

Adult patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1987 revised criteria for RA (Reference Arnett, Edworthy and Bloch5). Patients had to have evidence of being not responders to first-line treatment or to at least one anti-TNF.

Types of Interventions

Dosages considered for DMARDs and glucocorticoids were those specified at the full prescribing information of each drug. Specifically, for biologic DMARDs were considered the following dosages: (i) adalimumab, 40 mg every other week or 20 mg every week; (ii) etanercept, 25 mg twice a week or 50 mg every week; (iii) infliximab, 3–5 mg per kg of body weight every 8 weeks; (iv) rituximab, 2 doses of 1,000 mg each on days 1 and 15; (v) tocilizumab, 8 mg per kg of body weight every 4 weeks.

Types of Outcome Measures

The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients achieving an ACR50 response. An ACR50 response represents a 50 percent improvement in tender and swollen joint counts plus a 50 percent improvement in three of the five following remaining core measures: patient and physical global assessments, pain, functional status, and an acute phase reactant. ACR20 and ACR70 were also included as outcome of efficacy and are defined analogously (Reference Felson, Anderson and Boers6).

Safety outcomes included were serious adverse events, serious infections, total adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events.

Search Methods for Identification of Studies

Electronic databases including MedLine, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clincialtrials.gov, LILACS, and additional unpublished data provided by the manufacturers, were reviewed.

Search terms and strategy used for adalimumab in MedLine were: (“adalimumab” OR “D2E7 antibody” OR “Humira” OR “Abbott brand of adalimumab”) AND (“Rheumatoid Arthritis”). For adalimumab, the time frame of the search was limited from 01/08/2004 to 01/05/2011 in order to update a Cochrane review.

The search was limited in MedLine by publication type as follows: Clinical Trial, Meta-Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trial, Clinical Trial Phase I, Clinical Trial Phase II, Clinical Trial Phase III, Clinical Trial Phase IV, Controlled Clinical Trial. The same criteria were used for the remaining drugs.

Searches in the electronic databases were performed between May 1 and July 1, 2011. Additionally, we performed a manual search for relevant literature cited in the included manuscripts, and for some studies we contacted the sponsor to request additional information. The same search terms and criteria were used for other electronic databases and for the remaining drugs.

Data Extraction and Analysis

Each study was independently reviewed by two reviewers (N.G., A.A.) to determine if the study met the predefined inclusion criteria. Disagreements on study eligibility were solved by discussion with a third reviewer.

Data were extracted by one reviewer (N.G.), and then double-checked independently by another reviewer against the original data source. Any discrepancies were resolved through consensus by both reviewers, returning to the original data source to confirm which value was correct.

Data were analyzed using an intention to treat model with the software RevMan 5.1.2. Dichotomous data were reported as relative risk (RR) and 95 percent confidence interval (95%CI), through Mantel-Haenszel method. A fixed effects model was used to calculate a pooled estimate of effect, when the I2 was less than or equal to 50 percent, and random effect model was used for I2 greater than 50 percent (Reference Higgins, Thompson, Deeks and Altman7).

Indirect treatment comparisons were reported as RR and 95%CI, using the ITC software from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (Reference Wells, Sultan, Chen, Khan and Coyle8), following the criteria specified in the guidance “Indirect Evidence: Indirect Treatment Comparison in Meta-Analysis” from the same Agency (Reference Wells, Sultan, Chen, Khan and Coyle9).

RESULTS

The search at the Cochrane Library identified four systematic reviews for adalimumab (Reference Navarro-Sarabia, Ariza-Ariza, Hernandez-Cruz and Villanueva10), etanercept (Reference Blumenauer, Cranney and Burls11), infliximab (Reference Blumenauer, Judd and Wells12), and tocilizumab (Reference Singh, Beg and Lopez-Olivo13). Therefore, each Cochrane reviews were updated and for rituximab was conducted a full systematic review.

The search identified 767 references from electronic databases that were evaluated for inclusion, based on title and/or abstract review. One hundred thirty nine potentially relevant references were included in the next stage and full texts were reviewed (Figure 1). The main reasons for exclusion were: non controlled trials, sub-analysis of RCTs and differences from the defined population. We also excluded trials that evaluate biologic DMARDs as first-line treatment, or recruited mixed population in first- and second-line treatment (Figure 1) (Reference Kremer, Blanco and Brzosko14 –Reference Maini, Clair and Breedveld27).

Figure 1. Flowchart of the trials selection process.

No head to head trials comparing biologic DMARDs meeting the inclusion criteria were found. Therefore, indirect treatment comparison method was used to compare rituximab and tocilizumab versus anti-TNFs in second line treatment, and rituximab versus tocilizumab in third line treatment.

Twenty-four RCTs were included in this systematic review with 6,357 participants; 3,450 treated with biological DMARD and 2,907 with standard care, with at least 6 months of follow-up (Reference Lipsky, van der Heijde and Clair28 –Reference Tak, Rigby and Rubbert-Roth46). With a follow-up of 12 months, a total of 1,000 and 926 patients were evaluated, for biologic DMARD and standard care, respectively (Reference Taylor, Steuer and Gruber29;Reference Ho-Youn, Soo-Kon and Yeong Wook40;Reference Quinn, Conaghan and O’Connor44;Reference Mease, Cohen and Gaylis47 –Reference Boers, Tugwell and Felson52).

The main demographic characteristics of participants included in the studies are shown in a Supplementary Table 1, which can be viewed online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462314000221. Some parameters like disease duration, number of swollen joints, number of tender joints and C-reactive protein, shows significant differences. Hence, results of the indirect comparison should be considered with caution.

The results for each biologic DMARD versus control treatment, in patients not responding to first-line therapy at 6 and 12 months of follow-up, are shown in Table 1. ACR20 meta-analysis at 6 months for adalimumab showed significant heterogeneity (I2 = 80 percent), apparently caused by the study performed by Weinblatt et al. (Reference Weinblatt, Keystone and Furst15). A similar situation was verified for ACR20 and ACR50 for infliximab, with I2 values of 70 percent and 61 percent, respectively. This heterogeneity could be produced by the study performed by Schiff et al. (Reference Schiff, Keiserman and Codding16), that recruited patients with higher disease activity. Although the meta-analysis presents a significant statistical heterogeneity, individual studies are consistent in showing an efficacy improvement. The same considerations could be made for ACR20 at 6 months for etanercept (I2 = 72 percent).

Table 1. Efficacy at 6 and 12 Months of Follow up, for Patients Not Responding to First-Line Treatment

Note. ACR20, percentage of patients achieving an ACR20 response; ACR50, percentage of patients achieving an ACR50 response; ACR70, percentage of patients achieving an ACR70 response; RR, relative risk; 95CI%, 95 percent confidence interval.

The indirect comparisons of rituximab and tocilizumab versus anti-TNFs are shown in Table 2 (second line treatment). Rituximab shows lower ACR50 and ACR70 response rate compared with etanercept, at 6 months of follow-up. Data for rituximab at 12 months follow-up were not considered, because only one study with eighty patients not responding to first-line treatment (forty in each arm) was found. Tocilizumab shows higher ACR70 response rate compared with infliximab, at 6 months of follow-up (Table 2).

Table 2. Indirect Comparisons between Rituximab and Tocilizumab versus Adalimumab, Etanercept, and Infliximab, in Patients Not Responding to First-Line Treatment

Note. ACR20, percentage of patients achieving an ACR20 response; ACR50, percentage of patients achieving an ACR50 response; ACR70, percentage of patients achieving an ACR70 response; RR, relative risk; 95CI%, 95 percent confidence interval.

Indirect comparisons between rituximab and tocilizumab in patients not responding for at least one anti-TNF (third line treatment), at 6 months follow-up were RR 1.79 (95%CI, 1.01 to 3.18), RR 1.49 (95%CI, 0.54 to 4.11), and RR 0.81 (95%CI, 0.11 to 6.05) for ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70, respectively.

Regarding safety, this review considers the results of a network meta-analysis of the Cochrane Collaboration that include RCTs, CCTs and open-label extension (Reference Singh, Wells and Christensen53). No significant differences were noted in serious adverse events according to whether the biologic drug was a TNF inhibitor or not, a TNF antibody or TNF receptor inhibitor or other kind of biologic drug, trial duration, or type of concomitant medication. For serious infections and total adverse events no significant findings were reported for the drugs evaluated. Adalimumab (OR 0.50; 95%CI, 0.32 to 0.78) and etanercept (OR 0.63; 95%CI, 0.41 to 0.95) were associated with significant fewer withdrawals due to adverse events compared with infliximab (Reference Grijalva, Chen and Delzell54).

CONCLUSIONS

All biologic DMARDs provide an improvement on efficacy outcomes in patients not responding to first-line treatment. However, rituximab showed a lower response at 6 months of follow-up for ACR50 (RR 0.48; 95%CI, 0.25 to 0.89), and ACR70 (RR 0.23; 95%CI, 0.06 to 0.90), compared with etanercept. Compared with adalimumab and infliximab, rituximab did not provide an improvement in efficacy. Moreover rituximab requires intravenous administration, which increases the patient´s risk and discomfort, in contrast to adalimumab and etanercept that are administered subcutaneously.

In patients not responding to first-line treatment, tocilizumab produces no additional benefit in efficacy compared with adalimumab and etanercept, however, an increase response in ACR70 at 6 months was verified compared with infliximab (RR 2.42; 95%CI, 1.36 to 4.34).

In patients not responding to at least one anti-TNF (third line), tocilizumab has a greater ACR20 response rate at 6 months compared with rituximab (RR 1.79; 95%CI, 1.01 to 2.18). The same comparisons for ACR50 and ACR70 were not statistically significant probably due to the low number of patients that achieved this kind of response, and therefore, reducing the number of patients available to compare these outcomes.

Regarding safety, infliximab seems to be less advantageous than adalimumab and etanercept, taking into account withdrawals due to adverse events. Additionally, a retrospective cohorts study that included 16,022 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis, conclude that among patients with RA, infliximab was associated with a significant increase in serious infections compared with etanercept (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.26; 95%CI, 1.07 to 1.47) and adalimumab (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.23; 95%CI, 1.02 to 1.48) (Reference Grijalva, Chen and Delzell54). Besides, infliximab also require intravenous administration.

Taking into account efficacy, safety, route of administration and the availability of three anti-TNFs in the NMF, it seems appropriate to remove infliximab from the coverage.

Because tocilizumab showed a better efficacy with respect to infliximab at 6 months for ACR70, a possible reduction of withdrawals due to adverse events and a different mechanism of action compared with TNF inhibitors, we suggest the inclusion of tocilizumab for patients not responding to at least one anti-TNF. This suggestion is also supported by the indirect comparison between rituximab and tocilizumab, which shows superiority in ACR20 of the latter, with no differences in adverse events and route of administration. A possible use of rituximab would be to treat patients unresponsive to tocilizumab (fourth line treatment), however, no evidence support such prescription.

On the other hand, is important to note that the results obtained in this evaluation are based solely on indirect evidence, hence head to head trials are needed to determine the relative efficacy and safety between biologic DMARDs.

This evaluation proposes a different algorithm of treatment, taking into account a broad overview of efficacy and safety of biologic therapies available in the Eliminate the word “national” NMF for rheumatoid arthritis. However, this analysis does not include costs associated with the use of these drugs and, therefore, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the cost-benefit ratio of each strategy.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Supplementary Table 1: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462314000221

CONTACT INFORMATION

Nicolás González-Vacarezza, MSc (), 18 de Julio 1892, PO box 11,200, Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo, Uruguay

Alicia Alemán, MD, 18 de Julio 1892, PO box 11,200, Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo, Uruguay

Graciela González, MD, Italia Avenue, PO box 11,600, National Institute of Rheumatology, Montevideo, Uruguay

Ana Pérez, MD, MSc, 18 de Julio 1892, PO box 11,200, Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo, Uruguay

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

REFERENCES

1. Patel, AM, Moreland, LW. Interleukin-6 inhibition for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: A review of tocilizumab therapy. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2010;4:263–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Carmona, L, Cross, M, Williams, B, Lassere, M, March, L. Rheumatoid arthritis. Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24:733–745.Google ScholarPubMed
3. Silman, AJ, Pearson, JE. Epidemiology and genetics of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res. 2002;4:S265–S272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Smolen, JS, Landewé, R, Breedveld, FC, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:964–975.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Arnett, FC, Edworthy, SM, Bloch, DA, et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1988;31:315–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Felson, DT, Anderson, JJ, Boers, M, et al. American College of Rheumatology preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38:727–735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Higgins, JP, Thompson, SG, Deeks, JJ, Altman, DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Wells, GA, Sultan, SA, Chen, L, Khan, M, Coyle, D. Indirect treatment comparisson [computer program]. Version 1.0. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health; 2009.Google Scholar
9. Wells, GA, Sultan, SA, Chen, L, Khan, M, Coyle, D. Ottawa. Indirect evidence: Indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis. Ottawa: Candian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health; 2009.Google Scholar
10. Navarro-Sarabia, F, Ariza-Ariza, R, Hernandez-Cruz, B, Villanueva, I. Adalimumab for treating rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;3:CD005113.Google Scholar
11. Blumenauer, BBTB, Cranney, A, Burls, A, et al. Etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;3:CD004525.Google Scholar
12. Blumenauer, B, Judd, M, Wells, G, et al. Infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;3:CD003785.Google ScholarPubMed
13. Singh, JA, Beg, S, Lopez-Olivo, MA. Tocilizumab for rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;7:CD008331.Google Scholar
14. Kremer, JM, Blanco, R, Brzosko, M, et al. Tocilizumab inhibits structural joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate: Results from the double-blind treatment phase of a randomized placebo-controlled trial of tocilizumab safety and prevention of structural joint damage at one year. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63:609–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Weinblatt, ME, Keystone, EC, Furst, DE, et al. Adalimumab, a fully human anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients taking concomitant methotrexate: The ARMADA trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48:35–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Schiff, M, Keiserman, M, Codding, C, et al. Efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo in ATTEST: A phase III, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67:1096–1103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Breedveld, FC, Weisman, MH, Kavanaugh, AF, et al. The PREMIER study: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of combination therapy with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone or adalimumab alone in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis who had not had previous methotrexate treatment. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Furst, DE, Schiff, MH, Fleischmann, RM, et al. Adalimumab, a fully human anti tumor necrosis factor-alpha monoclonal antibody, and concomitant standard antirheumatic therapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: Results of STAR (Safety Trial of Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis). J Rheumatol. 2003;30:2563–2571.Google ScholarPubMed
19. van de Putte, LB, Atkins, C, Malaise, M, et al. Efficacy and safety of adalimumab as monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis for whom previous disease modifying antirheumatic drug treatment has failed. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:508–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Miyasaka, N, Taneichi, K, Atsumi, T, et al. Clinical investigation in highly disease-affected rheumatoid arthritis patients in Japan with adalimumab applying standard and general evaluation: The CHANGE study. Mod Rheumatol. 2008;18:252–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Combe, B, Codreanu, C, Fiocco, U, et al. Etanercept and sulfasalazine, alone and combined, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite receiving sulfasalazine: A double-blind comparison. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65:1357–1362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Combe, B, Codreanu, C, Fiocco, U, et al. Efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes of combination etanercept and sulfasalazine versus etanercept alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A double-blind randomised 2-year study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:1146–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Moreland, LW, Schiff, MH, Baumgartner, SW, et al. Etanercept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:478–486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Weinblatt, ME, Kremer, JM, Bankhurst, AD, et al. A trial of etanercept, a recombinant tumor necrosis factor receptor:Fc fusion protein, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:253–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Maini, RN, Breedveld, FC, Kalden, JR, et al. Therapeutic efficacy of multiple intravenous infusions of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody combined with low-dose weekly methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1998;41:1552–1563.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Westhovens, R, Yocum, D, Han, J, et al. The safety of infliximab, combined with background treatments, among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and various comorbidities: A large, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:1075–1086.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Maini, R, St Clair, EW, Breedveld, F, et al. Infliximab (chimeric anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody) versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving concomitant methotrexate: A randomised phase III trial. Lancet. 1999;354:1932–1939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Lipsky, PE, van der Heijde, DM, St Clair, EW, et al. Infliximab and methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Concomitant Therapy Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1594–1602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Taylor, PC, Steuer, A, Gruber, J, et al. Comparison of ultrasonographic assessment of synovitis and joint vascularity with radiographic evaluation in a randomized, placebo-controlled study of infliximab therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:1107–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Emery, P, Fleischmann, R, Filipowicz-Sosnowska, A, et al. The efficacy and safety of rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment: Results of a phase IIB randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:1390–1400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Emery, P, Deodhar, A, Rigby, WF, et al. Efficacy and safety of different doses and retreatment of rituximab: A randomised, placebo-controlled trial in patients who are biological naive with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate (Study Evaluating Rituximab's Efficacy in MTX iNadequate rEsponders (SERENE)). Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:1629–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Genovese, MC, McKay, JD, Nasonov, EL, et al. Interleukin-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab reduces disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: The tocilizumab in combination with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy study. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58:2968–2980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Maini, RN, Taylor, PC, Szechinski, J, et al. Double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial of the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, tocilizumab, in European patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had an incomplete response to methotrexate. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:2817–2829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Smolen, JS, Beaulieu, A, Rubbert-Roth, A, et al. Effect of interleukin-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (OPTION study): A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. Lancet. 2008;371:987–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Nishimoto, N, Hashimoto, J, Miyasaka, N, et al. Study of active controlled monotherapy used for rheumatoid arthritis, an IL-6 inhibitor (SAMURAI): Evidence of clinical and radiographic benefit from an x ray reader-blinded randomised controlled trial of tocilizumab. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:1162–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Cohen, SB, Emery, P, Greenwald, MW, et al. Rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy: Results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating primary efficacy and safety at twenty-four weeks. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:2793–2806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Emery, P, Keystone, E, Tony, HP, et al. IL-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab improves treatment outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumour necrosis factor biologicals: Results from a 24-week multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67:1516–1523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Edwards, JC, Szczepanski, L, Szechinski, J, et al. Efficacy of B-cell-targeted therapy with rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2572–2581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Bejarano, V, Quinn, M, Conaghan, PG, et al. Effect of the early use of the anti-tumor necrosis factor adalimumab on the prevention of job loss in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:1467–1474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Ho-Youn, K, Soo-Kon, L, Yeong Wook, S, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of the human anti-tumor necrosis factor antibody adalimumab administered as subcutaneous injections in Korean rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with methotrexate. Int J Rheum Dis. 2007;10:9–16.Google Scholar
41. Bathon, JM, Martin, RW, Fleischmann, RM, et al. A comparison of etanercept and methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1586–1593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42. Emery, P, Breedveld, FC, Hall, S, Durez, P, Chang, DJ, Robertson, D, et al. Comparison of methotrexate monotherapy with a combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active, early, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (COMET): A randomised, double-blind, parallel treatment trial. Lancet. 2008;372:375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43. Klareskog, L, van der Heijde, D, de Jager, JP, et al. Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Double-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;363:675–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44. Quinn, MA, Conaghan, PG, O’Connor, PJ, et al. Very early treatment with infliximab in addition to methotrexate in early, poor-prognosis rheumatoid arthritis reduces magnetic resonance imaging evidence of synovitis and damage, with sustained benefit after infliximab withdrawal: Results from a twelve-month randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52:27–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45. St Clair, EW, van der Heijde, DM, Smolen, JS, et al. Combination of infliximab and methotrexate therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis: A randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:3432–3443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Tak, PP, Rigby, WF, Rubbert-Roth, A, et al. Inhibition of joint damage and improved clinical outcomes with rituximab plus methotrexate in early active rheumatoid arthritis: The IMAGE trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:39–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Mease, PJ, Cohen, S, Gaylis, NB, et al. Efficacy and safety of retreatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with previous inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: Results from the SUNRISE trial. J Rheumatol. 2010;37:917–927.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Choy, EH, Isenberg, DA, Garrood, T, et al. Therapeutic benefit of blocking interleukin-6 activity with an anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody in rheumatoid arthritis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46:3143–3150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49. Jones, G, Sebba, A, Gu, J, et al. Comparison of tocilizumab monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: The AMBITION study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:88–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50. Nishimoto, N, Miyasaka, N, Yamamoto, K, et al. Study of active controlled tocilizumab monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (SATORI): Significant reduction in disease activity and serum vascular endothelial growth factor by IL-6 receptor inhibition therapy. Mod Rheumatol. 2009;19:12–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51. Nishimoto, N, Yoshizaki, K, Miyasaka, N, et al. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with humanized anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody: A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:1761–1769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52. Boers, M, Tugwell, P, Felson, DT, et al. World Health Organization and International League of Associations for Rheumatology core endpoints for symptom modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1994;41:86–89.Google ScholarPubMed
53. Singh, JA, Wells, GA, Christensen, R, et al. Adverse effects of biologics: A network meta-analysis and Cochrane overview. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2:CD008794.Google Scholar
54. Grijalva, CG, Chen, L, Delzell, E, et al. Initiation of tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists and the risk of hospitalization for infection in patients with autoimmune diseases. JAMA. 2011;306:2331–2339.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Flowchart of the trials selection process.

Figure 1

Table 1. Efficacy at 6 and 12 Months of Follow up, for Patients Not Responding to First-Line Treatment

Figure 2

Table 2. Indirect Comparisons between Rituximab and Tocilizumab versus Adalimumab, Etanercept, and Infliximab, in Patients Not Responding to First-Line Treatment

Supplementary material: File

González-Vacarezza Supplementary Material

Table S1

Download González-Vacarezza Supplementary Material(File)
File 19.6 KB