Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
101
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta-analysis and Cochrane overview

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Biologics are used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many other conditions. While the efficacy of biologics has been established, there is uncertainty regarding the adverse effects of this treatment. Since serious risks such as tuberculosis (TB) reactivation, serious infections, and lymphomas may be common to the biologics but occur in small numbers across the various indications, we planned to combine the results from biologics used in many conditions to obtain the much needed risk estimates. To compare the adverse effects of tumor necrosis factor blocker (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab), interleukin (IL)-1 antagonist (anakinra), IL-6 antagonist (tocilizumab), anti-CD28 (abatacept), and anti-B cell (rituximab) therapy in patients with any disease condition except human immunodeficiency disease (HIV/AIDS). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and open-label extension (OLE) studies that studied one of the nine biologics for use in any indication (with the exception of HIV/AIDS) and that reported our pre-specified adverse outcomes were considered for inclusion. We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (to January 2010). Identifying search results and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. For the network meta-analysis, we performed mixed-effects logistic regression using an arm-based, random-effects model within an empirical Bayes framework. We included 163 RCTs with 50,010 participants and 46 extension studies with 11,954 participants. The median duration of RCTs was six months and 13 months for OLEs. Data were limited for tuberculosis (TB) reactivation, lymphoma, and congestive heart failure. Adjusted for dose, biologics as a group were associated with a statistically significant higher rate of total adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 30, 95% CI 21 to 60) and withdrawals due to adverse events (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.64; NNTH = 37, 95% CI 19 to 190) and an increased risk of TB reactivation (OR 4.68, 95% CI 1.18 to 18.60; NNTH = 681, 95% CI 143 to 14706) compared to control.The rate of serious adverse events, serious infections, lymphoma, and congestive heart failure were not statistically significantly different between biologics and control treatment. Certolizumab pegol was associated with significantly higher risk of serious infections compared to control treatment (OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.59 to 7.79; NNTH = 17, 95% CI 7 to 68). Infliximab was associated with significantly higher risk of withdrawals due to adverse events compared to control (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.91; NNTH = 12, 95% CI 8 to 28). Indirect comparisons revealed that abatacept and anakinra were associated with a significantly lower risk of serious adverse events compared to most other biologics.  Although the overall numbers are relatively small, certolizumab pegol was associated with significantly higher odds of serious infections compared to etanercept, adalimumab, abatacept, anakinra, golimumab, infliximab, and rituximab; abatacept was significantly less likely than infliximab and tocilizumab to be associated with serious infections.  Abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and golimumab were significantly less likely than infliximab to result in withdrawals due to adverse events. Overall, in the short term biologics were associated with significantly higher rates of total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and TB reactivation. Some biologics had a statistically higher association with certain adverse outcomes compared to control, but there was no consistency across the outcomes so caution is needed in interpreting these results.There is an urgent need for more research regarding the long-term safety of biologics and the comparative safety of different biologics. National and international registries and other types of large databases are relevant sources for providing complementary evidence regarding the short- and longer-term safety of biologics. 

          Related collections

          Most cited references269

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma.

          The standard treatment for patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma is cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP). Rituximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody against the CD20 B-cell antigen, has therapeutic activity in diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. We conducted a randomized trial to compare CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. Previously untreated patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma, 60 to 80 years old, were randomly assigned to receive either eight cycles of CHOP every three weeks (197 patients) or eight cycles of CHOP plus rituximab given on day 1 of each cycle (202 patients). The rate of complete response was significantly higher in the group that received CHOP plus rituximab than in the group that received CHOP alone (76 percent vs. 63 percent, P=0.005). With a median follow-up of two years, event-free and overall survival times were significantly higher in the CHOP-plus-rituximab group (P<0.001 and P=0.007, respectively). The addition of rituximab to standard CHOP chemotherapy significantly reduced the risk of treatment failure and death (risk ratios, 0.58 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.77] and 0.64 [0.45 to 0.89], respectively). Clinically relevant toxicity was not significantly greater with CHOP plus rituximab. The addition of rituximab to the CHOP regimen increases the complete-response rate and prolongs event-free and overall survival in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma, without a clinically significant increase in toxicity.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision.

            GRADE suggests that examination of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) provides the optimal primary approach to decisions regarding imprecision. For practice guidelines, rating down the quality of evidence (i.e., confidence in estimates of effect) is required if clinical action would differ if the upper versus the lower boundary of the CI represented the truth. An exception to this rule occurs when an effect is large, and consideration of CIs alone suggests a robust effect, but the total sample size is not large and the number of events is small. Under these circumstances, one should consider rating down for imprecision. To inform this decision, one can calculate the number of patients required for an adequately powered individual trial (termed the "optimal information size" [OIS]). For continuous variables, we suggest a similar process, initially considering the upper and lower limits of the CI, and subsequently calculating an OIS. Systematic reviews require a somewhat different approach. If the 95% CI excludes a relative risk (RR) of 1.0, and the total number of events or patients exceeds the OIS criterion, precision is adequate. If the 95% CI includes appreciable benefit or harm (we suggest an RR of under 0.75 or over 1.25 as a rough guide) rating down for imprecision may be appropriate even if OIS criteria are met. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Adalimumab for maintenance of clinical response and remission in patients with Crohn's disease: the CHARM trial.

              This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of adalimumab, a fully human, anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously, in the maintenance of response and remission in patients with moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD). Patients received open-label induction therapy with adalimumab 80 mg (week 0) followed by 40 mg (week 2). At week 4, patients were stratified by response (decrease in Crohn's Disease Activity Index > or =70 points from baseline) and randomized to double-blind treatment with placebo, adalimumab 40 mg every other week (eow), or adalimumab 40 mg weekly through week 56. Co-primary end points were the percentages of randomized responders who achieved clinical remission (Crohn's Disease Activity Index score <150) at weeks 26 and 56. The percentage of randomized responders in remission was significantly greater in the adalimumab 40-mg eow and 40-mg weekly groups versus placebo at week 26 (40%, 47%, and 17%, respectively; P < .001) and week 56 (36%, 41%, and 12%, respectively; P < .001). No significant differences in efficacy between adalimumab eow and weekly were observed. More patients receiving placebo discontinued treatment because of an adverse event (13.4%) than those receiving adalimumab (6.9% and 4.7% in the 40-mg eow and 40-mg weekly groups, respectively). Among patients who responded to adalimumab, both adalimumab eow and weekly were significantly more effective than placebo in maintaining remission in moderate to severe CD through 56 weeks. Adalimumab was well-tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with previous experience with the drug.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                146518
                Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Wiley
                14651858
                February 16 2011
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Birmingham VA Medical Center; Department of Medicine; Faculty Office Tower 805B 510 20th Street South Birmingham AL USA 35294
                [2 ]University of Ottawa; Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine; Room H1281 40 Ruskin Street Ottawa ON Canada K1Y 4W7
                [3 ]Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg og Frederiksberg; Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, The Parker Institute; Nordre Fasanvej 57 Copenhagen Denmark DK-2000
                [4 ]University of Ottawa; Bruyère Research Institute; 43 Bruyère St Annex E, room 302 Ottawa ON Canada K1N 5C8
                [5 ]Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), The Ottawa Hospital - General Campus; Centre for Practice-Changing Research (CPCR); 501 Smyth Road, Box 711 Ottawa ON Canada K1H 8L6
                [6 ]Robarts Clinical Trials; Cochrane IBD Group; 100 Dundas Street, Suite 200 London ON Canada N6A 5B6
                [7 ]Fondazione I.R.C.C.S. Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta; Scientific Direction; via Celoria, 11 Milano Italy 20133
                [8 ]University Hospital of Cologne; Cochrane Haematological Malignancies Group, Department I of Internal Medicine; Kerpener Str. 62 Cologne Germany 50937
                [9 ]University of West Indies; Epidemiology Research Unit; Mona Kingston 7 Jamaica
                [10 ]University of Sorocaba, São Paulo; Sciences of Pharmaceutical Program; Rodovia Raposo Tavares, s/n Sorocaba São Paulo Brazil CEP 18023-000
                [11 ]McMaster University; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics; 1200 Main Street West Hamilton ON Canada L8N 3Z5
                [12 ]Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technischen Universität (TU) Dresden; Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare; Fetscherstr. 74 Dresden Germany 01307
                [13 ]I.R.C.C.S. Santa Maria Nascente - Fondazione Don Gnocchi; Unit of Neurorehabilitation - Multiple Sclerosis Center; Via Capecelatro, 66 Milano Italy 20148
                [14 ]Goethe University; Evidence-Based Medicine Frankfurt, Institute of General Practice; Theodor Stern Kai 7 Frankfurt Germany 60590
                [15 ]J.W. Goethe-University Hospital; Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Allergology; Theodor-Stern-Kai 7 Frankfurt Germany 60590
                [16 ]Dubai Pharmacy College; Dept of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacy Practice; Po Box 19099 AlMuhaisanah 1, Al mizhar Dubai United Arab Emirates
                [17 ]University Hospital Cologne; Cochrane Haematological Malignancies Group; Kerpener Strasse 62 Cologne Germany 50924
                [18 ]Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University; Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology at Cabrini Hospital; Suite 41, Cabrini Medical Centre 183 Wattletree Road Malvern Victoria Australia 3144
                [19 ]National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery; Department of Neurology and MRC Centre for Neuromuscular Diseases; Queen Square London UK WC1N 3BG
                [20 ]Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa; Department of Medicine; Ottawa ON Canada K1H 8M5
                [21 ]Clinical Epidemiology Program; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Ottawa ON Canada K1Y 4E9
                [22 ]Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa; Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine; Ottawa ON Canada K1H 8M5
                [23 ]Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University; Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Hospital; Suite 41, Cabrini Medical Centre 183 Wattletree Road Malvern Victoria Australia 3144
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD008794.pub2
                7173749
                21328309
                d5e413bb-3b9f-4de9-97f0-bd677cdab712
                © 2011
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content4,197

                Cited by192

                Most referenced authors4,440