1 / 19

Comparing biologic agents for the treatment of RA: Do we already have enough data?

Comparing biologic agents for the treatment of RA: Do we already have enough data?. Yusuf Yazıcı, MD Assistant Professor of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine Director, Seligman Center for Advanced Therapeutics & Behcet’s Syndrome Evaluation, Treatment and Research Center

avari
Download Presentation

Comparing biologic agents for the treatment of RA: Do we already have enough data?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparing biologic agents for the treatment of RA: Do we already have enough data? Yusuf Yazıcı, MD Assistant Professor of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine Director, Seligman Center for Advanced Therapeutics & Behcet’s Syndrome Evaluation, Treatment and Research Center NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases

  2. Which biologic? • No head to head trials • ATTEST • Metaanalysis of MTX IR, TNF IR • Different populations, • No standard definition of “IR” • No consistency of DMARDs used • Head to head trials too expensive, too many people needed • And probably not necessary for efficacy purposes

  3. NNT • NNT analysis is a useful tool for putting RCT efficacy results into perspective in patient care. • For clinical decision making, the NNT is a useful measure to convey statistical and clinical significance to the doctor. • Furthermore, it can be used to extrapolate published findings to patients in the real world.1 Cook RJ, Sackett DL. BMJ 1995;310:452–454

  4. NNH / OR • Odds Ratio (OR) analyses are useful tools for putting RCT safety and treatment risks into clinical perspective. • These measures convey statistical and clinical significance and may be used to extrapolate published findings to patients in the real world.

  5. Analysis NNT • PubMed was searched for randomized double-blind (DB), MTX-controlled studies of biologics in MTX-naive pts with early RA. • Response rates (RR) for primary and secondary outcomes specified by each RCT were used to assess NNT of biologic (active) versus MTX (control) • number of patients needed to treat to achieve 1 additional response compared to control • where NNT=[1/(RRactive-RRcontrol)]*100. • Outcomes assessed included ACR responses, major clinical response (MCR; defined as ACR70 for at least 6 consecutive months) and DAS28 defined remission (DAS28 <2.6). Response rates at end of Year 1 were used for the analysis

  6. Analysis OR • Randomized double-blind, MTX-controlled studies of biologics in MTX-naive patients with early RA were identified through a PubMed search. • Event rates (ER) specified by each RCT were used to assess unadjusted ORs of biologic agent (active) versus MTX (control). • ERs assessed included overall discontinuation (DC), DC due adverse event (AE), DC due to lack of efficacy, and rate of serious infection. • Results at end of the first year were used for the analysis.

  7. Demographics • Four published RCTs were identified. • Emery P et al. Lancet 2008; • Breedveld F et al. A & R 2006: • St. Clair EW et al. A & R 2004; • Westhovens R et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2009; • Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar across the four studies (average age 50-52 yrs; 71-79% female; mean disease duration 6.2-10.8 months; mean DAS28=6.2-6.7; and mean HAQ=1.5-1.7).

  8. Results NNH/OR • Overall DC rates for combination therapies ranged from 9.4% (abatacept, ABA) to 24.3% (adalimumab, ADA), and were similar to or lower than that of MTX in each RCT. • OR (95% CI) vs MTX were 0.57 (95% 0.39, 0.85) for etanercept (ETA), 0.61(0.42, 0.90) for ADA, 0.85 (0.58, 1.26) for infliximab (INF), and 0.90 (0.5, 1.62) for ABA. • Compared with MTX, no differences were seen in rates of DC due to AEs when MTX was combined with ETA (OR=0.78 [0.46, 1.33]), ADA (OR=1.7 [0.94, 3.08]), or ABA (OR= 0.8 [0.33, 1.97]).

  9. Results NNH/OR (2) • Combination infliximab plus MTX treatment had a higher rate of DC due to AEs (9.1%) than MTX (3.0%),  an increase of greater than 3 times  in odds (OR=3.22 [1.52, 6.83]). • No differences in rates of serious infections were seen between ETA (OR=0.6 [0.2, 1.87]), ADA (OR=1.24 [0.46, 3.38]), or ABA (OR=0.99 [0.28, 3.46]) in combination with MTX versus MTX. • Increased odds of higher risk of serious infection (OR=2.84 [1.13, 7.14]) was observed with INF + MTX compared to MTX alone. • All biologics in combination with MTX had lower odds  of DC due to lack of efficacy than MTX alone (ETA:OR= 0.35 [0.16, 0.76]; ADA:OR=0.23 [0.12, 0.44]; INF:OR=0.19 [0.08, 0.45]; and ABA: OR=0.06 [0, 0.98]).

  10. Conclusions • No major difference in ACR20, 50 and 70 responses • Possible differences in more robust, MCR and DAS28 remission rates • Possible differences for serious infections and DC due to AE • In the absence of head-to-head RCTs, NNT, NNH/OR for selected efficacy and safety outcomes can be useful for determining relative risks and benefits of biologic therapy for RA in the real world.

More Related