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

نویسندگان

  • Jasvinder A Singh
  • Chris Cameron
  • Shahrzad Noorbaloochi
  • Tyler Cullis
  • Matthew Tucker
  • Robin Christensen
  • Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu
  • Doug Coyle
  • Tammy Clifford
  • Peter Tugwell
  • George A Wells
چکیده

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.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

HTLV-1 Infection as a Serious Health Issue among Iranian Multi-Transfused Patients: Evidence from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: A high prevalence of human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) infection among general population in the northeast of Iran has been reported. Multi-transfused patients are known as ‘at-risk’ group for the infection. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the prevalence of HTLV-1 infection among Iranian multi-transfused patients. Materials and Meth...

متن کامل

No impact of concomitant methotrexate use on serious adverse event and serious infection risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with bDMARDs: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES To compare the risk of serious adverse events, serious infections and death caused by methotrexate and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) combination therapy versus a bDMARD prescribed as monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted until February 2016 in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases by selecti...

متن کامل

Risk of serious infections during rituximab, abatacept and anakinra treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: meta-analyses of randomised placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND Tumour necrosis factor alpha blockers in rheumatoid arthritis are known to increase the risk of serious infections defined as life-threatening, requiring hospitalisation or intravenous antibiotics. Recently, new biological agents have become available. Their safety is an important issue. PURPOSE To assess if biological agents, ie rituximab, abatacept and anakinra increase the risk ...

متن کامل

Incidence density of serious infection, opportunistic infection, and tuberculosis associated with biologic treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis – a systematic evaluation of the literature

data on the incidence density (ie, incidence per person-year [PY]) of serious infection, opportunistic infection, and tuberculosis associated with each of the nine biologic therapies currently indicated in rheumatoid arthritis patients are not available. To summarize these data, a systematic review was conducted with searches on PubMed and Embase of literature ranging from January 1998 to Novem...

متن کامل

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing the Safety of Dapagliflozin in Type 1 Diabetes Patients

Background and Purpose: The dapagliflozin’s safety profile in insulin-treated adult type-1 diabetes mellites (T1DM) patients remains poorly explored. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis compared the risk of all-cause side effects, study discontinuation of participants due to side effects, urinary tract infection (UTI), diabetic ketoacidosis, and hypoglycemia between dapagliflozi...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • Lancet

دوره 386 9990  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2015