4.7 Article

Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2013 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis

Journal

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Volume 73, Issue 3, Pages 529-535

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204575

Keywords

Rheumatoid arthritis; DMARDs (biologic); DMARDs (synthetic); anti-TNF; outcomes research

Categories

Funding

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia
  2. Abbvie
  3. BMS
  4. MSD
  5. Pfizer
  6. Roche-Chugai
  7. UCB
  8. Expanscience
  9. Nordic Pharma
  10. Abbott/Abbvie
  11. Amgen
  12. Astra-Zeneka
  13. Celgene
  14. Glaxo
  15. Infinity
  16. Janssen
  17. Lilly
  18. Medimmune
  19. Menarini
  20. Novo-Nordisk
  21. Roche
  22. Samsung
  23. Sandoz
  24. Sanofi-Aventis
  25. Vertex
  26. Abbott
  27. Bristol Myers-Squibb
  28. Chugai
  29. Centocor
  30. AstraZeneca
  31. Daiichi
  32. Eli-Lilly
  33. GSK
  34. Janssen Biologics
  35. Merck
  36. Novartis
  37. Otsuka
  38. Genentech
  39. Ablynx
  40. Astra-Zeneca
  41. Glaxo-Smith-Kline
  42. Schering-Plough
  43. Wyeth
  44. Imaging Rheumatology bv

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To update the evidence for the safety of synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs), glucocorticoids (GC) and biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of RA. Methods Systematic literature review (SLR) of observational studies (including registries). Interventions were any bDMARD (anakinra, infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, rituximab, abatacept, tocilizumab, golimumab or certolizumab pegol) or sDMARD (methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, gold/auranofin, azathioprine, chlorambucil, chloroquine, cyclosporin, cyclophosphamide, mycophenolate, minocycline, penicillamine, tacrolimus or tofacitinib) and a comparator was required. Information on GCs was collected from the included studies. All safety outcomes were included. Results Forty-nine observational studies addressing diverse safety outcomes of therapy with bDMARDs met eligibility criteria. Substantial heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis of any of the outcomes. Patients on tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) compared to patients on conventional sDMARDs had a higher risk of serious infections (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.1-1.8), a higher risk of tuberculosis, and an increased risk of infection by herpes zoster cannot be excluded. Patients on TNFi did not have an increased risk for malignancies in general, lymphoma or non-melanoma skin cancer, but the risk of melanoma may be slightly increased (aHR 1.5). From the studies identified on conventional sDMARDs, no new safety signals were found. Conclusions The findings from this SLR confirm the known safety pattern of sDMARDs and bDMARDs for the treatment of RA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available