Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, Department of Medical Education and Biomedical Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-7630, USA.
Pharmacotherapy. 2011 Jan;31(1):39-51. doi: 10.1592/phco.31.1.39.
To compare the efficacy of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) versus placebo with or without methotrexate, in treating rheumatoid arthritis.
Comparative effectiveness analysis using an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) method in a Bayesian framework.
Adults with rheumatoid arthritis who had been enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and had never failed biologic DMARD therapy.
Two random-effects logistic regression models, representing 6 and 12 months of treatment, were created using RCTs identified in a literature search. Twenty-three RCTs (11,589 patients) were included in the 6-month model and 10 RCTs (6051 patients) in the 12-month model. Nine biologic DMARDs in five therapeutic drug classes were included in the 6-month model, and six biologic DMARDs in three classes were included in the 12-month model. Our efficacy end point was the American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement criteria. In the 6-month model, all biologic DMARDs and methotrexate were significantly more efficacious than placebo and ranked in the following order: certolizumab (median log odds ratio [OR] 2.6), tocilizumab (1.7), rituximab (1.6), infliximab (1.6), etanercept (1.4), adalimumab (1.4), golimumab (1.4), abatacept (1.2), anakinra (1.0), and methotrexate (0.8). Of 45 pairwise comparisons, certolizumab was significantly more efficacious than methotrexate, but no other comparisons were significant. The rank order in the 12-month analysis was certolizumab (median log OR 2.0), rituximab (2.0), adalimumab (1.4), infliximab (1.4), etanercept (0.9), abatacept (0.6), and methotrexate (0.8). Of the 21 pairwise comparisons, none were significant. The results of the model using therapeutic class revealed that each class was more efficacious than placebo. In pairwise comparisons, each class was more efficacious than methotrexate, but none was more efficacious than another.
Use of emerging ITC methods enabled us to compare the efficacy of biologic DMARDs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the absence of direct head-to-head comparison trials. Our methods enabled us to rank order these treatments. Further analyses by drug and by therapeutic class suggest that biologic DMARDs are similarly efficacious.
比较生物改善病情抗风湿药物(DMARDs)与安慰剂联合或不联合甲氨蝶呤治疗类风湿关节炎的疗效。
使用间接治疗比较(ITC)方法在贝叶斯框架中进行的比较有效性分析。
从未接受过生物 DMARD 治疗失败的类风湿关节炎成年患者,这些患者参加了随机对照试验(RCT)。
使用文献检索中确定的 RCT 创建了两个随机效应逻辑回归模型,分别代表 6 个月和 12 个月的治疗。6 个月模型纳入了 23 项 RCT(11589 例患者),12 个月模型纳入了 10 项 RCT(6051 例患者)。纳入了 6 个月模型的五种治疗药物类别的 9 种生物 DMARD,纳入了 12 个月模型的三种药物类别的 6 种生物 DMARD。我们的疗效终点是美国风湿病学会 50%改善标准。在 6 个月模型中,所有生物 DMARD 和甲氨蝶呤均显著优于安慰剂,排名如下:certolizumab(中位数对数优势比[OR]2.6)、tocilizumab(1.7)、rituximab(1.6)、infliximab(1.6)、etanercept(1.4)、adalimumab(1.4)、golimumab(1.4)、abatacept(1.2)、anakinra(1.0)和甲氨蝶呤(0.8)。在 45 对比较中,certolizumab 明显优于甲氨蝶呤,但其他比较均不显著。12 个月分析的排名是 certolizumab(中位数对数 OR 2.0)、rituximab(2.0)、adalimumab(1.4)、infliximab(1.4)、etanercept(0.9)、abatacept(0.6)和甲氨蝶呤(0.8)。在 21 对比较中,没有一对比较具有统计学意义。使用治疗类别进行的模型结果表明,每个类别均优于安慰剂。在两两比较中,每个类别均优于甲氨蝶呤,但没有一个类别优于另一个类别。
使用新兴的 ITC 方法使我们能够在没有直接头对头比较试验的情况下比较生物 DMARD 治疗类风湿关节炎的疗效。我们的方法使我们能够对这些治疗进行排序。药物和治疗类别进一步分析表明,生物 DMARD 具有相似的疗效。