Singh Jasvinder A, Cameron Chris, Noorbaloochi Shahrzad, Cullis Tyler, Tucker Matthew, Christensen Robin, Ghogomu Elizabeth Tanjong, Coyle Doug, Clifford Tammy, Tugwell Peter, Wells George A
Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, AL, USA; Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA.
School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada; University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Lancet. 2015 Jul 18;386(9990):258-65. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61704-9. Epub 2015 May 11.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rheumatology Division at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
对于考虑接受类风湿关节炎治疗的患者而言,严重感染是一个主要担忧。与传统改善病情抗风湿药(DMARDs)相比,生物制剂是否会增加严重感染风险,相关证据并不一致。我们对接受生物制剂治疗的患者与接受传统DMARDs治疗的患者发生的严重感染进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。
我们利用Medline、Embase、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库和ClinicalTrials.gov进行了一项系统文献检索,检索时间从各数据库建立至2014年2月11日。检索词包括“生物制剂”、“类风湿关节炎”及其同义词。若试验纳入任何一种已批准的生物制剂并报告了严重感染,则该试验符合纳入标准。我们使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。我们对已发表的试验进行了贝叶斯网状荟萃分析,采用二项式似然模型评估接受生物制剂治疗的类风湿关节炎患者与接受传统DMARDs治疗的患者发生严重感染的风险。严重感染的比值比(OR)是治疗效果的主要衡量指标,并使用马尔可夫链蒙特卡罗方法计算95%可信区间。
系统评价确定了106项报告了严重感染且纳入了接受生物制剂治疗的类风湿关节炎患者的试验。与传统DMARDs相比,标准剂量生物制剂(OR 1.31,95%可信区间[CrI] 1.09 - 1.58)和高剂量生物制剂(1.90,1.50 - 2.39)与严重感染风险增加相关,而低剂量生物制剂(0.93,0.65 - 1.33)则不然。与有传统DMARDs使用经验或抗肿瘤坏死因子生物制剂使用经验的患者相比,未使用过甲氨蝶呤的患者风险更低。与传统DMARDs相比,每年每1000例接受治疗的患者中严重感染病例数的绝对增加量,标准剂量生物制剂为6例,联合生物治疗为55例。
与传统DMARDs相比,标准剂量和高剂量生物制剂(无论是否联用传统DMARDs)会增加类风湿关节炎患者的严重感染风险,而低剂量生物制剂则不会。临床医生在开始对类风湿关节炎患者进行生物治疗前,应与患者个体讨论利弊平衡。
阿拉巴马大学伯明翰分校风湿病科。