Comparative efficacy and safety of current therapies for early rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) was aimed at comparing the relative efficacy and safety of abatacept (ABA) with other currently recommended therapies for patients with early RA.

METHODS

An SLR (January 1998 to June 2018) was conducted including MEDLINE®, Embase, and CENTRAL databases, and grey literature. Population was adults with active RA for ≤2 years treated with biologic DMARDs as monotherapy or in combination with conventional DMARDs. A Bayesian NMA was performed using randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparisons for ACR50, DAS28 remission, withdrawal due to adverse events and total withdrawal where reported.

RESULTS

Ninety publications pertaining to 69 studies (43 RCTs and 26 observational studies) were identified. Twenty-eight RCTs were eligible to be included in the NMA. ABA as monotherapy was similar to the combination of ABA+methotrexate (MTX) for ACR50 (RR: 0.82 [95% CI 0.51-1.35]), and DAS28 remission (RR: 0.69 [95% CI 0.37-1.3]), as well as for withdrawal due to AEs (RR: 2.35 [95% CI 0.69-7.38]) and all-cause withdrawal (RR: 1.73 [95% CI 0.905-3.35]). ABA as monotherapy and ABA+MTX were both comparable to all other therapies for the main efficacy and safety outcomes. Observational study data reported was congruous with the RCT analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this NMA show similar efficacy and safety between ABA (as monotherapy or in combination with MTX) and other biologics in early RA. Further comparison of different treatment options for early RA is warranted as growing research provides evidence for the application of new novel therapies for RA.