Efficacy and safety of Advanced Combination Treatment in immune-mediated inflammatory disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

Advanced combination treatment (ACT), defined as a combination of at least 2 biologic agents, a biologic agent and an oral small molecule, 2 oral small molecules drug with different mechanisms of action is a proposed strategy to improve outcomes in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ACT with monotherapy in patients with select IMIDs.

METHODS

Through a systematic literature search, we identified 10 RCTs (n = 1154) comparing ACT with single agent therapy (monotherapy). The primary outcome was induction of clinical remission. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, serious adverse events, infections, and serious infections. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and used GRADE to appraise certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Eight out of 10 trials investigated an anti-TNF-α drug (e.g., etanercept, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab) combined with another biologic (e.g anti-IL-23, anti-integrin, anti-IL-1) or an oral small molecule. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of achieving clinical remission with ACT vs. monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 7 RCTs) (RR, 1.75 [95 % CI 0.60-5.13]; moderate heterogeneity (I = 33 %)] and systemic lupus erythematosus (n = 1) (RR, 1.20 [0.53-2.72]) (GRADE; low certainty evidence). Patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the ACT arm were more likely to experience adverse events (RR, 1.07 [1.01-1.12]) compared to monotherapy. ACT led to higher rates of induction of clinical remission in patients with IBD (n = 2 RCTs) (RR, 1.68 [1.15-2.46]) with minimal heterogeneity (I = 15 %) (GRADE; low certainty evidence), and no differences in the likelihood of adverse events (RR 0.92 [0.80-1.05]). There were no differences in the risk of infections or serious infections in patients treated with ACT or monotherapy with rheumatological disease or IBD.

CONCLUSIONS

ACT did not offer clinical benefit in patients with rheumatological IMIDs and resulted in higher rate adverse events in rheumatoid arthritis. ACT may offer clinical benefit without a clear safety signal in patients with IBD, but further trials are warranted. The variability in ACT regimens across studies limits the generalizability of these findings.