Citations

ObjectiveWe performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the comparative effects of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), non‐TNFi biologics, and conventional synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on cardiovascular risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsUsing a systematic search through May 8, 2018, we included 14 observational studies in adults with RA treated with TNFi, non‐TNFi biologics, tofacitinib, or csDMARDs, reporting the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or stroke. Only studies reporting active comparators were included. We performed random effects meta‐analysis and estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).ResultsAs compared to TNFi, tocilizumab was associated with a decreased risk of MACE (OR 0.59 [95% CI 0.34–1.00]), whereas csDMARDs were associated with an increased risk of MACE (csDMARDs including methotrexate OR 1.45 [95% CI 1.09–1.93]; without methotrexate OR 2.57 [95% CI 1.32–5.00]), without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%); there was no difference in risk of MACE between abatacept and TNFi (OR 0.89 [95% CI 0.71–1.11]), or between tocilizumab and abatacept (OR 0.81 [0.57–1.16]). Based on 11 cohorts (n = 135,053 patients), as compared to TNFi, csDMARDs were associated with an increased risk of stroke (OR 1.17 [95% CI 1.01–1.36]); there was no difference in risk of stroke between different biologics (tocilizumab versus TNFi OR 0.98 [95% CI 0.59–1.61]; abatacept versus TNFi OR 1.08 [0.86–1.34]; tocilizumab versus abatacept OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.39–1.38]), without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). No comparative studies on cardiovascular risk with tofacitinib were identified.ConclusionBased on meta‐analysis, as compared to TNFi, tocilizumab may be associated with a reduced risk of MACE, whereas csDMARDs may be associated with an increased risk of MACE and stroke.

OBJECTIVES: Histologic remission is a potentially valuable means of assessing disease activity and treatment response in ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the efficacy of existing therapies to achieve this outcome is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of histologic outcomes in UC randomized controlled trials and examined the relationship between histologic and endoscopic outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Register were searched for randomized controlled trials of aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, immunosuppressives, biologics, and small molecules. Histologic and endoscopic remission and response data were independently extracted and pooled using binomial–normal random-effect or fixed-effect models. Pooled efficacy estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RRs) using the Mantel–Haenszel method. Univariable and multivariable random-effect meta-regression models examined factors associated with histologic remission. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies (68 induction and 7 maintenance) were identified. Topical aminosalicylate enemas [37.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 29.0–46.3] and suppositories (44.9%, 95% CI, 28.9–62.3) had the highest induction of histologic remission rates. Aminosalicylate enemas (RR = 4.14, 95% CI, 2.35–7.31), aminosalicylate suppositories (RR = 3.94, 95% CI, 1.26–12.32), and budesonide multimatrix (RR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.08–1.99) had higher histologic remission rates than placebo. Data were lacking for biologics and immunosuppressives. The pooled histologic remission rate for placebo in induction studies was 10.4% (95% CI, 7.1–15.2). Histologic and endoscopic remission correlated strongly ( r = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50–0.78). In multivariate analysis of placebo-arm data, less severe clinical disease activity and corticosteroid use were associated with higher histologic remission rates. Similarly, mild clinical disease activity was associated with higher histologic remission rates when active-arm data were analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Histologic remission rates for current UC treatments ranged from 15.0% to 44.9% according to drug class and patient population with the highest rates observed for topical aminosalicylates. Placebo remission rates were low with relatively narrow CIs. These data provide benchmarks to inform future trial design. Histologic remission is a potential treatment target in clinical practice.

We performed a systematic review with network meta‐analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of different approaches in primary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding and overall survival in patients with cirrhosis with large varices. Thirty‐two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 3,362 adults with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding, with a minimum of 12 months of follow‐up, were included. Nonselective beta‐blockers (NSBB), isosorbide‐mononitrate (ISMN), carvedilol, and variceal band ligation (VBL), alone or in combination, were compared with each other or placebo. Primary outcomes were reduction of all‐cause mortality and prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding. Random‐effects NMA was performed and summary estimates were expressed as odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (OR; CI). Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Moderate quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.70; 0.49‐1.00) or in combination with VBL (0.49; 0.23‐1.02) or ISMN (0.44; 0.21‐0.93) for decreasing mortality in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding. Moderate‐quality evidence supports carvedilol (0.21; 0.08‐0.56) and VBL monotherapy (0.33; 0.19‐0.55) or in combination with NSBB (0.34; 0.14‐0.86), and low‐quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.64; 0.38‐1.07) for primary prevention of variceal bleeding. VBL carries a higher risk of serious adverse events compared with NSBB.Conclusion:NSBB monotherapy may decrease all‐cause mortality and the risk of first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices. Additionally, NSBB carries a lower risk of serious complications compared with VBL. Therefore, NSBB may be the preferred initial approach for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.

SummaryBackgroundThere are limited data to inform positioning of agents for treating moderate‐severe Crohn's disease (CD).AimWe assessed comparative efficacy and safety of first‐line (biologic‐naïve) and second‐line (prior exposure to anti‐tumour necrosis factor [TNF]‐α) agents) biologic therapy for moderate‐severe CD, through a systematic review and network meta‐analysis, and appraised quality of evidence (QoE) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.MethodsWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with moderate‐severe CD treated with approved anti‐TNF agents, anti‐integrin agents and anti‐IL12/23 agents, first‐line or second‐line, and compared with placebo or another active agent. Efficacy outcomes were induction and maintenance of clinical remission; safety outcomes were serious adverse events and infections. Network meta‐analyses were performed, and ranking was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities.ResultsNo head‐to‐head trials were identified. In biologic‐naïve patients, infliximab (SUCRA,0.93) and adalimumab (SUCRA,0.75) were ranked highest for induction of clinical remission (moderate QoE). In patients with prior anti‐TNF exposure, adalimumab (SUCRA, 0.91; low QoE, in patients with prior response or intolerance to anti‐TNF agents) and ustekinumab (SUCRA, 0.71) were ranked highest for induction of clinical remission. In patients with response to induction therapy, adalimumab (SUCRA, 0.97) and infliximab (SUCRA, 0.68) were ranked highest for maintenance of remission. Ustekinumab had lowest risk of serious adverse events (SUCRA, 0.72) and infection (SUCRA, 0.71; along with infliximab, SUCRA, 0.83) in maintenance trials.ConclusionIndirect comparisons suggest that infliximab or adalimumab may be preferred first‐line agents, and ustekinumab a preferred second‐line agent, for induction of remission in patients with moderate‐severe CD. Head‐to‐head trials are warranted.