ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 1676

Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Combination Treatments in Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug Experienced Patients with Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: Analysis of American College of Rheumatology Criteria Scores 20, 50, and 70: An Update

Michelle E. Orme1, Charles Hawes2 and Stephen A. Mitchell3, 1ICERA consulting UK, Swindon, United Kingdom, 2Pfizer UK, Surrey, United Kingdom, 3Abacus International UK, Bicester, United Kingdom

Meeting: 2015 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Date of first publication: September 29, 2015

Keywords: Biologic agents, DMARDs, meta-analysis and rheumatoid arthritis (RA)

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Date: Monday, November 9, 2015

Title: Rheumatoid Arthritis - Small Molecules, Biologics and Gene Therapy Poster II

Session Type: ACR Poster Session B

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in combination with conventional DMARDs provide patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs with treatment options. A previously published systematic review/network meta-analysis (NMA)1 comparing the relative efficacy of biologic DMARDS was updated to take account of new clinical evidence for current and recently licensed treatments with alternative modes of administration, i.e. subcutaneous (SC) versus intravenous (IV).

Methods: The systematic review undertaken in April 2011 was updated in November 2014. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, in addition to hand searches of conference proceedings and reference lists. A Bayesian NMA, which estimates the relative effectiveness of treatments whilst preserving the randomized comparisons within each trial, was conducted in WinBUGS using a random-effects logit-link model fitted to the binomial trial data namely the count of patients reaching American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores 20/50/70 at follow-up.

Results: In addition to the 13,647 citations originally identified1, 7,328 citations were identified in the update, of which 18,337 were excluded after screening the title/abstract. After reviewing 2,638 full-text papers, 43 studies enrolling over 15,000 patients and reporting ACR outcomes between 12 and 30 weeks were identified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The following nine biologic DMARDs/ conventional DMARD combinations were included in the evidence network: abatacept  IV (5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), n=1,484); abatacept SC (3 RCTs, n=1,113); adalimumab (8 RCTs, n=1,112); certolizumab pegol (4 RCTs, n=802); etanercept (8 RCTs, n=881); golimumab (4 RCTs, n=345); infliximab (7 RCTs, n=1,122); tocilizumab  IV (8 RCTs, n=2,545); tocilizumab SC (1 RCT, n=631).

The table below presents the NMA results for ACR20/50/70 outcomes for combination treatments of interest.

TABLE

Treatment

Median OR vs. cDMARD

(95% CrI)

% patients achieving ACR20/50/70 (95% CrI)

ACR20

Conventional DMARD

–

28.5% (25.0%, 32.4%)

Abatacept 10mg/kg/4 weeks IV + cDMARD

3.11 (2.06, 4.62)*

55.4% (44.2%, 65.7%)

Abatacept 125mg/week SC + cDMARD

3.50 (2.04, 6.23)*

58.3% (44.1%, 71.7%)

Adalimumab 40mg/2 weeks + cDMARD

3.22 (2.30, 4.53)*

56.3% (46.8%, 65.5%)

Certolizumab pegol 200mg/2 weeks + cDMARD

9.23 (5.78, 14.69)*

78.6% (69.2%, 85.9%)

Etanercept 2x25mg/week + cDMARD

9.39 (5.02, 17.98)*

79.0% (66.1%, 88.0%)

Golimumab 50mg/4 weeks + cDMARD

3.79 (2.35, 6.04)*

60.2% (47.7%, 71.4%)

Infliximab 3mg/kg/8 weeks + cDMARD

3.18 (2.23, 4.50)*

56.0% (46.2%, 65.3%)

Tocilizumab 162mg/week SC + cDMARD

4.18 (1.98, 9.22)*

62.5% (43.8%, 79.0%)

Tocilizumab 8mg/kg/4 weeks IV + cDMARD

4.63 (3.31, 6.64)*

64.9% (55.9%, 73.4%)

ACR50

Conventional DMARD

–

12.6% (10.3%, 15.2%)

Abatacept 10mg/kg/4 weeks IV + cDMARD

3.58 (2.23, 5.90)*

33.9% (23.3%, 47.0%)

Abatacept 125mg/week SC + cDMARD

3.86 (2.06, 7.37)*

35.7% (22.2%, 52.4%)

Adalimumab 40mg/2 weeks + cDMARD

3.71 (2.49, 5.57)*

34.8% (25.3%, 45.9%)

Certolizumab pegol 200mg/2 weeks + cDMARD

6.86 (3.97, 12.03)*

49.7% (35.3%, 64.3%)

Etanercept 2x25mg/week + cDMARD

11.24 (4.96, 26.87)*

61.7% (40.9%, 79.9%)

Golimumab 50mg/4 weeks + cDMARD

4.63 (2.41, 9.24)*

40.0% (24.9%, 57.8%)

Infliximab 3mg/kg/8 weeks + cDMARD

3.68 (2.42, 5.74)*

34.6% (24.8%, 46.4%)

Tocilizumab 162mg/week SC + cDMARD

5.27 (2.09, 13.43)*

43.0% (22.7%, 66.4%)

Tocilizumab 8mg/kg/4 weeks IV + cDMARD

5.47 (3.58, 8.50)*

44.1% (32.7%, 56.3%)

ACR70

Conventional DMARD

–

4.2% (3.1%, 5.7%)

Abatacept 10mg/kg/4 weeks IV+ cDMARD

3.65 (2.34, 6.13)*

13.8% (8.5%, 22.7%)

Abatacept 125mg/week SC + cDMARD

4.08 (2.36, 7.75)*

15.2% (8.7%, 26.7%)

Adalimumab 40mg/2 weeks + cDMARD

4.39 (2.84, 6.97)*

16.1% (10.1%, 25.2%)

Certolizumab pegol 200mg/2 weeks + cDMARD

13.66 (6.68, 33.64)*

37.4% (21.5%, 60.8%)

Etanercept 2x25mg/week + cDMARD

19.66 (5.31, 139.3)*

46.3% (18.2%, 86.3%)

Golimumab 50mg/4 weeks + cDMARD

5.51 (2.60, 12.65)*

19.5% (9.6%, 37.3%)

Infliximab 3mg/kg/8 weeks + cDMARD

3.63 (2.359, 5.88)*

13.7% (8.5%, 22.1%)

Tocilizumab 162mg/week SC + cDMARD

6.24 (2.63, 14.29)*

21.5% (9.9%, 39.8%)

Tocilizumab 8mg/kg/4 weeks IV + cDMARD

7.28 (4.53, 11.73)*

24.2% (15.2%, 36.4%)

Abbreviations: CrI, credible interval (Bayesian equivalent of a confidence interval); IV, intravenous; OR, odds ratio; SC, subcutaneous; *significant difference based on the 95% CrI

Conclusion: Based on the meta-analysis of the studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review, all biologic DMARDs in combination with conventional DMARDs were significantly more effective than conventional DMARDs alone in improving ACR 20/50/70 outcomes in patients with severe RA and an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs.

Etanercept in combination with conventional DMARDs was the most effective biologic DMARD combination in terms of ACR 20/50/70 response. 

References: Orme ME et al. Systematic review and network meta-analysis of combination and monotherapy treatments in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-experienced patients with rheumatoid arthritis: analysis of American College of Rheumatology criteria scores 20, 50, and 70. Biologics. 2012 (6): 429-64.


Disclosure: M. E. Orme, ICERA consulting, 5; C. Hawes, Pfizer Ltd, 3; S. A. Mitchell, Abacus International, 5.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Orme ME, Hawes C, Mitchell SA. Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Combination Treatments in Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug Experienced Patients with Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: Analysis of American College of Rheumatology Criteria Scores 20, 50, and 70: An Update [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015; 67 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/systematic-review-and-network-meta-analysis-of-combination-treatments-in-disease-modifying-anti-rheumatic-drug-experienced-patients-with-severe-rheumatoid-arthritis-analysis-of-american-college-of-rh/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to 2015 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/systematic-review-and-network-meta-analysis-of-combination-treatments-in-disease-modifying-anti-rheumatic-drug-experienced-patients-with-severe-rheumatoid-arthritis-analysis-of-american-college-of-rh/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology