RCT indicates randomized clinical trial.
Size of box indicates relative weights of the studies. IL indicates interleukin; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; and OR, odds ratio.
eFigure 1. Sensitivity Analysis Without Continuity Correction for the Risk of Serious Infections
eFigure 2. Cumulative Meta-analysis Assessing Risk of Serious Infections
eFigure 3. Odds Ratios for Serious Infections Stratified by Individual Drug
eFigure 4. Odds Ratios for Risk of Serious Infections Stratified by Individual Disease
eFigure 5. Odds Ratios for Risk of Serious Infections Stratified by Individual Drug
eFigure 6. Odds Ratios for Risk of Serious Infections Stratified by Individual Disease
eFigure 7. Odds Ratios for Risk of Opportunistic Infections
eFigure 8. Sensitivity Analysis Without Continuity Correction for the Risk of Opportunistic Infections
eFigure 9. Cumulative Meta-analysis Assessing Risk of Opportunistic Infections
eFigure 10. Sensitivity Analysis Without Continuity Correction for the Risk of Malignancy
eFigure 11. Cumulative Meta-analysis Assessing Risk of Malignancy
eFigure 12. Meta-Regression Analysis for Malignancy Outcome
eFigure 13. Meta-Regression Analysis for Serious Infections Outcome
eFigure 14. Meta-Regression Analysis for Opportunistic Infections Outcome
eFigure 15. Egger’s Regression Test
eFigure 16. Funnel Plot Assessing Symmetry and Risk of Publication Bias for Serious Infections
eFigure 17. Funnel Plot Assessing Symmetry and Risk of Publication Bias for Opportunistic Infections
eFigure 18. Funnel Plot Assessing Symmetry and Risk of Publication Bias for Malignancy
eFigure 19. Adjusted Effect Size Using Trim and Fill Method for Serious Infection Outcome
eFigure 20. Assessment of Heterogeneity
eFigure 21. Risk of Bias Summary of the Included Studies
eFigure 22. Risk of Bias Graph of the Included Studies
eTable 1. Studies Included in Assessment of Risk of Serious Infections
eTable 2. Studies Included in Assessment of Risk of Opportunistic Infections
eTable 3. Studies Included in Assessment of Risk of Malignancy
eTable 4. Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Assessment of the Strength of Evidence
eAppendix. Specific Search Strategy
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Bilal J, Berlinberg A, Riaz IB, et al. Risk of Infections and Cancer in Patients With Rheumatologic Diseases Receiving Interleukin Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10):e1913102. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13102
What is the risk of serious infections, opportunistic infections, and cancer in patients with rheumatologic diseases treated with interleukin inhibitors?
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 randomized clinical trials comprising 29 214 patients, pooled results suggest that risk of serious infections, opportunistic infections, and cancer is increased in patients with rheumatologic diseases who are treated with interleukin inhibitors compared with placebo.
This analysis suggests estimates of risk for infections and cancer associated with the use of interleukin inhibitors that can inform shared decision-making when patients and clinicians are contemplating the use of interleukin inhibitors for rheumatologic diseases.
The safety profile of interleukin (IL) inhibitors is not well established.
To assess the risk of serious infections, opportunistic infections, and cancer in patients with rheumatologic diseases treated with IL inhibitors.
Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; Ovid MEDLINE Daily; Ovid Embase; Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and Scopus were searched (inception to November 30, 2018).
Randomized, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated IL inhibitor therapies in rheumatic diseases and reported safety data were included in the analyses.
Data Extraction and Synthesis
This systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Two investigators independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias and certainty in the evidence. Fixed-effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool odds ratios (ORs) for serious infections, opportunistic infections, and cancers for IL inhibitors vs placebo.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The outcomes of interest were the number of serious infections, opportunistic infections, and cancers in individuals receiving IL inhibitor therapies compared with placebo.
In this meta-analysis, 74 studies comprising 29 214 patients (24 236 patients for serious infections, 9998 for opportunistic infections, and 21 065 for cancer [number of patients overlaps for each outcome]) were included. Patients receiving IL inhibitors had a higher risk of serious infections (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.58-2.44; P < .001, I2 = 0%; high certainty), opportunistic infections (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.09-5.05; P = .03, I2 = 0%; moderate certainty), and cancer (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.05-2.19; P = .03, I2 = 11%; moderate certainty).
Conclusions and Relevance
The risk of serious infections, opportunistic infections, and cancer appears to be increased in patients with rheumatologic diseases who are treated with IL inhibitors compared with placebo.
Interleukins (ILs) are cytokines that play a central role in immune regulation and inflammation by promoting proliferation, activation, migration, and regulation of leukocytes.1 Therefore, several ILs have been targeted for treatment of immunologic diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and inflammatory bowel disease. Interleukin-1 inhibitors (eg, anakinra, rilonacept), IL-6 inhibitors (eg, tocilizumab, sarilumab), IL-12/23 inhibitors (eg, ustekinumab), and IL-17 inhibitors (eg, ixekizumab, secukinumab) have been approved for clinical use in rheumatologic diseases by the US Food and Drug Administration and by the European Medicines Agency.
Although the therapeutic efficacy of these targeted biologics is well established by several clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses,2-7 there is a paucity of data regarding the safety profile of these agents. The increased risk of serious and opportunistic infections with biologics, including IL inhibitors, has been a plausible safety concern secondary to blockade of biological pathways leading to immune dysregulation.7-10 However, the currently available evidence is not sufficient to draw conclusions regarding the safety of IL inhibitors with regard to the risk of serious infections and cancer.11 Establishing the safety data for rare adverse events, such as serious infections and cancer, is challenging because individual clinical trials lack adequate sample size. Previous meta-analyses have successfully identified a significant incidence of rare adverse effects by pooling the data in similar situations in which critical toxic effect signals were missed when looking at individual trials.12 For example, a meta-analysis suggested that treatment with rosiglitazone was associated with a significant increase in the risk of myocardial infarction.13 Similarly, several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have attempted to define the safety of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and supported the risk profile by consistent research evidence.14-21
Despite widespread use, it is still uncertain to what extent therapy with IL inhibitors may be associated with an increased risk of serious infections and cancer. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trial data to assess the risk of serious infections, opportunistic infections, and cancer in individuals treated with IL inhibitors for any indicated rheumatologic condition.
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and was conducted following an a priori established protocol.
The Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; Ovid MEDLINE Daily; Ovid Embase; Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and Scopus were searched from inception to November 30, 2018. The search strategy was designed and conducted by an experienced librarian with input from the study’s principal investigator (J.B.). Controlled vocabulary supplemented with keywords was used to search for randomized placebo-controlled trials of IL inhibitor therapy for rheumatic diseases. A detailed search strategy is provided in the eAppendix in the Supplement.
Any randomized, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated IL inhibitor therapies in rheumatic diseases and reported serious infections, opportunistic infections, and/or cancers were included. Inhibitors of the following ILs were considered: anakinra (IL-1), rilonacept (IL-1), canakinumab (IL-1), tocilizumab (IL-6), olokizumab (IL-6), clazakizumab (IL-6), sirukumab (IL-6), sarilumab (IL-6), ustekinumab (IL-12/23), brodalumab (IL-17), secukinumab (IL-17), ixekizumab (IL-17), and guselkumab (IL-23). In studies with multiple intervention arms, data were extracted from the IL inhibitor arm. In case of multiple reports from the same study, the data obtained at the longest follow-up duration were considered.
Two of us (A.B., W.F.) screened the titles and abstracts independently; the full texts were screened if the articles met the inclusion criteria. Full text of these selected articles was obtained and evaluated by 2 of us (A.B., W.F.) to confirm eligibility for inclusion. Any discrepancy was resolved via discussion. If there was disagreement between the reviewers, a third investigator (J.B.) was contacted and a decision was made through discussion. Data were recorded in a standardized manner, including the last name of first author, year of publication, disease studied, number of patients in treatment and placebo arms, treatment drug, control drug, dosage of drug, follow-up duration, number of serious infections, number and type of opportunistic infections, and number and type of cancers.
The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to assess for selection bias (random sequence generation, allocation concealment), performance bias (blinding of participant and personnel), detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), attrition bias (incomplete data), reporting bias (selective reporting), and other sources of bias.22 Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE (grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation) approach.23
The outcomes of interest were the number of serious infections, opportunistic infections, and cancers in individuals receiving IL inhibitor therapies compared with placebo. The serious infections were predefined by study investigators using previously validated measures, as infections resulting in hospitalization, the use of antibiotics, or death. The definition of opportunistic infections was based on a consensus statement by Winthrop et al.24 Oropharyngeal candidiasis infections were grouped for analysis. Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the risk of serious infections with different IL inhibitor therapies and disease states.
The number of patients who received at least 1 dose of the IL inhibitor represented the denominator of our outcome measure. Fixed-effects meta-analysis was conducted to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. The fixed-effects analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method was conducted because the studies’ estimates were weighted only according to their estimated variances and, therefore, it is more appropriate for pooling rare events.25 The continuity correction method suggested by Sweeting et al26 was used to adjust if no events were observed in 1 of the study arms, and studies were excluded from the primary analysis if there were no events in either of the study arms. The continuity correction for the treatment and control arm was 1/(R+1) and R/(R+1) respectively, where R is the ratio of control group to treatment group sizes. Sensitivity analysis was performed without continuity correction. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, version 3 (Biosta) software was used for all data analysis.27
To estimate the absolute harm increase (number needed to harm [NNH]), we calculated and pooled risk differences from the included studies. The NNH equals the inverse of the pooled risk differences.
Meta-regression was performed using the fixed-effects model (method of moments) to explore heterogeneity and evaluate the association of the duration of treatment with the risk of adverse events. We converted all ORs by logarithmic transformation to achieve more symmetrical distributions. The natural logarithm of the OR was the dependent variable, and the duration of follow-up was entered as a covariate. We applied a weighted regression model so that the more precise studies have more influence in the analysis.
A cumulative meta-analysis was performed by adding individual studies chronologically, and the results were summarized as each new study was added. The purpose of this technique was to provide a visual presentation for the evolution of evidence over time and determine the point estimates. In addition, leave-1-out analysis was conducted by recalculating the pooled ORs while omitting 1 study in turn to assess the influence of single studies on the overall findings.
Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic that expressed the percentage of heterogeneity beyond what is expected by chance. The I2 values greater than 25% were consistent with a low degree of heterogeneity; 50%, moderate degree; and 75%, high degree of heterogeneity.28
Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots, and the Egger regression test with a 2-tailed P value less than .05 was considered to be statistically significant. If publication bias was detected, the Duval and Tweedie trim-and-fill method was used for adjustment.29
A total of 2341 titles were retrieved using the initial database search; of these, 2303 studies were selected after removing duplicates, and 790 studies were considered eligible for further review after reviewing titles and abstracts. A total of 74 randomized clinical trials including 29 214 patients were found to have outcomes of interest2,30-109 (Figure 1). The characteristics of all of the included trials are described in the Table. Tocilizumab was evaluated in 18 trials, secukinumab in 15, anakinra in 8, ixekizumab in 6, rilonacept in 6, sarilumab in 4, sirukumab in 4, ustekinumab in 4, brodalumab in 3, guselkumab in 2, clazakizumab in 2, canakinumab in 1, and olokizumab in 1. There were 35 trials for rheumatoid arthritis, 12 for psoriatic arthritis, 9 for ankylosing spondylitis, 5 for gout, 5 for juvenile idiopathic arthritis, 2 for giant cell arteritis, 2 for systemic lupus erythematosus, 1 for primary Sjögren syndrome, 1 for systemic sclerosis, 1 for familial Mediterranean fever, and 1 for osteoarthritis.
Sixty-nine studies included data for serious infections across all rheumatic diseases. The median duration of the trials and/or safety follow-up was 24 weeks (range, 4-156 weeks) (eTable 1 in the Supplement). A total of 24 236 patients were included in the analysis; of these, 17 177 were assessed in the treatment arms and 7059 were evaluated in the placebo arms. There were 486 events in the treatment arms and 96 events in the placebo arms. In pooled analyses, patients receiving IL inhibitors had a higher risk of serious infections vs placebo (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.58-2.44; P < .001; I2 = 0%; high certainty) (Figure 2). The results of sensitivity analysis without continuity correction were similar (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.56-2.39; P < .001; I2 = 0%) (eFigure 1 in the Supplement). Cumulative meta-analysis showed that the overall OR did not change after 19 studies (eFigure 2 in the Supplement). The subgroup analyses for individual medications and each disease are summarized and displayed with forest plots in eFigures 3-6 in the Supplement.
A total of 14 trials reported the incidence of opportunistic infections. The median duration of trial and/or safety follow-up was 54 weeks (range, 24-264 weeks). These trials included 9998 patients (7153 in the treatment groups; 2845 patients in the placebo groups) (eTable 2 in the Supplement). There were 43 events in the treatment groups and 5 events in the placebo groups. The following opportunistic infections were reported: 23 oral candidiasis, 9 herpes zoster, 4 esophageal candidiasis, 1 unspecified candidiasis, 2 Mycobacterium tuberculosis, 2 atypical mycobacterial infections, 1 histoplasmosis, and 6 unspecified.
The pooled analysis showed an increased risk of opportunistic infections with the use of IL inhibitors compared with placebo (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.09-5.05; P = .03; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty) (eFigure 7 in the Supplement). The results of sensitivity analysis without continuity correction were not statistically significant (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.99-3.82; P = .05; I2 = 0%) (eFigure 8 in the Supplement). Cumulative meta-analysis showed that overall OR did not change after 6 studies (eFigure 9 in the Supplement).
Forty-five studies with a total of 21 065 patients reported data on the incidence and type of cancers across all rheumatic diseases (eTable 3 in the Supplement). The median duration of trial and/or safety follow-up was 28 weeks (range, 12-264 weeks). There were 15 244 patients in the treatment arms and 5821 in the placebo arms. A total of 141 cases of cancer were reported in the treatment groups and 28 in the control groups. The pooled analysis demonstrated an increased risk for cancer with IL inhibitors vs placebo (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.05-2.19; P = .03; I2 = 11%; moderate certainty) (Figure 3). The results of the sensitivity analysis without continuity correction were similar (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.04-2.08; P = .03; I2 = 7%) (eFigure 10 in the Supplement). Cumulative meta-analysis showed that overall OR did not change after 21 studies (eFigure 11 in the Supplement).
We calculated the NNH for all primary outcomes. The NNH was 67 for 1 additional serious infection within a median follow-up of 24 weeks. The NNH for cancer was 250 (median follow-up, 28 weeks) and, for opportunistic infections, 250 (median follow-up, 54 weeks).
Using the fixed-effects model, we observed that duration of drug use was significantly associated with the effect size for cancer outcome (eFigure 12 in the Supplement). With each unit (weeks) increase in duration of drug use, the odds of cancer were increased (coefficient, 0.012; SE, 0.004; 95% CI, 0.005-0.019; z value, 3.22; P = .001). However, there were no significant associations of duration of drug use with serious (coefficient, 0.002; SE, 0.003; 95% CI, −0.004 to 0.009; z value; 0.67; P = .50) or opportunistic (coefficient, 0.003; SE, 0.008; 95% CI, −0.012 to 0.019; z value, 0.43; P = .66) infections (eFigure 13 and eFigure 14 in the Supplement).
The Egger regression test for small-study effect was statistically significant for serious infections (Egger intercept, 0.47; P = .01) but not for opportunistic infections (Egger intercept, 0.47; P = .27) or cancer (Egger intercept, 0.78; P = .07) (eFigure 15 in the Supplement). The funnel plot for serious infections appeared to be asymmetric, while the funnel plots for opportunistic infections and cancer were largely symmetric (eFigures 16-18 in the Supplement). However, imputation of an adjusted effect size using the trim-and-fill method did not show an important change in the effect size (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.66) (eFigure 19 in the Supplement). This minimal change suggests that the overall certainty in the estimate of this outcome is not importantly affected by publication bias.110
In this meta-analysis, the certainty in evidence was rated as high for the outcome of serious infections for the following reasons: (1) the evidence was derived from randomized clinical trials, (2) the meta-analytic effect estimates were precise, (3) the results were consistent (heterogeneity was low or moderate across studies) (eFigure 20 in the Supplement), and (4) the majority of the randomized clinical trials included in our study are characterized by low or unclear risk of bias, as assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool (eFigure 21 and eFigure 22 in the Supplement). While the publication bias was suspected, the adjusted effect size using the trim-and-fill method was similar. However, the certainty rating of evidence was decreased to moderate for the outcomes of opportunistic infections and cancer owing to imprecision caused by the small number of events, which caused wide 95% CIs with lower boundaries close to the null effect. The absolute risk difference with intervention per 1000 patients compared with baseline risk (placebo) was 13 per 1000 patients for serious infections (95% CI, 8-19 more; NNH, 67), 2 per 1000 patients for opportunistic infections (95% CI, 0-7 more; NNH, 250), and 2 per 1000 patients for cancer (95% CI, 0-6 more; NNH, 250). The summary of this evidence using the GRADE approach is detailed in eTable 4 in the Supplement.
The pooled results from 74 randomized clinical trials (n = 29 214) suggests that the risk of serious infections, opportunistic infections, and cancer is increased in patients with rheumatologic diseases who are treated with IL inhibitors compared with placebo. This association is warranted by at least moderate certainty using the GRADE approach. The results are robust; the cumulative meta-analysis suggests that estimates are stable, and subgroup analysis based on drugs and disease state showed consistent results. Subgroups for individual drugs (ixekizumab, rilonacept, sarilumab, ustekinumab, brodalumab, and guselkumab) or diseases (ankylosing spondylitis, gout, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus) with a limited number of trials suggested that the risk of serious infections may be increased, but results were not statistically significant, likely reflecting the fewer number of events and small sample sizes.
Several smaller studies of IL inhibitors in individual rheumatic diseases have demonstrated an increased risk of infections, which is consistent with our study.10,111,112 There have also been several systematic reviews addressing the efficacy and safety of IL-1 inhibition in rheumatoid arthritis with similar findings.18,113,114 These studies assessed the infection risk of IL-1 inhibition, but we believe our study is unique in assessing infection risk across all IL inhibitors and is more comprehensive. Our findings are also comparable with the safety profile of TNF inhibitors in rheumatic diseases, suggesting an increased risk of serious infections.14,18,115 This finding of an increased number of serious infections is in contrast to a Cochrane database systematic review that compared the adverse effects of biologics (TNF inhibitors, IL-1 antagonist [anakinra], IL-6 antagonist [tocilizumab], anti-CD28 [abatacept], and anti–B cell [rituximab]) in patients with any disease and reported an increased risk of serious infections that was not statistically significant compared with placebo.116 A later meta-analysis of 106 randomized clinical trials showed that the risk of serious infections was increased in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologics compared with nonbiologic, traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, supporting the findings of this analysis.18
The existing evidence for risk of opportunistic infections with IL inhibitor therapy is not yet well established. However, several studies have investigated the risk of opportunistic infections with the use of TNF inhibitors. A meta-analysis involving 32 504 patients with rheumatoid arthritis found that biologic agents (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, and tocilizumab) appeared to be associated with a small, but significant, risk of specific opportunistic infections (Peto OR; 1.79; 95% CI, 1.17-2.74) compared with placebo or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.117 Similarly, a French registry (RATIO) collected all cases of nontuberculosis opportunistic infections in patients receiving TNF inhibitors for any indication and reported a 10 times higher incidence of opportunistic infections compared with the general population.118 Another retrospective cohort study involving 236 531 patients reported that the crude incidence and risk of nonviral opportunistic infections among new users of TNF inhibitors compared with those initiating nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs was 2.7 vs 1.7 per 1000 person-years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.6).119 The increased risk of opportunistic infections demonstrated in our study may suggest that the safety profile of IL inhibitors is likely similar to that of TNF inhibitors.
To our knowledge, the safety data regarding the risk of cancer with IL inhibitor therapy have been limited to individual clinical trials in the absence of combined analysis. The findings in our study suggest that the risk of cancer may be increased with longer IL inhibitor therapy. Although this analysis indicated increased cancer risk with time, it is not conclusive. This increased safety signal should be investigated further by long-term clinical data. Meanwhile, caution must be practiced to adhere to the age-appropriate cancer screening guidelines, and annual screening for skin cancers should also be considered. The studies evaluating the use of IL inhibitors in psoriasis have suggested that risk of cancer is less than or comparable to the general population; the evidence is not sufficient to draw definite conclusions, however, and the evidence may not be generalizable to patients with other rheumatic diseases.11,120-125 Several studies have investigated the risk of cancer with TNF inhibitor therapy, but results are mixed.14,19,126-129 In one meta-analysis, Bongartz et al14 reported an increased risk for cancer (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.2-9.1) with the use of anti-TNF medications (infliximab and adalimumab). However, several studies suggested no increased risk of overall cancers with TNF inhibitors.19,126-129
Our study has several strengths. The analysis is comprehensive, and the results are robust and consistent across subgroups. We have adjusted for publication bias, and we provided not only the assessment for risk of bias but also evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The study also has limitations. These results must be interpreted with caution because of factors intrinsic to the analysis of study-level data. This analysis assumes that the risk of infections or cancer is constant throughout the duration of treatment. Previous data have suggested that the risk for infection with TNF inhibitors is highest within the first 90 days of therapy,130 but to our knowledge, no data are currently available concerning use of IL inhibitors. Moreover, while not accounted for in this analysis, many patients receive other immunosuppressive medications, such as prednisone, in addition to IL inhibitors in clinical practice, which increases the risk of infections and cancers. Similarly, the short duration of follow-up in studies included in this review may not be sufficient to detect the actual cancer risk, which can take years to develop. A more applicable approach would be to assess longer-term data to evaluate cancer risk and length of IL inhibitor therapy, but this protocol was not possible through our approach of using clinical trial data. Furthermore, several clinical trials included in our study had shorter durations of follow-up in the placebo groups compared with the treatment groups. We included the longest available event data for treatment groups that could have biased the results to an overestimation of the true risk, as there was longer follow-up in the treatment groups to detect an adverse event compared with the placebo groups. In addition, we did not consider the differential risk associated with low or high dosages, which may underestimate or overestimate the risk of adverse reactions.
This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests an increased risk of serious and opportunistic infections with IL inhibitor therapy that may be comparable to those reported for other biologics approved for the treatment of rheumatic diseases. The finding of a possibly increased risk of cancer with long-term IL inhibitor treatment should be taken into consideration and needs to be confirmed by real-world data, such as long-term epidemiologic studies from registries. This analysis provides estimates of toxic effects for infections and cancer associated with the use of IL inhibitors that can inform shared decision-making when patients and clinicians are contemplating the use of IL inhibitors for rheumatologic diseases. As a future study, the comparative safety analysis among individual IL inhibitors should be considered.
Accepted for Publication: August 23, 2019.
Published: October 18, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13102
Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Bilal J et al. JAMA Network Open.
Corresponding Author: Jawad Bilal, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, 1501 N Campbell Ave, PO Box 245093, Tucson, AZ 85724 (email@example.com).
Author Contributions: Drs Bilal and Berlinberg had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Bilal and Berlinberg are co–first authors.
Concept and design: Bilal, Berlinberg, Riaz, Bhattacharjee, Ortega, Murad, Alhifany, Kwoh.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
Drafting of the manuscript: Bilal, Berlinberg, Riaz, Faridi, Bhattacharjee, Ortega, Murad, Alhifany.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Bilal, Berlinberg, Riaz, Bhattacharjee, Ortega, Murad, Wang, Prokop, Alhifany, Kwoh.
Statistical analysis: Bilal, Berlinberg, Faridi, Bhattacharjee, Murad, Wang, Alhifany.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Bilal, Kwoh.
Supervision: Berlinberg, Bhattacharjee, Kwoh.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Kwoh reported receiving grants and personal fees from EMD Serono, grants from Pfizer, and personal fees from Astellas, Regulus, Kolon Tissue Gene, Taiwan Liposome Company, Fidia, Thuasne, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, and Express Scripts outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
Meeting Presentation: A portion of this article was presented as 2 poster presentations at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals; October 19-24; Chicago, Illinois.
Create a personal account or sign in to: