Key Points español 中文 (chinese) Question
What is the risk of serious infections, opportunistic infections, and cancer in patients with rheumatologic diseases treated with interleukin inhibitors?
Findings
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.
Meaning
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.
Importance
The safety profile of interleukin (IL) inhibitors is not well established.
Objective
To assess the risk of serious infections, opportunistic infections, and cancer in patients with rheumatologic diseases treated with IL inhibitors.
Data Sources
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).
Study Selection
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.
Results
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, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.16; 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, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.16; P = .03; I2 = 11%; moderate certainty) (Figure 3). The results of the sensitivity analysis without continuity correction were similar (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.03-2.07; 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
Strengths and Limitations
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
Correction: This article was corrected on April 10, 2020, to fix an error in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Results.
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 (jawadbilal@deptofmed.arizona.edu).
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.
2.Aletaha
D, Bingham
CO
III, Tanaka
Y,
et al. Efficacy and safety of sirukumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-TNF therapy (SIRROUND-T): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, phase 3 study [published correction appears in
Lancet. 2017;389(10083):1980].
Lancet. 2017;389(10075):1206-1217. doi:
10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30401-4
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 4.Singh
JA, Guyatt
G, Ogdie
A,
et al. Special article: 2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation guideline for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019;71(1):2-29. doi:
10.1002/acr.23789
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 5.Singh
JA, Saag
KG, Bridges
SL
Jr,
et al; American College of Rheumatology. 2015 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016;68(1):1-25. doi:
10.1002/acr.22783
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 6.Ward
MM, Deodhar
A, Akl
EA,
et al. American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network 2015 recommendations for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis.
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68(2):282-298. doi:
10.1002/art.39298
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 8.Bilal
J, Riaz
IB, Kamal
MU, Elyan
M, Sudano
D, Khan
MA. A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of novel interleukin inhibitors in the management of psoriatic arthritis.
J Clin Rheumatol. 2018;24(1):6-13. doi:
10.1097/RHU.0000000000000583PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 9.Wei
M, Duan
D. Efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies targeting interleukin-17 pathway for inflammatory arthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.
Drug Des Dev Ther. 2016;10:2771-2777. doi:
10.2147/DDDT.S91374
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 10.Nishimoto
N, Miyasaka
N, Yamamoto
K, Kawai
S, Takeuchi
T, Azuma
J. Long-term safety and efficacy of tocilizumab, an anti-IL-6 receptor monoclonal antibody, in monotherapy, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (the STREAM study): evidence of safety and efficacy in a 5-year extension study.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(10):1580-1584. doi:
10.1136/ard.2008.092866
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 12.Becker
LA, Oxman
AD. Overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0.
http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Updated July 2019. Accessed February 1, 2019.
14.Bongartz
T, Sutton
AJ, Sweeting
MJ, Buchan
I, Matteson
EL, Montori
V. Anti-TNF antibody therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of serious infections and malignancies: systematic review and meta-analysis of rare harmful effects in randomized controlled trials.
JAMA. 2006;295(19):2275-2285. doi:
10.1001/jama.295.19.2275
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 15.Fouque-Aubert
A, Jette-Paulin
L, Combescure
C, Basch
A, Tebib
J, Gossec
L. Serious infections in patients with ankylosing spondylitis with and without TNF blockers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(10):1756-1761. doi:
10.1136/ard.2008.098822
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 19.Thompson
AE, Rieder
SW, Pope
JE. Tumor necrosis factor therapy and the risk of serious infection and malignancy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63(6):1479-1485. doi:
10.1002/art.30310
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 20.Wang
S, He
Q, Shuai
Z. Risk of serious infections in biological treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: a meta-analysis.
Clin Rheumatol. 2018;37(2):439-450. doi:
10.1007/s10067-017-3966-1
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 21.Xu
Z, Xu
P, Fan
W,
et al. Risk of infection in patients with spondyloarthritis and ankylosing spondylitis receiving antitumor necrosis factor therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Exp Ther Med. 2017;14(4):3491-3500. doi:
10.3892/etm.2017.5003
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 22.Higgins
JPT, Altman
DG, Gøtzsche
PC,
et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi:
10.1136/bmj.d5928
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 24.Winthrop
KL, Novosad
SA, Baddley
JW,
et al. Opportunistic infections and biologic therapies in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: consensus recommendations for infection reporting during clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(12):2107-2116. doi:
10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207841
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 25.Higgins
JPT, Green
S, eds.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0.
http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Updated July 2019. Accessed March 1, 2019..
27.Borenstein
M, Hedges
L, Higgins
J, Rothstein
H. Comprehensive Meta-analysis, Version 3. Englewood, NJ: Biostat; 2013.
28.Turner
RM, Davey
J, Clarke
MJ, Thompson
SG, Higgins
JP. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(3):818-827. doi:
10.1093/ije/dys041
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 30.Alten
R, Gomez-Reino
J, Durez
P,
et al. Efficacy and safety of the human anti-IL-1β monoclonal antibody canakinumab in rheumatoid arthritis: results of a 12-week, phase II, dose-finding study.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:153. doi:
10.1186/1471-2474-12-153
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 35.Baraliakos
X, Kivitz
AJ, Deodhar
AA,
et al; MEASURE 1 Study Group. Long-term effects of interleukin-17A inhibition with secukinumab in active ankylosing spondylitis: 3-year efficacy and safety results from an extension of the Phase 3 MEASURE 1 trial.
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2018;36(1):50-55.
PubMedGoogle Scholar 36.Ben-Zvi
I, Kukuy
O, Giat
E,
et al. Anakinra for colchicine-resistant familial Mediterranean fever: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69(4):854-862. doi:
10.1002/art.39995
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 37.Bijlsma
JWJ, Welsing
PMJ, Woodworth
TG,
et al. Early rheumatoid arthritis treated with tocilizumab, methotrexate, or their combination (U-Act-Early): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, strategy trial.
Lancet. 2016;388(10042):343-355. doi:
10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30363-4
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 38.Braun
J, Baraliakos
X, Deodhar
A,
et al; MEASURE 1 Study Group. Effect of secukinumab on clinical and radiographic outcomes in ankylosing spondylitis: 2-year results from the randomised phase III MEASURE 1 study.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(6):1070-1077. doi:
10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209730
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 39.Brunner
HI, Ruperto
N, Zuber
Z,
et al; Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation (PRINTO); Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group (PRCSG). Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results from a phase 3, randomised, double-blind withdrawal trial.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(6):1110-1117. doi:
10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-205351
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 40.Burmester
GR, Rigby
WF, van Vollenhoven
RF,
et al. Tocilizumab combination therapy or monotherapy or methotrexate monotherapy in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomised, placebo-controlled FUNCTION trial.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(7):1279-1284. doi:
10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210561
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 41.Chevalier
X, Goupille
P, Beaulieu
AD,
et al. Intraarticular injection of anakinra in osteoarthritis of the knee: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61(3):344-352. doi:
10.1002/art.24096
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 42.Cohen
S, Hurd
E, Cush
J,
et al. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with anakinra, a recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, in combination with methotrexate: results of a twenty-four-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46(3):614-624. doi:
10.1002/art.10141
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 43.Cohen
SB, Moreland
LW, Cush
JJ,
et al; 990145 Study Group. A multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial of anakinra (Kineret), a recombinant interleukin 1 receptor antagonist, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with background methotrexate.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(9):1062-1068. doi:
10.1136/ard.2003.016014
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 45.Deodhar
A, Gottlieb
AB, Boehncke
W-H,
et al; CNTO1959PSA2001 Study Group. Efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.
Lancet. 2018;391(10136):2213-2224. doi:
10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30952-8
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 46.Deodhar
A, Poddubnyy
D, Pacheco-Tena
C,
et al; COAST-W Study Group. Efficacy and safety of ixekizumab in the treatment of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: sixteen week results of a phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial in patients with prior inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(4):599-611. doi:
10.1002/art.40753PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 47.Fleischmann
R, van Adelsberg
J, Lin
Y,
et al. Sarilumab and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69(2):277-290. doi:
10.1002/art.39944
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 48.Fleischmann
RM, Schechtman
J, Bennett
R,
et al. Anakinra, a recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (r-metHuIL-1ra), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a large, international, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial.
Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48(4):927-934. doi:
10.1002/art.10870
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 49.Genovese
MC, Durez
P, Richards
HB,
et al. One-year efficacy and safety results of secukinumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: phase II, dose-finding, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.
J Rheumatol. 2014;41(3):414-421. doi:
10.3899/jrheum.130637
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 50.Genovese
MC, Fleischmann
R, Furst
D,
et al. Efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to TNF inhibitor therapy: outcomes of a randomised phase IIb study.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(9):1607-1615. doi:
10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204760
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 51.Genovese
MC, Fleischmann
R, Kivitz
AJ,
et al. Sarilumab plus methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate: results of a phase III study.
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67(6):1424-1437. doi:
10.1002/art.39093
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 52.Genovese
MC, Greenwald
M, Cho
C-S,
et al. A phase II randomized study of subcutaneous ixekizumab, an anti-interleukin-17 monoclonal antibody, in rheumatoid arthritis patients who were naive to biologic agents or had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014;66(7):1693-1704. doi:
10.1002/art.38617
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 53.Genovese
MC, McKay
JD, Nasonov
EL,
et al. Interleukin-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab reduces disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: the Tocilizumab in Combination With Traditional Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Therapy study.
Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(10):2968-2980. doi:
10.1002/art.23940
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 54.Huizinga
TWJ, Fleischmann
RM, Jasson
M,
et al. Sarilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against IL-6Rα in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: efficacy and safety results from the randomised SARIL-RA-MOBILITY part A trial.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(9):1626-1634. doi:
10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204405
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 55.Ilowite
N, Porras
O, Reiff
A,
et al. Anakinra in the treatment of polyarticular-course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis: safety and preliminary efficacy results of a randomized multicenter study.
Clin Rheumatol. 2009;28(2):129-137. doi:
10.1007/s10067-008-0995-9
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 56.Kavanaugh
A, Mease
PJ, Reimold
AM,
et al; FUTURE-1 Study Group. Secukinumab for long-term treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a two-year followup from a phase III, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017;69(3):347-355. doi:
10.1002/acr.23111
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 59.Kivitz
A, Olech
E, Borofsky
M,
et al. Subcutaneous tocilizumab versus placebo in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66(11):1653-1661. doi:
10.1002/acr.22384
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 60.Kivitz
AJ, Wagner
U, Dokoupilova
E,
et al. Efficacy and safety of secukinumab 150 mg with and without loading regimen in ankylosing spondylitis: 104-week results from MEASURE 4 Study.
Rheumatol Ther. 2018;5(2):447-462. doi:
10.1007/s40744-018-0123-5
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 61.Kremer
JM, Blanco
R, Brzosko
M,
et al. Tocilizumab inhibits structural joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate: results from the double-blind treatment phase of a randomized placebo-controlled trial of tocilizumab safety and prevention of structural joint damage at one year.
Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63(3):609-621. doi:
10.1002/art.30158
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 62.Kremer
JM, Blanco
R, Halland
A-M,
et al. Clinical efficacy and safety maintained up to 5 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tocilizumab in a randomised trial.
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016;34(4):625-633.
PubMedGoogle Scholar 63.Lovell
DJ, Giannini
EH, Reiff
AO,
et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of rilonacept in patients with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65(9):2486-2496. doi:
10.1002/art.38042
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 64.Maini
RN, Taylor
PC, Szechinski
J,
et al; CHARISMA Study Group. Double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial of the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, tocilizumab, in European patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had an incomplete response to methotrexate [published correction appears in
Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(3):887].
Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54(9):2817-2829. doi:
10.1002/art.22033
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 65.Martin
DA, Churchill
M, Flores-Suarez
L,
et al. A phase Ib multiple ascending dose study evaluating safety, pharmacokinetics, and early clinical response of brodalumab, a human anti-IL-17R antibody, in methotrexate-resistant rheumatoid arthritis.
Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15(5):R164. doi:
10.1186/ar4347
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 66.Marzo-Ortega
H, Sieper
J, Kivitz
A,
et al; Measure 2 Study Group. Secukinumab and sustained improvement in signs and symptoms of patients with active ankylosing spondylitis through two years: results from a phase III study.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017;69(7):1020-1029. doi:
10.1002/acr.23233
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 67.McInnes
IB, Kavanaugh
A, Gottlieb
AB,
et al; PSUMMIT 1 Study Group. Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: 1 year results of the phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled PSUMMIT 1 trial.
Lancet. 2013;382(9894):780-789. doi:
10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60594-2
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 68.McInnes
IB, Mease
PJ, Kirkham
B,
et al; FUTURE 2 Study Group. Secukinumab, a human anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, in patients with psoriatic arthritis (FUTURE 2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
Lancet. 2015;386(9999):1137-1146. doi:
10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61134-5
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 70.McInnes
IB, Sieper
J, Braun
J,
et al. Efficacy and safety of secukinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriatic arthritis: a 24-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II proof-of-concept trial.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(2):349-356. doi:
10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202646
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 71.Mease
P, van der Heijde
D, Landewé
R,
et al. Secukinumab improves active psoriatic arthritis symptoms and inhibits radiographic progression: primary results from the randomised, double-blind, phase III FUTURE 5 study.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(6):890-897. doi:
10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212687PubMedGoogle Scholar 73.Mease
PJ, Gottlieb
AB, Berman
A,
et al. The efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, an anti-interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody, in a phase IIb study of adults with active psoriatic arthritis.
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68(9):2163-2173. doi:
10.1002/art.39700
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 74.Mease
PJ, Kavanaugh
A, Reimold
A,
et al. Secukinumab in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: efficacy and safety results through 3 years from the year 1 extension of the randomised phase III FUTURE 1 trial.
RMD Open. 2018;4(2):e000723. doi:
10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000723PubMedGoogle Scholar 76.Mease
PJ, van der Heijde
D, Ritchlin
CT,
et al; SPIRIT-P1 Study Group. Ixekizumab, an interleukin-17A specific monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of biologic-naive patients with active psoriatic arthritis: results from the 24-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active (adalimumab)-controlled period of the phase III trial SPIRIT-P1.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(1):79-87. doi:
10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209709
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 77.Mitha
E, Schumacher
HR, Fouche
L,
et al. Rilonacept for gout flare prevention during initiation of uric acid-lowering therapy: results from the PRESURGE-2 international, phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013;52(7):1285-1292. doi:
10.1093/rheumatology/ket114
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 78.Nash
P, Kirkham
B, Okada
M,
et al; SPIRIT-P2 Study Group. Ixekizumab for the treatment of patients with active psoriatic arthritis and an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: results from the 24-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled period of the SPIRIT-P2 phase 3 trial.
Lancet. 2017;389(10086):2317-2327. doi:
10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31429-0
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 79.Nash
P, Mease
PJ, McInnes
IB,
et al; FUTURE 3 Study Group. Efficacy and safety of secukinumab administration by autoinjector in patients with psoriatic arthritis: results from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (FUTURE 3).
Arthritis Res Ther. 2018;20(1):47. doi:
10.1186/s13075-018-1551-x
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 80.Nishimoto
N, Miyasaka
N, Yamamoto
K,
et al. Study of active controlled tocilizumab monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (SATORI): significant reduction in disease activity and serum vascular endothelial growth factor by IL-6 receptor inhibition therapy.
Mod Rheumatol. 2009;19(1):12-19. doi:
10.3109/s10165-008-0125-1
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 82.Pavelka
K, Chon
Y, Newmark
R, Lin
S-L, Baumgartner
S, Erondu
N. A study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of brodalumab in subjects with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate.
J Rheumatol. 2015;42(6):912-919. doi:
10.3899/jrheum.141271
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 83.Pavelka
K, Kivitz
A, Dokoupilova
E,
et al. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of secukinumab in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized, double-blind phase 3 study, MEASURE 3.
Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19(1):285. doi:
10.1186/s13075-017-1490-y
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 84.Quartier
P, Allantaz
F, Cimaz
R,
et al. A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist anakinra in patients with systemic-onset juvenile idiopathic arthritis (ANAJIS trial).
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(5):747-754. doi:
10.1136/ard.2010.134254
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 85.Ritchlin
C, Rahman
P, Kavanaugh
A,
et al; PSUMMIT 2 Study Group. Efficacy and safety of the anti-IL-12/23 p40 monoclonal antibody, ustekinumab, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis despite conventional non-biological and biological anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy: 6-month and 1-year results of the phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised PSUMMIT 2 trial.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(6):990-999. doi:
10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204655
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 86.Rovin
BH, van Vollenhoven
RF, Aranow
C,
et al. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with sirukumab (CNTO 136) in patients with active lupus nephritis.
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68(9):2174-2183. doi:
10.1002/art.39722
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 87.Schumacher
HR
Jr, Evans
RR, Saag
KG,
et al. Rilonacept (interleukin-1 trap) for prevention of gout flares during initiation of uric acid-lowering therapy: results from a phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, confirmatory efficacy study.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64(10):1462-1470. doi:
10.1002/acr.21690
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 88.Schumacher
HR
Jr, Sundy
JS, Terkeltaub
R,
et al; 0619 Study Group. Rilonacept (interleukin-1 trap) in the prevention of acute gout flares during initiation of urate-lowering therapy: results of a phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64(3):876-884. doi:
10.1002/art.33412
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 90.Sieper
J, Deodhar
A, Marzo-Ortega
H,
et al; MEASURE 2 Study Group. Secukinumab efficacy in anti-TNF-naive and anti-TNF-experienced subjects with active ankylosing spondylitis: results from the MEASURE 2 Study.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(3):571-592. doi:
10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210023
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 92.Smolen
JS, Agarwal
SK, Ilivanova
E,
et al. A randomised phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of subcutaneously administered ustekinumab and guselkumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with methotrexate.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(5):831-839. doi:
10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209831
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 93.Smolen
JS, Beaulieu
A, Rubbert-Roth
A,
et al; OPTION Investigators. Effect of interleukin-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (OPTION study): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.
Lancet. 2008;371(9617):987-997. doi:
10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60453-5
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 94.Smolen
JS, Weinblatt
ME, Sheng
S, Zhuang
Y, Hsu
B. Sirukumab, a human anti-interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody: a randomised, 2-part (proof-of-concept and dose-finding), phase II study in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(9):1616-1625. doi:
10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-205137
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 96.Sundy
JS, Schumacher
HR, Kivitz
A,
et al. Rilonacept for gout flare prevention in patients receiving uric acid-lowering therapy: results of RESURGE, a phase III, international safety study.
J Rheumatol. 2014;41(8):1703-1711. doi:
10.3899/jrheum.131226
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 99.Terkeltaub
RA, Schumacher
HR, Carter
JD,
et al. Rilonacept in the treatment of acute gouty arthritis: a randomized, controlled clinical trial using indomethacin as the active comparator.
Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15(1):R25. doi:
10.1186/ar4159
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 100.Tlustochowicz
W, Rahman
P, Seriolo
B,
et al. Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous and intravenous loading dose regimens of secukinumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results from a randomized phase II study.
J Rheumatol. 2016;43(3):495-503. doi:
10.3899/jrheum.150117
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 101.van der Heijde
D, Cheng-Chung Wei
J, Dougados
M,
et al; COAST-V Study Group. Ixekizumab, an interleukin-17A antagonist in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in patients previously untreated with biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (COAST-V): 16 week results of a phase 3 randomised, double-blind, active-controlled and placebo-controlled trial.
Lancet. 2018;392(10163):2441-2451. doi:
10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31946-9
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 102.van Vollenhoven
RF, Hahn
BH, Tsokos
GC,
et al. Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, an IL-12 and IL-23 inhibitor, in patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus: results of a multicentre, double-blind, phase 2, randomised, controlled study.
Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1330-1339. doi:
10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32167-6
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 104.Weinblatt
ME, Mease
P, Mysler
E,
et al. The efficacy and safety of subcutaneous clazakizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: results from a multinational, phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo/active-controlled, dose-ranging study.
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67(10):2591-2600. doi:
10.1002/art.39249
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 105.Yazici
Y, Curtis
JR, Ince
A,
et al. Efficacy of tocilizumab in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis and a previous inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: the ROSE study.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71(2):198-205. doi:
10.1136/ard.2010.148700
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 106.Hueber
W, Patel
DD, Dryja
T,
et al; Psoriasis Study Group; Rheumatoid Arthritis Study Group; Uveitis Study Group. Effects of AIN457, a fully human antibody to interleukin-17A, on psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and uveitis.
Sci Transl Med. 2010;2(52):52ra72. doi:
10.1126/scitranslmed.3001107
PubMedGoogle Scholar 107.Scott
IC, Ibrahim
F, Simpson
G,
et al. A randomised trial evaluating anakinra in early active rheumatoid arthritis.
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016;34(1):88-93.
PubMedGoogle Scholar 108.Emery
P, Keystone
E, Tony
HP,
et al. IL-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab improves treatment outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumour necrosis factor biologicals: results from a 24-week multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67(11):1516-1523. doi:
10.1136/ard.2008.092932
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 109.Genovese
MC, Van den Bosch
F, Roberson
SA,
et al. LY2439821, a humanized anti-interleukin-17 monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a phase I randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study.
Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62(4):929-939. doi:
10.1002/art.27334
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 111.Antonelli
M, Khan
MA, Magrey
MN. Differential adverse events between TNF-α inhibitors and IL-17 axis inhibitors for the treatment of spondyloarthritis.
Curr Treatm Opt Rheumatol. 2015;1(2):239-254. doi:
10.1007/s40674-015-0022-7
Google ScholarCrossref 115.Minozzi
S, Bonovas
S, Lytras
T,
et al. Risk of infections using anti-TNF agents in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2016;15(suppl 1):11-34. doi:
10.1080/14740338.2016.1240783PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 118.Salmon-Ceron
D, Tubach
F, Lortholary
O,
et al; RATIO Group. Drug-specific risk of non-tuberculosis opportunistic infections in patients receiving anti-TNF therapy reported to the 3-year prospective French RATIO registry.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(4):616-623. doi:
10.1136/ard.2010.137422
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 120.Papp
KA, Griffiths
CE, Gordon
K,
et al; PHOENIX 1 Investigators; PHOENIX 2 Investigators; ACCEPT Investigators. Long-term safety of ustekinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis: final results from 5 years of follow-up.
Br J Dermatol. 2013;168(4):844-854. doi:
10.1111/bjd.12214
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 121.Papp
K, Gottlieb
AB, Naldi
L,
et al. Safety surveillance for ustekinumab and other psoriasis treatments from the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR).
J Drugs Dermatol. 2015;14(7):706-714.
PubMedGoogle Scholar 122.Reich
K, Armstrong
AW, Foley
P,
et al. Efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an anti-interleukin-23 monoclonal antibody, compared with adalimumab for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis with randomized withdrawal and retreatment: results from the phase III, double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled VOYAGE 2 trial.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(3):418-431. doi:
10.1016/j.jaad.2016.11.042
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 123.Blauvelt
A, Papp
KA, Griffiths
CE,
et al. Efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an anti-interleukin-23 monoclonal antibody, compared with adalimumab for the continuous treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: results from the phase III, double-blinded, placebo- and active comparator-controlled VOYAGE 1 trial.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(3):405-417. doi:
10.1016/j.jaad.2016.11.041
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 124.Gordon
KB, Blauvelt
A, Papp
KA,
et al; UNCOVER-1 Study Group; UNCOVER-2 Study Group; UNCOVER-3 Study Group. Phase 3 trials of ixekizumab in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.
N Engl J Med. 2016;375(4):345-356. doi:
10.1056/NEJMoa1512711
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 125.van de Kerkhof
PC, Griffiths
CE, Reich
K,
et al. Secukinumab long-term safety experience: a pooled analysis of 10 phase II and III clinical studies in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75(1):83-98.e4. doi:
10.1016/j.jaad.2016.03.024
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 126.Askling
J, Fahrbach
K, Nordstrom
B, Ross
S, Schmid
CH, Symmons
D. Cancer risk with tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) inhibitors: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab using patient level data.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(2):119-130. doi:
10.1002/pds.2046
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 127.Dommasch
ED, Abuabara
K, Shin
DB, Nguyen
J, Troxel
AB, Gelfand
JM. The risk of infection and malignancy with tumor necrosis factor antagonists in adults with psoriatic disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64(6):1035-1050. doi:
10.1016/j.jaad.2010.09.734
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 128.Wolfe
F, Michaud
K. The effect of methotrexate and anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy on the risk of lymphoma in rheumatoid arthritis in 19,562 patients during 89,710 person-years of observation.
Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56(5):1433-1439. doi:
10.1002/art.22579
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 129.Mariette
X, Matucci-Cerinic
M, Pavelka
K,
et al. Malignancies associated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in registries and prospective observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(11):1895-1904. doi:
10.1136/ard.2010.149419
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 130.Dixon
WG, Symmons
DP, Lunt
M, Watson
KD, Hyrich
KL, Silman
AJ; British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register Control Centre Consortium; British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Serious infection following anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: lessons from interpreting data from observational studies.
Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56(9):2896-2904. doi:
10.1002/art.22808
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref