Efficacy and safety of Advanced Combination Treatment in immune-mediated inflammatory disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
OBJECTIVES: Advanced combination treatment (ACT), defined as a combination of at least 2 biologic agents, a biologic agent and an oral small molecule, 2 oral small molecules drug with different mechanisms of action is a proposed strategy to improve outcomes in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ACT with monotherapy in patients with select IMIDs. METHODS: Through a systematic literature search, we identified 10 RCTs (n = 1154) comparing ACT with single agent therapy (monotherapy). The primary outcome was induction of clinical remission. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, serious adverse events, infections, and serious infections. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and used GRADE to appraise certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Eight out of 10 trials investigated an anti-TNF-α drug (e.g., etanercept, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab) combined with another biologic (e.g anti-IL-23, anti-integrin, anti-IL-1) or an oral small molecule. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of achieving clinical remission with ACT vs. monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 7 RCTs) (RR, 1.75 [95 % CI 0.60-5.13]; moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 33 %)] and systemic lupus erythematosus (n = 1) (RR, 1.20 [0.53-2.72]) (GRADE; low certainty evidence). Patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the ACT arm were more likely to experience adverse events (RR, 1.07 [1.01-1.12]) compared to monotherapy. ACT led to higher rates of induction of clinical remission in patients with IBD (n = 2 RCTs) (RR, 1.68 [1.15-2.46]) with minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 15 %) (GRADE; low certainty evidence), and no differences in the likelihood of adverse events (RR 0.92 [0.80-1.05]). There were no differences in the risk of infections or serious infections in patients treated with ACT or monotherapy with rheumatological disease or IBD. CONCLUSIONS: ACT did not offer clinical benefit in patients with rheumatological IMIDs and resulted in higher rate adverse events in rheumatoid arthritis. ACT may offer clinical benefit without a clear safety signal in patients with IBD, but further trials are warranted. The variability in ACT regimens across studies limits the generalizability of these findings.
