IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v15y2014i1d10.1007_s10198-014-0594-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar compared to other biological drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed treatment comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Petra Baji

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Márta Péntek

    (Corvinus University of Budapest
    Flór Ferenc County Hospital)

  • László Czirják

    (University of Pécs)

  • Zoltán Szekanecz

    (University of Debrecen)

  • György Nagy

    (Semmelweis University
    Semmelweis University)

  • László Gulácsi

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Valentin Brodszky

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

Abstract

Objective The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar and other available biologicals for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), namely abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab and tocilizumab. Methods A systematic literature review of MEDLINE database until August 2013 was carried out to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Bayesian mixed treatment comparison method was applied for the pairwise comparison of treatments. Improvement rates by the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20 and ACR50) at week 24 were used as efficacy endpoints, and the occurrence of serious adverse events was considered to assess the safety of the biologicals. Results Thirty-six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. All the biological agents proved to be superior to placebo. For ACR20 response, certolizumab pegol showed the highest odds ratio (OR) compared to placebo, OR 7.69 [95 % CI 3.69–14.26], followed by abatacept OR 3.7 [95 % CI 2.17–6.06], tocilizumab OR 3.69 [95 % CI 1.87–6.62] and infliximab-biosimilar OR 3.47 [95 % CI 0.85–9.7]. For ACR50 response, certolizumab pegol showed the highest OR compared to placebo OR 8.46 [3.74–16.82], followed by tocilizumab OR 5.57 [95 % CI 2.77–10.09], and infliximab-biosimilar OR 4.06 [95 % CI 1.01–11.54]. Regarding the occurrence of serious adverse events, the results show no statistically significant difference between infliximab-biosimilar and placebo, OR 1.87 [95 % CI 0.74–3.84]. No significant difference regarding efficacy and safety was found between infliximab-biosimilar and the other biological treatments. Conclusion This is the first indirect meta-analysis in RA that compares the efficacy and safety of biosimilar-infliximab to the other biologicals indicated in RA. We found no significant difference between infliximab-biosimilar and other biological agents in terms of clinical efficacy and safety.

Suggested Citation

  • Petra Baji & Márta Péntek & László Czirják & Zoltán Szekanecz & György Nagy & László Gulácsi & Valentin Brodszky, 2014. "Efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar compared to other biological drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed treatment comparison," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(1), pages 53-64, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:15:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-014-0594-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-014-0594-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-014-0594-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-014-0594-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Arthritis; Rheumatoid; Biosimilar pharmaceuticals; Meta-analysis; Mixed treatment comparison;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:15:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-014-0594-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.