Article Text

This article has a correction. Please see:

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Indirect comparisons of the efficacy of biological antirheumatic agents in rheumatoid arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or to an anti-tumour necrosis factor agent: a meta-analysis
  1. Carine Salliot1,
  2. Axel Finckh2,
  3. Wanruchada Katchamart1,
  4. Yan Lu3,
  5. Ye Sun4,
  6. Claire Bombardier1,
  7. Edward Keystone1
  1. 1Division of Rheumatology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
  2. 2Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
  3. 3Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
  4. 4Division of Rheumatology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Canada. Analytical Genetics Technology Center, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Carine Salliot, Hôpital Cochin, Service de Rhumatologie B, 27 Rue du Faubourg Saint-Jacques, 75014 Paris, France; carinesalliot{at}


Background The availability of increasing numbers of biological agents for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) offers several therapeutic options. While all biologicals have proven effective in trials, very limited direct comparisons are available. The objective of the present work was to compare the efficacy of biologicals (anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents, rituximab, abatacept, tocilizumab) in patients with RA with active disease and (i) an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate (IR-MTX), (ii) an IR to anti-TNF agents (IR-anti-TNFs) using indirect comparisons.

Methods Randomised clinical trials were identified examining the efficacy of a biological agent in RA at 6 months in patients with an IR-MTX or with an IR-anti-TNF. To compare the relative efficacy of biologicals, adjusted indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to estimate the ORs of achieving a 50% improvement according to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR50) response at 6 months were used.

Results A total of 18 published trials and 1 abstract were included in the analyses. In IR-MTX, anti-TNFs had the same probability of reaching an ACR50 compared to ‘non-anti-TNF biologicals’ taken together (OR 1.30, 95 % CI 0.91 to 1.86). However, when compared to specific biological agents, anti-TNFs demonstrated a higher probability of reaching an ACR50 than abatacept (OR 1.52, 95 % CI 1.0 to 2.28), but not in comparison to rituximab and tocilizumab. In IR-anti-TNF, rituximab demonstrated a higher probability of achieving an ACR50 than tocilizumab (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.10 to 6.37), but no significant differences existed between golimumab and other biologicals.

Conclusions In a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials of patients with IR-MTX, anti-TNFs demonstrated a higher probability of achieving an ACR50 response than abatacept. In IR-anti-TNF, rituximab appears more likely than tocilizumab to achieve an ACR50 response.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Miscellaneous
    BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and European League Against Rheumatism