IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0048991.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cancer Risk of Anti-TNF-α at Recommended Doses in Adult Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-Analysis with Intention to Treat and per Protocol Analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Guillaume Moulis
  • Agnès Sommet
  • Johana Béné
  • François Montastruc
  • Laurent Sailler
  • Jean-Louis Montastruc
  • Maryse Lapeyre-Mestre

Abstract

Background: The risk of malignancies on TNF-α antagonists is controversial. The aim of this survey was to assess cancer risk on TNF-α antagonists in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, including the five marketed drugs (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab and certolizumab) used in line with the New Drug Application. Furthermore, the relative interest of modified intention to treat or per protocol analyses to assess such sparse events remains unknown. Methodology/Principal Findings: Data sources were MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science, ACR and EULAR meeting abstracts, scientific evaluation of the drugs leading to their marketing approval, and clinicaltrials.gov, until 31 December 2012.We selected double-blind randomized controlled trials in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, including at least one treatment arm in line with New Drug Application. We performed random effect meta-analysis, with modified intention to treat and per protocol analyses. Thirty-three trials were included. There was no excess risk of malignancies on anti-TNF-α administered in line with New Drug Application in the per protocol model (OR, 0.93 95%CI[0.59–1.44]), as well as in the modified intention to treat model (OR, 1.27 95%CI[0.82–1.98]). There was a non-significant tendency for an excess non-melanoma skin cancer risk in both models (respectively, 1.37 [0.71–2.66] and 1.90 [0.98–3.67]). With fixed effect Peto model restricting to trials during at least 52 weeks, the overall cancer risk was respectively 1.60 [0.97–2.64] and 1.22 [0.72–2.08]. Whatever the model, modified intention to treat analysis led to higher estimations than per protocol analysis. The later may underestimate the treatment effect when assessing very sparse events and when many patients dropped out in placebo arms. In metaregression, there was no differential risk among the five drugs. Conclusions/Significance: This study did not find any evidence for an excess cancer risk on TNF-α antagonists in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, but an excess cancer risk after several years of exposure cannot be ruled out. Both modified intention to treat and per protocol analyses should be presented in such safety analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Guillaume Moulis & Agnès Sommet & Johana Béné & François Montastruc & Laurent Sailler & Jean-Louis Montastruc & Maryse Lapeyre-Mestre, 2012. "Cancer Risk of Anti-TNF-α at Recommended Doses in Adult Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-Analysis with Intention to Treat and per Protocol Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-7, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0048991
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048991
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048991
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048991&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0048991?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0048991. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.