Biologicals for the treatment of lupus nephritis: a Bayesian network meta-regression analysis

• Published in: Frontiers in immunology 2024-08, Vol.15, p.1445814
• Main Authors: Liu, Xi, Chen, Xiaoli, Yang, Chengyin, Li, Ruixue, Chen, Xi, Li, Qiaoli
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bayes Theorem; Bayesian network meta-regression analysis; biological agents; Biological Products - administration & dosage; Biological Products - adverse effects; complete response rate; follow-up period; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents - administration & dosage; Immunosuppressive Agents - adverse effects; lupus nephritis; Lupus Nephritis - drug therapy; Network Meta-Analysis; Regression Analysis; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1664-3224; 1664-3224
• DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1445814

Previous studies comparing the efficacy and safety of different treatment regimens for lupus nephritis are scarce. Moreover, confounding factors such as the duration of follow-up were hardly adjusted in those studies, potentially compromising the results and their extents to clinical settings. To rigorously investigate the efficacy and safety of biologics in patients with lupus nephritis using Bayesian network meta-regression analyses that adjust for the follow-up period, in order to provide more robust evidence for clinicians. Databases comprising PubMed, Embase, MedlinePlus, Cochrane Library, Google Scholars, and Scopus were retrieved for eligible articles from inception to February 29, 2024. The primary endpoint was the complete response rate, the secondary endpoint was the partial response rate, the tertiary endpoints were the adverse events, and infection-related adverse events. Napierian Logarithm of hazard ratio (lnHR) and the standard error of lnHR (selnHR) were generated for dichotomous variants by STATA 18.0 MP and then put into Rstudio 4.3.2 to conduct Bayesian network meta-analysis as well as network meta-regression analysis to yield hazard ratio (HR) as pairwise effect size. Ten studies involving 2138 patients and 11 treatment regimens were ultimately included. In the original analysis, for the primary endpoint, compared to the control group, obinutuzumab (22.6 months), abatacept-30mg (20.5 months), abatacept-10mg (17.8 months), and belimumab (23.3 months) demonstrated significant superiority (HR ranged from 1.6 to 2.5), more ever, their significance regarding relative efficacy was correlated with follow up period, namely "time window" (shown in parentheses above). For the secondary endpoint, compared to the control group, obinutuzumab and abatacept-30mg showed conspicuous preponderance (HR ranged from 1.6 to 2.4), "time window" was also detected in abatacept-30mg (20.5 months), whereas obinutuzumab remained consistently obviously effective regardless of the follow-up period (shown in parentheses above). For the tertiary endpoint, there were no differences among active regimens and control. Considering the efficacy and safety and "time window" phenomenon, we recommend obinutuzumab as the preferred treatment for LN. Certainly, more rigorous head-to-head clinical trials are warranted to validate those findings.