ArticleThe American journal of medicine2008
Tumor necrosis factor antagonist responsiveness in a United States rheumatoid arthritis cohort.
Article in The American journal of medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Targeted Literature Review Examining Biologic Therapy Compliance and Persistence in Chronic Inflammatory Diseases to Identify the Associated Unmet Needs, Driving Factors, and Consequences.Advances in therapy · 2018Pooled it
- Metabolomics profiling predicts outcome of tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis: an exploratory study.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2021Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Abatacept Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Are Anti-CCP Positive in the United States Corrona Registry.Rheumatology and therapy · 2019Article
- Tools and Methods for Real-World Evidence Generation: Pragmatic Trials, Electronic Consent, and Data Linkages.Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America · 2019Review
- The comparative effectiveness of abatacept versus anti-tumour necrosis factor switching for rheumatoid arthritis patients previously treated with an anti-tumour necrosis factor.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2015Observational
- "Design characteristics of the CORRONA CERTAIN study: a comparative effectiveness study of biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis patients".BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2014Article
- New methods for determining comparative effectiveness in rheumatoid arthritis.Current opinion in rheumatology · 2013Review
- Derivation and preliminary validation of an administrative claims-based algorithm for the effectiveness of medications for rheumatoid arthritis.Arthritis research & therapy · 2011Article
- A comparison of patient characteristics and outcomes in selected European and U.S. rheumatoid arthritis registries.Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism · 2010Article
- Evaluation of composite measures of treatment response without acute-phase reactants in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2009Article
- Randomized controlled trial design in rheumatoid arthritis: the past decade.Arthritis research & therapy · 2009Review
- The discovery of novel experimental therapies for inflammatory arthritis.Mediators of inflammation · 2009Review
- NICE guidelines on anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy for RA.Nature clinical practice. Rheumatology · 2009Article
- Biologic agents-a panacea for inflammatory arthritis or not?International journal of rheumatology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe study objective was to investigate responsiveness according to whether patients satisfy eligibility criteria from randomized controlled trials of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists in a multicentered US cohort.
methodsBiologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were prescribed TNF antagonists (n=465) in the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America registry were included. Patients were stratified by whether they met eligibility criteria from 3 major TNF antagonist trials. Two cohorts were examined: Cohort A (n=336) included patients with complete American College of Rheumatology response criteria except acute phase reactants, and cohort B (n=129) included patients with complete response criteria. Study outcomes included modified American College of Rheumatology 20% and 50% improvement responses (cohort A) and standard American College of Rheumatology improvement (cohort B).
resultsA minority of patients (5.4%-19.4%) prescribed TNF antagonists met trial eligibility criteria and predominantly had high disease activity (78.5%-100%). For patients who met eligibility criteria in cohort A, rates of 20% improvement (52.3%-63.6%) and 50% improvement (30.8%-45.5%) were achieved. Among patients failing to meet eligibility criteria, rates of 20% improvement (16.2%-20.4%) and 50% improvement (8.9%-10.8%) were consistently inferior (P<.05 all comparisons). For cohort B, similar differences were observed.
conclusionThis multicentered US cohort study demonstrates that the majority of patients receiving TNF antagonists would not meet trial eligibility criteria and achieve lower clinical responses. These findings highlight the tradeoff between defining treatment responsive populations and achieving results that can be generalized for broader patient populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.