Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21914628›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of the rheumatic diseases2011

Clinical response and tolerability to abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with infliximab or abatacept: open-label extension of the ATTEST Study.

Michael Schiff, Mauro Keiserman, Christine Codding, Suthin Songcharoen, Alberto Berman, Sauithree Nayiager, Cristina Saldate, Richard Aranda, Jean-Claude Becker, Marleen Nys and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Impact of Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms ofJournal of personalized medicine · 2020
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Unintended Immunological Consequences of Biologic Therapy.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2016
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 11 institutions in 7 countries.

Michael SchiffDepartment of Rheumatology, University of Colorado, 5400 South Monaco Street, Greenwood Village, CO 80111, USA. lmschiff@aol.com
Mauro Keiserman
Christine Codding
Suthin Songcharoen
Alberto Berman
Sauithree Nayiager
Cristina Saldate
Richard Aranda
Jean-Claude Becker
Marleen Nys
Manuela le Bars
Diane Moniz Reed
Coralie Poncet
Maxime Dougados
Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States) · USBristol-Myers Squibb (Belgium) · BEBristol-Myers Squibb (France) · FRHôpital Cochin · FRHospital Privado · ARMississippi Sports Medicine and Orthopaedic Center · USPontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul · BRPronatura Noroeste · MXSt Augustine College of South Africa · ZAUniversity of Colorado Boulder · USUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept in biological-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate treated in the long-term extension (LTE) of the ATTEST trial.

methodsPatients randomly assigned to abatacept, placebo or infliximab completing the 1-year double-blind period were eligible to receive abatacept ∼10 mg/kg in the open-label LTE. Efficacy to year 2 is presented for patients randomly assigned to abatacept or infliximab who switched to open-label abatacept. Safety data are presented for all patients entering LTE regardless of double-blind treatment.

resultsOf 431 patients randomly assigned, 79.8% remained on abatacept at year 2. At years 1 and 2, 19.7% and 26.1% of abatacept and 13.3% and 28.6% of infliximab-to-abatacept patients achieved disease activity score 28-defined remission (<2.6). Safety with abatacept during the cumulative study period was consistent with the double-blind experience, with no increase in adverse event incidence following the switch to abatacept.

conclusionIn methotrexate-inadequate responders, abatacept efficacy was maintained over 2 years. For infliximab-to-abatacept patients, efficacy improvements were seen in year 2 after patients switched to abatacept. Switching directly from infliximab to abatacept was well tolerated. These data demonstrate that abatacept provides sustained responses and consistent safety, suggesting that switching from infliximab to abatacept is a viable treatment option.

Indexed as

AbataceptAdultAntibodies, MonoclonalAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidDouble-Blind MethodDrug SubstitutionDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHumansImmunoconjugatesInfliximabMaleMethotrexateMiddle AgedSeverity of Illness IndexAbataceptAntibodies, MonoclonalAntirheumatic AgentsImmunoconjugatesInfliximabMethotrexateTumor Necrosis Factor-alpha

Identifiers

PMID21914628
PMCPMC3184243
OpenAlexW2112244531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.