Trial reportModern rheumatology2014
Long-term efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate: 52-week results from an open-label extension of the J-RAPID study.
Trial report in Modern rheumatology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Certolizumab pegol (CDP870) for rheumatoid arthritis in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Post-hoc analysis showing better clinical response with the loading dose of certolizumab pegol in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.Modern rheumatology · 2016Trial
- Different Original and Biosimilar TNF Inhibitors Similarly Reduce Joint Destruction in Rheumatoid Arthritis-A Network Meta-Analysis of 36 Randomized Controlled Trials.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Certolizumab pegol in a heterogeneous population of patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis.Future science OA · 2018Article
- Article
- The efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA): a meta-analysis from nine randomized controlled trials.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP) plus methotrexate treatment and to assess the efficacy of two CZP maintenance dosing schedules in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate.
methodsJ-RAPID double-blind patients were entered into an open-label extension (OLE) study. Patients withdrawn due to lack of efficacy at 16 weeks and double-blind completers without a week-24 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response received CZP 200 mg every other week (Q2W) plus methotrexate. Double-blind completers with week-24 ACR20 responses were randomized to CZP 200 mg Q2W plus methotrexate or CZP 400 mg every 4 weeks plus methotrexate.
resultsThe ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 response rates of double-blind completers (n = 204) were 89.7%/67.2%/36.3% at OLE entry and 95.6%/84.8%/58.3% at 52 weeks, respectively. Other clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes were sustained with long-term CZP plus methotrexate. Long-term treatment with CZP was well-tolerated with no new unexpected adverse events observed. The efficacy and safety of CZP treatment were similar between the two dosing schedules.
conclusionsContinued CZP administration with methotrexate maintained efficacy over 52 weeks and was well-tolerated for Japanese RA patients. No obvious differences in clinical efficacy and safety were observed between the two dosing schedules, giving flexibility in maintenance administration schedules.
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.