ArticleZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2015
[Switching within the active ingredient group or changing the mechanism of action. Data situation by failure of the first line biologic].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the use of biologics many patients do not achieve remission or reduced disease activity, which raises the question of the optimal therapy when these therapy targets are not achieved. Most data from clinical studies and registry data refer to the approach following the unsuccessful use of one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. Randomized controlled studies investigating the effectiveness of a further biologic or TNF inhibitor in patients who received abatacept, tocilizumab or rituximab in the first line therapy are currently lacking, with the exception of the German MIRAI study. The majority of registry data and observational studies suggest that when the use of a TNF inhibitor is unsuccessful it is advantageous to change to a non-TNF biologic. This does not exclude that a change within the group of TNF inhibitors can represent an appropriate option, e.g. by injection or infusion reactions or secondary therapy failure. Whether determination of serum levels and neutralizing antibodies aids decision-making for individual patients, must currently remain open. The option to change within an active ingredient group of biologics only currently applies to the group of TNF inhibitors; however, with the development of further antibodies inhibiting interleukin 6, this question will also apply to this group of substances. The question of the optimal strategy after failure of the first and second line biologics will be asked more frequently when the therapy targets of remission and low disease activity are more stringently strived for. Predictive markers for an optimal approach to the sequential administration of biologics are lacking. In order to answer this question clinical studies which investigate the therapeutic approach in a randomized and controlled manner will be necessary in the future.
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.