ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2015
The comparative effectiveness of biologics among older adults and disabled rheumatoid arthritis patients in the Medicare population.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Validation of new medication use algorithms as proxies for worsening disease activity in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2024Article
- Observational
- Accuracy of administrative claims prescription fill data to estimate glucocorticoid use and dose in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2023Article
- Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating etanercept, adalimumab, or Janus kinase inhibitor as first-line therapy: results from the real-world CorEvitas RA Registry.Arthritis research & therapy · 2023Article
- Prevalence of Frailty in Ankylosing Spondylitis, Psoriatic Arthritis, and Rheumatoid Arthritis: Data from a National Claims Dataset.ACR open rheumatology · 2022Article
- Clinical Utility and Cost Savings in Predicting Inadequate Response to Anti-TNF Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Rheumatology and therapy · 2020Article
- Effectiveness and Costs Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Treated with Targeted Immunomodulators Using Real-World U.S. Data.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Observational
- Management of inflammatory rheumatic conditions in the elderly.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2019Review
- Comparative effectiveness research with administrative health data in rheumatoid arthritis.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2016Review
- Treatment effectiveness and treatment patterns among rheumatoid arthritis patients after switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to another medication.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2016Article
- The comparative effectiveness of biologics among older adults and disabled rheumatoid arthritis patients in the Medicare population.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsOlder and disabled rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients are often not present in large numbers in clinical trials or registries. A novel, claims-based clinical effectiveness algorithm provides the potential to compare the effectiveness of different biologics among this population using large administrative databases.
methodUsing Medicare 2006-2010 data for 100% of patients with RA, we identified biologic naïve users of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab, defined as no biologic use during the 12 months before the biologic initiation. The effectiveness was evaluated at 365 days after biologic initiation, determined using a validated claims-based algorithm. We compared the proportion meeting effectiveness criteria for each biologic using robust Poisson regression to compute risk ratios (RRs) adjusted for potential confounders. One year cost per effectively treated patient was calculated by different biologics.
resultsThe study included biologic naïve users of abatacept (n = 2129), adalimumab (n = 2944), etanercept (n = 3517) and infliximab (n = 5654). The algorithm classified the medications as 26% effective for abatacept, 24% for adalimumab, 28% for etanercept and 23% for infliximab, indicating comparable effectiveness. However, after adjustment and compared with infliximab, the RRs for effectiveness were 1.17 (95% CI 1.06, 1.30) for abatacept, 1.11 (95% CI 1.02, 1.23) for adalimumab and 1.27 (95% CI 1.17, 1.39) for etanercept. Older patients had a higher effectiveness than patients who were disabled (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.08, 1.28). Infliximab had highest cost per effectively treated patient.
conclusionAbatacept, adalimumab and etanercept are more effective than infliximab among RA patients initiating biologics. Effectiveness was significantly higher among older patients compared with disabled RA Medicare patients.
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.