SynthesisClinical rheumatology2016
Indirect comparisons of the efficacy of subsequent biological agents in patients with psoriatic arthritis with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical rheumatology, 2016. 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.
- Comparative effectiveness of abatacept, apremilast, secukinumab and ustekinumab treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Rheumatology international · 2018Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of abatacept, a T-cell modulator, in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study in psoriatic arthritis.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2017Trial
- Real-World Drug Survival of Biologics and Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs Among Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis.Drugs & aging · 2024Article
- The Immunobiological Agents for Treatment of Antiglomerular Basement Membrane Disease.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Network Meta-Analysis of Tofacitinib, Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs, and Apremilast for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2020Article
- An Update for the Clinician on Biologics for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis.Biologics : targets & therapy · 2020Review
- Relative efficacy and safety of apremilast, secukinumab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis.Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2018Article
- Long-term effectiveness of tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor treatment for psoriatic arthritis in the UK: a multicentre retrospective study.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2018Article
- Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis.Expert review of clinical pharmacology · 2017Review
- Review
- Apremilast in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a perspective review.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2017Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significant portion of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) could not tolerate or do not have a satisfactory response to either non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or even TNF inhibitors. Non-TNF inhibitor biologic agents have emerged as second-line therapy in such situation. However, the comparative efficacy of these agents remains unknown as head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not available. RCTs examining the efficacy of non-TNF inhibitor biologic agents in patients with PsA who experienced inadequate response or intolerance of TNF inhibitors were identified. If more than one RCT was available for a given biologic agent, the pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) of achieving 20 % improvement according to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) response across trials were calculated. The pooled OR for each biologic agent was then compared using the indirect comparison technique. Five RCTs of four non-TNF inhibitor biologic agents, including abatacept, secukinumab, ustekinumab, and apremilast, with 675 participants were identified and included in the data analyses. We found no significant difference in any comparisons, with the p values ranging from 0.14 to 0.98. Our study demonstrates that the likelihood of achieving the ACR20 response in patients with TNF inhibitor experience is not significantly different between the four non-TNF biologic agents. However, the interpretation of this analysis is limited by the small sample sizes. Head-to-head comparisons are still required to confirm the comparative efficacy.
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.