ArticleRheumatology international2016
Second-line therapy with biological drugs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in German rheumatologist practices: a retrospective database analysis.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Suboptimal management of rheumatoid arthritis in France: a real-world study based on data from the French National Health Data System.RMD open · 2023Article
- The impact of sex and gender on immunotherapy outcomes.Biology of sex differences · 2020Review
- Persistence and treatment-free interval in patients being prescribed biological drugs in rheumatology practices in Germany.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- Persistence with biological drugs in patients treated in rheumatology practices in Germany.Rheumatology international · 2019Article
- Factors associated with initial or subsequent choice of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.Arthritis research & therapy · 2017Observational
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
The aim of the study was to assess the proportion of German patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) after initiation of conventional DMARD therapy. Patients aged 18 years or over who had initiated therapy with a conventional DMARD in a rheumatic care practice between 2009 and 2013 were included (IMS LRx database). The main outcome was the first prescription of a biological DMARD within 5 years following the index date. A multivariate Cox regression model was adopted to predict the prescription of biological DMARDs on the basis of patient characteristics. The mean age of the 137,673 patients with RA was 57.8 years (SD = 15.0). 68.3 % of the subjects were women. Most patients started their conventional DMARD therapy with methotrexate (62 %), sulfasalazine (13 %), and hydroxychloroquine (12 %). 20.7 % of the RA patients were given a biological DMARD within 5 years following the index date. Male gender was linked with a 10 % higher likelihood of biologic use whereas age decreased the odds of biological DMARD prescription by 3 % per year. Finally, leflunomide use was associated with increased odds of biologic prescription, whereas sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine decreased the chances of receiving biologics, as compared to methotrexate. Around 20 % of patients were being treated with biologics 5 years after prescription of conventional DMARDs. Gender, age, and initial treatment impacted the proportion of subjects treated with biological DMARDs.
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.