Trial reportRheumatology international2016
Assessment of clinical efficacy and safety in a randomized double-blind study of etanercept and sulfasalazine in patients with ankylosing spondylitis from Eastern/Central Europe, Latin America, and Asia.
Trial report in Rheumatology international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health state utility values in patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Pooled it
- Korean treatment recommendations for patients with axial spondyloarthritis.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2023Guideline
- Comparison of biologics and small-molecule drugs in axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Korean College of Rheumatology treatment recommendations for patients with axial spondyloarthritis: 2026 update.Journal of rheumatic diseases · 2026Article
- Long-term Etanercept Response for Patients with Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis Based on Achievement of Early, Intermediate, or Late Responses During Index Studies.Rheumatology and therapy · 2024Article
- Cause analysis of conversion to biologics in spondyloarthritis patients with poor response to conventional treatment.Clinical rheumatology · 2023Article
- Korean treatment recommendations for patients with axial spondyloarthritis.Journal of rheumatic diseases · 2023Review
- Article
- Similar alteration for mental and physical aspects in health-related quality of life over 5 to 8 years in 1347 patients with early arthritis and early inflammatory back pain.Arthritis research & therapy · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the demonstrated efficacy of etanercept for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), sulfasalazine is often prescribed, especially in countries with limited access to biologic agents. The objective of this subset analysis of the ASCEND trial was to compare the efficacy of etanercept and sulfasalazine in treating patients with AS from Asia, Eastern/Central Europe, and Latin America. A total of 287 patients, 190 receiving etanercept 50 mg once weekly and 97 receiving sulfasalazine 3 g daily, from eight countries were included in this subset analysis. Differences in disease activity and patient-reported outcomes assessing health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) parameters in response to treatment were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for categorical efficacy endpoints and analysis of covariance model for continuous variables. At week 16, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving etanercept achieved ASAS20 (79.0 %) compared with patients receiving sulfasalazine (61.9 %; p = 0.002). At week 16, treatment with etanercept also resulted in significantly better responses than sulfasalazine for ASAS40 (64.7 vs. 35.1 %; p < 0.001), ASAS5/6 (48.1 vs. 26.3 %; p < 0.001), proportion of patients achieving 50 % response in Bath AS Disease Activity Index (65.8 vs. 42.3 %; p < 0.001), partial remission (35.3 vs. 17.5 %; p = 0.002), and all HRQoL parameters. Both treatments were well tolerated. Etanercept was significantly more effective than sulfasalazine in the treatment of patients with AS from Asia, Central/Eastern Europe, and Latin America.
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.