SynthesisClinical rheumatology2016
Withdrawal of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and 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 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reduction of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Rheumatology international · 2020Pooled it
- Down-titration and discontinuation strategies of tumour necrosis factor-blocking agents for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with low disease activity.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of curcumin in maintaining remission during disease-modifying antirheumatic drug withdrawal in rheumatoid arthritis at 52 weeks: a phase III double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial.Rheumatology international · 2023Trial
- Proteomic Approaches to Defining Remission and the Risk of Relapse in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Trial
- Optimizing treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis-a proof of principle and exploratory trial: is dose tapering practical in good responders?Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2017Trial
- 2018 Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.Rheumatology and immunology research · 2021Article
- Recommendations for the management of patients with systemic rheumatic diseases during the coronavirus disease pandemic.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2020Review
- Relapse rates after elective discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis and review of literature.BMC rheumatology · 2019Article
- bDMARD Dose Reduction in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Narrative Review with Systematic Literature Search.Rheumatology and therapy · 2017Review
- Doctors' preferences in de-escalating DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete choice experiment.Arthritis research & therapy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of withdrawing biologics from patients with rheumatoid arthritis in sustained remission or low disease activity. This is a systematic review of clinical trials that randomized withdrawal or continuation of biologics. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases. Three authors independently selected and extracted the data from the studies. The GRADE approach was employed to assess the quality of the evidence. We calculated meta-analyses of random effects model and estimated the heterogeneity by I (2). The number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated for significant outcomes. We included six trials (N = 1927 patients), most were industry-sponsored. Compared to withdrawing, continuing biologics increased the probability of low disease activity (relative risk [RR] = 0.66, 95 % CI 0.51-0.84, I (2) = 91 %, NNT = 4, low quality), remission (0.57, 0.44-0.74, I (2) = 82 %, NNT = 3, low quality), and radiographic progression (RR = 0.91, 95 % CI 0.85-0.98, I (2) = 13 %, NNT = 12, moderate quality). No significant difference was detected in the incidence of serious adverse events, serious infection, malignancy, and scores of improvement of tender and swollen joints between these strategies (low quality). A worse profile of outcomes was experienced by those patients when compared to the ones that continued biologics, but almost half of patients maintained low disease activity after withdrawal. As the quality of evidence was low, the conclusions may change as new results become available. The potential harms and benefits of this decision must be discussed with patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27107756What 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.