ArticleZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2017
Efficacy and safety of methotrexate plus certolizumab pegol or placebo in active rheumatoid arthritis : Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP) 200 and 400 mg + methotrexate (MTX) compared to placebo + MTX in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
methodsWe performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine the direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of CZP 200 and 400 mg + MTX and placebo + MTX (MTX group) in patients with active RA despite receiving MTX or a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).
resultsSix RCTs (30349 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The ACR20 response rate was significantly higher in the CZP 200 and 400 mg + MTX group than in the MTX group (OR 7.30, 95 % credible interval [CrI] 3.31-16.92 and OR 5.48, 95 % CrI 2.98-10.30, respectively). CZP 400 mg + MTX tended to be more efficacious than CZP 200 mg + MTX (OR 1.33, 95 % CrI 0.61-2.97). A surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA)-based ranking probability indicated that CZP 400 mg + MTX had the highest probability of achieving the ACR20 response rate, followed by CZP 200 mg + MTX and MTX (SUCRA = 0.9007, 0.7156, and 0.0002, respectively). The ACR20, 50, and 70 response rate distributions were comparable. However, the safety based on the number of adverse event (AE)-related withdrawals did not differ significantly among the three interventions.
conclusionsCZP, at dosages of 200 and 400 mg, in combination with MTX, was the efficacious intervention for active RA without causing a significant risk of AE-related withdrawals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27312466What 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.