SynthesisClinical rheumatology2017
Comparative effectiveness of biologics for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical rheumatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Baseline metabolic profiles of early rheumatoid arthritis patients achieving sustained drug-free remission after initiating treat-to-target tocilizumab, methotrexate, or the combination: insights from systems biology.Arthritis research & therapy · 2018Trial
- Primary Arthrodesis of Non-thumb Metacarpophalangeal Joints of the Hand: Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Cancer treatment with biosimilar drugs: A review.Cancer innovation · 2024Review
- Article
- The Fungal Metabolite (+)-Terrein Abrogates Inflammatory Bone Resorption via the Suppression of TNF-α Production in a Ligature-Induced Periodontitis Mouse Model.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparison of Biological Agent Monotherapy and Associations Including Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Pegylation Reduces the Uptake of Certolizumab Pegol by Dendritic Cells and Epitope Presentation to T-Cells.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- Switching Among Biosimilars: A Review of Clinical Evidence.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Potential Role of Anti-interleukin (IL)-6 Drugs in the Treatment of COVID-19: Rationale, Clinical Evidence and Risks.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2020Review
- PET/CT Imaging of Human TNFα Using [Molecular imaging and biology · 2020Article
- Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in rheumatology: a gentle introduction for clinicians.Clinical rheumatology · 2019Article
- Challenges in Orphan Drug Development: Identification of Effective Therapy for Thyroid-Associated Ophthalmopathy.Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology · 2019Review
- Observational
- In Vivo PET Imaging of the Activated Immune Environment in a Small Animal Model of Inflammatory Arthritis.Molecular imaging · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our aim was to establish the comparative effectiveness of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) biologics, using a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The systematic review used randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with RA who failed treatment with conventional disease-modifying agents for rheumatoid disease (cDMARDs). We compared the effectiveness of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, and rituximab to tocilizumab, a recent biologic with a different mechanism of action (anti-IL-6 receptor). A network meta-analysis (NMA) included the indirect and direct evidence previously selected. In total, 207 articles were included describing 68 RCTs. The NMA showed that tocilizumab monotherapy was superior to standard care (ACR20, OR 13.27, 95 % CrI [3.958, 43.98]; ACR50, 17.45 [10.18, 31.24]; ACR70, 37.77 [7.226, 216.3]; EULAR, 10.42 [1.963, 54.8]); and methotrexate (MTX; ACR50, OR 5.44 [4.142, 7.238]; ACR70, 7.364 [1.4, 30.83]; EULAR, 4.226 [1.184, 15.58]) at 26 weeks. Similarly, the combination of tocilizumab + MTX was significantly better than standard care/placebo and MTX alone for ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, and EULAR at 26 weeks (OR 18.63 [5.32, 66.81]; 24.27 [14.5, 41.91]; 46.13 [10.08, 277]; 14.23 [2.493, 84.02]; 4.169 [2.267, 7.871]; 5.44 [4.142, 7.238]; 8.731 [4.203, 19.29]; 7.306 [4.393, 13.04], respectively). At 52 weeks, compared to MTX alone, tocilizumab + MTX was significantly better for ACR20 and ACR50 response. Few significant differences were found between tocilizumab (alone or in combination) and any other biologics. Results must be considered in context with the limitations of the available evidence. This NMA suggests that tocilizumab was superior to cDMARDs and as effective as other biologics for RA.
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.