Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28544704›Full record

Trial reportArthritis care & research2018

Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Behavioral Intervention to Incorporate a Treat-to-Target Approach to Care of US Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Leslie R Harrold, George W Reed, Ani John, Christine J Barr, Kevin Soe, Robert Magner, Katherine C Saunders, Eric M Ruderman, Tmirah Haselkorn, Jeffrey D Greenberg and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Arthritis care & research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Leslie R HarroldUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, and CORRONA, LLC, Waltham.
George W ReedUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, and CORRONA, LLC, Waltham.
Ani JohnGenentech, South San Francisco, California.
Christine J BarrCORRONA, LLC, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Kevin SoeCORRONA, LLC, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Robert MagnerUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Katherine C SaundersCORRONA, LLC, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Eric M RudermanNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Tmirah HaselkornGenentech, South San Francisco, California.
Jeffrey D GreenbergNew York University School of Medicine, New York.
Allan GibofskyHospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
J Timothy HarringtonHarrington Consulting, LLC, Madison, Wisconsin.
Joel M KremerAlbany Medical College and The Center for Rheumatology, Albany, New York.
Optron Systems (United States) · USUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USAlbany Medical Center Hospital · USHospital for Special Surgery · USMadison Group (United States) · USNew York University · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the feasibility and efficacy of implementing a treat-to-target approach versus usual care in a US-based cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients.

methodsIn this behavioral intervention trial, rheumatology practices were cluster-randomized to provide treat-to-target care or usual care. Eligible patients with moderate/high disease activity (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score >10) were followed for 12 months. Both treat-to-target and usual care patients were seen every 3 months. Treat-to-target providers were to have monthly visits with treatment acceleration at a minimum of every 3 months in patients with CDAI score >10; additional visits and treatment acceleration were at the discretion of usual care providers and patients. Coprimary end points were feasibility, assessed by rate of treatment acceleration conditional on CDAI score >10, and achievement of low disease activity (LDA; CDAI score ≤10) by an intent-to-treat analysis.

resultsA total of 14 practice sites per study arm were included (246 patients receiving treat-to-target and 286 receiving usual care). The groups had similar baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Rates of treatment acceleration (treat-to-target 47% versus usual care 50%; odds ratio [OR] 0.92 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.64, 1.34]) and achievement of LDA (treat-to-target 57% versus usual care 55%; OR 1.05 [95% CI 0.60, 1.84]) were similar between groups. Treat-to-target providers reported patient reluctance and medication lag time as common barriers to treatment acceleration.

conclusionThis study is the first to examine the feasibility and efficacy of a treat-to-target approach in typical US rheumatology practice. Treat-to-target care was not associated with increased likelihood of treatment acceleration or achievement of LDA, and barriers to treatment acceleration were identified.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAgedAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidClinical Decision-MakingEducation, Medical, ContinuingFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansInservice TrainingMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedRemission InductionRheumatologistsAntirheumatic Agents

Identifiers

PMID28544704
PMCPMC5873265
OpenAlexW2619004084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.