ArticleRheumatology international2017
Real-world clinical experience of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in Malaysia rheumatoid arthritis patients.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Intrauterine Exposure to Biologics in Inflammatory Autoimmune Diseases: A Systematic Review.Drugs · 2020Pooled it
- Risk of opportunistic infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating abatacept: cumulative clinical trial data.Arthritis research & therapy · 2021Trial
- Impact of Biological Therapies on Quality of Life in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Narrative Review.Open access rheumatology : research and reviews · 2025Review
- Biologics for the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Review in Tuberculosis-Endemic Countries.Gut and liver · 2020Review
- Tuberculosis and targeted synthetic or biologic DMARDs, beyond tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effect of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in real-world clinical practice remains unknown in Southeast Asia. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of bDMARDs among Malaysian RA patients treated in routine clinical practice. A retrospective medical chart review of RA patients from 11 government hospitals were conducted from January 2003 to January 2014. A standardized questionnaire was used to abstract patient's demographic, clinical and treatment data. Level of disease activity was measured by DAS28 collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Three hundred and one patients were available for analysis, mean age 41 (SD, 10.8) years, mean RA duration 12.3 (SD, 6.9) years and 98% had history of two or more conventional-synthetic DMARDs. There were 467 bDMARD courses prescribed with mean bDMARDs duration use of 12.9 months (SD 14.7). Tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors were the most common prescribed bDMARDs (77.1%), followed by Tocilizumab (14.6%) and Rituximab (8.4%). We observed significant improvement in mean DAS28 values from baseline to 3, 6 and 12 months (p < 0.001). Overall, 16.9% achieved DAS28 remission at 6 months. A third (35.6%) of patients reported adverse events, three commonest being infections (46.5%), allergy (22.9%) and laboratory abnormalities (12.9%). 3.7% of our patients had tuberculosis. Biologic DMARDs were effective in treating RA in real-world practice in Malaysia, despite a lower remission rate compared to developed countries. Except for higher rates of tuberculosis, the AEs were similar to the published reports.
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.