Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30076155›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of the rheumatic diseases2018

Impact of biological therapy on work outcomes in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR-AS) and meta-analysis.

Joanna Shim, Gareth T Jones, Ejaz M I Pathan, Gary J Macfarlane

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Work Disability in Axial Spondyloarthritis.Current rheumatology reports · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Joanna ShimEpidemiology Group, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Gareth T JonesEpidemiology Group, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Ejaz M I PathanSpondylitis Program, Department of Rheumatology, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gary J MacfarlaneEpidemiology Group, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 20665Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo quantify, among patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), the benefit on work outcomes associated with commencing biologic therapy.

methodsThe British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register in Axial Spondyloarthritis (BSRBRAS) recruited patients meeting Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society criteria for axSpA naïve to biological therapy across 83 centres in Great Britain. Work outcomes (measured using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Index) were compared between those starting biological therapy at the time of recruitment and those not. Differences between treatment groups were adjusted using propensity score matching. Results from BSRBR-AS were combined with other studies in a meta-analysis to calculate pooled estimates.

resultsOf the 577 participants in this analysis who were in employment, 27.9% were starting biological therapy at the time of recruitment. After propensity score adjustment, patients undergoing biological therapy, at 12-month follow-up, experienced significantly greater improvements (relative to non-biological therapy) in presenteeism (-9.4%, 95% CI -15.3% to -3.5%), overall work impairment (-13.9%, 95% CI -21.1% to -6.7%) and overall activity impairment (-19.2%, 95% CI -26.3% to -12.2%). There was no difference in absenteeism (-1.5%, 95% CI -8.0 to 4.9). Despite these improvements, impact on work was still greater in the biological treated cohort at follow-up. In the meta-analysis including 1109 subjects across observational studies and trials, treatment with biological therapy was associated with significantly greater improvements in presenteeism, work impairment and activity impairment, but there was no difference in absenteeism.

conclusionsThere is consistent evidence that treatment with biological therapy significantly improves work productivity and activity impairment in people with axSpA. However, there remain substantial unmet needs in relation to work.

Indexed as

AbsenteeismAdultAntirheumatic AgentsBiological ProductsDisability EvaluationEfficiencyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPresenteeismRegistriesSeverity of Illness IndexSpondylarthritisTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomAntirheumatic AgentsBiological Productsaxial spondyloarthritisbiologic therapymeta-analysiswork

Identifiers

PMID30076155
PMCPMC6225801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.