ArticleThe Journal of rheumatology2019
Uptake and Clinical Utility of Multibiomarker Disease Activity Testing in the United States.
Article in The Journal of rheumatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomarker discovery studies for patient stratification using machine learning analysis of omics data: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Derivation and internal validation of a multi-biomarker-based cardiovascular disease risk prediction score for rheumatoid arthritis patients.Arthritis research & therapy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe clinical utility of the multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) test for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management in routine care in the United States has not been thoroughly studied.
methodsUsing 2011-2015 Medicare data, we linked each patient with RA to their MBDA test result. Initiation of a biologic or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor in the 6 months following MBDA testing was described. Multivariable adjustment evaluated the likelihood of adding or switching biologic/JAK inhibitor, controlling for potential confounders. For patients with high MBDA scores who added a new RA therapy and were subsequently retested, lack of improvement in the MBDA score was evaluated as a predictor of future RA medication failure, defined by the necessity to change RA medications again.
resultsAmong 60,596 RA patients with MBDA testing, the proportion adding or switching biologics/JAK inhibitor among those not already taking a biologic/JAK inhibitor was 9.0% (low MBDA), 11.8% (moderate MBDA), and 19.7% (high MBDA, p < 0.0001). Similarly, among those already taking biologics/JAK inhibitor, the proportions were 5.2%, 8.3%, and 13.5% (p < 0.0001). After multivariable adjustment, referent to those with low disease MBDA scores, the likelihood of switching was 1.51-fold greater (95% CI 1.35-1.69) for patients with moderate MBDA scores, and 2.62 (2.26-3.05) for patients with high MBDA scores. Among those with high MBDA scores who subsequently added a biologic/JAK inhibitor and were retested, lack of improvement in the MBDA score category was associated with likelihood of future RA treatment failure (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.27-2.03).
conclusionThe MBDA score was associated with both biologic and JAK inhibitor medication addition/switching and subsequent treatment outcomes.
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.