Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30488002›Full record

ArticleRMD open2018

Comparative effectiveness of subcutaneous tocilizumab versus intravenous tocilizumab in a pan-European collaboration of registries.

Kim Lauper, Denis Mongin, Florenzo Iannone, Eirik Klami Kristianslund, Tore K Kvien, Dan Nordström, Karel Pavelka, Manuel Pombo-Suarez, Ziga Rotar, Maria Jose Santos and 4 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in RMD open, 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 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Kim LauperDivision of Rheumatology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4315-9009
Denis MonginDivision of Rheumatology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Florenzo IannoneInterdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Rheumatology Unit, GISEA, University Hospital of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Eirik Klami KristianslundDepartment of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Tore K KvienDepartment of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Dan NordströmDepartment of Medicine, ROB-FIN, Helsinki University Hospital and Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.
Karel PavelkaInstitute of Rheumatology, Prague and Clinic of Rheumatology Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Manuel Pombo-SuarezRheumatology Unit, Clinical University Hospital, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Ziga RotarDepartment of Rheumatology, BioRx.si, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Maria Jose SantosRheumatology Department, on behalf of Reuma.pt, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal.
Catalin CodreanuCenter of Rheumatic Diseases, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Galina LukinaARBITER, Institute of Rheumatology, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Delphine S CourvoisierDivision of Rheumatology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Cem GabayDivision of Rheumatology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the real-word effectiveness of subcutaneous tocilizumab (TCZ-SC) and intravenous tocilizumab (TCZ-IV) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

methodsPatients with RA with TCZ from eight European registries were included. Drug retention was compared using unadjusted Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusted for baseline patient, disease and treatment characteristics, using a strata term for year of treatment initiation and country of registry. The proportions of patients achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission and low disease activity (LDA) at 1 year were compared using samples matched on the same covariates and corrected for attrition using LUNDEX.

results3448 patients were retrieved, 2414 with TCZ-IV and 1034 with TCZ-SC. Crude median retention was 3.52 years (95% CI 3.22 to 3.85) for TCZ-IV and 2.12 years for TCZ-SC (95% CI 1.88 to 2.38). In a country-stratified and year of treatment initiation-stratified, covariate-adjusted analysis, hazards of discontinuation were similar between TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV treated patients (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09). The average adjusted CDAI change at 1 year was similar in both groups (-6.08). After matching, with 560 patients in each group, CDAI remission corrected for attrition at 1 year was also similar between TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV (10.4% in TCZ-IV vs 12.8% in TCZ-SC (difference: 2.4%, bootstrap 95% CI -2.1% to 7.6%)), but CDAI LDA was lower in TCZ-IV patients: 41.0% in TCZ-IV versus 49.1% in TCZ-SC (difference: 8.0 %; bootstrap 95% CI 2.4% to 12.4%).

conclusionWith similar retention and effectiveness, TCZ-SC is an adequate alternative to TCZ-IV for RA. When possible, considering the costs of the TCZ-IV route, TCZ-SC should be the preferred mode of administration.

Indexed as

biological therapiesDMARDsepidemiologyintravenousrheumatoid arthritissubcutaneoustocilizumab

Identifiers

PMID30488002
PMCPMC6241977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.