ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2019
Persistence and treatment-free interval in patients being prescribed biological drugs in rheumatology practices in Germany.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe goal of this study was to analyze persistence and the treatment-free interval in patients being prescribed biological drugs in rheumatology practices in Germany.
methodsPatients who received a first prescription of biological drugs between 2008 and 2016 in 21 rheumatologists in Germany were included in this study (index date). The main outcome was the rate of persistence with biological drugs as a function of the duration of the treatment-free interval used to define discontinuation. The secondary outcomes were the duration of the treatment-free interval, the probability of restarting therapy, and their respective association with age, gender, and diagnosis (i.e., rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis).
resultsA total of 4925 patients were included in this study. After 5 years of follow-up, the rate of persistence was 32.6%, 51.1%, and 65.7% if discontinuation was defined as a gap of 90, 180, and 360 days respectively. The majority of patients restarted therapy between 91 and 180 days after the discontinuation date. Advanced age was associated with a decreased probability of restarting biological therapy after a treatment-free interval of at least 91 days, with odds ratios ranging from 0.34 in people aged 61-70 years to 0.66 in those aged 31-40 years (reference value: ≤ 30 years). Finally, patients over 70 and those suffering from ankylosing spondylitis had shorter treatment-free intervals compared to those 30 years or younger (adjusted difference of - 117 days) and those suffering from rheumatoid arthritis (- 48 days) respectively.
conclusionPersistence varied widely depending on the definition of discontinuation, with the majority of nonpersistent patients restarting biological therapy shortly after discontinuation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30666350What 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.