ArticleACR open rheumatology2019
Joint Estimation of Remission and Response for Methotrexate-Based DMARD Options in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Bivariate Network Meta-Analysis.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Utility and Cost Savings in Predicting Inadequate Response to Anti-TNF Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Rheumatology and 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
15 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo jointly estimate American College of Rheumatology (ACR50) response (a more commonly reported outcome) and remission (a more clinically relevant outcome) for methotrexate (MTX)-based treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
methodsWe conducted a bivariate network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare MTX monotherapy and MTX-based conventional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combinations for RA. The correlation between the outcomes was derived from an incident RA cohort study, whereas the treatment effects were derived from randomized trials in the network of evidence. The analyses were conducted separately for MTX-naïve and MTX-inadequate response (IR) populations in a Bayesian framework with uninformative priors.
resultsFrom the cohort study, the correlation between ACR50 response and Disease Activity Score 28 remission at 6 months was moderate (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.58). In the bivariate NMA for MTX-naïve populations, most combinations of MTX with either biologic or tofacitinib were statistically superior to MTX alone for both ACR50 response and remission. Triple therapy (MTX + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine) was the only nonbiologic DMARD statistically superior to MTX for either ACR50 response (odds ratio [OR] 95% credible interval: 2.1 [1.0, 4.3]) or remission (OR: 2.5 [1.0, 5.8]). In the MTX-IR analysis, all treatments except MTX + sulfasalazine were statistically superior to MTX alone. Compared to analyzing the outcomes separately, the bivariate model often resulted in more precise estimates and allowed remission to be estimated for all treatments.
conclusionBorrowing the strength of correlation between outcomes allowed us to demonstrate a statistically significant benefit for remission across most MTX-based DMARD combinations, including triple therapy.
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.