ArticleACR open rheumatology2019
Use of FDA-Approved Medications: Biologics for Psoriatic Arthritis in Patients at an Urban Outpatient Rheumatology Clinic.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePsoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory arthritis associated with psoriasis that manifests as peripheral arthritis, dactylitis, enthesitis, and spondylitis. Biologics, particularly tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and some interleukin 17 (IL-17) and interleukin 23 (IL-23) inhibitors, are the only US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatments shown to limit joint damage in clinical trials for PsA. Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have also been adapted to PsA treatment. Current 2018 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines regard TNFis as first-line therapy in treatment-naïve patients. The aim of this project is to review the prescribing practices for patients with PsA at an urban rheumatology office, with a focus on biologic prescribing.
methodsA retrospective chart review was performed to search for patients seen from June 1, 2017, to June 1, 2018, using
resultsThis study included a total of 97 patients (40 women and 57 men), and 66% were on biologics (60% of women and 70% of men). There was no sex bias in biologic prescribing (
conclusionThere is no age or sex bias in prescribing practices for PsA. In accordance with the ACR, patients with controlled symptoms on OSMs are being appropriately maintained. Although apremilast is allocated as an add-on therapy, 13.4% of patients were on apremilast monotherapy. This quality improvement project reveals that in most instances, biologics are being appropriately initiated as the primary mode of therapy for patients with PsA at our outpatient practice; however, treatment modifications can be made regarding patients who are managed with apremilast alone.
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.