Observational studyRheumatology (Oxford, England)2020
Regional variations in adverse event reporting rates and ACR responses in placebo/standard-of-care arms of rheumatoid arthritis trials.
Observational study in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing nurse-led and rheumatologist-led care for rheumatoid arthritis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2025Pooled it
- E-52862-A selective sigma-1 receptor antagonist, in peripheral neuropathic pain: Two randomized, double-blind, phase 2 studies in patients with chronic postsurgical pain and painful diabetic neuropathy.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Trial
- Efficacy and safety of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) in acute moderate-to-severe pain after abdominal hysterectomy: A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial (STARDOM2).European journal of pain (London, England) · 2022Trial
- Open-Label Placebo Trial among Japanese Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.Pain research & management · 2020Trial
- Regional variation in clinical-trial risks: a large-scale analysis of 585 clinical trials.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Pharmacovigilance and bioethics: the importance of a neglected relationship.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2025Review
- Geographic Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of Filgotinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Rheumatology and therapy · 2023Article
- Does a lack of vaccine side effects correlate with reduced BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine response among healthcare workers and nursing home residents?Aging clinical and experimental research · 2021Article
- Fenebrutinib versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase II Trial (ANDES Study).Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2020Article
- UpadacitinibDrugs in context · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveClinical trials are increasingly globalized, and adverse event (AE) rates and treatment responses may differ by geographical region. This study assessed regional differences in AE reporting rates and ACR response rates (ACR20/50) in patients with RA who received placebo/standard-of-care treatment in clinical trials.
methodsPatients from the placebo arms of 7 RA trials in the TransCelerate Biopharma Inc database were grouped into 5 geographical regions (Asia, Latin America, Russian Federation and Eastern Europe [RFEE], USA, and Western Europe). Differences in demographics, AE reporting rates and ACR response were evaluated using descriptive statistics and omnibus tests for significance; pairwise comparisons were made between regions, with false discovery rate correction for multiple comparisons.
resultsAmong 970 patients included, week 12 AE rates were significantly lower in the RFEE than in Asia, Latin America and the USA (22% vs 51%, 49% and 53%, respectively; P < 0.05 after false discovery rate correction). Similar differences in AE rates across geographical regions were seen at week 52. Among 747 patients with ACR data, the lowest response rates were observed in the USA (ACR20, 22%) and RFEE (ACR50, 3%); the highest response rates were seen in Western Europe (ACR20, 43%) and Latin America (ACR50, 15%). Only the differences in ACR50 response between the RFEE and Latin America remained significant after false discovery rate correction.
conclusionThese placebo/standard-of-care arm data revealed significant regional differences in AE reporting rates and ACR50 response rates. Regional distribution of patients should be considered when conducting RA clinical trials, particularly during recruitment.
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.