Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32280951›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Rheumatology2020

Frequency of biologic switching and the outcomes of switching in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a national cohort study.

Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, Eleanor Heaf, Rebecca Davies, Eileen Baildam, Michael W Beresford, Helen E Foster, Taunton R Southwood, Wendy Thomson, Kimme L Hyrich, BCRD and BSPAR-ETN study groups

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Rheumatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. The N-of-1 Trials and where to use them in Rheumatology.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Lianne Kearsley-FleetCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Eleanor HeafCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Rebecca DaviesCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Eileen BaildamClinical Academic Department of Paediatric Rheumatology, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Michael W BeresfordClinical Academic Department of Paediatric Rheumatology, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Helen E FosterMusculoskeletal Research Group, Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Taunton R SouthwoodInstitute of Child Health, University of Birmingham and Birmingham Children's Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Wendy ThomsonCentre for Genetics and Genomics Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Kimme L HyrichCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
BCRD and BSPAR-ETN study groups
University of Manchester · GBAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust · GBBirmingham Children's Hospital · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBManchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GBNewcastle University · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBVersus Arthritis · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R013926/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation is scarce about biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) switching patterns in children and young people (aged ≤16 years) with juvenile idiopathic arthritis in an era of many biologic therapies. The best choice of biologic to use if the first biological DMARD is not beneficial also remains unclear. We aimed to quantify and characterise biologic switching patterns in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and to compare the effectiveness of using a second tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus non-TNF is following failure of a first TNFi biologic in routine clinical practice.

methodsOur study population comprised patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis who were enrolled in two parallel UK cohort studies (the British Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology Etanercept Cohort Study [BSPAR-ETN] and the Biologics for Children with Rheumatic Diseases [BCRD] study) between Jan 1, 2004, and April 11, 2019. Data on disease characteristics and DMARD therapy were collected at the time of initiation of a first biologic, at 6 months, at 1 year, and annually thereafter. Biologic switching patterns were described in all patients who started their first biologic from Jan 1, 2010, onwards. Among patients who started treatment with their first biologic from Jan 1, 2004, onwards, had polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (extended oligoarthritis or polyarthritis [positive or negative for rheumatoid factor]), and who had started a second biologic, we assessed changes in outcome variables at 6 months compared with baseline and compared the proportion of patients who achieved an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric (ACR Pedi) 90 response and minimal disease activity at 6 months on the basis of the class of the second biologic (a second TNFi

findingsBetween Jan 1, 2004, and April 11, 2019, 2361 patients were enrolled on initiation of biologic therapy. From Jan 1, 2010, onwards, 1152 patients started their first biologic, most of whom started treatment with TNFis (1050 [91%]). The median follow-up was 2·2 years (IQR 1·1-3·8). During this time, 270 (23%) of 1152 patients started a second biologic, 61 (5%) started a third biologic, and 11 (1%) started a fourth biologic. Among 240 patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis, 194 (81%) started a second TNFi and 46 (19%) started a non-TNFi after an initial TNFi had failed. Choice of second treatment (second TNFi

interpretationFor many children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, treatment with a first or second biologic is not beneficial. We found no evidence that switching to a second non-TNFi biologic was more beneficial than a second TNFi.

fundingVersus Arthritis and The British Society for Rheumatology.

Identifiers

PMID32280951
PMCPMC7134528
OpenAlexW3010607792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.