Observational studyMedicine2020
Favorable retention rates and safety of conventional anti-rheumatic drugs in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Late-onset rheumatoid arthritis: clinical features, diagnostic challenges, and treatment approaches.Rheumatology international · 2025Review
- Review
- Suboptimal management of rheumatoid arthritis in France: a real-world study based on data from the French National Health Data System.RMD open · 2023Article
- Antirheumatic drugs in older adults and polypharmacy issues.Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2022Review
- A Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study Evaluating the Favorable Predictive Factors for the Disease Control Time of Treatment with Tocilizumab in Patients of Rheumatoid Arthritis.Journal of inflammation research · 2021Article
- Effect of glucocorticoids combined with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs on the improvement of symptoms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physicians are challenged by the recognition and treatment of older patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this case-control study was to evaluate the retention and safety of conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in older patients with RA.In this observational case-control study, we assessed older patients with RA (≥65 years) who were diagnosed in 3 different rheumatology centers from Turkey. Patients were divided as to those aged ≥65 years (elderly rheumatoid arthritis [ERA]) and those aged <65 years (young rheumatoid arthritis [YRA]) at the time of conventional DMARD treatment initiation. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for the comparison of 2 non-normally distributed groups. The Chi-square (χ) test was used for categorical variables. Survival analysis were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.Four hundred eighteen patients with RA (296 females [71%]) were included from January 2010 to January 2018. The age of treatment onset of 190 (47%) patients was in the elderly period and they were included in the ERA group. In the analysis of drug retention rates, there was no significant difference between the ERA and YRA groups for each conventional DMARD (methotrexate 71.2% in ERA, 62.7% in YRA, P = .817; hydroxychloroquine 82.9% in ERA, 78.8% in YRA, P = .899; leflunomide 81.4% in ERA, 84.4% in YRA, P = .205; sulfasalazine 37.5% in ERA, 40.9% in YRA, P = .380). The adverse event data were also similar in both groups.The drug retention and adverse effect rates in older patients with RA using conventional DMARDS are similar to the rates in young patients with RA.
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.