ArticleMedicine2020
Efficacy predictors of a second tumor necrosis factor inhibitor in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rheumatoid factors revisited in the age of biologic therapy.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025Review
- Comparative Effectiveness of a Second Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Versus a Non-Tumor Necrosis Factor Biologic in the Treatment of Patients With Polyarticular-Course Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.Arthritis care & research · 2024Article
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
To retrospectively evaluate initial tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) failure patients for clinical predictors of response to a 2nd TNFi in our 4282 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patient database.A cross-sectional retrospective manual chart review of the electronic health record (EHR) was performed on 322 "real world" RA patients who were prescribed 2 TNFis. Response to TNFi was determined by the treating provider who had real time Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores to inform treatment decisions. Age, gender, body mass index (BMI), insurance provider, duration of disease, cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (CCP) and rheumatoid factor (RF) positivity, concomitant disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug therapy, length of time between diagnosis and start of 1st and 2nd TNFi, transient efficacy of 1st TNFi (defined as response to TNFi at 3 months but later lost response), and reason for discontinuation of 1st TNFi were analyzed. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to model response to a 2nd TNFi.Response proportions to the 2nd TNFi were greater in females (161/223, 72.2% response female vs 41/75, 54.7% male, P < .01), those who began their 1st TNFi within 3 months of their RA diagnosis, and in RF+ patients (123/170, 72.4% response seropositive vs 66/110, 60.0% seronegative, P < .03). The higher female response rate was independent of age, BMI, and seropositivity.In RA patients who failed an initial TNFi, female patients and patients with RF+ were more likely to have a clinical response to a 2nd TNFi. In the absence of these predictors, stronger consideration for choosing a biologic with an alternative mechanism of action might be given when the 1st TNFi fails.
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.