ArticleInternal medicine (Tokyo, Japan)2021
Long-term Use of Golimumab in Daily Practice for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Article in Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Golimumab Ameliorates Pancreatic Inflammatory Response in the Cerulein-Induced Acute Pancreatitis in Rats.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2022Article
- The effects of golimumab on patient centric outcomes amongst rheumatoid arthritis patients in Greece. The GO-Q study.Rheumatology international · 2022Observational
- Effectiveness and Safety of Golimumab for Patients ≥75 Years Old with Rheumatoid Arthritis.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and drug retention rate of golimumab (GLM) for long-term use in daily practice for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Patients with RA who started GLM therapy with a minimum follow-up period of 52 weeks were included. The patients were divided into a biologic-naïve group and switch group. The disease activity score (DAS) 28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (DAS28-ESR), grip power, and Japanese version of the health assessment questionnaire (J-HAQ) score were assessed. In addition, the treatment continuation rate was evaluated at the final follow-up. Patients Sixty-five patients [58 women and 7 men; median (range) age, 69 (61-74) years; median (range) disease duration, 9 (5-16) years] were included. Twenty-eight patients were biologic-naïve (naïve group), and 37 were switched to biologics (switch group). Results The median (range) follow-up period was 134 (58-162) weeks. The DAS28-ESR improved from a median (range) of 4.31 (3.52-5.25) to 2.65 (2.28-3.77) in the naïve group and from 4.27 (3.19-4.89) to 2.89 (2.49-3.88) in the switch group. The grip power improved in both groups (p<0.01); however, the J-HAQ score showed no marked improvement in either group. The continuation rates were 22/28 (78.6%) in the naïve group, and 26/37 (70.3%) in the switch group at the final follow-up. Conclusion We herein report for the first time that the long-term use of GLM improves the grip power. Improving the grip power may help prevent sarcopenia and frailty in the future. Given the efficacy and high continuation rate, we suggest that GLM would be a well-tolerated treatment option for 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.