ArticleRMD open2021
Comparative effectiveness of biologics and targeted therapies for psoriatic arthritis.
Article in RMD open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Secukinumab Persistence in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis: An Adalimumab-Matched Retrospective Cohort Database Study (FLYWAY).Rheumatology and therapy · 2025Article
- Real-World Adherence and Drug Survival of Biologics among Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Psoriatic arthritis: review of potential biomarkers predicting response to TNF inhibitors.Inflammopharmacology · 2023Review
- Real-world treatment patterns and use of adjunctive pain and anti-inflammatory medications among patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with IL-17A inhibitors in the United States.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo quantify comparative effectiveness of interleukin (IL)-12/23 antagonist (ustekinumab), IL-17A antagonists (secukinumab and ixekizumab), PDE4 inhibitor (apremilast) and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol and golimumab) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
methodsWe adapted a deidentified claims-based algorithm validated for inflammatory arthritis treatments to compare treatments among a retrospective cohort of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with PsA from October 2013 to April 2019 in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Main outcomes include (1) treatment effectiveness, based on: adherence, adding or switching biologic or PDE4, addition of new non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, increase in biologic or PDE4 dose or frequency and glucocorticoid use and (2) percentage of each group fulfilling the effectiveness algorithm. We used Poisson regression with robust variance stratified by prior PsA biologic exposure and adjusted for potential confounders.
resultsOf 2730 individuals with PsA, 327 received IL-12/23, 138 IL-17A's, 624 PDE4 and 1641 TNF-α's. Effectiveness criteria were fulfilled among 63 (19.3%) IL-12/23 recipients, 40 (29.0%) IL-17A recipients, 160 (25.6%) PDE4 recipients and 530 (32.3%) TNF-α recipients. Among biologic-naïve individuals, IL-12/23 was less effective than TNF-α's with fully adjusted relative risk (aRR) compared with TNF-α's of 0.63 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.89). Among biologic-experienced individuals, PDE4 recipients were less effective than TNF-α's (aRR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96).
conclusionsTNF-α's appeared more effective than IL-12/23's for biologic-naïve individuals, and PDE4's for biologic-experienced individuals. These results may help inform treatment choice for individuals with PsA.
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.