ArticleRheumatology and therapy2021
Features and Outcomes of Microcrystalline Arthritis Treated by Biologics: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Rheumatology and therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biological Therapies for Urate Lowering and Inflammation Control in Gout Management.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Review
- The Therapeutic Management of Chemical and Herbal Medications on Uric Acid Levels and Gout: Modern and Traditional Wisdom.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Effectiveness and safety of anakinra in gouty arthritis: A case series and review of the literature.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe usual treatments for crystal-associated arthritis are sometimes contraindicated; thus, new therapies against interleukin-1beta (IL-1) have been developed. We evaluated the characteristics of patients who received biological treatment for crystal-associated arthritis. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe conducted a multicentric retrospective observational study in six rheumatology units in western France. Patients receiving a biological treatment for crystal-associated arthritis between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2018 were included. Improvement was defined as at least a 50% decrease in the count of synovitis and C-reactive protein level.
resultsForty-six patients were included: 31 (67.4%) were treated for gouty arthritis, and 15 (32.6%) for calcium pyrophosphate crystal deposition disease (CCPD). The first biotherapy used was anakinra for 14 patients (93.3%) with CCPD and 31 patients (100.0%) with gout. The first biotherapy course was more efficient in treating gout than in treating CCPD, with success in 28 patients (90.3%) and 5 patients (35.7%), respectively (p = 0.001). Six patients (42.9%) with CCPD stopped their first biotherapy course because of side effects. Among the patients with gout, urate-lowering therapy was more frequently used after (100%) than before the first biotherapy course (67.7%) (p = 0.002).
conclusionAnakinra was prescribed for cases of refractory crystal-associated arthritis or cases with contraindications for usual treatments. The efficacy of anakinra in treating CCPD was not obvious. Patients with CCPD had more side effects. The biotherapy was introduced with a long-term objective, while anti-IL-1 therapies are approved for acute crises only.
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.