ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2021
Biologic use in psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis patients: a descriptive epidemiological study using linked, routine data in Wales, UK.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biologic Sequence for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis Following Nonresponse: A Narrative Review.Dermatology and therapy · 2025Review
- Low Frequency of HLA-B27 in Ankylosing Spondylitis Patients from Turkey: Insights from the Thrace Region.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Enhancing current guidance for psoriatic arthritis and its comorbidities: recommendations from an expert consensus panel.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Prevalence and characteristics of musculoskeletal complaints in primary care: an analysis from the population level and analysis reporting (POLAR) database.BMC primary care · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPsA and AS are chronic diseases associated with significant morbidities. National and international management guidelines include treatment with biologic therapies to improve outcomes and quality of life. There are limited real-world data on the patients' journey from symptom onset to diagnosis and treatment in the UK. We use real-life, linked health data to explore patient pathways and the impact of biologics on patient outcomes.
methodsData from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage databank in Wales were used to assess diagnosis and treatment of patients ≥18 years of age with at least one International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code present for PsA/AS in rheumatology clinic data and at least one Read code present in primary care records. We investigated the use of biologics while exploring demographics, comorbidities and surgical procedures of 641 AS patients and 1312 PsA patients.
resultsAS patients were significantly younger at diagnosis and were predominantly male. The average time from presenting symptoms to diagnosis of AS and PsA was 7.9 (s.d. 5.5) and 9.3 (s.d. 5.5) years, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving biologic treatment was significantly higher in AS (46%) compared with PsA patients (28.8%); of these, 23.1% of AS and 22.2% of PsA patients stopped/switched a biologic. There was a significant reduction in primary care involvement, sick notes and disability living allowance for both AS and PsA patients following biologic initiation.
conclusionThis real-world descriptive study confirms that patients treated with biologics have reduced disability and time off work despite being initiated ∼13 years after the first symptoms and 6 years after diagnosis.
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.