ArticleRheumatology and therapy2022
Comparative Effectiveness of Azathioprine Versus Cyclosporine as an Initial Treatment for Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies: A Population-Based Observational Study.
Article in Rheumatology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of azathioprine (AZA) and cyclosporine (CsA) as initial treatments for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using information from the National Health Insurance Service database of Republic of Korea. Patients with IIM who had started AZA or CsA as initial treatment between January 2007 and December 2011 were selected for the study. They were followed from the day of treatment initiation to the occurrence of study outcomes or the end of the study until December 2016. Effectiveness outcomes, defined as switching the drug or adding immunosuppressants, and discontinuation of corticosteroids, were compared between the two groups. The Cox proportional-hazards model was used to calculate the adjusted relative risk (aRR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between the AZA and CsA groups.
resultsA total of 376 patients with incident IIM who used AZA (n = 288) or CsA (n = 88) were identified. The aRR of switching the drug or adding immunosuppressants (1.45 [95% CI 0.99-2.11]) was not significantly different between the CsA and AZA groups. Among patients who were treated with corticosteroids at baseline, the rate of discontinuation of corticosteroids was not different between the two groups (1.69 [95% CI 0.82-3.47]).
conclusionsThe effectiveness of AZA and CsA as initial treatments for the management of IIM was comparable.
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.