ArticleACR open rheumatology2022
Identifying Factors Associated With Treatment Response in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Impaired Bone Physiology in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Can the Wnt Pathway be the Connecting Link Between the Synovium and the Bone?Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2026Review
- Clinical significance of serum RAGE levels in anti-CCP-negative rheumatoid arthritis.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Article
- Effect of disease duration on the use of tofacitinib: a real-world study in elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Clinical rheumatology · 2024Article
- Patterns and determinants of response to novel therapies in juvenile and adult-onset polyarthritis.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2024Review
- Early predictive factors in routine clinical practice for rituximab therapy response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Reumatologia · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDespite a wealth of studies evaluating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapies, it remains difficult to compare efficacies across trials due to heterogeneous study populations. We sought to identify patient/trial characteristics associated with clinical response to enable fairer comparisons.
methodsWe reviewed 565 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug studies compiled for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) management guidelines. Seventy-two articles on randomized controlled phase II/III trials from 1995 to 2018 reporting the proportion of patients achieving 20%, 50% or 70% improvement in the ACR's RA disease score (ACR20/50/70) or Disease Activity Score-28 with erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein (DAS28-ESR or DAS28-CRP) with follow-up more than 3 months were included. We explored associations between 34 patient/trial characteristics and ACR responses. We constructed multivariable models using these factors to compute expected response rates and to compare observed with expected response rates across therapies.
resultsAmong eligible clinical trials, later publication year, baseline DAS28-CRP score, methotrexate/biologic naivety, baseline ESR, follow-up of 52 weeks or more, number of subjects enrolled, and anticitrullinated peptide antibody seropositivity were associated with greater ACR response. Greater age, longer disease duration, higher baseline Sharp score, and steroid use were associated with lower response rates. Predictive models incorporating these factors explained 29%, 37%, and 53% of variance in ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70, respectively. Overall, comparing observed versus expected rates of response across trials more closely approximated results of head-to-head trials. For example, although observed responses numerically favored adalimumab to tofacitinib, comparison of observed versus expected results across trials more closely approximated the results from a head-to-head trial ("Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis triaL [ORAL] Strategy").
conclusionWe identified factors associated with ACR response in RA trials. Adjusting for expected outcomes yielded therapy comparisons somewhat more similar to head-to-head trials. These findings could inform other across-trial comparisons, particularly when head-to-head trials are lacking.
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.