ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2022
Single-centre experience of refractory rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strengths and limitations of the EULAR definition for difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis.RMD open · 2025Review
- Prevalence and characteristics of adults with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis in a large patient registry.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Truth unveiled by time and the marbled definition of D2T-RA: retrospective analysis on the persistence of the difficult-to-treat status among refractory RA patients.Arthritis research & therapy · 2024Article
- Reasons for multiple biologic and targeted synthetic DMARD switching and characteristics of treatment refractory rheumatoid arthritis.Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism · 2024Article
- Difficult-to-treat psoriatic arthritis: refining the definition using a statistical model in a real-life cohort.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- A Review of Difficult-to-Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis: Definition, Clinical Presentation, and Management.Current rheumatology reports · 2023Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim was to evaluate the proportion of RA patients who are refractory to multiple targeted therapies (TTs) in a real-world cohort of patients in a tertiary rheumatology referral centre, to describe patterns of drug sequencing associated with the development of refractory RA (RefRA) and to identify whether there is a subgroup of RefRA patients in whom successive drugs have shown primary lack of efficacy. Methods: Patients at a single centre were defined as refractory if they had failed two or more classes of TT and were identified from a dedicated TT clinic database. Reasons for drug failure were recorded, and patients were categorized pragmatically as having mild [failure of two biologic DMARD (bDMARD) classes], moderate [failure of at least three bDMARD classes] or severe [failure of at least two bDMARD classes and JAK inhibitor] refractory disease. Results: One hundred and seventy-two patients were identified as RefRA (>10% of our TT-exposed cohort); median [interquartile range (IQR)] TT exposures of four (two), 81.5% female, 82% seropositive, mean (s.d.) age of 63 (12.3) years. Detailed analysis of 60 patients showed a median (IQR) disease duration of 22 (10.75) years, median (IQR) time from diagnosis to initiation of first TT of 5 (10) years, and mean (s.d.) baseline DAS28CRP before starting first-line TT of 5.91 (0.84). Among RefRA patients, 15% were severely refractory, and 6% had demonstrated no clinical response to any TT. Conclusion: A small proportion of patients have true RefRA. Most patients fail multiple therapies owing to a combination of inefficacy and adverse events.
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.