Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36813538›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the rheumatic diseases2023

Uptake and effectiveness of newer biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in psoriatic arthritis: results from five Nordic biologics registries.

Bente Glintborg, Daniela Di Giuseppe, Johan Karlsson Wallman, Dan C Nordström, Bjorn Gudbjornsson, Merete Lund Hetland, Johan Askling, Gerdur Grondal, Tuulikki Sokka, Sella A Provan and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Observational
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Early psoriatic arthritis: when is the right time to start advanced therapy?Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 11 institutions in 5 countries.

Bente Glintborg *DANBIO and Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research (COPECARE), Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Centre of Head and Orthopedics, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital Glostrup, Glostrup, Denmark glintborg@dadlnet.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-8931-8482
Daniela Di Giuseppe *Department of Medicine, Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset i Solna, Stockholm, Sweden.
Johan Karlsson WallmanDepartment of Clinical Sciences Lund, Skåne University Hospital Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4915-2924
Dan C NordströmFOB-FIN and University of Helsinki, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Bjorn GudbjornssonCentre for Rheumatology Research (ICEBIO), Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Merete Lund HetlandDANBIO and Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research (COPECARE), Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Centre of Head and Orthopedics, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital Glostrup, Glostrup, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4229-6818
Johan AsklingClinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0433-0616
Gerdur GrondalFaculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Tuulikki SokkaJyväskylä Central Hospital (KSSHP), Jyväskylä, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-6972-5603
Sella A ProvanDivision of Rheumatology and Research, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-5442-902X
Brigitte MichelsenCenter for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Eirik Klami KristianslundCenter for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Lene DreyerDepartment of Rheumatology, Center of Rheumatic Research Aalborg (CERRA), Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Thorvardur Jon LoveFaculty of Medicine, University of Iceland and Department of Research, Landspitali haskolasjukrahus, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Ulf LindströmDepartment of Rheumatology and Inflammation Research, University of Gothenburg Faculty of Health Sciences, Goteborg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2250-9348
Diakonhjemmet Hospital · NOKarolinska University Hospital · SEUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Iceland · ISAalborg University Hospital · DKHospital of Southern Norway · NOLund University · SEReykjavík University · ISUniversity of Eastern Finland · FIUniversity of Gothenburg · SEUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to describe the uptake of newer biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the Nordic countries and to compare their retention and effectiveness.

methodsPatients with PsA starting a b/tsDMARD in 2012-2020 in five Nordic rheumatology registers were included. Uptake and patient characteristics were described, with comorbidities identified from linkages to national patient registries. One-year retention and 6-month effectiveness (proportions achieving low disease activity (LDA) on the Disease Activity Index for PSoriatic Arthritis based on 28-joint evaluation) for the newer b/tsDMARDs (abatacept/apremilast/ixekizumab/secukinumab/tofacitinib/ustekinumab) were compared with adalimumab through adjusted regression models stratified by treatment course (first, second/third, and fourth or more).

resultsIn total, 5659 treatment courses with adalimumab (56% biologic-naïve) and 4767 courses with a newer b/tsDMARD (21% biologic-naïve) were included. The uptake of newer b/tsDMARDs increased from 2014 and plateaued in 2018. Patient characteristics appeared similar across treatments at treatment start. Adalimumab was more often used as the first course and newer b/tsDMARDs more often in biologic-experienced patients. Used as a second/third b/tsDMARD, the retention rate and the proportion achieving LDA were significantly better for adalimumab (rate 65%, proportion 59%) compared with abatacept (45%, 37%), apremilast (43%, 35%), ixekizumab (LDA only, 40%) and ustekinumab (LDA only, 40%), but not significantly different from other b/tsDMARDs.

conclusionUptake of newer b/tsDMARDs occurred mainly in biologic-experienced patients. Regardless of mode of action, only a minority of patients starting a second or later b/tsDMARD course remained on drug and achieved LDA. Superior outcomes for adalimumab indicate that the positioning of newer b/tsDMARDs in the PsA treatment algorithm remains to be established.

Indexed as

Antirheumatic AgentsArthritis, PsoriaticBiological ProductsAbataceptAdalimumabHumansRegistriesThalidomideUstekinumabAbataceptAdalimumabAntirheumatic AgentsapremilastBiological ProductsThalidomideUstekinumabbiological therapyepidemiologyspondylitis, ankylosingtumor necrosis factor inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID36813538
OpenAlexW4321502646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.