Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37116986›Full record

SynthesisRMD open2023

What is the best target in a treat-to-target strategy in rheumatoid arthritis? Results from a systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

Marianne A Messelink, Alfons A den Broeder, Florine E Marinelli, Edwin Michgels, P Verschueren, Daniel Aletaha, Janneke Tekstra, Paco M J Welsing

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in RMD open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Marianne A MesselinkRheumatology & Clinical Immunology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6291-3134
Alfons A den BroederRheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, Ubbergen, The Netherlands.
Florine E MarinelliRheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, Ubbergen, The Netherlands.
Edwin MichgelsRheumatology & Clinical Immunology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
P VerschuerenRheumatology, KU Leuven University Hospitals, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0340-3580
Daniel AletahaDepartment of Rheumatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-2108-0030
Janneke TekstraRheumatology & Clinical Immunology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Paco M J WelsingRheumatology & Clinical Immunology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands p.m.j.welsing@umcutrecht.nl.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLSint Maartenskliniek · NLKU Leuven · BEMedical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA treat-to-target (T2T) strategy has been shown to be superior to usual care in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but the optimal target remains unknown. Targets are based on a disease activity measure (eg, Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28), Simplified Disease Activity Indices/Clinical Disease Activity Indices (SDAI/CDAI), and a cut-off such as remission or low disease activity (LDA). Our aim was to compare the effect of different targets on clinical and radiographic outcomes.

methodsCochrane, Embase and (pre)MEDLINE databases were searched (1 June 2022) for randomised controlled trials and cohort studies after 2003 that applied T2T in RA patients for ≥12 months. Data were extracted from individual T2T study arms; risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Using meta-regression, we evaluated the effect of the target used on clinical and radiographic outcomes, correcting for heterogeneity between and within studies.

results115 treatment arms were used in the meta-regression analyses. Aiming for SDAI/CDAI-LDA was statistically superior to targeting DAS-LDA regarding DAS-remission and SDAI/CDAI/Boolean-remission outcomes over 1-3 years. Aiming for SDAI/CDAI-LDA was also significantly superior to DAS-remission regarding both SDAI/CDAI/Boolean-remission (over 1-3 years) and mean SDAI/CDAI (over 1 year). Targeting DAS-remission rather than DAS-LDA only improved the percentage of patients in DAS-remission, and only statistically significantly after 2-3 years of T2T. No differences were observed in Health Assessment Questionnaire and radiographic progression.

conclusionsTargeting SDAI/CDAI-LDA, and to a lesser extent DAS-remission, may be superior to targeting DAS-LDA regarding several clinical outcomes. However, due to the risk of residual confounding and the lack of data on (over)treatment and safety, future studies should aim to directly and comprehensively compare targets. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021249015.

Indexed as

Antirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidCohort StudiesHumansRemission InductionSeverity of Illness IndexAntirheumatic Agentsarthritis, rheumatoidoutcome and process assessment, health careoutcome assessment, health care

Identifiers

PMID37116986
PMCPMC10152050
OpenAlexW4367309477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.