ArticleClinical rheumatology2023
Cause analysis of conversion to biologics in spondyloarthritis patients with poor response to conventional treatment.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe sought to investigate the reasons why spondyloarthritis (SpA) patients failed to respond to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) and the influences of different initial cDMARDs on the likelihood of a switch to biologics.
methodsSpA patients were divided into a conventional drug maintenance group and a biologics conversion group to determine the causes of conversion to biologics. Then, we divided all patients into three groups according to different initial cDMARDs, NSAID monotherapy, NSAID + (sulfasalazine or thalidomide) double combination, and NSAID + sulfasalazine + thalidomide triple combination therapy groups, to clarify the influence of initial treatment on later conversion to biologics.
resultsThis study includes 202 patients, including 97 patients in the conventional drug maintenance group and 105 patients in the biologics conversion group. The mean age of the conventional drug maintenance group was higher than that of the biologics conversion group (40.8 ± 14.3 vs. 33.8 ± 12.3 years, P < 0.05). Uveitis (OR 5.356, P < 0.05) is positively correlated with conversion to biological therapy, while age (OR 0.940, P < 0.05) is negatively correlated. The proportion of NSAID monotherapy, double combination, and triple combination groups converted to biological agents was 80%, 51.1%, and 23.2%, respectively (P < 0.05).
conclusionAge and uveitis are related to conversion to biologics therapy. The early combination of sulfasalazine and thalidomide with NSAIDs may lower the probability of conversion to biologics therapy in the later stage and offer a new option for patients with limited use of biologics in SpA patients. Key Points • Patients' move to biologics may be caused mostly by inadequate disease control by conventional oral medications. • Regardless of axial vs. peripheral joint involvement, combination drug therapy was superior to single drug therapy in controlling SpA and decreasing the probability of conversion to a biological agent. • For SpA patients who are not candidates for biologics due to contraindications or other reasons, early combination application of NSAIDs, sulfasalazine, and thalidomide may be a new choice.
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.