ArticleScientific reports2023
Real-world retention rates of biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Persistence Among Biologic/JAKi-Naive Medicare Beneficiaries with RA Initiating Synthetic DMARDs.Rheumatology and therapy · 2026Article
- Drug Retention of First-Line Biologic Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Real-World Evidence From a Moroccan Cohort.Cureus · 2026Article
- Real-world experience with Janus kinase inhibitors in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis: retention and discontinuation factors in a UK six-centre cohort.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2026Article
- Programmable chronogenetic gene circuits for self-regulated circadian delivery of biologic drugs.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although biologics have their own characteristics, there are no clear criteria for selecting them to treat the patients with rheumatoid arthritis. To assist in selecting biologics, we investigated the retention rates of biologics at our institution. We examined retention rates, and reasons for dropout for biologics in 393 cases and 605 prescriptions (of which 378 prescriptions were as naive) at our hospital since October 2003. Throughout the entire course of the study, etanercept (ETN) was the most frequently used biologic, followed by adalimumab (ADA) and tocilizumab (TCZ). When narrowed down to the later period from 2010, ETN was still the most used, followed by TCZ and abatacept (ABT). When the retention rates were compared in biologic naive patients, the retention rates were TCZ, ABT, ETN, certolizumab pegol (CZP), golimumab (GLM), infliximab (IFX), and ADA, in that order. The retention rates were better with the first use of each biologic. The main reasons for dropout were primary ineffectiveness, secondary ineffectiveness, and infection. ETN was the most used biologic in our hospital, with an increasing trend toward the use of non-TNF inhibitors. Retention rates were higher in non-TNF inhibitors.
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.