Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38755699›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2024

Assessing the effects of distinct biologic therapies on rheumatoid arthritis pain by nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain components: a randomised feasibility study.

Liban Ahmed, Kathryn Biddle, Anna Blundell, Soraya Koushesh, Patrick Kiely, Gill Mein, Philip Sedgwick, Nidhi Sofat

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04255134 (Comparison of Abatacept With Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04255134 phase4completednot on this map

Comparison of Abatacept With Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Pain: A Phase IV Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorSt George's, University of LondonRan2020 to 2022Enrolled18ConditionsRheumatoid ArthritisArmsAbatacept Injection, Adalimumab Injection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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.

Liban AhmedInstitute for Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Kathryn BiddleInstitute for Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Anna BlundellInstitute for Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Soraya KousheshInstitute for Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Patrick KielyDepartment of Rheumatology, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Gill MeinCentre for Allied Health, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Philip SedgwickInstitute of Medical and Biomedical Education, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Nidhi SofatInstitute for Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK. nsofat@sgul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6963-6475

Funding

Bristol-Myers Squibb IM101-827
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPain management is a major unmet need in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Although many patients are treated with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDS), including biologic therapies, many people with RA continue to experience significant pain. We aimed to determine whether performing a comprehensive pain evaluation is feasible in people with active RA receiving conventional DMARDs and biologic therapies.

methodsThe BIORA-PAIN feasibility study was an open-label, randomised trial, which recruited participants suitable for treatment with biologic therapy. The primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment, randomisation and retention of eligible participants. All participants underwent pain assessment for nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain during the 12-month study period, with quarterly assessments for VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) pain, painDETECT and QST (quantitative sensory testing). This trial was registered in clinicaltrials.gov NCT04255134.

resultsDuring the study period, 93 participants were screened of whom 25 were eligible: 13 were randomised to adalimumab and 12 to abatacept. Participant recruitment was lower than expected due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Pain assessments were practical in the clinical trial setting. An improvement was observed for VAS pain from baseline over 12 months, with a mean (SEM) of 3.7 (0.82) in the abatacept group and 2.3 (1.1) in the adalimumab group. There was a reduction in painDETECT and improvement in QST measures in both treatment groups during the study. Participant feedback included that some of the questionnaire-based pain assessments were lengthy and overlapped in their content. Adverse events were similar in both groups. There was one death due to COVID-19.

conclusionsThis first-ever feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial assessing distinct modalities of pain in RA met its progression criteria. This study demonstrates that it is feasible to recruit and assess participants with active RA for specific modalities of pain, including nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic elements. Our data suggests that it is possible to stratify people for RA based on pain features. The differences in pain outcomes between abatacept and adalimumab treated groups warrant further investigation.

trial registrationNCT04255134, Registered on Feb 5, 2020.

Indexed as

AbataceptAdalimumabBiologicsNeuropathicNociceptiveNociplastic painPainRheumatoid arthritisStratification

Identifiers

PMID38755699
PMCPMC11097416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.