ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2026
Cross-national biologic treatment guidelines for FMF: a comparative analysis.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2026. 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.
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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo examine cross-national accessibility and reimbursement policies for IL-1 inhibitors in FMF treatment and compare national guidelines.
methodsAs part of the Clinical Practice Strategies (CLiPS) project, data on biologic DMARD (bDMARD) access and reimbursement were collected through questionnaires distributed to paediatric and adult rheumatologists and national representatives of the project. CLiPS representatives from non-responding countries were contacted via email. National FMF treatment guidelines were retrieved from PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus and Google Scholar searches without language restrictions. Analysis focused on colchicine resistance, intolerance, adverse events, biologic indications and IL-1 inhibitor availability.
resultsWe examined 39 countries and obtained national guidelines from 11. Country representatives indicated the use of EULAR 2016 recommendations as their guidelines in seven further countries. Anakinra was available for colchicine-resistant FMF treatment in 29 of 39 countries and covered by national health insurance in 23 of these 29 (79.3%). Canakinumab was accessible in 23 of 39 countries, with reimbursement in 21 of 23 (91.3%). Eighteen countries imposed additional prescription and reimbursement restrictions for bDMARDs in FMF patients.
conclusionsSignificant multi-country disparities exist for the prescription of IL-1 inhibitors in FMF, with variations in national guidelines, drug availability and reimbursement. Standardized treatment guidelines and equitable access to therapies are essential to improve patient care.
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.