SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2018
Discontinuation of non-anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in interventional versus observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term persistence of biological agents in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Pooled it
- Discontinuation of biologic and target-specific therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective cohort study.Rheumatology international · 2024Observational
- Design, implementation, and inferential issues associated with clinical trials that rely on data in electronic medical records: a narrative review.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Review
- Differential Expression Profiles of the Transcriptome and miRNA Interactome in Synovial Fibroblasts of Rheumatoid Arthritis Revealed by Next Generation Sequencing.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAlthough randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for the assessment of clinical outcomes, long-term extension trials (LTEs) and observational cohorts may help generate evidence. Our goal was to compare the discontinuation rates of abatacept, rituximab, and tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) reported in different study designs.
methodsA systematic review was conducted with searches in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, plus a manual search, for RCTs, LTEs, and observational cohorts reporting discontinuation rates by any of three causes (all-cause, inefficacy, adverse events). Meta-analyses with sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions were conducted.
resultsOf the 111 studies included, 74 were RCTs (n = 55) or LTEs (n = 17) reporting data on abatacept (n = 33), rituximab (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 31) and 37 were observational cohort studies (abatacept = 11, rituximab = 8, tocilizumab = 18). The follow-up duration did not differ among the study designs. Discontinuation rates were similar among the drugs but varied among the study designs. Discontinuation rates were significantly higher in cohort studies than those in interventional studies for the three drugs. Sensitivity analyses could not identify patient characteristics associated with these differences. Meta-regression analyses demonstrated no correlation between study follow-up duration and discontinuation rates.
conclusionsThe discontinuation rates reported for non-anti-TNF drugs varied relative to the study design in which they were investigated. Regulatory agencies, price-setting entities, and evidence-gathering researchers should consider the effect of the real-life environment in their decisions and conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.