ArticleClinical rheumatology2025
Comparative analysis of clinical profile, therapeutic management, and clinical prognosis of patients with seropositive or seronegative rheumatoid arthritis following the introduction of a first targeted therapy in a real-life setting.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate clinical prognosis following the introduction of a first targeted therapy (TT) according to the serological profile of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to analyze differences in efficacy of TT.
methodThis single-center retrospective study included patients with RA who received a first TT between 2000 and 2020. Patients were seropositive (IgM and/or IgA rheumatoid factors plus anti-CCP) or seronegative (without autoantibodies). Various data were collected at baseline and during follow-up. The primary endpoint was remission (assessed by DAS28) at one and two years.
resultsAmong 259 patients, 164 (63.3%) were seropositive and presented higher disease activity and more frequent erosive involvement than seronegative patients at TT introduction. The most prescribed first TTs were etanercept for seronegative RA (47 ([49.5%) versus 41 (25%), p < 0.001) and abatacept for seropositive RA (41 (25%) versus 6 (6.3%), p < 0.001). Remission rates and TT switches were not significantly different between groups. Initial DAS28-CRP and number of painful joints were independent prognostic factors associated with absence of remission at one year (OR 0.46 (0.26, 0.80), p = 0.007) and two years (OR 0.90 (0.82, 0.98), p = 0.027) respectively. Among seropositive patients, the two-year remission rate was not significantly different according to the therapeutic class received (cellular- versus cytokine-targeted).
conclusionsPatients with seropositive RA showed more active and severe disease than patients with seronegative RA at the introduction of a first TT. Although the choice of the first TT varied according to serological profile and time of analysis, clinical prognosis at one and two years was similar between groups. Key Points • Seropositive versus seronegative RA was more active at start of first targeted therapy. • First-line TTs were etanercept for seronegative RA and abatacept for seropositive RA. • Rate of targeted therapy switches was comparable between both groups. • Remission rates at 1 and 2 years were similar in seropositive and seronegative RA. • Remission rates were similar for cellular and cytokine inhibitors in seropositive RA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40063232What 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.