| Title |
Discontinuation of non-anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in interventional versus observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00228-018-2524-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fernanda S. Tonin, Laiza M. Steimbach, Leticia P. Leonart, Vinicius L. Ferreira, Helena H. Borba, Thais Piazza, Ariane G. Araújo, Fernando Fernandez-Llimos, Roberto Pontarolo, Astrid Wiens |
| Abstract |
Although 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. A 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. Of 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. The 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 13 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 33% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 19% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 July 2018.
All research outputs
#17,985,001
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#2,180
of 2,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,896
of 329,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#20
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,174 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.