↓ Skip to main content

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NM…

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012437
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasvinder A Singh, Alomgir Hossain, Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu, Amy S Mudano, Peter Tugwell, George A Wells

Abstract

We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced). To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 167 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 19%
Researcher 28 16%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Other 39 23%
Unknown 27 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 46%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 38 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,928,367
of 14,222,292 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,801
of 10,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,097
of 380,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#108
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,222,292 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 380,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.