↓ Skip to main content

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 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
Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012591
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasvinder A Singh, Alomgir Hossain, Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu, Amy S Mudano, Lara J Maxwell, Rachelle Buchbinder, Maria Angeles Lopez-Olivo, Maria E Suarez-Almazor, Peter Tugwell, George A Wells

Abstract

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics. To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics. On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer). This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer. Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters 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 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Qatar 1 <1%
Unknown 172 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 16%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Researcher 20 12%
Other 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Other 42 24%
Unknown 32 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 41 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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
#1,074,429
of 13,727,890 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,218
of 10,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,859
of 257,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#93
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,727,890 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,731 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
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 257,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.