↓ Skip to main content

Drug-specific risk and characteristics of lupus and vasculitis-like events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with TNFi: results from BSRBR-RA

Overview of attention for article published in RMD Open, January 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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Drug-specific risk and characteristics of lupus and vasculitis-like events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with TNFi: results from BSRBR-RA
Published in
RMD Open, January 2017
DOI 10.1136/rmdopen-2016-000314
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meghna Jani, William G Dixon, Lianne Kersley-Fleet, Ian N Bruce, Hector Chinoy, Anne Barton, Mark Lunt, Kath Watson, BSRBR-RA*, BSRBR-RA Control Centre Consortium*, Deborah P Symmons, Kimme L Hyrich, Nicola Maiden, Tom Price, Neil Hopkinson, Sheila O'Reilly, Lesley Hordon, Ian Griffiths, Duncan Porter, Hilary Capell, Andy Hassell, Romela Benitha, Ernest Choy, David Walsh, Paul Emery, Susan Knight, Allister Taggart, David Scott, Paul Thompson, Fiona McCrae, Rhian Goodfellow, George Kitas, Ronald Jubb, Rikki Abernethy, Shane Clarke, Sandra Green, Paul Sanders, Amanda Coulson, Bev Harrison, Marwan Bukhari, Peter Klimiuk

Abstract

To compare the risk of lupus-like events (LLEs) and vasculitis-like events (VLEs) in tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi)-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to those receiving non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (nbDMARDs). Patients were recruited to the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register-RA, a national prospective cohort study. Two cohorts recruited between 2001 and 2015: (1) patients starting first TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab and certolizumab) (n=12 937) and (2) biological-naïve comparison cohort receiving nbDMARDs (n=3673). The risk of an event was compared between the two cohorts using Cox proportional-hazard models, adjusted using propensity scores. Rates of LLE/VLE were compared between TNFi and nbDMARD patients. The crude incidence rates for LLEs were: TNFi 10/10 000 patient-years (pyrs) (95% CI 8 to 13) and nbDMARD 2/10 000 pyrs (95% CI 1 to 6); for VLEs: TNFi 15/10 000 pyrs (95% CI 12 to 19) and nbDMARD 7/10 000 pyrs (95% CI 4 to 12). The risk of both events was highest in the first year of TNFi treatment. After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, there was no difference in risk of LLEs (adjHR 1.86; 95% CI 0.52 to 6.58) or VLEs (adjHR 1.27; 95% CI 0.40 to 4.04) for TNFi compared to nbDMARD-treated patients. Infliximab conferred the highest overall risk, followed by etanercept, although 95% CIs overlapped following adjustment. In one of the largest biological registers, the absolute risk of both events is low. The addition of TNFi to nbDMARD does not alter the risk of either event in patients with RA selected for TNFi. This is the first study to assess the risk of these outcomes in a prospective, observational cohort.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 16%
Other 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 14 31%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 58%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Computer Science 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 10 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 24 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,195,661
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from RMD Open
#176
of 819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,116
of 418,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from RMD Open
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 418,228 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.