↓ Skip to main content

Tocilizumab as monotherapy or combination therapy for treating active rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of efficacy and safety reported in randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, September 2016
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Tocilizumab as monotherapy or combination therapy for treating active rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of efficacy and safety reported in randomized controlled trials
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13075-016-1108-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xavier M. Teitsma, Anne Karien A. Marijnissen, Johannes W. J. Bijlsma, Floris P. J. Lafeber, Johannes W. G. Jacobs

Abstract

Previous studies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have shown that switching to tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy (TCZMONO) or combination therapy (TCZCOMBI) with conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) is efficacious in reducing disease activity in patients with inadequate response to csDMARDs. However, hitherto there is no consensus on whether TCZMONO is as effective as TCZCOMBI. The objective of this study was therefore to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCZMONO versus add-on TCZCOMBI and both TCZ therapies versus continuing the current csDMARD therapy, by performing a systematic review and meta-analyses. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched until February 2016 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We performed meta-analyses of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28 < 2.6), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 responses, adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) to compare the three different strategies, whereas a random-effect model was used for pooling relative risks (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). In addition, sensitivity analyses were performed for evaluating differences in study duration. In total, 13 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, involving 6679 patients. When comparing both TCZ strategies, a marginally greater proportion of patients achieving DAS28 < 2.6 (RR 1.21; 95 % CI 1.09, 1.36) and ACR50 response (RR 1.14; 95 % CI 1.03, 1.26) was found in favor of the TCZCOMBI strategy. However, the risk of SAEs was also significantly higher using this strategy (RR 1.40; 95 % CI 1.03, 1.92, p = 0.03). Pooled effect estimates showed statistical superiority of switching to either TCZ strategy compared to continuing csDMARD therapy. In the management of active RA, almost similar efficacy can be expected in patients unable to tolerate csDMARDs, who switch to TCZMONO compared to inadequate responders switching to add-on TCZCOMBI. Although TCZCOMBI is marginally superior to TCZMONO in achieving DAS28 < 2.6 and ACR50 response, this is at the cost of an increased risk of SAEs.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ecuador 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Researcher 7 13%
Other 7 13%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 15 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 38%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Mathematics 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 27 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,415,054
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#736
of 3,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,795
of 328,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#12
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 328,655 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 73% of its contemporaries.