↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Certolizumab pegol (CDP870) for rheumatoid arthritis in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
Title
Certolizumab pegol (CDP870) for rheumatoid arthritis in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007649.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruiz Garcia, Vicente, Jobanputra, Paresh, Burls, Amanda, Cabello, Juan B, Vela Casasempere, Paloma, Bort-Marti, Sylvia, Kynaston-Pearson, Francis JB, Kynaston-Pearson, Francis J B

Abstract

Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors are beneficial for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in terms of reducing the risk of joint damage, improving physical function and improving quality of life. This Cochrane review is an update of a review of the treatment of RA with certolizumab pegol that was first published in 2011. To assess the clinical benefits and harms of certolizumab pegol (CDP870) in patients with RA who have not responded well to conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, TOXLINE, Web of Knowledge; websites of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA); reference lists of articles; and searched http/clinicaltrials.gov. The searches were updated from 2009 (date of last search for the original review) to 5 June 2014. Randomised controlled trials that compared certolizumab pegol with any other agent including placebo or methotrexate (MTX) in adult patients with active RA despite current or prior treatment with conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as MTX. Two authors independently assessed search results, trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or referral to a third author. Eleven trials were included in this update. Ten (4324 patients) were included in the pooled analysis for benefits, five more than previously, and 10 (3711 patients) in the pooled analysis for harms, four more trials (1930 patients) than previously. The duration of follow-up varied from 12 to 52 weeks and the range of doses of certolizumab pegol varied from 50 to 400 mg given subcutaneously (sc). In phase III trials, the control was placebo plus MTX in five trials and placebo in four trials. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed as low but there may have been a risk of attrition bias.Statistically significant improvements were observed at 24 weeks with the approved dose of 200 mg certolizumab pegol every other week, in 1) American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50% improvement: 27% absolute improvement (95% CI 20% to 33%), NNT of 4 (95% CI 3 to 8), risk ratio (RR) 3.80 (95% CI 2.42 to 5.95); 2) the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ): -12% absolute improvement (95% CI -9% to -14%), NNT of 6 (95% CI 5 to 8), mean difference (MD) - 0.35 (95% CI -0.43 to -0.26) (scale 0 to 3); 3) Disease Activity Score (DAS) remission improvement: absolute improvement 11% (95% CI 8% to 15%), NNT of 9 (95% CI 4 to 20), RR 8.47 (95% CI 4.15-17.28); and 4) radiological changes: erosion score (ES) absolute improvement -0.29% (95% CI -0.42% to -0.17%), NNT of 6 (95% CI 4 to 10), MD -0.67 (95% CI -0.96 to -0.38) (scale 0 to 230). Serious adverse events were statistically significantly more frequent for certolizumab pegol (200 mg every other week) with an absolute rate difference of 4% (95% CI 2% to 6%), NNTH of 32 (95% CI 17 to 88), Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.77 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.46). There was a statistically significant increase in all withdrawals in the placebo groups (for all doses and all follow-ups) with an absolute rate difference of -34% (95% CI -18% to -50%), NNTH of 4 (95% CI 3 to 5), NNTH of 4 (95% CI 3 to 5), RR 0.42 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.50); and there was a statistically significant increase in all withdrawals due to adverse events in the certolizumab groups (for all doses and all follow-up) with an absolute rate difference of 2% (95% CI 1% to 3%), NNTH of 55 (95% CI 27 to 238), Peto OR 1.66 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.37).The risk of bias was low and the quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate because of high rates of dropouts (> 20%) in most of the trials. We did not find any problems with inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision or publication bias. The results and conclusions did not change from the previous review. There is moderate-level evidence from randomised controlled trials that certolizumab pegol alone or combined with methotrexate is beneficial in the treatment of RA. Adverse events were more frequent with active treatment. We found a potential risk of serious adverse events.

Timeline
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 115 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 24 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 48%
Psychology 8 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 30 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 22 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,636,906
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,237
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,055
of 261,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 261,028 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.