↓ Skip to main content

Tapering biologics in rheumatoid arthritis: a pragmatic approach for clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Rheumatology, November 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 (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Tapering biologics in rheumatoid arthritis: a pragmatic approach for clinical practice
Published in
Clinical Rheumatology, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10067-016-3490-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aleksander Lenert, Petar Lenert

Abstract

Optimal rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapy in daily clinical practice is based on the treat-to-target strategy. Quicker escalation of therapy and earlier introduction of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs have led to improved outcomes in RA. However, chronic immunosuppressive therapy is associated with adverse events and higher costs. In addition, our patients frequently express a desire for lower dosing and drug holidays. Current clinical practice guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism suggest that rheumatologists consider tapering treatment after achieving remission. However, the optimal approach for tapering therapy in RA, specifically de-escalation of biologics, remains unknown. This clinical review discusses biologic tapering strategies in RA. We draw our recommendations for everyday clinical practice from the most recent observational, pragmatic, and controlled clinical trials on de-escalation of biologics in RA. For each biologic, we highlight clinically relevant outcomes, such as flare rates, recapture of the disease control with retreatment, radiographic progression, side effects, and functional impact. We discuss the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound to select patients for successful tapering. In conclusion, we provide the reader with a practical guide for tapering biologics in the rheumatology clinic.

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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 3%
Singapore 1 3%
Unknown 32 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 32%
Researcher 9 26%
Unspecified 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 47%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 21%
Unspecified 4 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Other 3 9%

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 25 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,477,520
of 12,852,852 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#123
of 1,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,099
of 260,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#5
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,852,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,583 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 260,194 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.