Evidence Hub

Different Effects of Biologics on Systemic Bone Loss Protection in Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Interim Analysis of a Three-Year Longitudinal Cohort Study

Ming-Han Chen, Shan-Fu Yu, Jia-Feng Chen, Wei-Sheng Chen, Theodore G. Liou, Chung T. Chou, Chung-Yuan Hsu, H. Lai et al.

Frontiers in Immunology, 2021

752 participants · 17 citations

Abstract

Objective To compare changes in bone mineral density (BMD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients receiving three-year conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARD), tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNFi), and abatacept. Methods Patients with RA were recruited from September 2014 to February 2021. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to measure BMD at the femoral neck (FN), total hip (TH), and lumbar spine (L1-4) at enrollment and three years later. Changes in the BMD of each regimen group were analyzed. Multiple ordinary least squares regression was used with the dependent variables to develop a model to predict the change in BMD. Results A total of 752 participants were enrolled and 485 completed the three-year follow-up period. Of these, 375 (Group I), 84 (Group II), and 26 (Group III) participants received csDMARDs, TNFi, and abatacept therapy, respectively. Considering both type of therapy and completion of the follow-up period, participants were divided into groups A (csDMARDs, n = 104), B (TNFi, n = 52), and C (abatacept, n = 26). Compared to baseline, BMD decreased significantly at FN (p = 0.003) and L1-4 (p = 0.002) in Group A and at L1-4 (p = 0.005) in Group B, but remained stable at all sites in Group C. In terms of regression-adjusted percent change in BMD, there was a significant difference seen at all measured sites between group C compared to both groups A and B (+0.8%, -2.7%, -1.8% at FN; +0.5%, -1.1%, -1.0% at TH; +0.8%,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 752 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free