PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the efficacy of biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. However, results from RCTs may not be generalizable to clinical practice because of their strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Assessment of safety using RCT data also is limited by short duration of follow-up and relatively small sample sizes, which generally preclude analysis of longer term outcomes and rare adverse events. In rheumatology, various observational cohorts and registries have been created to complement information obtained from RCTs, some with the primary purpose of monitoring effectiveness and safety of biologic agents. Most registries are either drug based or disease based. These registries include patients with a variety of rheumatic diseases including RA. METHODS: To provide a qualitative comparison of selected U.S. and European rheumatoid arthritis (RA) biologics registries and cohorts including ARTIS, BIOBADASER, BSRBR, BRASS, CLEAR, CORRONA, NDB, RABBIT, SCQM, and VARA. RESULTS: A careful comparison of these registries, as provided in this article, can provide a basis for understanding the many similarities and differences inherent in their design, as well as societal context and content, all of which can significantly impact their results and comparisons across registers. SUMMARY: The increasing use of biologic agents for treatment of rheumatic diseases has raised important questions about cost, safety, and effectiveness of these agents. The unique and variable features of patient populations and registry designs in Europe and the U.S. provide valuable and complementary data on comparative effectiveness and safety of biologic agents to what can be derived from RCTs. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the efficacy of biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. However, results from RCTs may not be generalizable to clinical practice because of their strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Assessment of safety using RCT data also is limited by short duration of follow-up and relatively small sample sizes, which generally preclude analysis of longer term outcomes and rare adverse events. In rheumatology, various observational cohorts and registries have been created to complement information obtained from RCTs, some with the primary purpose of monitoring effectiveness and safety of biologic agents. Most registries are either drug based or disease based. These registries include patients with a variety of rheumatic diseases including RA. METHODS: To provide a qualitative comparison of selected U.S. and European rheumatoid arthritis (RA) biologics registries and cohorts including ARTIS, BIOBADASER, BSRBR, BRASS, CLEAR, CORRONA, NDB, RABBIT, SCQM, and VARA. RESULTS: A careful comparison of these registries, as provided in this article, can provide a basis for understanding the many similarities and differences inherent in their design, as well as societal context and content, all of which can significantly impact their results and comparisons across registers. SUMMARY: The increasing use of biologic agents for treatment of rheumatic diseases has raised important questions about cost, safety, and effectiveness of these agents. The unique and variable features of patient populations and registry designs in Europe and the U.S. provide valuable and complementary data on comparative effectiveness and safety of biologic agents to what can be derived from RCTs. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Sebastian Schneeweiss; Ari Robicsek; Richard Scranton; Dan Zuckerman; Daniel H Solomon Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-12-18 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: J Askling; C M Fored; L Brandt; E Baecklund; L Bertilsson; N Feltelius; L Cöster; P Geborek; L T Jacobsson; S Lindblad; J Lysholm; S Rantapää-Dahlqvist; T Saxne; L Klareskog Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2005-04-13 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: A Zink; J Listing; S Kary; P Ramlau; M Stoyanova-Scholz; K Babinsky; U von Hinueber; E Gromnica-Ihle; S Wassenberg; C Antoni; P Herzer; J Kekow; M Schneider; R Rau Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2005-02-11 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: A Strangfeld; F Hierse; J Kekow; U von Hinueber; H-P Tony; R Dockhorn; J Listing; A Zink Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Joshua F Baker; Grant W Cannon; Said Ibrahim; Candace Haroldsen; Liron Caplan; Ted R Mikuls Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Joshua F Baker; Bryant R England; Ted R Mikuls; Harlan Sayles; Grant W Cannon; Brian C Sauer; Michael D George; Liron Caplan; Kaleb Michaud Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Bing Lu; Young Hee Rho; Jing Cui; Christine K Iannaccone; Michelle L Frits; Elizabeth W Karlson; Nancy A Shadick Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2013-12-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: U Hillen; M Ulrich; M Alter; J C Becker; R Gutzmer; U Leiter; A Lonsdorf; A Messerschmidt; C Ulrich Journal: Hautarzt Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 0.751