You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 81, Issue 11
  • Response to ‘Correspondence on ‘Comparative effectiveness of first-line tumour necrosis factor inhibitor versus non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor biologics and targeted synthetic agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a large US re…

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Correspondence response
Response to ‘Correspondence on ‘Comparative effectiveness of first-line tumour necrosis factor inhibitor versus non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor biologics and targeted synthetic agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a large US registry study’’ by Zheng et al
  1. Dimitrios A Pappas1,2,
  2. Gregory St John3,
  3. Carol J Etzel2,
  4. Stefano Fiore4,
  5. Taylor Blachley2,
  6. Toshio Kimura5,
  7. Rajeshwari Punekar6,
  8. Kelechi Emeanuru2,
  9. Jeannie Choi7,
  10. Susan Boklage3,
  11. Joel M Kremer2
  1. 1 Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
  2. 2 Corrona, Albany Medical College and The Center for Rheumatology, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA
  3. 3 Medical Affairs, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, New York, USA
  4. 4 Medical Affairs, Sanofi, Bridgewater, New Jersey, USA
  5. 5 Medical Analytics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, New York, USA
  6. 6 Real World Evidence Generation, Sanofi Genzyme, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
  7. 7 Health Economics and Value Assessment, Sanofi, Bridgewater, New Jersey, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Dimitrios A Pappas, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA; dpappas{at}corrona.org

https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218907

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We thank Zheng et al 1 for their interest in our study2 and for providing constructive comments. They mention that even though the baseline mean Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) was not statistically different, the proportion of patients with moderate or high disease at baseline was different and this could have been a key effect modifier.1

    We used standardised differences to evaluate variables at baseline. Calculation of the standardised difference not only accounts for the means of the two cohorts, but also the SD. We noticed that continuous CDAI was balanced across the two therapy classes (as listed in the manuscript table 1, SD=−0.015)2 and similarly observed for categorical CDAI (low/moderate/high; SD=0.0515; results not …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Josef S Smolen

    • Contributors All authors contributed to the concept, drafting and critical review of this response letter.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests DAP, CE, TB, KE and JK are employees of Corrona. Corrona has been supported through contracted subscriptions in the last two years by AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Crescendo, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sun, UCB and Valeant. TK is an employee of and stockholder in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, GSJ and SB are former employees of and stockholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and is currently an employee of Intercept Pharmaceuticals and GSK, respectively. SF is an employee of and stockholder in Sanofi. JC and RP are former employees of and stockholders in Sanofi; RP is a current employee of ConcertAI.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles