P236 Baricitinib provides better pain relief across all disease activity levels compared with placebo and adalimumab in RA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background In this post hoc analysis, we assessed relationship between pain improvement and disease activity and evaluated whether baricitinib (BARI) provided additional pain improvement vs. PBO and adalimumab (ADA) across levels of disease activity. Methods 1,305 patients on stable background MTX were randomized 3:2:3 (PBO:40-mg subcutaneous ADA every other week:daily, oral 4-mg BARI). Pain was assessed with 0-100-mm VAS; pain improvement (baseline to Week 12) was grouped by ≤ 30%, >30% to ≤ 50%, >50% to ≤ 70%, >70%. Disease activity was measured with CDAI, SDAI, DAS28 with CRP, and DAS28 with ESR. To evaluate change in pain with disease activity, regression was used with continuous change in pain VAS score from baseline to Week 12 as outcome and continuous CDAI/SDAI/DAS28-CRP/DAS28-ESR values, treatment, and interaction term between treatment and disease activity as explanatory variables. Last observation carried forward was used to impute missing values. Pain VAS change (Week 12) was estimated if patients achieved remission (REM)/low disease activity (LDA)/moderate disease activity (MDA) as defined by the corresponding clinical measure. Analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity. Data visualization (percentage of pain VAS improvement vs. disease activity) was created to examine pain improvement with treatment over time. Results With CDAI, 91%/9% of patients had high disease activity/MDA across all treatments (baseline). Percentage of patients achieving REM with PBO, ADA, and BARI were 2%, 7%, 8%; for LDA: 15%, 27%, 33%; for MDA: 33%, 40%, 38%. At all CDAI values, estimated change in pain VAS for BARI was greater vs. PBO and ADA (Week 12). Similar trends were observed with other measures (Table). BARI demonstrated greater pain improvement vs. ADA and PBO in percentage of patients with ≤30%, >30% to ≤ 50%, >50% to ≤ 70%, and >70% pain improvement from baseline at Week 12. . With CDAI/SDAI, greater differentiation between BARI and ADA was observed as CDAI/SDAI values increased. Conclusion BARI provided additional pain improvement vs. PBO and ADA when disease activity was controlled, across all levels of disease activity, measured by CDAI, SDAI, DAS28-CRP, or DAS28-ESR (Week 12). Disclosures P.C. Taylor (Presenter): Consultancies; PCT has been a consultant and/or received research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, and Pfizer. J. Pope: Consultancies; JP has been a consultant and/or has received grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, and UCB. K. Ikeda: Consultancies; KI has been a consultant and/or received research support and/or honoraria from: AbbVie, Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, Kyowa Hakko Kir. X. Zhang: Corporate appointments; XZ is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; XZ is a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. B. Jia: Corporate appointments; BJ is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; BJ is a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. H. Zhang: None. A. Quebe: Corporate appointments; AQ is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; AQ is a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. Y. Chen: Corporate appointments; Y-FC is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; Y-FC is a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. C.L. Kannowski: Corporate appointments; CLK is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; CLK is a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. T. Holzkaemper: Corporate appointments; TH is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; TH is a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. A. Cardoso: Corporate appointments; AC is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; AC is a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. A. Sebba: Consultancies; AS has been a consultant and/or speaker for: Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, and Novartis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».