A comparative study of etanercept plus methotrexate and methotrexate alone in Taiwanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Etanercept (Enbrel), a recombinant tumor necrosis factor receptor fusion protein, has been shown to be effective in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of etanercept in combination with methotrexate (MTX) and MTX alone in Taiwanese patients with active RA. METHODS: In this double-blind study, 58 patients with active RA who were maintained on MTX therapy at a stable dose of 12.5 to 20 mg per week for 4 weeks were randomized to receive either etanercept 25 mg (n = 29) or placebo (n = 29) by subcutaneous injection twice weekly over a period of 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the reduction of tender and swollen joint counts by 20% (ACR 20), 50% (ACR 50), and 70% (ACR 70) as determined by the American College of Rheumatology criteria at the 12th week. RESULTS: The addition of etanercept to MTX resulted in a greater reduction in the number of tender (7.00 vs 2.45, p = 0.012) and swollen joints (8.55 vs 3.86, p = 0.017), and in serum levels of C-reactive protein (1.26 mg/dL vs 0.45 mg/dL, p = 0.014) compared to MTX alone after 12 weeks of therapy. In addition, the global assessment of disease activity by both physicians and patients, duration of morning stiffness, pain visual analog scale score, and Health Assessment Questionnaire were all improved by etanercept plus MTX therapy. Results for the overall improvement in disease activity assessed by ACR 20 (90% vs 34%), ACR 50 (66% vs 10%) and ACR 70 (24% vs 0%) all favored the etanercept plus MTX group. However, the adverse events were comparable between the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Etanercept in combination with MTX was well tolerated and provided significantly more clinical benefit than MTX alone in Taiwanese patients with active RA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".