The European ankylosing spondylitis infliximab cohort (EASIC): a European multicentre study of long term outcomes in patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated with infliximab.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study the long-term efficacy and safety of treatment with infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in a real life setting. METHODS: AS patients from 6 European countries who had finished the 2-year trial ASSERT were invited to participate in the open- label investigator-driven study EASIC. At baseline, 2 groups were formed: patients of group 1 had not been treated with infliximab after ASSERT, while those of group 2 had continuously received it. Patients of group 1 were further subdivided in group 1a: patients with a relapse and 1b: in remission. All patients of group 1a and 2 continuously received infliximab for 96 weeks, mean dose 5 mg/kg, intervals 6-8 weeks. Patients of group 1b were also treated in case of relapse. RESULTS: A total of 103/149 patients (69%) were included in EASIC, 1.3 ± 0.9 years after the end of ASSERT: 9 in group 1a, 5 in group 1b and 89 in group 2. Most patients were male (83%), mean age 44 years. Most patients of group 2 completed the trial (86%) vs. only 5 of group 1 (33%) - mostly due to allergic reactions after readministration of infliximab. In total, there were 22 drop-outs due to 6 adverse events, 4 lack of efficacy, 3 planned pregnancy. All standard assessments indicated beneficial values over time, at week 96 significantly better than at baseline of ASSERT. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients were continuously and successfully treated with infliximab for 5 years, whereas discontinuation and reintroduction of therapy was less satisfactory due to the frequent occurrence of hypersensitivity reactions. Anti-TNF therapy with infliximab proved to be effective and safe on a long-term basis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".