Improvement in patient‐reported outcomes in a rituximab trial in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of treatment with rituximab plus methotrexate on patient-reported outcomes in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who experienced inadequate response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. METHODS: Patients with active RA were randomly assigned to rituximab (1,000 mg on days 1 and 15) or placebo. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with an American College of Rheumatology 20% response at week 24. Additional goals were to assess treatment effects on pain, fatigue, functional disability, health-related quality of life, and disease activity by comparing mean changes between groups. The analysis was conducted in the intent-to-treat population. The proportion of patients who achieved the minimum clinically important difference on the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) was determined. RESULTS: Rituximab patients had statistically significantly greater pain relief. The FACIT-F showed significantly greater improvement in rituximab patients than placebo patients from weeks 12 through 24. Mean improvement from baseline in functional disability (measured by the HAQ DI) was significantly greater in rituximab patients from weeks 8 to 24. The mean +/- SD change from baseline for the SF-36 Physical Component Score was 6.64 +/- 8.74 for rituximab patients and 1.48 +/- 7.32 for placebo patients (P < 0.0001). The mean change from baseline for the SF-36 Mental Component Score was 5.32 +/- 12.41 for rituximab patients and 2.25 +/- 12.23 for placebo patients (P = 0.0269). CONCLUSION: Rituximab produced rapid, clinically meaningful, and statistically significant improvements in patient-reported pain, fatigue, functional disability, health-related quality of life, and disease activity. These effects were sustained throughout the study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".