MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969421278 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.100717

Tocilizumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cochrane Systematic Review

2010· review· en· W1969421278 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jasvinder A. Singh, Saba Beg, María A. López-Olivo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTocilizumabMedicineRheumatoid arthritisInternal medicinePlaceboAdverse effectRelative riskConcomitantRheumatologyRandomized controlled trialMethotrexateSurgeryConfidence intervalPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: to compare the benefit and safety of tocilizumab to placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: we searched multiple databases for published randomized or controlled clinical trials comparing benefit and safety of tocilizumab to placebo, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), or other biologics. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the relative risk, and for continuous outcomes, the mean difference. RESULTS: eight randomized controlled trials were included in this systematic review, with 3334 participants, 2233 treated with tocilizumab and 1101 controls. The US and Canadian approved dose of tocilizumab, 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks, was given to 1561 participants. In patients taking concomitant methotrexate, compared to placebo, patients treated with approved dose of tocilizumab were substantially and statistically significantly more likely than placebo to achieve the American College of Rheumatology 50 (absolute percentage, 38.8% vs 9.6%, respectively; RR 3.2, 95% CI 2.7, 3.7); Disease Activity Score remission (30.5% vs 2.7%; RR 8.7, 95% CI 6.3, 11.8); and a clinically meaningful decrease in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)/Modified HAQ scores (60.5% vs 34%; RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.6, 1.9). There were no substantive statistically significant differences in serious adverse effects (0.8% vs 0.7%; RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8, 1.6) or withdrawals due to adverse events (4.9% vs 3.7%; RR 1.4, 95% CI 0.9, 2.1); however, tocilizumab-treated patients were significantly more likely to have any adverse event (74% vs 65%; RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03, 1.07); elevation in the ratio of low-density lipoprotein to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL; 20% vs 12%; RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2, 2.2); and increase in the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol (12% vs 7%; RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2, 2.6); and they were less likely to withdraw from treatment for any reason (8.1% vs 14.9%; RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5, 0.8). CONCLUSION: at the approved dose of 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks, tocilizumab in combination with methotrexate/DMARD is beneficial in decreasing RA disease activity and improving function. Tocilizumab treatment was associated with a significant increase in cholesterol levels and occurrence of any adverse event, but not serious adverse events. Larger safety studies are needed to address these safety concerns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.008
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations149
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207