When to Adjust Therapy in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After Initiation of Etanercept plus Methotrexate or Methotrexate Alone: Findings from a Randomized Study (COMET)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of these posthoc analyses was to evaluate short-term clinical outcomes as predictors of poor response after 1 year of treatment with combination etanercept/methotrexate (ETN/MTX) therapy versus MTX monotherapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Participants with moderate to severe RA [28-joint Disease Activity Score-Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (DAS28-ESR) ≥ 3.2] of 3-24 months' duration received ETN 50 mg weekly plus MTX or MTX monotherapy for 52 weeks. Regression analyses were performed to evaluate the likelihood of remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.6) after 1 year despite poor clinical short-term treatment effects (e.g., absolute or changes from baseline in DAS28-ESR after 4, 8, 12, 20, and 24 weeks of therapy). RESULTS: The magnitude of disease activity and its improvement and timing influenced remission probability in both treatment groups; remission rate was diminished with higher disease activity levels and lower response levels over time from weeks 4 to 24. The rate of DAS28-ESR remission at 1 year was generally greater with ETN/MTX than with MTX alone at most timepoints from weeks 4 to 24. Despite persistent high disease activity (DAS28-ESR > 5.1) after 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks of therapy, 35%, 27%, 25%, and 22% of patients, respectively, in the ETN/MTX group achieved DAS28-ESR remission after 1 year of continuous treatment; the respective proportions were 33%, 27%, 8%, and 13% in the MTX group. CONCLUSION: High disease activity and less improvement with treatment over time in the initial 24 weeks of treatment, particularly after 12 weeks, were predictive of a lower remission rate after 1 year.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".