The Effect of Intravenous Golimumab on Health-related Quality of Life in Rheumatoid Arthritis: 24-week Results of the Phase III GO-FURTHER Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of intravenous (IV) golimumab 2 mg/kg + methotrexate (MTX) on patient-reported measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite prior MTX therapy. METHODS: In this randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial, adults with RA were randomly assigned to receive IV placebo (n = 197) or golimumab 2 mg/kg (n = 395) infusions at Week 0, Week 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter. All patients continued stable oral MTX (15-25 mg/wk). HRQOL assessments included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI; physical function), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 questionnaire physical/mental component summary (SF-36 PCS/MCS) scores, EQ-5D assessment of current health state, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) questionnaire, and disease effect on productivity [10-cm visual analog scale (VAS)]. RESULTS: Mean HAQ-DI improvements from baseline were significantly greater with golimumab + MTX than placebo + MTX at Week 14 and Week 24 (p < 0.001). Significantly greater improvements in all 8 individual SF-36 subscores and both the SF-36 PCS and MCS scores (p < 0.001) also accompanied golimumab + MTX therapy. Improved EQ-5D and EQ-5D VAS (p < 0.001) and FACIT-Fatigue (p < 0.001) scores were also observed for golimumab + MTX-treated patients at Week 12, Week 16, and Week 24, and greater proportions of golimumab + MTX-treated patients had clinically meaningful improvements in these measures. Greater reductions in disease effect on productivity were observed with golimumab + MTX versus placebo + MTX at Week 24 (p < 0.001). Improvements in physical function, HRQOL, fatigue, and productivity significantly correlated with disease activity improvement. CONCLUSION: In active RA, IV golimumab + MTX significantly improved physical function, HRQOL, fatigue, and productivity using multiple measurement tools; all correlated with improvements in disease activity (NCT00973479, EudraCT 2008-006064-11).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".