Efficacy and Safety of Retreatment in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis with Previous Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors: Results from the SUNRISE Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of 1 versus 2 courses of rituximab over 48 weeks in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Adult patients taking methotrexate with a previous inadequate response to > or = 1 tumor necrosis factor inhibitor received 1 course of open-label rituximab (2 x 1000 mg IV) at baseline. From Week 24, patients were randomized to receive an additional course of retreatment with rituximab or placebo. Efficacy responses at Week 48 relative to baseline were assessed. RESULTS: Of 559 patients who received the open-label first course of rituximab, 475 patients were randomized to a second course (rituximab retreatment: n = 318, placebo retreatment: n = 157). Relative to baseline, patients who took rituximab during retreatment had significantly improved efficacy at Week 48 compared to patients who took a placebo during retreatment [American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) criteria, 54% vs 45%, p = 0.02; change in Disease Activity Score-28 mean -1.9 vs -1.5, p = 0.006]. Differences in efficacy between groups were first observed following Weeks 28-32. Worsening of most components of the ACR core set occurred in the placebo-retreated patients with relative maintenance of these measures in rituximab-retreated patients. Randomized patients who had achieved week 24 ACR responses following the first course had greater odds of losing response if retreated with placebo (odds ratios for ACR20, ACR50, ACR70: 2.09, 2.03, and 4.09, respectively). Following retreatment, the proportion of patients experiencing any adverse events (AE), serious AE, infections, and serious infections were comparable between the rituximab and placebo retreatment groups. CONCLUSION: Two courses of rituximab about 6 months apart resulted in improved and sustained efficacy at 1 year, compared with 1 course, with a similar safety profile.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".