Treatment with Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Axial Spondyloarthritis: Comparison Between Private Rheumatology Practices and Academic Centers in a Large Observational Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the initiation of and response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in private rheumatology practices versus academic centers. METHODS: We compared newly initiated TNF inhibition for axSpA in 363 patients enrolled in private practices with 100 patients recruited in 6 university hospitals within the Swiss Clinical Quality Management (SCQM) cohort. RESULTS: All patients had been treated with ≥ 1 nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug and > 70% of patients had a baseline Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) ≥ 4 before anti-TNF agent initiation. The proportion of patients with nonradiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA) treated with TNF inhibitors was higher in hospitals versus private practices (30.4% vs 18.7%, p = 0.02). The burden of disease as assessed by patient-reported outcomes at baseline was slightly higher in the hospital setting. Mean levels (± SD) of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score were, however, virtually identical in private practices and academic centers (3.4 ± 1.0 vs 3.4 ± 0.9, p = 0.68). An Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS40) response at 1 year was reached for ankylosing spondylitis in 51.7% in private practices and 52.9% in university hospitals (p = 1.0) and for nr-axSpA in 27.5% versus 25.0%, respectively (p = 1.0). CONCLUSION: With the exception of a lower proportion of patients with nr-axSpA newly treated with anti-TNF agents in private practices in comparison to academic centers, adherence to ASAS treatment recommendations for TNF inhibition was equally high, and similar response rates to TNF blockers were achieved in both clinical settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".