Ten-year Followup of Infliximab Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Severe, Longstanding Refractory Disease: A Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our study describes the 10-year followup data of the Belgian Expanded Access Program (EAP) for infliximab (IFX), which included patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who were refractory to methotrexate. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the continuation rate, reasons for discontinuation, and longterm disease control under IFX treatment, and to study baseline characteristics associated with longterm successful IFX therapy. METHODS: Between February 2000 and September 2001, 511 patients were enrolled in the Belgian IFX EAP, and 507 effectively started IFX therapy. Previously reported data showed that 160 patients were still treated with IFX after 7 years of followup. We describe the therapy status, reasons for IFX discontinuation, and the level of disease activity of this subgroup after 10 years of followup. Baseline characteristics of the total EAP cohort were used to describe variables associated with longterm successful IFX treatment. RESULTS: After 10 years of followup, 110 of the 507 patients (21.7%) were still receiving IFX treatment. In the 7-year to 10-year period, which is the focus of the current study, 16 patients were lost to followup and 34 patients discontinued IFX treatment, mainly because of loss of efficacy. Patients successfully treated with IFX for 10 years had lower baseline values for 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), patient pain scale, physician visual analog scale, and Health Assessment Questionnaire in comparison with the rest of the study cohort. The mean DAS28 level of the subgroup still taking IFX after 10 years was 2.55 ± 1.01. CONCLUSION: In the Belgian EAP, 21.7% of patients continued to receive maintenance IFX treatment after 10 years of followup. IFX provided good longterm disease control in these patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".