No benefit of the combination therapy etanercept and methotrexate compared to etanercept mono therapy in juvenile idiopathic arthritis – a matched pair analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cohort of 1190 JIA patients enrolled in the German JIA Enbrel registry has been used for screening. Matching criteria included JIA subtype, gender, disease duration, use of corticosteroids, oligo- versus polyarthritis at therapy start and the sedimentation rate. Efficacy was determined using the PedACR 30/ 50 and 70 response criteria. Safety assessments were based on adverse events reports. The matched data at month 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 on treatment have been analyzed using the McNemar’s test. 87 JIA matching pairs with a total of 658 visits have been identified. No difference in PedACR 30/50/70 treatment response between mono and combination therapy has been found: month 1: 73%/61%/33% vs. 70%/61%/33%, month 3: 73%/69%/51% vs. 65%/59%/41%; month 6: 82%/77%/59% vs. 83%/72%/59%; month 12: 85%/78%/63% vs. 89%/80%/67%; month 18: 77%/73%/69% vs. 89%/81%/77%; month 24: 63%/56%/50% vs. 56%/34%/34%. In the mono therapy group 18 patients (21%) experienced 28 adverse events. Five of them have been reported as serious. In the combination group 19 patients (22%) experienced 30 adverse events. Seven of them have been reported as serious. No infectious serious adverse events occurred in the mono therapy group compared to 3 in the combination group. Two malignancies have been observed in the combination group, none in the monotherapy group. Treatment has been discontinued in 29 patients on mono therapy (inefficacy 10%, adverse events 8%, remission 21%, others 16%) compared to 51 patients in the combination group (inefficacy 21%, adverse events 8%, remission 18%, others 36%). In contrast to the wide spread belief, combination treatment with Etanercept and Methotrexate did not offer a better outcome than treatment with Etanercept alone in JIA patients who previously have been treated ineffectively with methotrexate. However the rate of serious adverse events, especially serious infections was slightly increased.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".