MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141036320 · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kem072

The efficacy of inhibiting tumour necrosis factor   and interleukin 1 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparisons

2007· review· en· W2141036320 on OpenAlexaff
Richard M. Nixon, Nick Bansback, Alan Brennan

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health Outcomes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisMeta-analysisTumor necrosis factor alphaInterleukinInternal medicineArthritisImmunologyNecrosisTumor necrosis factor αOncologyCytokine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: New treatments that inhibit the cytokines tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) and interleukin 1 (IL-1) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis have proven clinical effect against placebo and methotrexate (MTX) in several clinical trials in early and late-stage disease and different severity groups. Since there are no head-to-head randomized controlled trials directly comparing the currently available treatments, etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab or anakinra, we perform a meta-analysis that adjusts for differences between study characteristics, and allows indirect comparisons between treatments. METHODS: Thirteen trials of cytokine antagonists were included from a systematic review of the literature. They reported the primary outcome of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria at 6 months or beyond. Meta-analytical methods are used to quantify relative treatment effects, using the log odds ratio of an ACR20 or ACR50 response at 6 months, whilst adjusting for study-level variables. RESULTS: In each of the trials, cytokine treatment was efficacious in comparison with placebo or MTX. For each treatment, the inclusion of MTX in combination improved the response. After adjustment for study-level variables, we found TNFalpha antagonists to be more efficacious compared with anakinra (P < 0.05). Indirect comparisons between the three TNFalpha antagonists indicated no difference in efficacy. Sensitivity analysis using a different statistical model structure confirmed these results. CONCLUSION: When the outcome of interest is the probability of an ACR20 or ACR50 response at 6 months we found: (i) treatment with the IL-1 antagonist anakinra is better than placebo; (ii) for each treatment, the use of combination MTX improves the probability of response; (iii) treatment with any of the TNFalpha antagonists is better than with the IL-1 antagonist anakinra; and (iv) all drugs in the TNFalpha antagonist class are no different from each other.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.066
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations94
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207