Continuation of Methotrexate Resulted in Better Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes Than Discontinuation upon Starting Etanercept in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: 52-week Results from the JESMR Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Efficacy and Safety of Etanercept on Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Despite Methotrexate Therapy in Japan (JESMR) study is to compare the efficacy of continuation versus discontinuation of methotrexate (MTX) when starting etanercept (ETN) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In total, 151 patients with active RA who had been taking MTX were randomized to either ETN 25 mg twice a week with 6-8 mg/week MTX (the E+M group), or ETN alone (the E group). The primary endpoint at Week 52 was the radiographic progression assessed by van der Heijde-modified Sharp score. RESULTS: The mean progression in total score at Week 52 was not significantly different, statistically, between the E+M group and the E group (0.8 vs 3.6, respectively; p = 0.06). However, a significant difference was observed in radiographic progression between Weeks 24 and 52 (0.3 vs 2.5; p = 0.03), and the mean progression of the erosion score was negative in the E+M group, which was significantly better than the E group at Week 52 (-0.2 vs 1.8; p = 0.02). Clinically, the cumulative probability plot of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-N values at Week 52 clearly demonstrated a superior response in the E+M group than in the E group. ACR20, 50, and 70 response rates at Week 52 in the E+M group (86.3%, 76.7%, and 50.7%) were significantly greater than those in the E group (63.8%; p = 0.003, 43.5%; p < 0.0001 and 29.0%; p = 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: MTX should be continued when starting ETN in patients with active RA. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00688103).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".