Etanercept in the Longterm Treatment of Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 2-year efficacy and safety of etanercept in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: A 96-week open-label extension study, which followed a 12-week double-blind placebo-controlled trial, was designed to provide longterm efficacy and safety data, including radiographic outcomes, for patients treated with etanercept 25 mg twice weekly (NCT00421980). In all, 81 patients were enrolled (96% of the participants from the double-blind study). Key efficacy measures included improvement using the Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis 20% (ASAS20) criteria, the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), and the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI). Radiographic progression was evaluated using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS) method. Paired t tests were used to test within-group changes from baseline. RESULTS: The percentage of responders, by ASAS20 criteria, remained relatively constant in patients who received etanercept during the 12-week double-blind study (60% at Week 0 and 83% at Week 96 of the open-label extension); more patients from the placebo group became responders after being switched to etanercept (23% and 74%, respectively). A similar trend was also observed using the ASAS40 and ASAS5/6 criteria, the BASFI, and the BASDAI. Most patients had no change from baseline in mSASSS values. Etanercept was well tolerated; the most frequent adverse events were injection site reactions (n=30; 37.0%) and headache (n=18; 22.2%), and the most frequent infections were upper respiratory tract infections (n=43; 53.1%) and flu syndrome (n=22; 27.2%). CONCLUSION: For 2 years, etanercept was clinically effective and well tolerated, with no unexpected safety findings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".