Improvement in health utility among patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with adalimumab (a human anti-TNF monoclonal antibody) plus methotrexate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL), as measured by health utility, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with adalimumab (a human anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monoclonal antibody) plus methotrexate or placebo plus methotrexate. METHODS: HRQoL data were obtained in two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multidose clinical trials conducted in the United States and Canada. The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) was administered in both studies at baseline, at the end of the study and at two time points in between. Patients' HUI3 scores were compared with population norm scores. Change in HUI3 was defined as the end-of-study score minus the baseline score. Utility gained throughout the study was measured by area under the utility curve and expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Statistical testing adjusted for confounders and used the Dunnett test to account for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Patients' utility scores at baseline were low (range of treatment group means 0.38-0.44) compared with population norms (0.88). HUI3 mean changes from baseline scores for adalimumab-treated patients were 0.22 and 0.21 in the two trials, whereas placebo patients' changes were 0.04 and 0.07. The rate of QALYs gained per year in the treatment group compared with the placebo group were 0.145 in the ARMADA trial and 0.104 in the DE019 trial. All gains were clinically important and statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with adalimumab plus methotrexate provides clinically important and statistically significant improvements in HRQoL as measured by health utility in patients with RA. This translates into measurable and important gains in QALYs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".