Consequences of delayed therapy with second-line agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a 3 year followup on the hydroxychloroquine in early rheumatoid arthritis (HERA) study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the longterm effect of delaying therapy with second-line agents in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: One hundred nineteen patients who participated in a 9 month placebo controlled randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine sulfate (HCQ) were followed prospectively for an additional 3 years. Those randomized to HCQ are referred to as the early treatment group and those randomized to placebo as the delayed treatment group. Participants were assessed annually for pain [Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS) and Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)], physical disability (AIMS and HAQ), and the RA global well being scale (AIMS). Conversion of results into standard deviation (SD) units permitted defining a substantial difference as per Felson as > 0.30 SD units and a clinically indistinguishable difference as < or = 0.06 SD units. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen patients (97%) participated and complete data were available on 104 (87%). Compared to the early treatment group, the delayed group remained worse for both the pain and the physical disability outcomes over the additional 3 year followup. The difference in the RA global well being score became clinically indistinguishable for the early and delayed groups only after the 2 year post-trial assessment. The between-group differences were not explained by post-trial therapy with corticosteroids, other second-line agents, or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and analgesic preparations. CONCLUSION: These findings show that a delay in instituting therapy with second-line agents, even a 9 month delay in instituting a moderately powerful second-line agent such as HCQ, has significant effects on longterm patient outcome, and provides strong evidence in support of early therapy in RA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".