Remission in Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis Treated with Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor-α Drugs: An Italian Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the possibility of achieving partial remission (PR) in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) versus ankylosing spondylitis (AS) treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonists, such as adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETN), and infliximab (IFX), in a real clinical practice setting. The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) 20, ASAS40, and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score were also calculated. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in patients with axSpA treated with ADA, ETN, and IFX from 2000 to 2013. All patients fulfilled the ASAS or the modified New York criteria. PR was reached when the score was < 20 mm (on a visual analog scale of 0-100 mm) in each of these domains: (1) patient global assessment, (2) pain, (3) function, and (4) inflammation. RESULTS: A total of 321 patients with axSpA were treated. Among them, 62 were nr-axSpA while the remaining 259 were AS. Log-rank test to compare survival curves showed that the probability of obtaining PR in nr-axSpA and AS during treatment with anti-TNF-α was not significantly different. At 12 weeks of exposure to the first anti-TNF-α drug, PR was achieved in 7 patients with nr-axSpA (11.3%) and in 68 patients with AS (26.2%). CONCLUSION: Our results, obtained from clinical practice, showed that PR is an achievable target of anti-TNF-α treatment in nr-axSpA. The PR rate, as a reliable indicator of sustained effectiveness, is similar in nr-axSpA and in AS.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".