Sustained Remission Improves Physical Function in Patients with Established Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Should Be a Treatment Goal: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study from Southern Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It has been proposed that remission should be maintained throughout the course of rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, the evidence supporting this is limited. Physical function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) is a major outcome in RA, and HAQ is shown to be one of the strongest predictors of longterm outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the physical function over a long time in patients with RA who achieved sustained remission (SR) compared with that of patients occasionally achieving remission [non-sustained remission (NSR)]. METHODS: Patients with RA treated with antitumor necrosis factor and included in the South Swedish Arthritis Treatment Group register were eligible for this study. We identified patients with a Disease Activity Score at 28 joints (DAS28) < 2.6 or Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤ 3.3 at some point and those who achieved SR, i.e., remission during consecutive visits for at least 6 months. The course of functional status was assessed using the HAQ at each visit. RESULTS: Of the 2416 patients, 1177 (48.7%) reached DAS28 remission at some point. SR was achieved by 382 (15.8%) for the DAS28 and 186 (7.7%) for the SDAI criteria. Comparing the SR and NSR groups, HAQ improved during the first 12 months in the DAS28 remission. HAQ continued to improve relatively as long as SR was maintained. A higher proportion of patients in SR reached full physical function. CONCLUSION: In patients with established RA, physical function measured by the HAQ improves in patients reaching SR compared with patients who only occasionally reach remission. The improvement continues while in remission, which supports that maintaining remission should be a treatment goal.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".