Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Inhibition in Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis: Treatment Response, Drug Survival, and Patient Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to (1) evaluate baseline characteristics of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) treated with tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNFi), (2) assess the response to first TNFi treatment, and (3) compare drug-survival duration and rates. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were patients with axSpA who initiated first TNFi treatment between April 2001 and July 2014 and were followed up for at least 3 months. Efficacy criteria were an improvement of at least 2 points (on a 0-10 scale) or a 50% improvement in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI). Baseline characteristics, responses at 12 months, and drug survival were compared between AS and nr-axSpA. RESULTS: A total of 361 patients were included in the study (AS, n = 263 and nr-axSpA, n = 98). Patients with AS were more often men (65.02% vs 45.92%, p = 0.001) and had longer symptom duration (11.71 ± 9.52 vs 7.34 ± 9.30 yrs, p < 0.001). Median levels of acute-phase reactants (C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate) were significantly higher in patients with AS (p < 0.001 for both). Median BASDAI scores at first TNFi initiation were not higher in patients with nr-axSpA than in patients with AS (59, 49-70 vs 60, 50-70, p = 0.73). BASDAI 20 and BASDAI 50 response rates at 12 months were not statistically different between patients with AS and patients with nr-axSpA (74.58% vs 64.58%, p = 0.19 and 61.02% vs 50.00%, p = 0.19, respectively). No statistically significant difference in terms of survival was observed between patients with AS and nr-axSpA (p = 1.00). CONCLUSION: Treatment response and drug survival were similar in patients with AS and nr-axSpA after first TNFi initiation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".