The Effect of Reduced or Withdrawn Etanercept-methotrexate Therapy on Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients with Early Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: An analysis of a clinical trial to assess the effects of treatment reduction and withdrawal on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with early, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who achieved 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) low disease activity (LDA) or remission with etanercept (ETN) plus methotrexate (MTX) therapy. METHODS: During treatment induction, patients received open-label ETN 50 mg weekly plus MTX for 52 weeks. In the reduced-treatment phase, patients with DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) ≤ 3.2 at Week 39 and DAS28-ESR < 2.6 at Week 52 in the open-label phase were randomized to double-blind treatment with ETN 25 mg plus MTX, MTX, or placebo (PBO) for 39 weeks (weeks 0-39). In the third phase, patients who achieved DAS28 remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.6) or LDA (2.6 ≤ DAS28-ESR ≤ 3.2) at Week 39 in the double-blind phase had all treatment withdrawn and were observed for an additional 26 weeks (weeks 39-65). RESULTS: Of the 306 patients enrolled, 193 were randomized in the double-blind phase and 131 participated in the treatment-withdrawal phase. After reduction or withdrawal of ETN 50 mg/MTX, patients reduced to ETN 25 mg/MTX experienced slight, nonsignificant declines in the majority of PRO measures, whereas switching to PBO or MTX alone caused significant declines. Presenteeism and activity impairment scores were significantly better in the ETN reduced-dose group versus MTX monotherapy and PBO at Week 39 (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients with early RA who achieved remission while receiving full-dose ETN/MTX, continuing combination therapy at a lower dose did not cause a significant worsening of PRO response, but switching to MTX alone or PBO did. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00913458.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".