Etanercept treatment in adults with established rheumatoid arthritis: 7 years of clinical experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of longterm etanercept treatment in patients with disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) refractory rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Safety results are reported for 714 patients who received etanercept in one of 7 initial trials or a longterm extension. Efficacy results are reported for 581 patients who enrolled in the extension. RESULTS: Of the 714 patients enrolled in the initial trials, 581 (81%) enrolled in the extension, and 388 (54%) patients are continuing to receive etanercept therapy. The longest individual treatment was 8.2 years, with 3139 total patient-years of etanercept exposure. Rates of serious adverse events (overall rate=14.8 events/100 patient-yrs), serious infections (overall rate=4.2 events/100 patient-yrs), cancer (overall rate=1.0 events/100 patient-yrs), and deaths (overall rate=0.7 events/100 patient-yrs) were stable each year, through 8 years of etanercept exposure. For 356 patients who completed 6 years of etanercept treatment, response rates were ACR20=73%, ACR50=52%, ACR70=27%, DAS28 CRP good response=52%, and DAS28 CRP remission=37% of patients. Similar responses occurred in 167 patients who completed Year 7. Doses of concomitant methotrexate or corticosteroids were reduced in many patients who maintained clinical responses. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of etanercept was consistent over time, with rates of adverse events similar to those reported for patients with RA in general. Durable clinical responses were observed in some patients for 7 years or more. The benefit-to-risk ratio for longterm etanercept treatment remains highly favorable.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".