MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

216. BARICITINIB, METHOTREXATE, OR BARICITINIB PLUS METHOTREXATE IN PATIENTS WITH MODERATELY-TO-SEVERELY ACTIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS WHO HAD RECEIVED LIMITED OR NO TREATMENT WITH DMARDS: EFFICACY AND SAFETY RESULTS FROM THE 52-WEEK PHASE 3 RA-BEGIN STUDY

2017· article· en· W2752001050 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Durez, David Walker, Piet Geusens, Filip Van den Bosch, Saeed Ahmed Shaikh, Dario Roccatello, Hasan Tahir, Omid Zamani, Ivaylo Stoykov, S. Otawa, Veronica Rogai, Esbjörn Larsson, Thorsten Holzkämper, S. Arthanari, Georg Pum, Soyi Liu Leage, Inger Gjertsson, Piercarlo Sarzi‐Puttini, Jörn Kekow, Inmaculada de la Torre

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsEli Lilly (Canada)McMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMethotrexateRheumatoid arthritisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Baricitinib, an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, improves disease activity with an acceptable safety profile in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We report efficacy and safety data for baricitinib as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate (MTX), compared with MTX, in patients with moderately-to-severely active RA and limited or no prior treatment with DMARDs. Methods: Patients (N = 584) with moderately-to-severely active RA who were DMARD-naïve (other than ≤3 doses of MTX) were randomized 4:3:4 to MTX (titrated to 20mg/week), baricitinib 4mg QD or baricitinib 4mg QD plus MTX for 52 weeks. Primary endpoint was non-inferiority of baricitinib monotherapy to MTX for ACR20 at week 24. Results: ACR20 response at week 24 was higher with baricitinib 4mg monotherapy versus MTX (77% vs 62%, p≤.01). Baricitinib plus MTX did not have increased benefit versus baricitinib monotherapy but was significantly superior to MTX for most outcomes, often from week one. Similar improvements were seen for ACR50/70 and DAS28. Clinical remission (DAS28<2.6, SDAI≤3.3, CDAI≤2.8) occurred in significantly higher proportions of patients receiving baricitinib monotherapy or baricitinib plus MTX versus MTX. The proportion of patients with no radiographic disease progression (ΔmTSS≤0.5) was 88% (p≤.01 vs MTX) for baricitinib plus MTX, 84% with baricitinib monotherapy (not significant vs MTX) and 78% with MTX. Compared with MTX, significant improvements were seen with baricitinib monotherapy and baricitinib plus MTX in physical function and pain (Table 1), and in all components of the WPAI-RA at week 24; fatigue was significantly improved with baricitinib monotherapy. Efficacy was sustained at week 52. Rates of treatment-emergent AEs, including infections, and serious AEs were similar across groups (Table 1). Laboratory changes (including liver abnormalities, lymphopenia), non-serious infections and AEs leading to interruption were generally less frequent with baricitinib monotherapy versus MTX or baricitinib plus MTX.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207