Impact of the Adalimumab Patient Support Program on Clinical Outcomes in Ankylosing Spondylitis: Results from the COMPANION Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adalimumab (ADA) is a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitor indicated for the treatment of inflammatory autoimmune diseases, including ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Patients receiving ADA in Canada are eligible to enroll in the AbbVie Care™ patient support program (AC-PSP), which provides personalized services, including care coach calls (CCCs). We estimated the likelihood of controlled disease in a cohort of AS patients treated with ADA enrolled in the AC-PSP and who received CCCs versus those who did not. METHODS: A longitudinal analysis using de-identified aggregate-level data collected through the AC-PSP was performed. A probabilistic matching algorithm was used to link patient-level records from the AC-PSP database to records from the QuintilesIMS longitudinal prescription transactions database. Patients were indexed on the date of their first prescription of ADA between January 2010 and October 2015. The AC-PSP database included patient assessments of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), a measure of disease activity. Eligible patients had a baseline BASDAI assessment performed between 90 days before and 30 days after the index date, and a follow-up BASDAI assessment 6-18 months later. Poisson regression was used to estimate the adjusted relative risk (RR) of controlled disease (BASDAI < 4) at the time of follow-up, comparing patients who received CCCs with those who did not. RESULTS: In total 249 AS patients met eligibility criteria, and 123 (49%) received CCCs. Of the 249 patients, 184 (74%) had controlled disease (BASDAI < 4) at follow-up assessment, 98 (80%) in the CCC group and 86 (68%) in the no CCC group. Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated a 23% increased likelihood of controlled disease in patients who received CCCs relative to those who did not (RR = 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.42; p = 0.0055). CONCLUSION: AS patients receiving tailored services through the AC-PSP in the form of CCCs have an increased likelihood of controlled disease within 6-18 months. FUNDING: AbbVie.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".