Comparative effectiveness of secukinumab and adalimumab in ankylosing spondylitis as assessed by matching-adjusted indirect comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison was used to assess the comparative effectiveness of secukinumab 150 mg and adalimumab 40 mg in biologic-naïve patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) for up to 1 year. METHODS: Pooled individual patient data from the secukinumab arms of MEASURE 1 (NCT01358175) and MEASURE 2 (NCT01649375) trials (n=197) were matched against the ATLAS (NCT00085644) adalimumab population (n=208). Logistic regression analysis was used to determined weights to match for age, sex, Bath AS Functional Index, C-reactive protein levels, and previous tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy. Recalculated Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) 20 and 40 responses at weeks 8, 12, 16, 24, and 52 from MEASURE 1/2 (effective sample size=120) were compared with those of ATLAS. Anchored (placebo-adjusted) comparisons were possible until week 12, and unanchored (non-placebo-adjusted) comparisons were necessary thereafter. RESULTS: For placebo-anchored ASAS 20 and 40 comparisons up to week 12, there were no differences between secukinumab and adalimumab. For unanchored comparisons at week 16, ASAS 20 was higher for secukinumab [odds ratio 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.54); p=0.047]; at week 24, ASAS 20 and 40 were higher for secukinumab [1.76 (1.11-2.79); p=0.017 and 1.79 (1.14-2.82); p=0.012, respectively]; and at week 52, ASAS 40 was higher for secukinumab [1.54 (1.06-2.23); p=0.023] than for adalimumab. CONCLUSION: There were no differences observed in placebo-adjusted ASAS 20 and 40 responses up to 12 weeks between secukinumab- and adalimumab-treated patients with ankylosing spondylitis. After week 12, secukinumab demonstrated signs of greater improvement in non-placebo-adjusted ASAS 20 and 40 responses than adalimumab.
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 | 0.001 | 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".