MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946583712 · doi:10.1002/acr.23927

Treatment Strategies in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Methotrexate Management: Results From a Prospective Cohort

2019· article· en· W2946583712 on OpenAlexafffund
Cristiano Soares de Moura, Orit Schieir, Marie‐France Valois, Carter Thorne, Susan J. Bartlett, Janet Pope, Carol Hitchon, Gilles Boire, Boulos Haraoui, Glen Hazlewood, Edward Keystone, D. Tin, Vivian P. Bykerk, Sasha Bernatsky

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversité de SherbrookeSouthlake Regional Health CenterUniversity of ManitobaWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMethotrexateRheumatoid arthritisInternal medicineHazard ratioRheumatismRheumatologyCohortCombination therapyConfidence intervalProspective cohort studyCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world practice patterns surrounding treatment initiation and adjustments over time for methotrexate (MTX) and non-MTX-based treatment strategies in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We studied a multicenter, incident early RA cohort (enrolled 2007-2017 within 1 year of symptoms) who fulfilled American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria. Adult patients with RA were eligible if treatment with MTX (± other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [DMARDs]) was initiated within 90 days of cohort entry. We compared time until treatment change for 4 initial MTX-based therapies and time to second treatment change after the first change. The definition of treatment change included changing of route for MTX monotherapy, adding or stopping a DMARD or biologic, and changing dose/frequency of a DMARD or biologic. RESULTS: There was great variability of treatment at initiation and during therapy adjustment. In 1,484 patients with early RA, the majority initiated MTX monotherapy (oral or subcutaneous [SC]). Patients receiving SC MTX monotherapy changed treatment less (45% versus 79%) and remained on treatment longer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.52 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.4-0.67]) than those receiving oral MTX monotherapy. Most therapy adjustments involved adding a DMARD or changing to a non-MTX DMARD. Those adults taking biologics and who were receiving triple therapy had a longer time without treatment change (HR 0.26 [95% CI 0.16-0.42] and HR 0.57 [95% CI 0.38-0.85], respectively). CONCLUSION: We found large variability in the way MTX-based therapies are prescribed in clinical practice. Our findings support the use of SC MTX monotherapy or MTX combination as initial therapy. For subsequent treatment after initial MTX-based therapy, those patients initiating either biologics or triple therapy had a longer time to treatment change than oral MTX monotherapy.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & ResearchSame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207