Comparative Persistence of Methotrexate and Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, and Ankylosing Spondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The role of methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of spondyloarthritis (SpA) remains uncertain. Aims were to compare MTX and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) persistence in spondyloarthritis versus rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to determine whether concomitant conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) use is associated with improved TNFi persistence in SpA. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study using Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database 2000-2014 identified patients with RA, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) without prior biologic use who were initiating MTX or a TNFi. Cox proportional hazards models compared time to medication discontinuation over the next 2 years between patients with RA, PsA, or AS, adjusting for potential confounders. In similar analyses stratified by disease, Cox models were used to assess whether concomitant use of csDMARD was associated with TNFi persistence. RESULTS: We identified 31,527 MTX initiators (26,708 RA, 2939 PsA, 1880 AS) and 34,651 TNFi initiators (24,134 RA, 6705 PsA, 3812 AS). MTX was discontinued sooner in patients with PsA [adjusted HR (aHR) 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.16] and AS (aHR 1.23, 1.16-1.31) versus RA, while TNFi were discontinued at similar rates in RA and AS and discontinued later in PsA (aHR 0.93, 0.89-0.97). Concomitant use of MTX (compared to no csDMARD) was associated with lower rates of TNFi discontinuation in RA (aHR 0.85, 0.80-0.89), PsA (aHR 0.81, 0.74-0.89), and AS (aHR 0.79, 0.67-0.93). CONCLUSION: MTX discontinuation occurs sooner in patients with PsA and AS versus RA. Concomitant use of MTX with a TNFi, however, is associated with improved TNFi persistence in all 3 diseases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".