Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Dose Reduction for Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study was undertaken to investigate the effectiveness and safety of dose reduction of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapy in the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) compared to usual care. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Medline, and trial registries. We screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Data were pooled using random-effects models; subgroup analyses were performed for type of TNFi, prior TNFi exposure, and follow-up duration. Outcomes of interest were Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) response and remission criteria, disease activity, relapse, and safety. RESULTS: We included 6 randomized trials with 747 participants (442 with ankylosing spondylitis and 305 with nonradiographic axial SpA). Compared to the standard dose, there were fewer events with the reduced dose for the ASAS criteria for 40% improvement (risk ratio [RR] 0.62 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.49, 0.78]) and for ASAS partial remission (RR 0.17 [95% CI 0.06, 0.46]). There was a mean increase in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score (mean difference [MD] 0.35 [95% CI 0.10, 0.60]) and no difference in C-reactive protein levels (MD 0.16 [95% CI -0.76, 1.07]) with the reduced dose. There were more disease flares/relapses (RR 1.73 [95% CI 1.32, 2.27]) with the reduced dose. There were no differences in infection rates (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.98 [95% CI 0.76, 1.25]) or injection/infusion reactions (IRR 0.71 [95% CI 0.42, 1.19]). CONCLUSION: Patients with axial SpA may experience little to no clinical benefit from reduction of TNFi therapy. Maintaining the standard dose probably improves the sustained effect on disease activity and helps to prevent disease flare.
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 | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".