P236 Baricitinib provides better pain relief across all disease activity levels compared with placebo and adalimumab in RA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In this post hoc analysis, we assessed relationship between pain improvement and disease activity and evaluated whether baricitinib (BARI) provided additional pain improvement vs. PBO and adalimumab (ADA) across levels of disease activity. Methods 1,305 patients on stable background MTX were randomized 3:2:3 (PBO:40-mg subcutaneous ADA every other week:daily, oral 4-mg BARI). Pain was assessed with 0-100-mm VAS; pain improvement (baseline to Week 12) was grouped by ≤ 30%, >30% to ≤ 50%, >50% to ≤ 70%, >70%. Disease activity was measured with CDAI, SDAI, DAS28 with CRP, and DAS28 with ESR. To evaluate change in pain with disease activity, regression was used with continuous change in pain VAS score from baseline to Week 12 as outcome and continuous CDAI/SDAI/DAS28-CRP/DAS28-ESR values, treatment, and interaction term between treatment and disease activity as explanatory variables. Last observation carried forward was used to impute missing values. Pain VAS change (Week 12) was estimated if patients achieved remission (REM)/low disease activity (LDA)/moderate disease activity (MDA) as defined by the corresponding clinical measure. Analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity. Data visualization (percentage of pain VAS improvement vs. disease activity) was created to examine pain improvement with treatment over time. Results With CDAI, 91%/9% of patients had high disease activity/MDA across all treatments (baseline). Percentage of patients achieving REM with PBO, ADA, and BARI were 2%, 7%, 8%; for LDA: 15%, 27%, 33%; for MDA: 33%, 40%, 38%. At all CDAI values, estimated change in pain VAS for BARI was greater vs. PBO and ADA (Week 12). Similar trends were observed with other measures (Table). BARI demonstrated greater pain improvement vs. ADA and PBO in percentage of patients with ≤30%, >30% to ≤ 50%, >50% to ≤ 70%, and >70% pain improvement from baseline at Week 12. . With CDAI/SDAI, greater differentiation between BARI and ADA was observed as CDAI/SDAI values increased. Conclusion BARI provided additional pain improvement vs. PBO and ADA when disease activity was controlled, across all levels of disease activity, measured by CDAI, SDAI, DAS28-CRP, or DAS28-ESR (Week 12). Disclosures P.C. Taylor (Presenter): Consultancies; PCT has been a consultant and/or received research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, and Pfizer. J. Pope: Consultancies; JP has been a consultant and/or has received grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, and UCB. K. Ikeda: Consultancies; KI has been a consultant and/or received research support and/or honoraria from: AbbVie, Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, Kyowa Hakko Kir. X. Zhang: Corporate appointments; XZ is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; XZ is a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. B. Jia: Corporate appointments; BJ is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; BJ is a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. H. Zhang: None. A. Quebe: Corporate appointments; AQ is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; AQ is a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. Y. Chen: Corporate appointments; Y-FC is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; Y-FC is a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. C.L. Kannowski: Corporate appointments; CLK is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; CLK is a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. T. Holzkaemper: Corporate appointments; TH is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; TH is a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. A. Cardoso: Corporate appointments; AC is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; AC is a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. A. Sebba: Consultancies; AS has been a consultant and/or speaker for: Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, and Novartis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".