A real life experience with novel biosimilar InfimabTM in biologic naive patients with active rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of novel infliximab biosimilar, InfimabTM (IFB) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Materials and Methods: Eight patients with active RA who failed to demonstrate clinical improvement with methotrexate were enrolled. Post consent, patients were administered infliximab biosimilar 3mg/kg body weight as intra venous infusion at weeks 0, 2, 6 then every 8 weeks on demand. Patients were assessed for Health assessment questionnaire (HAQ, India Score), disease activity score 28 (DAS 28), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (WOMAC), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score at baseline and at each visit. They were also observed for any adverse effects or tuberculosis infection. Wilcoxon sign rank test was used to assess the change between baseline to each follow-up visit. Results: On any average 3 infusions were administered to patients. At visit 3 there was significant improvement in HAQ score (p=0.046), WOMAC score (p=0.018), Tender joints count (p=0.027), swollen joints count (p=0.027) and also in general health (p=0.043). Though the VAS scores and ESR values decreased at visit 3, they were not significant. At the end of visit 5, there was considerable decrease in the tested parameters, except in tender joint count. None of the patients reported any adverse effects, indicating that infliximab biosimilar was well-tolerated in tested patients. Conclusion: In this preliminary trial conducted in eight RA patients, treatment with IFB improved clinical outcomes and was well-tolerated in RA patients who failed initial treatment with methotrexate
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".