Radiographic Progression of Structural Joint Damage Over 5 Years of Baricitinib Treatment in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results From RA-BEYOND
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of baricitinib on inhibiting radiographic progression of structural joint damage over 5 years in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients completed 1 of 3 phase III baricitinib trials (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01711359, NCT01710358, or NCT01721057) and entered the long-term extension RA-BEYOND (NCT01885078), in which patients received once-daily 4 mg or 2 mg baricitinib. Across these trials, patients initially receiving methotrexate (MTX) or adalimumab (ADA) switched to baricitinib 4 mg at Week 52. Patients initially receiving placebo (PBO) switched to baricitinib 4 mg at Week 24. Radiographs were scored at baseline and Years 2, 3, 4, and 5. Change from baseline in van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (ΔmTSS) was computed. RESULTS: Overall, 2125 of 2573 (82.6%) randomized patients entered RA-BEYOND; 1837 of 2125 (86.4%) entered this analysis. From Years 3 to 5, higher proportions of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients on initial baricitinib (monotherapy or with MTX) had no progression vs initial MTX (ΔmTSS ≤ 0 at Year 5: 59.6% baricitinib 4 mg; 66.2% baricitinib 4 mg + MTX; 40.7% MTX). Higher proportions of patients with inadequate response (IR) to MTX on initial baricitinib or ADA vs PBO had no progression (ΔmTSS ≤ 0 at Year 5: 54.8% baricitinib 4 mg; 55.0% ADA; 50.3% PBO). Higher proportions of patients with conventional synthetic DMARD-IR on initial baricitinib 4 mg had less progression vs initial PBO or baricitinib 2 mg (ΔmTSS ≤ 0 at Year 5: 66.7% baricitinib 4 mg; 58.2% baricitinib 2 mg; 60.0% PBO). CONCLUSION: Oral baricitinib maintained lower levels of radiographic progression than initial conventional synthetic DMARD or PBO through 5 years in patients with active RA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".