Canadian Adalimumab Postmarketing Observational Epidemiological Study Assessing Effectiveness in Psoriatic Arthritis (COMPLETE-PsA): 12-month Results of Comparative Effectiveness of Adalimumab and nbDMARDs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective COMPLETE-PsA was an observational study of biologic-naïve Canadian adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with adalimumab (ADA) or a nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (nbDMARD) regimen, after inadequate response/intolerance to a current nbDMARD treatment regimen. The aim of this analysis was to assess the 12-month effectiveness of ADA vs nbDMARDs. Methods Patients enrolled between March 2012 and November 2017 were included. The following clinical variables and patient-reported outcomes were collected/calculated per routine care: Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis in 28 joints (DAPSA28), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein, physician global assessment (PGA), patient global assessment (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 12-item Short Form Health Survey, enthesitis, dactylitis, body surface area (BSA), and time to achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50, ACR70, and modified minimal disease activity (mMDA). Results Two hundred and seventy-seven ADA-treated and 148 nbDMARD-treated patients were included. At baseline, ADA-treated patients were less likely to be employed, had longer morning stiffness, higher DAPSA28, DAS28, PGA, PtGA, pain, and HAQ-DI, and lower prevalence of dactylitis (allP< 0.05). ADA-treated patients showed lower baseline-adjusted DAPSA28 (16.5 vs 26.6), DAS28 (2.8 vs 3.9), PGA (25.3 vs 37.1), and ESR (10.4 vs 15.0 mm/h) after 3 months compared to nbDMARD-treated patients, with observed improvements maintained to month 12. Time to achievement of ACR50, ACR70, and mMDA was significantly shorter (P< 0.001) among ADA-treated patients, with the likelihood of having dactylitis (odds ratio [OR] 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.6) and BSA< 3% (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.5–5.0) significantly lower and higher, respectively. Switching to another biologic was less likely in ADA-treated vs nbDMARD-treated patients (hazard ratio 0.3, 95% CI 0.2–0.5). Conclusion In a real-world Canadian population of patients with PsA, ADA was more effective than nbDMARDs at reducing disease activity and the severity of skin involvement, and demonstrated higher retention. [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01559038 ]
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".