Ixekizumab in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis with and without elevated C-reactive protein or positive magnetic resonance imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate response rates at week 16 with ixekizumab in patients with radiographic axial SpA (r-axSpA) and elevated or normal/low baseline inflammation measured by serum CRP or spinal MRI using data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled phase III trials. METHODS: Biologic-naïve (COAST-V) or TNF inhibitor-experienced (COAST-W) adults with active r-axSpA received 80 mg ixekizumab every 2 weeks (IXEQ2W) or 4 weeks (IXEQ4W) or PBO or active reference [40 mg adalimumab every 2 weeks (ADAQ2W) in COAST-V. At week 16, patients receiving ixekizumab continued as assigned and patients receiving PBO or ADA were rerandomized 1:1 to IXEQ2W or IXEQ4W through week 52. Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40% (ASAS40) response rates were examined by baseline CRP (≤5 or >5 mg/l) and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI spine inflammation score (<2 or ≥2). RESULTS: In the COAST-V/W integrated dataset (N = 567), significantly more patients treated with ixekizumab achieved ASAS40 response at week 16 by CRP ≤5 mg/l (27% IXEQ4W, P < 0.05; 35% IXEQ2W, P < 0.01 vs 12% PBO), CRP >5 mg/l (39% IXEQ4W, P < 0.001; 43% IXEQ2W, P < 0.001 vs 17% PBO), SPARCC MRI spine score <2 (40% IXEQ4W P < 0.01, 52% IXEQ2W P < 0.001 vs 16% PBO), and SPARCC MRI spine score ≥2 (44% IXEQ4W P < 0.001, 47% IXEQ2W P < 0.001 vs 19% PBO). ASAS40 response was observed with CRP ≤5 mg/l and SPARCC MRI spine score <2 with IXEQ4W (29%) and was significant with IXEQ2W (48%; P < 0.05) vs PBO (13%). CONCLUSION: Ixekizumab demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of AS/r-axSpA in patients with and without elevated CRP or evidence of spinal inflammation on MRI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov): NCT02696785, NCT02696798.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".