MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Clinical Disease Activity Index Trajectories in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Abatacept: A Real-World Study

2025· article· en· W4411846635 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Janet Pope, John S. Sampalis, Boulos Haraoui, Emmanouil Rampakakis, Dylan Keating, Fiona Allum, Marc‐Olivier Trépanier, Louis Bessette

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsBristol-Myers Squibb (Canada)Université de MontréalMcGill UniversityCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbataceptRheumatoid arthritisInternal medicineArthritisDiseaseIndex (typography)Physical therapyRituximab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives To describe the 12-month Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) trajectory patterns and their determinants in patients treated for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with subcutaneous abatacept. The association between 3- and 12-month CDAI trajectory classifications was also assessed. Methods Post-hoc analysis of RA patients initiated on abatacept in the Abatacept Best Care study ( NCT03274141 ).[1] A growth mixture model with Bayesian imputations was used to determine CDAI trajectory groups over 12 months. Time to CDAI low disease activity (LDA) and remission was assessed with Kaplan Meier Survivor estimates. Differences in baseline characteristics between trajectory groups were assessed using bivariate statistical methods. Determinants of trajectory patterns were identified with simple and multivariate logistic regression models with stepwise variable selection. The association between 3- and 12-month CDAI trajectory groupings was assessed with Cohen’s kappa. Results Among 256 patients, mean (SD) age was 60.1 (11.5) years, 75% were female, and baseline CDAI was 30.1 (10.6). Three CDAI trajectory groups were identified: Rapid Responders (RR; n=125; 49%); Late Responders (LR; n=96; 37%); and Non-responders (NR; n=35; 14%) (Figure 1). Mean (95% CI) time to CDAI LDA was 5.6 (5.1-6.1), 9.0 (8.2-9.7), and 11.3 (10.4-12.1) months for RR, LR, and NR, respectively, and time to remission was 9.6 (9.0-10.2), 12.0 (11.8-12.2) months, and not reached for NR (P<0.001). Mean (SD) baseline parameters for RR, LR and NR respectively were: CDAI: 27.0 (10.2), 30.5 (8.9), 40.0 (10.4); DAS28-CRP: 4.1 (1.0), 4.5 (0.8), 5.2 (0.7); Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3: 14.1 (5.4), 16.9 (4.5), 17.8 (5.4); tender joint count: 7.9 (5.6), 9.8 (5.5), 15.2 (5.9), Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) 57.4 (22.9), 67.2 (18.5), 73.9 (18.6); and fatigue (VAS 0-100): 58.5 (23.5), 63.3 (22.5), 76.5 (21.6; P<0.01). In multivariate analysis, baseline predictors of RR or LR vs NR were lower PtGA (odds ratio [95% CI]:0.98 [0.95-1.00]), swollen joint count (0.92 [0.84-1.00]), Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index (0.75 [0.59-0.95]), and no prior biologic use (0.36 [0.16-0.79]). 3-month CDAI trajectory classifications were not associated with 12-month classifications (kappa=0.46). Figure 1: 12-month response trajectory groups for rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with abatacept identified by GMM based on CDAI response overtime. Lines represent mean CDAI score through 12 months; shaded areas represent standard deviation. CDAI: Clinical Disease Activity Index; GMM: growth mixture model; LDA: low disease activity. Conclusion In this real-world-study, ~85% of abatacept-treated RA patients showed rapid/late CDAI reduction over 12 months. Lower baseline disease severity, no prior biologic treatment, and fewer comorbidities were predictive of 12-month change in CDAI, whereas disease severity changes during the first 3 months of treatment were not, suggesting that patients may benefit from a longer treatment course prior to switching treatment. Trajectory-based analyses are informative and may have implications for clinical practice and research. [1.] Bessette L. Arthritis Res Ther 2023;25(1):183.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→