Disease remission and sustained remission after etanercept biosimilar or originator initiation in rheumatoid arthritis: an interim real-world analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared time to first remission and prevalence of sustained remission in participants with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating etanercept biosimilar (ETA-B) or originator (ETA-O). METHODS: We studied etanercept-naive participants with RA from four Canadian prospective cohorts who initiated ETA-B or ETA-O (Jan/2015-May/2022). Disease remission was determined using disease activity scales. Sustained remission was defined as at least two consecutive visits in remission within the first 12 months of follow-up. Multivariate Cox regression was used to compare the probability of achieving remission between ETA-B and ETA-O, and multivariate logistic regression was used to assess sustained remission. RESULTS: We studied 150 participants with RA (ETA-B: 65.3%). Among 125 participants not in remission at baseline, the median time to first remission was 8.7 months (95% confidence intervals [CI] 5.2-12.1) in the ETA-B group and 14.5 months (95% CI 4.7-18.6) in the ETA-O group. Time to first remission was similar between the groups (log-rank test: P-value = 0.51). Multivariate Cox regression showed no clear difference in first remission between ETA-B and ETA-O (adjusted hazard ratio 1.52, 95% CI 0.68-3.39). Among 125 participants with at least 12 months of follow-up, the prevalence of sustained remission was 19.5% for ETA-B and 21.0% for ETA-O. In multivariate analysis, we did not detect a significant difference in sustained remission between ETA-B and ETA-O (adjusted odds ratio 1.14, 95% CI 0.29-4.87). CONCLUSION: We did not detect clear differences in first remission and sustained remission between participants with RA initiating ETA-B or ETA-O. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".