Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 28

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy and safety of monotherapy with sirukumab compared with adalimumab monotherapy in biologic-naïve patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (SIRROUND-H): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multinational, 52-week, phase 3 study

Taylor, Peter C, Schiff, Michael H, Wang, Qingmin, Jiang, Yusang, Zhuang, Yanli, Kurrasch, Regina, Daga, Shruti, Rao, Ravi, Tak, Paul P, Hsu, Benjamin·2018·Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

Abstract

Objective This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 study compared monotherapy with sirukumab, an anti-interleukin-6 cytokine monoclonal antibody, with adalimumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Biologic-naïve patients with active RA who were inadequate responders or were intolerant to, or inappropriate for, methotrexate were randomised to subcutaneous sirukumab 100 mg every 2 weeks (n=187), sirukumab 50 mg every 4 weeks (n=186) or adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks (n=186). Primary endpoints at week 24 were change from baseline in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response; these endpoints were tested in sequential order. This study is registered at EudraCT (number: 2013-001417-32) and ClinicalTrials.gov (number: NCT02019472). Results Significantly greater improvements from baseline in mean (SD) DAS28 (ESR) were observed at week 24 with sirukumab 100 mg every 2 weeks (-2.96 (1.580)) versus adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks (-2.19 (1.437); P Conclusion Sirukumab monotherapy showed greater improvements in DAS28 (ESR), but similar ACR50 response rates, versus adalimumab monotherapy.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212496

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Taylor, P. C., Schiff, M. H., Wang, Q., Jiang, Y., Zhuang, Y., Kurrasch, R., Daga, S., Rao, R., Tak, P. P., & Hsu, B.
Venue
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-05
Volume
77
Issue
5
Pages
658-666
ISSN
0003-4967
Cited by
28
References
27
Language
en
Funders
  • Janssen Research & Development, LLC
  • GlaxoSmithKline

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.