MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2543549509 · doi:10.1002/art.39761

Brief Report: Risk of Gastrointestinal Perforation Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Receiving Tofacitinib, Tocilizumab, or Other Biologic Treatments

2016· article· en· W2543549509 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis & Rheumatology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTocilizumabTofacitinibRheumatoid arthritisMedicineInternal medicineGastrointestinal perforationPerforationGastroenterologyDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate gastrointestinal (GI) perforation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients receiving tofacitinib, tocilizumab, or other biologic agents. METHODS: Using health plan data from 2006 through 2014, RA patients without prior GI perforation were identified. Those in whom treatment with tofacitinib or a biologic agent was being initiated were followed up for incident GI perforation with hospitalization. Crude incidence rates were calculated by exposure. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between GI perforation and exposures. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: A cohort of 167,113 RA patients was analyzed. Among them, 4,755 began treatment with tofacitinib, 11,705 with tocilizumab, 115,047 with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), 31,214 with abatacept, and 4,392 with rituximab. Compared to TNFi recipients, abatacept recipients were older, tofacitinib and rituximab recipients were younger, and tocilizumab recipients were similar in age. Patients beginning treatment with a non-TNFi agent were more likely to have previously received biologic agents than patients beginning treatment with a TNFi. The incidence of GI perforation per 1,000 patient-years was 0.86 (tofacitinib), 1.55 (tocilizumab), 1.07 (abatacept), 0.73 (rituximab), and 0.83 (TNFi). Most perforations occurred in the lower GI tract: the incidence of lower GI tract perforation per 1,000 patient-years was 0.86 (tofacitinib), 1.26 (tocilizumab), 0.76 (abatacept), 0.48 (rituximab), and 0.46 (TNFi). Lower GI tract perforation risk was significantly elevated with tocilizumab treatment, and numerically elevated with tofacitinib treatment, versus treatment with TNFi. Adjusted HRs were 2.51 (95% CI 1.31-4.80) for tocilizumab and 1.94 (95% CI 0.49-7.65) for tofacitinib. Older age (HR 1.16 per 5 years [95% CI 1.10-1.22]), diverticulitis/other GI conditions (HR 3.25 [95% CI 1.62-6.50]), and prednisone use at >7.5 mg/day (HR 2.29 [95% CI 1.39-3.78]) were associated with lower GI tract perforation. The incidence of upper GI tract perforation was similar among all drug exposures. CONCLUSION: The risk of lower GI tract perforation associated with tocilizumab treatment, and possibly tofacitinib treatment, is elevated compared to that associated with TNF blockade.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · 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