Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibition in Male and Female Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: Data from a Swiss Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate sex differences in connection with the effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: A total of 440 patients with AS (294 men; 146 women) initiating a first TNFi in the prospective Swiss Clinical Quality Management Cohort were included. We evaluated the proportion of patients achieving the 20% and 40% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society criteria (ASAS20 and ASAS40) as well as Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) improvement and status scores at 1 year. Patients having discontinued TNFi were considered nonresponders. Logistic regression analyses were performed to adjust for important predictors of response. RESULTS: Compared to men, female patients had lower mean C-reactive protein levels, better spinal mobility, and more peripheral disease at the start. There was no sex disparity with regard to the ASDAS, the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity and Functional indices, and the quality of life. At 1 year, 52% of women and 63% of men achieved an ASAS20 response (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.37-1.07, p = 0.09). An inactive disease status (ASDAS < 1.3) was reached by 18% of women and 26% of men (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.32-1.27, p = 0.22). These sex differences in response to TNFi were more pronounced in adjusted analyses (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16-0.71, p = 0.005 for ASAS20 and OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.31, p < 0.001 for ASDAS < 1.3) and confirmed for all the other outcomes assessed. CONCLUSION: In AS, fewer women respond to TNFi and women show a reduced response in comparison to men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".