Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Discontinuation in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: An Observational Study From the US-Based Corrona Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) have shown efficacy for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). However, many patients may discontinue or switch TNFis due to lack of effect or adverse events. As biologics with alternative mechanisms of action become available for the treatment of AS, it is important to better understand the characteristics of patients who discontinue or have an inadequate response to TNFis to help inform treatment choices regarding initiating or switching to a biologic therapy. This study compared demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with AS who discontinued vs. continued a TNFi by their second follow-up visit in the US-based Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis and Spondyloarthritis (PsA/SpA) Registry. METHODS: All patients aged ≥ 18 years with AS enrolled in the Corrona PsA/SpA Registry between April 2013 and January 2015 who were receiving or had initiated a TNFi (index therapy) at the time of registry enrollment (baseline) and had ≥ 2 follow-up visits were included. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and patient-reported outcome scores at baseline were compared between cohorts of patients who discontinued or continued their TNFi by the second follow-up visit. RESULTS: Of the 155 included patients, 37 (23.9%) discontinued their index TNFi therapy by the second follow-up visit (mean follow-up, 17.8 months). Patients who discontinued their TNFi were older (mean age, 52.1 vs. 46.6 years; P = 0.04), were more likely to be obese (59.5% vs. 34.2%; P < 0.01), and had worse mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index scores (4.8 vs. 3.5 and 4.2 vs. 2.8, respectively; P = 0.01 for both) at baseline than those who continued their TNFi. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this real-world study provide insight into the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with AS who discontinue vs. continue TNFi therapy in US clinical practice. FUNDING: Corrona, LLC. Plain language summary available for this article.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".