Network Meta-Analysis of Tofacitinib, Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs, and Apremilast for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib and other new treatments approved for use in psoriatic arthritis have only recently been included in psoriatic arthritis treatment guidelines, and studies evaluating the relative efficacy of available therapies are important to inform treatment decisions by healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of tofacitinib, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis naïve to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy (TNFi-naïve) or with an inadequate response (TNFi-IR). METHODS: A systematic literature review used searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library on October 9, 2017. Randomized controlled trials including adult patients with psoriatic arthritis receiving treatment administered as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic DMARDs were selected. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20 response, change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and change from baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index. Treatment effects were evaluated during placebo-controlled phases, using a binomial logit model for binary outcomes and a normal identify link model for other outcomes. Discontinuations due to adverse events and serious infection events were assessed as safety outcomes. RESULTS: The network meta-analysis included 24 published randomized controlled trials, of which 13 enrolled TNFi-naïve patients only, 3 enrolled TNFi-IR patients only, and 8 enrolled both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-IR patients. Placebo-controlled treatment durations ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. Indirect comparisons showed tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID to have similar efficacy compared with most bDMARDs and apremilast in improving joint symptoms (based on American College of Rheumatology 20 response), and with some bDMARDs in improving skin symptoms (based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) (tofacitinib 10 mg BID only in TNFi-IR) in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were TNFi-naïve or TNFi-IR. Results also showed that, compared with placebo, the improvement in physical functioning (based on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID was similar to that observed with most bDMARDs and apremilast in TNFi-naïve patients, and similar to that observed with all bDMARDs with available data in the TNFi-IR population. Improvements in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index scores were comparable between treatments. Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were median-ranked 8 and 15, respectively, for discontinuation due to any adverse events, and 5 and 16, respectively, for a serious infection event out of a total of 20 treatments in the network (lower numbers are more favorable). CONCLUSIONS: 2020; 81:XXX-XXX).
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 | 0.022 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".