Impact of Ixekizumab on Work Productivity in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: Results from the COAST-V and COAST-W Trials at 52 Weeks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are burdened with symptoms impacting work productivity measured by presenteeism, absenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment. Ixekizumab, a high-affinity monoclonal antibody selectively targeting interleukin-17A, has been demonstrated to improve disease signs and symptoms in two phase 3 trials of AS. This study investigated for 52 weeks the effect of ixekizumab treatment on work productivity in patients with active AS. METHODS: COAST-V (NCT02696785) and COAST-W (NCT02696798) were phase 3, multicenter, randomized, controlled trials investigating the efficacy of ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) and every 2 weeks (Q2W) in patients with AS naïve to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs; COAST-V) or who were inadequate responders or intolerant to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi; COAST-W). Work productivity was measured with the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire for Spondyloarthritis at weeks 16 and 52. Absenteeism, presenteeism, and overall work impairment were assessed for patients reporting paid work. Activity impairment was assessed regardless of work status. RESULTS: At baseline, 66.2% (434/656) of patients reported paid work. At week 16, bDMARD-naïve patients treated with both ixekizumab dose regimens and TNFi-experienced patients treated with ixekizumab Q2W reported significant improvements in activity impairment (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively). TNFi-experienced patients treated with ixekizumab showed significant improvements versus placebo in presenteeism and overall work impairment (p < 0.05); bDMARD-naïve patients had numeric improvements. After week 16, patients initially on placebo switched to ixekizumab and patients already treated with ixekizumab continued treatment. Improvements in work productivity and daily activity were sustained through week 52 for both bDMARD-experienced and -naïve patients. CONCLUSION: Both bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced patients with AS had greater improvements in work productivity and activity impairment when receiving ixekizumab compared to placebo at week 16. Improvements in work productivity and activity impairment achieved at week 16 were sustained through week 52 with ixekizumab treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".