MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164097634 · doi:10.1002/art.41805

Reply

2021· letter· en· W3164097634 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey R. Curtis, Sindhu R. Johnson, Donald D. Anthony, Reuben J. Arasaratnam, Lindsey R. Baden, Ellen M. Gravallese, Anne R. Bass, Cassandra Calabrese, Rafael Harpaz, Andrew T. Kroger, Rebecca E. Sadun, Amy S. Turner, Eleanor Anderson Williams, Ted R. Mikuls

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis & Rheumatology · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTofacitinibVaccinationRheumatoid arthritisInternal medicineConfidence intervalToxoidPneumococcal pneumoniaPlaceboPneumoniaTetanusImmunologyStreptococcus pneumoniae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: We appreciate the comment by Dr. Mortezavi and colleagues describing COVID-19 vaccine response and the frequency of disease worsening in patients receiving tofacitinib. The ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance Task Force was aware of the 2 studies cited and appreciate their summary of the results. We would point out that in the rheumatoid arthritis study by Winthrop et al (1), patients receiving tofacitinib in Study A had a lower likelihood of a satisfactory response to pneumococcal vaccination (45.1%) compared to placebo-treated patients (68.4%), a difference of 23.3% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] −36.6, −9.6%). The differences were numerically even larger for patients receiving concomitant tofacitinib and methotrexate (31.6% of patients with a satisfactory response, difference of −30.2% [95% CI] −47.3, −11.4%) compared to methotrexate monotherapy. Our challenge was in considering the appropriateness of extrapolating results from vaccine studies of influenza, pneumococcal, and tetanus toxoid vaccines to make inferences regarding the anticipated response to vaccination against SARS–CoV-2, a novel antigen to which most individuals have not previously been exposed. The Task Force recognized that infection rates, and perhaps response to vaccinations against those infections, might be heterogeneous according to pathogen. For example, JAK inhibitors approximately double the incidence of herpes zoster compared to biologics such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, yet they do not meaningfully increase rates of other infections (e.g., pneumonia) (1-3). We noted that in the Oral Strategy study, adalimumab-treated patients receiving vaccination with the live herpes zoster vaccine had lower incidence rates of herpes zoster (0.0 per 100 patient-years) compared to non-vaccinated patients (incidence rate 2.1 per 100 patient-years) (4). In contrast, and recognizing that numbers were small, tofacitinib-treated patients had similar rates of herpes zoster regardless of vaccination (incidence rate 3.0 per 100 patient-years in vaccinated versus 2.2 per 100 patient-years in unvaccinated patients). We also appreciate the data provided by Dr. Mortezavi and colleagues regarding the rate of disease worsening in patients whose treatment with tofacitinib was briefly interrupted. At ~ 2 weeks, the mean worsening in the 4-variable DAS28 of 0.7 units was of smaller magnitude than typically considered the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the DAS28 (i.e., >1.2 units) (5). The MCID for defining disease worsening using the CDAI in patients who had moderate disease activity at the start of treatment is undefined, although a 1-unit change in each of the 4 CDAI components (tender joint count, swollen joint count, patient global, and physician global) is often considered to be the measurement error for each of these (6). Taken together, the mean amount of disease worsening associated with brief interruptions in therapy seems small and likely not of clinical importance for most patients, especially in light of the guidance recommending that JAK inhibitors be withheld for 1 week at the time of each vaccine administration, rather than for 2 consecutive weeks. Ultimately, we await prospective data regarding the influence of JAK inhibitors and other immunomodulatory therapies used at the time of COVID-19 vaccination on immunogenicity and correlates of serologic protection. Since the ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance is a living document, our plan is to rapidly update it and incorporate new evidence as it accumulates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0230.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.027

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis & RheumatologySame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207