MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311621329 · doi:10.1136/ard-2022-222543

Malignancy risk with tofacitinib versus TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the open-label, randomised controlled ORAL Surveillance trial

2022· article· en· W4311621329 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jeffrey R. Curtis, Kunihiro Yamaoka, Yi‐Hsing Chen, Deepak L. Bhatt, Levent M Gunay, Naonobu Sugiyama, Carol A. Connell, Cunshan Wang, Joseph Wu, Sujatha Menon, Ivana Vranić, Juan J. Gómez‐Reino

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEli Lilly JapanGenentechIdorsia PharmaceuticalsTeijin PharmaTaichung Veterans General HospitalAssistance publique-Hôpitaux de ParisChugai PharmaceuticalNational Yang-Ming UniversityDuke Clinical Research InstituteAstellas PharmaEisaiMitsubishi Tanabe Pharma CorporationMedicines CompanyRegado BiosciencesSt. Jude MedicalNippon ShinyakuAstraZenecaAmarin CorporationIronwood Pharmaceuticals, IncorporatedNational Institutes of HealthRegeneron PharmaceuticalsBrigham and Women's HospitalBoston VA Research InstituteBoston Scientific CorporationBelvoir Media GroupBoehringer Ingelheim JapanNovo NordiskMyoKardiaDaiichi Sankyo EuropeGilead SciencesBristol-Myers SquibbCleveland ClinicActelion PharmaceuticalsMinistry of Science and Technology, TaiwanModernaPfizerBiogenHLS TherapeuticsGlaxoSmithKlineCSL BehringEli Lilly and CompanyAmgenSanofiAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineTofacitinibRheumatoid arthritisOpen labelMalignancyInternal medicineDermatologyRandomized controlled trialTNF inhibitorClinical trialArthritisOncologyAdalimumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate malignancies and their associations with baseline risk factors and cardiovascular risk scores with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In an open-label, randomised controlled trial (ORAL Surveillance; NCT02092467), 4362 patients with RA aged ≥50 years with ≥1 additional cardiovascular risk factor received tofacitinib 5 (N=1455) or 10 mg two times per day (N=1456) or TNFi (N=1451). Incidence rates (IRs; patients with first events/100 patient-years) and HRs were calculated for adjudicated malignancies excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), NMSC and subtypes. Post hoc analyses for malignancies excluding NMSC, lung cancer and NMSC included risk factors identified via simple/multivariable Cox models and IRs/HRs categorised by baseline risk factors, history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HxASCVD) and cardiovascular risk scores. RESULTS: IRs for malignancies excluding NMSC and NMSC were higher with tofacitinib (combined and individual doses) versus TNFi. Risk of lung cancer (most common subtype with tofacitinib) was higher with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi. In the overall study population, the risk of malignancies excluding NMSC was similar between both tofacitinib doses and TNFi until month 18 and diverged from month 18 onwards (HR (95% CIs) for combined tofacitinib doses: 0.93 (0.53 to 1.62) from baseline to month 18 vs 1.93 (1.22 to 3.06) from month 18 onwards, interaction p=0.0469). Cox analyses identified baseline risk factors across treatment groups for malignancies excluding NMSC, lung cancer and NMSC; interaction analyses generally did not show statistical evidence of interaction between treatment groups and risk factors. HxASCVD or increasing cardiovascular risk scores were associated with higher malignancy IRs across treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of malignancies was increased with tofacitinib versus TNFi, and incidence was highest in patients with HxASCVD or increasing cardiovascular risk. This may be due to shared risk factors for cardiovascular risk and cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02092467, NCT01262118, NCT01484561, NCT00147498, NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT01164579, NCT00976599, NCT01059864, NCT01359150, NCT02147587, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385, NCT01039688, NCT02281552, NCT02187055, NCT02831855, NCT00413699, NCT00661661.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations160
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Rheumatic DiseasesSame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207