MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

POS1116 TIME TO IMPROVEMENT OF PAIN, MORNING STIFFNESS AND DISEASE ACTIVITY IN PATIENTS WITH ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS TREATED WITH TOFACITINIB

2023· article· en· W4379800520 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria Navarro‐Compán, Atul Deodhar, R. Bahiri, Andrew G. Bushmakin, J.C. Cappelleri, C. Kinch, J. Rammaoui

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPfizer (Canada)
FundersPfizer
KeywordsMedicineAnkylosing spondylitisTofacitinibMorning stiffnessMorningSpondylitisInternal medicinePhysical therapyRheumatoid arthritisPsoriatic arthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Pain, morning stiffness and disease activity are core domains of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), relevant to patients (pts) and physicians. AS treatment guidelines recommend using the AS Disease Activity Score C-reactive protein (ASDASCRP) to assess disease activity. Greater improvements in pain, morning stiffness and disease activity were previously shown with tofacitinib vs placebo (PBO) in pts with AS.[1] There are limited data on time to improvement in these core domains in pts with AS receiving tofacitinib. Objectives To estimate the median time to improvement of pain, morning stiffness and disease activity in tofacitinib-treated pts with AS. Methods This post hoc analysis used data from a Phase 3 trial (NCT03502616)[1] in pts with AS receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or PBO to Week (W)16. After W16, all pts received open-label tofacitinib 5 mg BID to W48. Outcomes included nocturnal pain (numerical rating scale 0–10), morning stiffness (mean of Bath AS Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] Questions 5 and 6), BASDAI total score and ASDASCRP. Median time (weeks) to initial improvement events was estimated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier models. Initial improvement event was defined as time to first post-baseline observation with an improvement of ≥30% (nocturnal pain [“much improved”][2]), ≥50% (nocturnal pain [“very much improved”],[2] morning stiffness and BASDAI total score) or ASDASCRP ≥1.1 (clinically important improvement)/≥2.0 (major improvement) points. Results Overall, 269 pts (tofacitinib: n=133; PBO→tofacitinib: n=136) were assessed. Median times to initial improvement events were shorter with tofacitinib vs PBO→tofacitinib (p<0.05 [Table 1]). Median times to initial ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in nocturnal pain for tofacitinib were 4 and 8 weeks, respectively, and 24 weeks (8 weeks since switch to tofacitinib) for both thresholds for PBO→tofacitinib. Median time to initial ≥50% improvement in morning stiffness and BASDAI total score for tofacitinib was 12 weeks, and 32 weeks (16 weeks since switch to tofacitinib) for PBO→tofacitinib. Median time to ASDASCRP improvement ≥1.1 for tofacitinib was 4 weeks, and 24 weeks for PBO→tofacitinib (not estimable [NE] for ASDASCRP improvement ≥2.0 [both treatment arms]). Limitations: this was a post hoc analysis, there was no active treatment comparator, trial pt population may not reflect routine care pt population and comparisons with PBO were only possible to W16. Conclusion In pts with AS, during the first month of tofacitinib treatment, it is expected that half of pts will experience ≥30% improvement in nocturnal pain (“much improved”) and a clinically important improvement in ASDASCRP. During the first 2 and 3 months of tofacitinib treatment, it is expected that half of pts will experience ≥50% improvement in nocturnal pain (“very much improved”) and morning stiffness, respectively. Improvements in pain, morning stiffness and disease activity occurred more rapidly with tofacitinib vs PBO→tofacitinib. This study informs physicians and pts receiving tofacitinib of when improvement in these core domains in AS may be anticipated. References [1] Deodhar et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021; 80: 1004-13 [2] Dworkin et al. J Pain 2008; 9: 105-21 Acknowledgements This study was sponsored by Pfizer. Medical writing support, under the direction of the authors, was provided by Chimwemwe Chibambo, MBChB, CMC Connect, a division of IPG Health Medical Communications, and was funded by Pfizer, New York, NY, USA, in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP 2022) guidelines (Ann Intern Med 2022; 175: 1298-1304). Disclosure of Interests Victoria Navarro-Compán Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer Inc and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MoonLake, MSD, Pfizer Inc and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Novartis, Atul Deodhar Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer Inc and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc and UCB, Rachid Bahiri: None declared, Andrew G Bushmakin Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Joseph C Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Cassandra Kinch Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Jihane Rammaoui Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments→French-language works237,207→