Prevention of Radiographic Progression in Higher-Risk Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Using Filgotinib in Phase III Studies: Narrative Review of Post Hoc Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Filgotinib is an oral preferential Janus kinase 1 inhibitor that demonstrated significant reductions in radiographic progression, with an acceptable tolerability and safety profile, vs placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR; FINCH 1) and vs MTX in MTX-naïve patients with RA (FINCH 3). International treatment guidelines identify multiple poor prognostic factors (PPFs) associated with worse disease outcomes among patients with RA. However, questions remain both about the clinical utility of considering PPFs and about which PPFs should drive treatment decisions. Additionally, the role of radiographic findings in clinical practice continues to be discussed and to evolve. This review examines radiographic results from post hoc analyses of phase 3 trials of filgotinib that examined subgroups with 4 PPFs or with baseline estimated rapid radiographic progression (e-RRP). In MTX groups, there were trends toward greater progression among patients with 4 PPFs or e-RRP, suggesting these subgroups may comprise a higher-risk population. Results show general consistency for the efficacy of filgotinib 200 mg plus MTX vs placebo plus MTX/MTX monotherapy on radiographic assessments, including change from baseline in modified total Sharp score and proportions without radiographic progression, even among MTX-IR or MTX-naïve patients with 4 PPFs or e-RRP who may be at higher risk of bone damage. Multivariate analysis identified multiple factors associated with baseline e-RRP status. This summary of the current understanding of benefits associated with filgotinib on radiographic progression and the relevance of baseline factors to these benefits may help inform treatment decisions for patients facing high risk of radiographic progression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".