Efficacy and Safety of Tofacitinib in Ankylosing Spondylitis by Baseline C-Reactive Protein Level: Post Hoc Analysis of Phase II and Phase III Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis assessed the effect of baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) on the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib (TOF) use in ankylosing spondylitis (AS), as well as patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: Phase II (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01786668) and phase III (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03502616) data from patients with active AS were used. Endpoints (weeks 12, 16, and 48), including 20% and 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS), AS Disease Activity Score with CRP low disease activity, 50% improvement in Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI50), and PROs (pain and fatigue), were stratified by baseline CRP (mg/L) as follows: < 5 (normal), ≥ 5 (elevated), < 10, and ≥ 10. Safety outcomes were evaluated between < 5 and ≥ 5 mg/L subgroups. RESULTS: Overall, 372 patients were included (69.6% ≥ 5mg/L; 50.8% ≥ 10 mg/L). At baseline in the < 5mg/L group, more placebo-treated than TOF-treated patients received concomitant nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or sulfasalazine (SSZ). Week 12 efficacy and PRO responses were generally higher for TOF vs placebo, regardless of baseline CRP. The treatment effect (placebo-adjusted response) at week 12 was generally numerically higher in ≥ 5 mg/L and ≥ 10 mg/L vs < 5 mg/L and < 10 mg/L groups. Incidence rates for treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and "all infections" were numerically higher for TOF vs placebo in patients in the < 5 mg/L group, but similar for TOF vs placebo in patients in the ≥ 5 mg/L group. CONCLUSION: Regardless of baseline CRP, TOF was more efficacious vs placebo at week 12. The placebo-adjusted efficacy and PRO responses were generally numerically higher in patients with CRP ≥ 5 mg/L and ≥ 10 mg/L vs < 5 mg/L and < 10 mg/L. The higher concomitant NSAID/SSZ exposure may have improved efficacy responses in the baseline < 5 mg/L placebo group, and ultimately affected the TOF treatment effect. Safety was consistent with previous studies of TOF use in AS, with numerically higher incidence rates for TEAEs and "all infections" for TOF vs placebo in patients with CRP < 5 mg/L.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".