Tofacitinib Safety and Effectiveness in Canadian Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis by Cardiovascular Risk Enrichment: Subanalysis of the CANTORAL Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: ORAL Surveillance, a post-authorisation safety study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) enriched for cardiovascular (CV) risk, demonstrated increased risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) and malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer [NMSC]) for tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). This analysis of a real-world Canadian observational study evaluated tofacitinib safety/effectiveness in patients meeting or not meeting CV risk criteria. METHODS: CANTORAL included patients with moderate-to-severe RA initiating tofacitinib (10/2017-07/2020; N = 504). Interim data (data-cut: 07/2021) were stratified as CV risk-enriched (CV+ ; patients ≥ 50 years with ≥ 1 additional CV risk factor) or not CV risk-enriched (CV-; ≥ 50 years without additional CV risk factors and 18-49 years with/without CV risk factors). Safety and persistence were evaluated to month (M) 36. Effectiveness outcomes to M18 included Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-defined low disease activity (LDA)/remission (CANTORAL co-primary endpoints) and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, C-reactive protein (DAS28-4[CRP]) < 3.2/ < 2.6. RESULTS: Overall, 272/232 patients were included in CV+ /CV- cohorts (full analysis set) (435/356 patient-years [safety analysis set]). Incidence rates (events/100 patient-years) in CV+ /CV- cohorts were 138.5/112.5 for treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs); 17.0/5.6 for serious AEs; 1.2/0.3 for deaths; 5.5/1.7 for serious infections; 1.4/1.1 for herpes zoster; 1.6/0.0 for MACE; 2.1/0.3 for malignancies (excluding NMSC); 0.7/0.6 for NMSC; 0.5/0.0 for venous thromboembolic events. Persistence was generally comparable between cohorts. In CV+ /CV- cohorts, at M6, CDAI LDA and remission rates were 51.5%/54.6% and 12.0%/19.6%; DAS28-4(CRP) < 3.2/ < 2.6 rates were 44.0%/39.3% and 31.5%/28.8%, respectively; effectiveness was generally maintained to M18. CONCLUSIONS: In concordance with studies of background risk, AEs were more common in patients with CV risk enrichment, particularly those aged ≥ 65 years. Tofacitinib effectiveness/persistence were generally similar regardless of CV risk enrichment. These findings support individualised treatment benefit-risk assessment, including CV assessment/management, to optimise RA outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".