Effectiveness of tofacitinib versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and in those receiving tofacitinib as different lines of therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the United States CorEvitas Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare effectiveness of tofacitinib versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), and across tofacitinib lines of therapy, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), using US CorEvitas RA Registry data. METHODS: Analysis included patients with RA initiating tofacitinib or TNFi with a 12-month follow-up visit between November 2012-February 2021. Primary (Clinical Disease Activity Index-defined low disease activity [CDAI-LDA: CDAI ≤ 10]) and secondary (clinical/disease activity/patient-reported) effectiveness outcomes were assessed at month 12. Outcomes were stratified by treatment regimen (overall tofacitinib vs overall TNFi/tofacitinib monotherapy vs tofacitinib combination therapy/TNFi monotherapy vs TNFi combination therapy/tofacitinib monotherapy vs TNFi combination therapy/tofacitinib combination therapy vs TNFi combination therapy), or tofacitinib line of therapy (2nd/3rd/ ≥ 4th line). RESULTS: 3,481 eligible patients initiated tofacitinib (n = 805) or TNFi (n = 2,676). Improvements in effectiveness at month 12 were generally similar across treatment regimens; 25.1% and 30.1% of overall tofacitinib and TNFi initiators achieved CDAI-LDA, respectively (odds ratio 1.29 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94, 1.76]). Odds ratios (95% CIs) for achieving CDAI-LDA at 12 months were 0.70 (0.36, 1.37) for 3rd- versus 2nd-line, and 1.09 (0.63, 1.88) for 3rd- versus ≥ 4th-line tofacitinib initiators. At month 12, mean change from baseline in CDAI was greater among 3rd- versus ≥ 4th-line tofacitinib initiators, and mean Health Assessment Questionnaire and patient-reported pain were greater in 3rd- versus 2nd-line and ≥ 4th- versus 3rd-line tofacitinib initiators. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, there were no differences in effectiveness between tofacitinib versus TNFi regimens. Few differences were observed between tofacitinib lines of therapy; sample sizes were small for 2nd/3rd-line initiators. STUDY REGISTRATION: NCT01402661 (ClinicalTrials.gov; July 25, 2011). Key Points • Using data from the US CorEvitas rheumatoid arthritis (RA) Registry, this study compared the effectiveness of tofacitinib versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and across tofacitinib lines of therapy. • Effectiveness of tofacitinib was similar to TNFi regimens up to month 12, while differences in some effectiveness outcomes at month 12 were observed with tofacitinib across different lines of therapy. • The findings of this study may inform future treatment decision-making in patients with RA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".