MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411420558 · doi:10.1016/j.ard.2025.06.260

POS0905 EARLY MEANINGFUL IMPROVEMENTS IN SPINAL PAIN AND CORRELATION WITH OTHER CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS TREATED WITH FILGOTINIB FOR RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: A POST HOC ANALYSIS OF THE PHASE 2 TORTUGA TRIAL

2025· article· en· W4411420558 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
X. Baraliakos, Francesco Ciccia, Karl Gaffney, Lien Gheyle, L. Gilles, V. Navarro-Compán, María Rosa Durán, F. Van den Bosch

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePost-hoc analysisPost hocRadiographyClinical trialPhysical therapyAxial spondyloarthritisSubgroup analysisDouble blindedInternal medicineSurgeryConfidence intervalAlternative medicinePathologyPlaceboAnkylosing spondylitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pain is the most common symptom for patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA; also known as ankylosing spondylitis) and is considered the most relevant by patients.[1,2] Pain may be present for several years before structural damage is detected.[1] Filgotinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1 preferential inhibitor, significantly reduced disease activity in patients with active r-axSpA in the placebo-controlled Phase 2 TORTUGA trial.[3] Objectives: To assess the effect of filgotinib on spinal pain in patients with r-axSpA, and to evaluate the correlation between changes in spinal pain and other clinical outcomes. Methods: TORTUGA (NCT03117270) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 study of adult patients with active r-axSpA in Europe. Patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥2 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs received filgotinib 200 mg or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. In this post hoc analysis, change from baseline in the following endpoints was assessed at Week 1, 2, 4, 8 and 12 (using last observation carried forward for missing data): patient's assessment of spinal pain (PASP) total score (average of overall and nocturnal spinal pain due to r-axSpA; range 0–10); PASP nocturnal pain score; and overall level of spinal pain based on the answer to question 2 of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) questionnaire. At each timepoint, the proportion of patients achieving a decrease from baseline of ≥1 in PASP total score, and the proportion achieving a ≥30% and ≥50% improvement from baseline in PASP total score, was determined using nonresponder imputation. The correlation between change from baseline in PASP total score and change from baseline in the following endpoints was measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient in patients treated with filgotinib with data for both endpoints: Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)–Fatigue; BASDAI question 1 (fatigue); Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) questionnaire; patient's global assessment of disease activity (PGADA); 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical and Mental Component Summary (PCS and MCS) scores; Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI); C-reactive protein (CRP) level; and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI scoring of inflammation in the sacroiliac joint and spine. Results: 116 patients were enrolled and received filgotinib 200 mg (n=58) or placebo (n=58). Mean (SD) time since diagnosis of axSpA was 6 (5.5) years in the filgotinib group and 8 (7.6) years in the placebo group. Mean (SD) PASP total score at baseline was 7.5 (1.2) and 7.4 (1.3) in the filgotinib and placebo groups, respectively. At Week 2, the least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) change from baseline in PASP total score was −1.6 (−2.2, −1.1) in the filgotinib group vs −1.1 (−1.7, −0.6) in the placebo group, increasing to −2.7 (−3.4, −1.9) vs −1.6 (−2.3, −0.9) at Week 12 (Figure 1A). Mean (SD) PASP nocturnal pain score at baseline was 7.4 (1.5) and 7.2 (1.6) in the filgotinib and placebo groups, respectively. At Week 2, the LS mean (95% CI) change from baseline in PASP nocturnal pain score was −1.7 (−2.3, −1.1) in the filgotinib group vs −1.1 (−1.7, −0.5) in the placebo group, increasing to −2.6 (−3.4, −1.8) vs −1.5 (−2.2, −0.7) at Week 12 (Figure 1B). At Week 2, the LS mean (95% CI) change from baseline in the overall level of spinal pain, based on the answer to BASDAI question 2, was −1.5 (−2.1, −0.9) with filgotinib vs −1.0 (−1.6, −0.4) with placebo, increasing to −2.6 (−3.5, −1.8) vs −1.6 (−2.4, −0.8) at Week 12. The proportion of patients (95% CI) achieving a decrease of ≥1 in PASP total score was 67.2% (54.4, 77.9) in the filgotinib group vs 56.9% (44.1, 68.8) in the placebo group at Week 2, and 87.9% (77.1, 94.0) vs 69.0% (56.2, 79.4) at Week 12. The proportion of patients (95% CI) achieving ≥30% improvement from baseline in PASP total score was 36.2% (25.1, 49.1) with filgotinib vs 20.7% (12.3, 32.8) with placebo at Week 2, increasing to 63.8% (50.9, 75.0) vs 36.2% (25.1, 49.1) at Week 12 (Figure 1C). The proportion of patients (95% CI) achieving a ≥50% improvement in PASP total score was 10.3% (4.8, 20.8) in the filgotinib group vs 3.4% (1.0, 11.7) in the placebo group at Week 2, increasing to 34.5% (23.6, 47.3) vs 19.0% (10.9, 30.9) at Week 12. Pearson correlation coefficients for the correlation between change from baseline in PASP total score and other study endpoints at Week 2 and 12 are shown in Table 1. Change from baseline in PASP total score at Week 12 correlated moderately to strongly with BASFI (0.75), BASDAI question 1 (fatigue; 0.68), PGADA (0.86) and SF-36 PCS (−0.63); all p<0.01. Change from baseline in PASP total score at Week 12 showed only a weak or no correlation with CRP level, SF-36 MCS and SPARCC MRI scoring of the sacroiliac joint and spine. Conclusion: Results of this post hoc analysis of TORTUGA show patients with r-axSpA treated with filgotinib had rapid reductions in spinal pain, with improvements vs placebo observed after 2 weeks. Improvements in spinal pain were associated with improvements in fatigue, physical function and quality of life. Given the lack of correlation between change in spinal pain and change in CRP level or inflammation on MRI, further studies are needed to understand the effect of JAK inhibition on pain nociceptive and non-nociceptive mechanisms in axSpA. REFERENCES: [1] Navarro-Compán V, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:1511–21. [2] Selmi C, et al. Front Immunol 2024;15:1341981. [3] van der Heijde D, et al. Lancet 2018;392:2378–87. Figure 1 . Acknowledgements: We thank the physicians and patients who participated in this study. The TORTUGA trial was funded by Galapagos NV. This analysis was funded by Alfasigma S.p.A. (Bologna, Italy). Medical writing support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), and funded by Alfasigma S.p.A. Publication coordination was provided by Steve Winter, PhD, and funded by Alfasigma S.p.A. The authors acknowledge the contributions of Mohsine El Ghazi and Francesco De Leonardis to the study. Disclosure of Interests: Xenofon Baraliakos Paid instructor: AbbVie, Alfasigma S.p.A., Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Cesas, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Springer, Stada, Takeda, UCB and Zuellig, Speaker's bureau: AbbVie, Alfasigma S.p.A., Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Cesas, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Springer, Stada, Takeda, UCB and Zuellig, Consultant: AbbVie, Alfasigma S.p.A., Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Cesas, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Springer, Stada, Takeda, UCB and Zuellig, Grant/research support: AbbVie, Celltrion, Moonlake and Novartis, Francesco Ciccia Speaker's bureau: AbbVie, Alfasigma S.p.A., AstraZeneca, GSK, Johnson&Johnson, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer, Grant/research support: Novartis and Pfizer, Karl Gaffney Speaker's bureau: AbbVie, Lilly, Novartis and UCB, Shareholder: Rheumatology Events (www.rheumatologyevents.org), Consultant: AbbVie, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support: AbbVie, Alfasigma S.p.A., Biogen, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, Medac Pharma, NASS, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Versus Arthritis, Lien Gheyle Employee: Alfasigma S.p.A., Leen Gilles Shareholder: Johnson&Johnson, Employee: Alfasigma S.p.A., Victoria Navarro-Compán Speaker's bureau: AbbVie, Alfasigma S.p.A., Fresenius Kabi, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant: AbbVie, Alfasigma S.p.A., Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support: AbbVie and Novartis, Margarita Romero Duran Employee: Alfasigma S.p.A., Filip van den Bosch Consultant: AbbVie, Alfasigma S.p.A., Fresenius Kabi, Grey Wolf Therapeutics, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis and UCB. © The Authors 2025. This abstract is an open access article published in Annals of Rheumatic Diseases under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Neither EULAR nor the publisher make any representation as to the accuracy of the content. The authors are solely responsible for the content in their abstract including accuracy of the facts, statements, results, conclusion, citing resources etc.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Rheumatic DiseasesSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207