MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415614649 · doi:10.1007/s40744-025-00800-7

Response to Tofacitinib in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis and Probable Anxiety/Depressive Disorder: A Post Hoc Analysis of Phase 3 Trials

2025· article· en· W4415614649 on OpenAlexaff
Laure Gossec, A. Sellas, David Gruben, M. Valderrama, C. Kinch, Gustavo Citera

Bibliographic record

VenueRheumatology and Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPfizer (Canada)
FundersPfizer
KeywordsTofacitinibPost-hoc analysisPsoriatic arthritisPost hocClinical trialRheumatoid arthritisPhases of clinical research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Mental health status potentially influences treatment responses. The effect of probable anxiety and/or depressive disorder (pADD) on tofacitinib efficacy, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and safety in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was assessed. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials in patients with PsA receiving tofacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo, and an open-label extension study. Outcomes were stratified by presence/absence of baseline pADD (Short Form-36 Health Survey [SF-36] Mental Component Summary score ≤ 38/ > 38). American College of Rheumatology ≥ 20%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 70% (ACR20/50/70) responses, remission and/or low disease activity based on Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score and Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis score, minimal disease activity, and PROs (pain/Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index/fatigue) were assessed through month 36. Safety was assessed through month 12. RESULTS: Overall, 323/706 (45.8%) patients had baseline pADD; of these, a higher proportion were female versus male (61.9% vs. 38.1%). Numerically higher proportions achieved efficacy/PRO responses with tofacitinib versus placebo, regardless of baseline pADD (month 3). Responses with tofacitinib were generally similar in patients with versus without baseline pADD (e.g., month 3 ACR20 responses: 54.0% vs. 58.5%); some differences were observed at later time points (e.g., month 9 minimal disease activity: 25.0% vs. 43.8%; p < 0.05). Baseline pADD did not appear to affect the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline pADD was frequent in patients with PsA initiating tofacitinib and was higher in female patients. Tofacitinib-treated patients had generally similar efficacy/safety outcomes, regardless of baseline pADD. Some differences in efficacy outcomes were noted in the longer term (9-12 months). Limitations of this study include small numbers in some analyses and use of SF-36 as pADD proxy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01877668; NCT01882439; NCT01976364.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueRheumatology and TherapySame topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207