Response to Tofacitinib in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis and Probable Anxiety/Depressive Disorder: A Post Hoc Analysis of Phase 3 Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.029 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".