MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416994387 · doi:10.1007/s40744-025-00811-4

Effectiveness of Tofacitinib in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis Initiating Monotherapy Versus Combination Therapy: Results from the CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry

2025· article· en· W4416994387 on OpenAlexaff
Alexis Ogdie, Nicole Middaugh, Taylor Blachley, Tran Bourgeois, You‐Li Ling, Rajiv Mundayat, Lara Fallon, Karim R. Masri, Philip J. Mease

Bibliographic record

VenueRheumatology and Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPfizer (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthLEO PharmaBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyOrtho DermatologicsGenentechChildren's Hospital of PhiladelphiaChugai PharmaceuticalAmgenPfizerRheumatology Research Foundation
KeywordsTofacitinibPsoriatic arthritisRheumatoid arthritisClinical trialPsoriasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the real-world effectiveness of tofacitinib monotherapy versus combination therapy in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) enrolled in the CorEvitas PsA/Spondyloarthritis Registry. METHODS: This study (NCT05195814) included adult patients with PsA initiating tofacitinib (from December 14, 2017 to October 1, 2023) as monotherapy, or in combination with oral small molecules (OSMs: methotrexate, leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, and apremilast). Patients with baseline and 6-month follow-up visits (± 3 months) were included. OUTCOMES: mean change from baseline (∆) in/proportions achieving, disease activity measures (including body surface area [BSA] = 0%), and patient-reported outcomes. Continuous endpoints at month 6 were analyzed as ∆ with an analysis of covariance model including treatment and baseline value as covariates. ∆ in least squares (LS) means and adjusted LS means/odds ratios are presented. RESULTS: The study included 141 patients (66/141 monotherapy; 75/141 combination therapy). Patients were predominantly female (61.0%) and white (94.3%), and average age was 56.7 years. More monotherapy initiators were OSM treatment-naïve and had higher mean Patient Global Assessment of Arthritis, compared with combination therapy initiators. By 6 ± 3 months, 28.8% and 25.3% of monotherapy and combination therapy initiators, respectively, discontinued tofacitinib. At 6 ± 3 months, 15.0% of monotherapy initiators achieved minimal disease activity, and 27.1% had BSA = 0%. Corresponding data for combination therapy initiators were 20.7%, and 22.0%, respectively. Differences between groups were not significant. LS mean differences from baseline in overall work impairment/activity impairment were - 13.0/- 21.8 and 1.4/- 2.9 for monotherapy and combination therapy initiators, respectively. CONCLUSION: Monotherapy and combination therapy initiators demonstrated improvements across effectiveness outcomes. Tofacitinib monotherapy initiators experienced numerical improvements in overall work impairment/activity impairment. This highlights tofacitinib effectiveness as monotherapy/combination therapy for a diverse PsA population. However, the small sample size limited the statistical power, and so results should be interpreted cautiously. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT05195814.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

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