↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the effect of tofacitinib on measured glomerular filtration rate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results from a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of the effect of tofacitinib on measured glomerular filtration rate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results from a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13075-015-0612-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joel M Kremer, Alan J Kivitz, Jesus A Simon-Campos, Evgeny L Nasonov, Hans-Peter Tony, Soo-Kon Lee, Bonnie Vlahos, Constance Hammond, Jack Bukowski, Huihua Li, Seth L Schulman, Susan Raber, Andrea Zuckerman, John D Isaacs

Abstract

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). During the clinical development programme, increases in mean serum creatinine (SCr) of approximately 0.07 mg/dL and 0.08 mg/dL were observed which plateaued early. This study assessed changes in measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) with tofacitinib relative to placebo in patients with active RA. This was a randomised, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 study ( NCT01484561 ). Patients were aged ≥18 years with active RA. Patients were randomised 2:1 to oral tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily (BID) in Period 1 then placebo BID in Period 2 (tofacitinib → placebo); or oral placebo BID in both Periods (placebo → placebo). Change in mGFR was evaluated by iohexol serum clearance at four time points (run-in, pre-dose in Period 1, Period 1 end, and Period 2 end). The primary endpoint was the change in mGFR from baseline to Period 1 end. Secondary endpoints included: change in mGFR at other time points; change in estimated GFR (eGFR; Cockcroft-Gault equation) and SCr; efficacy; and safety. 148 patients were randomised to tofacitinib → placebo (N = 97) or placebo → placebo (N = 51). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. A reduction of 8% (90% confidence interval [CI]: 2%, 14%) from baseline in adjusted geometric mean mGFR was observed during tofacitinib treatment in Period 1 vs placebo. During Period 2, mean mGFR returned towards baseline during placebo treatment, and there was no difference between the two treatment groups at the end of the study - ratio (tofacitinib → placebo/placebo → placebo) of adjusted geometric mean fold change of mGFR was 1.04 (90% CI: 0.97, 1.11). Post-hoc analyses, focussed on mGFR variability in placebo → placebo patients, were consistent with this conclusion. At study end, similar results were observed for eGFR and SCr. Clinical efficacy and safety were consistent with prior studies. Increases in mean SCr and decreases in eGFR in tofacitinib-treated patients with RA may occur in parallel with decreases in mean mGFR; mGFR returned towards baseline after tofacitinib discontinuation, with no significant difference vs placebo, even after post-hoc analyses. Safety monitoring will continue in ongoing and future clinical studies and routine pharmacovigilance. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01484561 . Registered 30 November 2011.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 87 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Master 8 9%
Unspecified 7 8%
Other 21 24%
Unknown 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 42%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 10%
Unspecified 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 20 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2015.
All research outputs
#3,621,892
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#819
of 3,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,487
of 279,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#16
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.