Evidence Hub

Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Doses of Filgotinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Based on the RCTs

X. Ye, Sidong Zhu, Dongying Wang, Li-Fen Hu, Yudie Li, Qing-Ping Wu, Jing-Qi Chen, Bangsheng Chen

Dose-Response, 2026

2,191 participants

Abstract

Objective This study compared the efficacy of different doses of filgotinib (100 mg vs 200 mg) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We conducted a systematic review of 4 electronic databases up to January 2025. Primary outcome measures included ACR20, ACR50, ACR70. Results Five RCTs were included in this analysis, in which 2191 patients with RA were evaluated, 100 mg filgotinib was noninferior to 200 mg filgotinib in the efficacy of ACR20 (P = 0.33, RR = 0.96). However, 100 mg filgotinib was inferior to 200 mg filgotinib for RA when using ACR50 (P = 0.04, RR = 0.92) and ACR70 (P = 0.02, RR = 0.86) as outcome measures. At 24 weeks, 100 mg filgotinib was inferior to 200 mg filgotinib at ACR50 (P = 0.07, RR = 0.84), and there was no significant difference between 100 mg and 200 mg filgotinib at ACR70 (P = 0.54, RR =0.88). The 52-week results showed 100 mg filgotinib was inferior to 200 mg filgotinib at ACR70 (P = 0.01, RR = 0.86). Conclusion Reduced dose filgotinib (100 mg) may be used as a potential treatment option for RA when treatment is required. Graphical Abstract

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,191 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free