Real-world comparative study of the efficacy of Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the ANSWER cohort study
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
This multicentre, retrospective study compared the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, peficitinib and upadacitinib in real-world clinical settings after minimizing selection bias and adjusting the confounding patient characteristics.
METHOD
The 622 patients were selected from the ANSWER cohort database and treated with tofacitinib (TOF), baricitinib (BAR), peficitinib (PEF) or upadacitinib (UPA). The patient's background was matched using propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) among four treatment groups. The values of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), C-reactive protein (CRP), and modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) after drug initiation and the remission or low disease activity (LDA) rates of CDAI at 6 months after drug initiation were compared among the four groups. Further, the predictive factor for TOF and BAR efficacy was analysed.
RESULTS
The retention and discontinuation rates until 6 months after drug initiations were not significantly different among the four JAK inhibitors treatment groups. Mean CDAI value, CDAI remission rate, and CDAI-LDA rate at 6 months after drug initiation were not significantly different among treatment groups. Baseline CDAI (TOFA: OR 1.09, P < 0.001; BARI: OR 1.07, P < 0.001), baseline CRP (TOFA: OR 1.32, P = 0.049), baseline glucocorticoid dose (BARI: OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01-1.38, P = 0.035), a number of previous biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 622 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
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.