S-C Bae1, Y H Lee2. 1. Department of Rheumatology, Hanyang University Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Rheumatology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 73, Inchon-ro, Seongbuk-gu, 02841, Seoul, Korea (Republic of). lyhcgh@korea.ac.kr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and baricitinib were assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or biologics. METHODS: We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and baricitinib in combination with DMARDs in RA patients with an inadequate DMARD or biologic response. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs including 5883 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 15 pairwise comparisons including 10 direct comparisons of 6 interventions. Tofacitinib 10 mg + methotrexate (MTX) and baricitinib 4 mg + MTX were among the most effective treatments for active RA with an inadequate DMARD or biologic response, followed by baricitinib 2 mg + MTX, tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX, and adalimumab + MTX. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX had the highest probability of being the best treatment to achieve the ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.865), followed by baricitinib 4 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.774), baricitinib 2 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.552), tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.512), adalimumab + MTX (SUCRA = 0.297), and placebo + MTX (SUCRA <0.001). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of serious adverse events after treatment with tofacitinib + MTX, baricitinib + MTX, adalimumab + MTX, or placebo + MTX. CONCLUSIONS: In RA patients with an inadequate response to DMARDs or biologics, tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and baricitinib 4 mg + MTX were the most efficacious interventions and were not associated with a significant risk of serious adverse events.
OBJECTIVES: The relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and baricitinib were assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or biologics. METHODS: We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and baricitinib in combination with DMARDs in RApatients with an inadequate DMARD or biologic response. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs including 5883 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 15 pairwise comparisons including 10 direct comparisons of 6 interventions. Tofacitinib 10 mg + methotrexate (MTX) and baricitinib 4 mg + MTX were among the most effective treatments for active RA with an inadequate DMARD or biologic response, followed by baricitinib 2 mg + MTX, tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX, and adalimumab + MTX. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX had the highest probability of being the best treatment to achieve the ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.865), followed by baricitinib 4 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.774), baricitinib 2 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.552), tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.512), adalimumab + MTX (SUCRA = 0.297), and placebo + MTX (SUCRA <0.001). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of serious adverse events after treatment with tofacitinib + MTX, baricitinib + MTX, adalimumab + MTX, or placebo + MTX. CONCLUSIONS: In RApatients with an inadequate response to DMARDs or biologics, tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and baricitinib 4 mg + MTX were the most efficacious interventions and were not associated with a significant risk of serious adverse events.
Authors: Jill E Chrencik; Akshay Patny; Iris K Leung; Brian Korniski; Thomas L Emmons; Troii Hall; Robin A Weinberg; Jennifer A Gormley; Jennifer M Williams; Jacqueline E Day; Jeffrey L Hirsch; James R Kiefer; Joseph W Leone; H David Fischer; Cynthia D Sommers; Horng-Chih Huang; E J Jacobsen; Ruth E Tenbrink; Alfredo G Tomasselli; Timothy E Benson Journal: J Mol Biol Date: 2010-05-15 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Roy Fleischmann; Maurizio Cutolo; Mark C Genovese; Eun Bong Lee; Keith S Kanik; Seth Sadis; Carol A Connell; David Gruben; Sriram Krishnaswami; Gene Wallenstein; Bethanie E Wilkinson; Samuel H Zwillich Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2012-03
Authors: Roy Fleischmann; Joel Kremer; John Cush; Hendrik Schulze-Koops; Carol A Connell; John D Bradley; David Gruben; Gene V Wallenstein; Samuel H Zwillich; Keith S Kanik Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Désirée van der Heijde; Yoshiya Tanaka; Roy Fleischmann; Edward Keystone; Joel Kremer; Cristiano Zerbini; Mario H Cardiel; Stanley Cohen; Peter Nash; Yeong-Wook Song; Dana Tegzová; Bradley T Wyman; David Gruben; Birgitta Benda; Gene Wallenstein; Sriram Krishnaswami; Samuel H Zwillich; John D Bradley; Carol A Connell Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2013-03
Authors: Sofia Dias; Nicky J Welton; Alex J Sutton; Deborah M Caldwell; Guobing Lu; A E Ades Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Laura Lorena Castiblanco; María Jesús García de Yébenes; Jose María Martín Martín; Loreto Carmona Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 3.580
Authors: Lilla Tóth; Márk F Juhász; László Szabó; Alan Abada; Fruzsina Kiss; Péter Hegyi; Nelli Farkas; György Nagy; Zsuzsanna Helyes Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Janet Pope; Ruta Sawant; Namita Tundia; Ella X Du; Cynthia Z Qi; Yan Song; Patrick Tang; Keith A Betts Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 3.845