Y H Lee1, G G Song2. 1. Department of Rheumatology, Korea University College of Medicine, 73, Inchon-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Korea (Republic of). lyhcgh@korea.ac.kr. 2. Department of Rheumatology, Korea University College of Medicine, 73, Inchon-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Korea (Republic of).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and filgotinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showing inadequate response to conventional synthetic (cs) or biologic (b) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). 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 filgotinib in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with RA exhibiting inadequate cs- or bDMARD response. RESULTS: Nine RCTs consisting of 5466 patients met the inclusion criteria. We obtained 15 pairwise comparisons, including 11 direct comparisons from 6 interventions. Tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and filgotinib 200 mg + MTX were among the most effective treatments for active RA showing an inadequate cs- or bDMARD response, followed by tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX, filgotinib 100 mg + MTX, and adalimumab + MTX. Ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and filgotinib 200 mg + MTX showed the highest probability of being the best treatment options in terms of ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.898, 0.782), followed by tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.602), filgotinib 100 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.359), adalimumab + MTX (SUCRA = 0.358), and placebo + MTX (SUCRA = 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of serious adverse events after treatment with tofacitinib + MTX, filgotinib + MTX, adalimumab + MTX, or placebo + MTX. CONCLUSION: In patients with RA exhibiting an inadequate response to cs- or bDMARDs, tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and filgotinib 200 mg + MTX were the most efficacious interventions and risks of serious adverse events did not differ between tofacitinib and filgotinib groups.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and filgotinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showing inadequate response to conventional synthetic (cs) or biologic (b) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). 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 filgotinib in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with RA exhibiting inadequate cs- or bDMARD response. RESULTS: Nine RCTs consisting of 5466 patients met the inclusion criteria. We obtained 15 pairwise comparisons, including 11 direct comparisons from 6 interventions. Tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and filgotinib 200 mg + MTX were among the most effective treatments for active RA showing an inadequate cs- or bDMARD response, followed by tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX, filgotinib 100 mg + MTX, and adalimumab + MTX. Ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and filgotinib 200 mg + MTX showed the highest probability of being the best treatment options in terms of ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.898, 0.782), followed by tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.602), filgotinib 100 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.359), adalimumab + MTX (SUCRA = 0.358), and placebo + MTX (SUCRA = 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of serious adverse events after treatment with tofacitinib + MTX, filgotinib + MTX, adalimumab + MTX, or placebo + MTX. CONCLUSION: In patients with RA exhibiting an inadequate response to cs- or bDMARDs, tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and filgotinib 200 mg + MTX were the most efficacious interventions and risks of serious adverse events did not differ between tofacitinib and filgotinib groups.