ArticleClinical drug investigation2019
Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Tofacitinib and Apremilast in Patients with Active Psoriatic Arthritis: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of Tofacitinib in the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis: A Systematic Review.Advances in therapy · 2021Pooled it
- Usage and Adherence of Seven Advanced Therapies with Differing Mechanisms of Action for Inflammatory Arthritis in Canada.Rheumatology and therapy · 2022Article
- Network Meta-Analysis of Tofacitinib, Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs, and Apremilast for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2020Article
- Experimental and Investigational Pharmacotherapy for Psoriatic Arthritis: Drugs of the Future.Journal of experimental pharmacology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTofacitinib and apremilast have shown considerable efficacy in placebo-controlled trials of active psoriatic arthritis, but the relative efficacy and safety remain unclear because of a lack of head-to-head comparisons.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and apremilast at different doses in patients with active psoriatic arthritis.
methodWe performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine evidence from randomized controlled trials for examination of the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib 10 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, apremilast 30 mg, and apremilast 20 mg in psoriatic arthritis.
resultsEight randomized controlled trials including 3086 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were ten pairwise comparisons including six direct comparisons of five interventions. All the interventions achieved a significant American College of Rheumatology 20 response compared with placebo. Tofacitinib 10 mg and apremilast 30 mg were among the most effective treatments for active psoriatic arthritis, followed by tofacitinib 5 mg, and apremilast 20 mg. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that tofacitinib 10 mg had the highest probability of being the best treatment in terms of the American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.785). This was followed by apremilast 30 mg (SUCRA = 0.670), tofacitinib 5 mg (SUCRA = 0.596), apremilast 20 mg (SUCRA = 0.448), and placebo (SUCRA = 0.001). We observed no significant differences in the incidence of serious adverse events after treatment with tofacitinib 10 mg, apremilast 30 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, apremilast 20 mg, or placebo.
conclusionsIn patients with active psoriatic arthritis, tofacitinib 10 mg and apremilast 30 mg were the most efficacious interventions and were not associated with a significant risk of serious adverse events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30806969What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.