ArticleZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2020
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and filgotinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Filgotinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Profile of Its Use.Clinical drug investigation · 2021Review
- Preclinical Characterization of the Selective JAK1 Inhibitor LW402 for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.Journal of inflammation research · 2021Article
- JAK Inhibitors and Modulation of B Cell Immune Responses in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe 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).
methodsWe 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.
resultsNine 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.
conclusionIn 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.