ArticleDrugs in context2020
Upadacitinib
Article in Drugs in context, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Pooled it
- Herpes zoster in patients with inflammatory arthritides or ulcerative colitis treated with tofacitinib, baricitinib or upadacitinib: a systematic review of clinical trials and real-world studies.Rheumatology international · 2023Pooled it
- Upadacitinib enhances platelet procoagulant responses in a subset of healthy individuals and patients with SLE: a pilot study.Lupus science & medicine · 2026Article
- Risk of tuberculosis disease in patients receiving TNF-α antagonist therapy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.New microbes and new infections · 2024Review
- The Effect of Upadacitinib on Lipid Profile and Cardiovascular Events: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Comparison of Adalimumab to Other Targeted Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Upadacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Benefit-Risk Assessment Across a Phase III Program.Drug safety · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 12 institutions in 12 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the randomized, phase III, global SELECT-COMPARE study, upadacitinib 15 mg demonstrated efficacy at week 12
methodsPatients were randomized 2:2:1 to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily, placebo, or adalimumab 40 mg every other week, and continued MTX. Efficacy and safety were assessed through 48 weeks. Primary endpoints were the achievement of ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein <2.6 responses at week 12 for upadacitinib
resultsA total of 596 patients from 12 CEE countries were randomized. At week 12, a numerically greater proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib
conclusionConsistent with the global population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to MTX, in CEE patients, upadacitinib 15 mg demonstrated clinical and functional improvements
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.