ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2022
Tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a real-world study in China.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Compared effectiveness of TNF inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and csDMARDs in naïve rheumatoid arthritis patients: a real-world, observational, multi-center, retrospective cohort study in Northwest China.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Observational
- Tofacitinib demonstrates favorable efficacy but an increased risk of herpes zoster in elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective cohort analysis.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Amentoflavone Induces Ferroptosis to Alleviate Proliferation, Migration, Invasion and Inflammation in Rheumatoid Arthritis Fibroblast-like Synoviocytes by Inhibiting PIN1.Cell biochemistry and biophysics · 2025Article
- Article
- NFIL3 and its immunoregulatory role in rheumatoid arthritis patients.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tofacitinib has only been available in China for 2 years to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Our purpose was to compare real-world effectiveness of tofacitinib with that of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in Chinese patients with RA. The records of patients with RA treated at Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital between July 2017 and September 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into those treated with tofacitinib, biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), and conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). Clinical disease activity index (CDAI), simplified disease activity index (SDAI), health assessment questionnaire-disability index (HAQ-DI), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), physician global assessment of disease activity (PhGA), and swollen joint and tender joint count were compared among the groups up to 12 months of treatment. A total of 150 patients were included: 63 were treated with tofacitinib, 48 with bDMARDs, and 39 with csDMARDs. Tofacitinib was first-line treatment in 26.98% of patients, second-line treatment in 49.21%, and third-line treatment in 26.98%. Patients in the tofacitinib group had significantly higher disease duration (6.11 ± 6.97 years) than those in the other groups. All disease indices in the three groups decreased with time, indicating improvement of symptoms, with no differences among the groups at 12 months. Tofacitinib appeared to improve symptoms more rapidly than other treatments; however, differences in disease indices were not significant. This real-world study suggests that tofacitinib is rapidly effective and that the effects are sustained after 12 months in Chinese patients with RA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34559374What 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.