Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34779576›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of rheumatic diseases2021

Upadacitinib in patients from China, Brazil, and South Korea with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional therapy.

Xiaofeng Zeng, Dongbao Zhao, Sebastiao C Radominski, Mauro Keiserman, Chang K Lee, Sebastian Meerwein, Jeffrey Enejosa, Yunxia Sui, Mohamed-Eslam F Mohamed, Won Park

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of rheumatic diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Xiaofeng ZengDepartment of Rheumatology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Dongbao ZhaoDepartment of Rheumatology and Immunology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Sebastiao C RadominskiDepartment of Rheumatology, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Mauro KeisermanDepartment of Rheumatology, Pontifical Catholic University, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Chang K LeeRheumatology, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Sebastian MeerweinImmunology, AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Jeffrey EnejosaImmunology, AbbVie Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Yunxia SuiImmunology, AbbVie Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Mohamed-Eslam F MohamedImmunology, AbbVie Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Won ParkRheumatology, School of Medicine, Inha University, Incheon, South Korea.
AbbVie (United States) · USAbbVie (Germany) · DEAsan Medical Center · KRInha University · KRNational Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases · CNPontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul · BRSecond Military Medical University · CNUniversidade Federal do Paraná · BR

Funding

AbbVie
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis study assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib (UPA), in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), in Chinese, Brazilian, and South Korean patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response (IR) to csDMARDs.

methodsPatients on stable csDMARDs were randomized (1:1) to once-daily UPA 15 mg or matching placebo (PBO) for a 12-week, double-blind period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12.

resultsIn total, 338 patients were randomized and treated, of whom 310 (91.7%) completed the double-blind phase. The study met the primary endpoint of ACR20 at week 12 for UPA 15 mg vs PBO (71.6% vs 31.4%, P < .001), with a treatment difference observed as early as week 1. All ranked and other key secondary endpoints, including more stringent responses such as ACR50, ACR70 (≥50%/70% improvement in ACR criteria), and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein <2.6, were met for UPA 15 mg vs PBO. The incidence of serious infections (2.4% vs 0.6%) and herpes zoster (HZ: 1.8% vs 0.6%) was higher with UPA 15 mg vs PBO. There was one case of venous thromboembolism reported in the UPA group.

conclusionUPA 15 mg in combination with csDMARDs demonstrated clinical and functional improvement and an acceptable safety profile over 12 weeks among patients from China, Brazil, and South Korea who had moderately to severely active RA and an IR to csDMARDs.

Indexed as

AdultAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidBrazilChinaDouble-Blind MethodDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHeterocyclic Compounds, 3-RingHumansJanus Kinase InhibitorsMaleMiddle AgedRepublic of KoreaTreatment OutcomeAntirheumatic AgentsHeterocyclic Compounds, 3-RingJanus Kinase Inhibitorsupadacitinibautoinflammatory conditionsbiologic therapiesimmunosuppressantsinflammationrheumatoid arthritis

Identifiers

PMID34779576
PMCPMC9299142
OpenAlexW3214501126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.