ArticleACR open rheumatology2023
Comparative Effectiveness of First-Line Baricitinib in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in the Australian OPAL Data Set.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Profile and Outcomes Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Baricitinib Versus Other Therapies in Spain: The RA-BE-REAL Study.Rheumatology and therapy · 2025Article
- Real-World Persistence and Effectiveness of Upadacitinib versus Other Janus Kinase Inhibitors and Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Australian Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.Rheumatology and therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze comparative treatment persistence for first-line baricitinib (BARI) versus first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and for first-line BARI initiated as monotherapy versus first-line BARI initiated with at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD).
methodsPatients with RA who initiated BARI or TNFi as first-line biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2021, were identified in the OPAL data set. Drug survival times to 6, 12, and 24 months were analyzed using restricted mean survival time (RMST). Multiple imputation and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to address missing data and nonrandom treatment assignment.
resultsA total of 545 patients initiated first-line BARI, including 118 as monotherapy and 427 as csDMARD combination therapy. Three thousand five hundred patients initiated first-line TNFi. There was no difference in drug survival to 6 or 12 months for BARI compared with TNFi; differences in RMST were 0.02 months (95% CI: -0.08 to 0.013; P = 0.65) and 0.31 months (95% CI: -0.02 to 0.63; P = 0.06), respectively. Patients in the BARI group had 1.00 month (95% CI: 0.14 to 1.86; P = 0.02) longer drug survival to 24 months. There was no difference in drug survival for BARI monotherapy compared with combination therapy, with differences in RMST to 6, 12, and 24 months of -0.19 months (95% CI: -0.50 to 0.12; P = 0.12), -0.35 months (95% CI: -1.17 to 0.42; P = 0.41), and -0.56 months (95% CI: -2.66 to 1.54; P = 0.60), respectively.
conclusionIn this comparative analysis, treatment persistence up to 24 months was significantly longer for first-line BARI compared with TNFi, but the effect size of 1.00 month is not clinically meaningful. There was no difference in persistence for BARI monotherapy versus combination therapy.
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.