ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2025
Potential impact of European Medicines Agency measures to minimize risk of serious side effects on JAKi prescribing and utilization in the UK.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2025. 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.
- Switch from Intravenous to Subcutaneous Formulation of Tocilizumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Retrospective Cohort Analysis and Systematic Literature Review.Biologics : targets & therapy · 2025Article
- Intensive immunosuppression followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple sclerosis.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveJanus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) or targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) effectively treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, due to safety concerns, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) published risk-minimization measures limiting JAKi prescription to certain at-risk patients unless no suitable alternative is available. This analysis included patients who had started their first-ever JAKi (before EMA measures were published) in a large national cohort study to investigate the potential impact of these measures on JAKi prescribing and utilization in the UK.
methodRA patients starting first-ever JAKi therapy in BSRBR-RA between 13 February 2017 and 31 May 2022 were included. The percentages of patients meeting the EMA risk criteria were presented. For the at-risk patients, their previous numbers of distinct biologic (b) DMARD classes prescribed were described.
resultA total of 1341 patients were included, and 80% (N = 1075) met ≥1 EMA risk criterion. Of those who met ≥1 risk criterion, 529 patients (49%) had received JAKi as their first or second b/tsDMARD class, whereas 299 (28%) had received ≥3 prior bDMARD classes.
conclusionFour-fifths of RA patients who had commenced a JAKi before the EMA advisory were considered 'at-risk', with prescribing only advised if there was no suitable alternative. Almost a third of those patients had already received ≥3 bDMARDs classes, and alternative therapies would be very limited for them; however, suitable alternatives might have existed for the remaining proportion, especially for those who received a JAKi as their first or second b/tsDMARD, and re-evaluation of the suitability of their treatment may be needed.
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.