ArticleRheumatology and therapy2024
Comparative Efficacy of Advanced Therapies in the Treatment of Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis or Ankylosing Spondylitis as Evaluated by the ASDAS Low Disease Activity Criteria.
Article in Rheumatology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Rheumatology: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis and Current Scientific Mapping Research.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2026Review
- Year in Review: Axial Spondyloarthritis.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) in rheumatology: a comparative evaluation of the ChatGPT and DeepSeek application.BMC rheumatology · 2026Article
- A Real-World Comparison of Clinical Effectiveness of Upadacitinib, Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors or Interleukin-17 Inhibitors in Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis After Switching from an Initial Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Treatment.Rheumatology and therapy · 2025Article
- Proteomic Profiling of Inflammatory Protein Dysregulation in HLA-B27-Positive Ankylosing Spondylitis: Molecular Signatures and Potential Biomarkers.Biomolecules · 2025Article
- Estimation of key indicators for bibliometric analysis in the applications of artificial intelligence in rheumatology.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2025Article
- Case Report: The combination of upadacitinib and adalimumab in the treatment of refractory ankylosing spondylitis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Upadacitinib for the treatment of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis - case series and review of the literature.Drugs in context · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWith an increasing number of biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug options available for the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis (AS), also known as radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, it is of clinical interest to determine the comparative efficacy of these advanced therapies among populations with differing prior advanced therapy exposure. This study aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of approved advanced therapies for AS in tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naïve and, separately, in TNFi inadequate responder/intolerant (-IR) populations.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials for TNFis, interleukin-17A inhibitors, and Janus kinase inhibitors used as advanced therapies for active AS. Clinical efficacy was considered by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score low disease activity (ASDAS LDA) criteria, defined as ASDAS score less than 2.1, among approved therapies. Comparative efficacy in the TNFi-naïve population was assessed utilizing network meta-analysis, while comparative efficacy in the TNFi-IR population was assessed utilizing matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Odds ratios were calculated, from which absolute rates and numbers needed to treat were calculated. Safety in the form of trial-reported and placebo-adjusted rates of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) was reviewed.
resultsAmong the TNFi-naïve population, the estimated ASDAS LDA rate between week 12 and 16 was highest for patients treated with upadacitinib (52.8%) and lowest for patients treated with placebo (11.6%). Among the TNFi-IR population, the estimated ASDAS LDA rate was 41.3% for patients treated with upadacitinib and 17.5% for patients treated with ixekizumab. The trial-reported and placebo-adjusted rates of discontinuation due to AEs were generally low across included advanced therapies.
conclusionsRelative to other assessed therapies, upadacitinib demonstrated greater clinical efficacy per ASDAS LDA in the treatment of active AS in both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-IR populations. Head-to-head and real-world data comparisons are warranted to both validate these findings and aid medical decision makers.
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.