ReviewCureus2024
Assessment of the Safety of Tofacitinib Among Patients With Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in ankylosing spondylitis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Review
- Case report: Efficacy of tofacitinib in the treatment of generalized pustular psoriasis.Frontiers in medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psoriasis is a clinically heterogeneous, lifelong skin condition. Novel medications such as Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have emerged as a promising class of agents that modulate the immune response. Tofacitinib could reduce skin lesions and boost patient-reported clinical outcomes, but its immunosuppressive effects might also increase patients' risk of infections and other adverse effects. To assess the safety outcomes of using Tofacitinib in comparison to placebo in terms of the incidence of serious infections, herpes zoster infection (HZ), upper respiratory tract infections (URTI), nasopharyngitis, and serious adverse events (SAE), this systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The search strategy involved five databases. Two authors independently screened and selected studies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion. Data on baseline patient characteristics and outcomes such as serious infections, HZ infections, nasopharyngitis, and URTIs were extracted. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised version of the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB2) tool, and meta-analysis was conducted using Cochrane's Revman web. The OR was employed to estimate outcomes. A probability value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The search strategy initially identified 998 studies; of these, six RCTs were included with a total of 2516 participants having moderate-to-severe psoriasis and treated with either Tofacitinib or placebo. The meta-analysis results revealed increases in the risks of HZ, URTIs, serious infections, nasopharyngitis, and SAE, but no significant difference was found between the intervention and placebo groups. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROB2 tool, revealing low bias across most domains, with some concerns in certain studies related to deviations from intended interventions and missing outcome data. In conclusion, while Tofacitinib is effective against moderate-to-severe psoriasis with non-significant risks, there are some safety concerns regarding the measured outcomes. Future research is needed concerning the assessment of safety outcomes with long-term use of Tofacitinib among larger populations.
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.