ArticleClinical rheumatology2025
Tofacitinib as a possible treatment in macrophage activation syndrome: a pilot single-center study in China.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 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.
- [Mechanism and clinical progress of JAK inhibitors in hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2026Review
- Tofacitinib as an adjuvant treatment for pediatric Still's disease.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOur pilot study investigated the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib (TOF) in patients with macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), providing a new therapeutic option.
methodsThis was a historical comparator, single-center study. Patients enrolled in our study were screened using the 2016 Pediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO) criteria of MAS. MAS patients deemed suitable for TOF therapy were enrolled in the experimental group. The control group included MAS patients from Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital who had received biological and/or conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/csDMARDs) treatment in a similar period. Clinical characteristics, laboratory test results, MAS treatment response rates, and glucocorticoid discontinuation rates were compared between the two groups before and after treatment. Serious adverse events such as thrombosis or severe infection were recorded.
resultsA total of 36 MAS patients were included-17 in the TOF treatment group and 19 in the b/csDMARDs control group. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. After six weeks, the proportion of febrile patients was significantly lower in the TOF group compared to the control group (11.8% [2/17] vs. 47.3% [9/19], P = 0.021). Significant reductions were also observed in C-reactive protein levels at week 6 (5.9% [1/17] vs. 36.8% [7/19], P = 0.026) and ferritin levels at week 12 (100.0% [17/17] vs. 26.3% [5/19], P = 0.023). The MAS treatment response rate was significantly higher in the TOF group at weeks 2 and 6 (P = 0.029 and P = 0.023, respectively). Glucocorticoid discontinuation was more frequent in the TOF group, with a 12-week discontinuation rate of 100.0% (17/17) compared to 57.9% (11/19) in the control group (P = 0.002). No serious adverse events, including thrombosis or severe infections, were reported.
conclusionOur results suggest that TOF may be as effective as or even better than b/csDMARDs, with a quicker and higher response rate in patients with MAS without severe adverse events. Key Points •Tofacitinib may be as effective or better than b/csDMARDs in MAS. •Tofacitinib may act at a quicker and higher response rate in MAS. •Tofacitinib might be an alternative therapeutic option for patients with MAS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40338417What 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.