SynthesisBMC rheumatology2025
Efficacy and safety of non-conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in early active rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC rheumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy and safety of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and Janus kinase(JAK) inhibitors in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
methodsA systematic search was conducted of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases (up to February 2025), supplemented by searches of clinical trial registries. Eligible randomised controlled trials enrolled adults with early RA (< 2 years) treated with biological DMARDs/JAK inhibitors versus conventional synthetic DMARDs. Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata software (version 16.0).
results21 eligible trials involving nine interventions and 8,361 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Multiple biological DMARDs demonstrated superior therapeutic efficacy compared to methotrexate. Adalimumab + methotrexate showed the most pronounced effect on DAS28 remission (OR 2.90[95% CI 1.94-4.33]; SUCRA 83.7%), while tocilizumab + methotrexate exhibited the highest efficacy in achieving ACR70 response (OR 4.41[95% CI 2.29-8.49]; SUCRA 94.7%). Regarding safety, only tocilizumab + methotrexate demonstrated a higher incidence of adverse events(OR 5.11[95% CI 2.03-12.86]; SUCRA 0.6%). No safety risks were identified for other interventions. Due to the limited number of eligible clinical trials, the optimal treatment strategy remains inconclusive.
conclusionFor patients with early RA and high disease activity, combination therapy with certain biological DMARDs demonstrated superior clinical efficacy compared to methotrexate. No noteworthy safety risks have been observed. More high-quality trials should be conducted to evaluate treatment strategies for individuals with early RA comprehensively. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.