Observational studyRMD open2026
Comparison of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib and filgotinib: a 2-year observational study from FIRST registry.
Observational study in RMD open, 2026. 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.
- Japanese evidence on Janus kinase inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis: a narrative review of risk-optimized use.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Janus kinase inhibitor and rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis: is it a safe combination?Rheumatology advances in practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the 2-year clinical effectiveness of the four globally approved Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis; tofacitinib (TOF), baricitinib (BAR), upadacitinib (UPA) and filgotinib (FIL)) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in real-world settings.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used data from FIRST registry, a multicentre registry of patients with RA. The primary endpoint was the change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score at year 2. Secondary endpoints included changes in individual CDAI components, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and reasons for JAKi discontinuation. Multivariable mixed-effects models adjusted for baseline characteristics were used to compare the four JAKis.
resultsA total of 607 treatment courses with JAKis (TOF: 159, BAR: 262, UPA: 122, FIL: 64) were included. Baseline characteristics differed notably among treatment groups: UPA and FIL were frequently used as the second-line JAKis for older patients with comorbidities. The 2-year overall retention rate was 78%. The most common reason for discontinuation was insufficient effectiveness, with 6.5/100 person-years (py), followed by adverse events of 4.2/100 py. As-observed analysis demonstrated the slower improvement in the UPA and FIL groups. However, multivariable analysis revealed no significant differences in CDAI or PROs. The UPA group demonstrated greater improvement in two CDAI components: tender joint count and evaluator's global assessment.
conclusionThis real-world study found no clinically meaningful differences in 2-year effectiveness among four JAKis, although the study was not powerful enough to detect differences in safety. Further long-term, real-world data are needed to evaluate the safety of these agents and refine their risk-benefit profiles.
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.