ArticleRheumatology and therapy2026
Comparative Effectiveness of Upadacitinib vs. Other JAK Inhibitors in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in a Global Real-World Setting.
Article in Rheumatology and therapy, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to compare the real-world effectiveness of upadacitinib vs. other Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
methodsData were extracted from the Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™ (DSP), a cross-sectional survey administered to rheumatologists and their patients in the EU, UK, Japan, Canada, and the US from July 2021 to February 2022. Patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg or other JAKis, including tofacitinib, baricitinib, or peficitinib, for ≥ 6 months were included in the study. Data captured at treatment initiation and follow-up (≥ 6 months) included physician-evaluated pain rating and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28). Fatigue and medication adherence were recorded at follow-up only. Inverse-probability-weighted regression adjustment was used to compare clinical outcomes at follow-up between patients treated with upadacitinib vs. other JAKis.
resultsOf 1440 total patients with RA, 1205 patients received upadacitinib and 235 received other JAKis. At study initiation, the majority of patients in both treatment groups had moderate/high disease activity (upadacitinib: 63.5%, other JAKis: 51.3%). At the most recent follow-up, after adjusting for differences in clinical characteristics between groups, patients treated with upadacitinib were significantly more likely to have attained physician-reported remission (54.3% vs. 44.1%, P = 0.030), have no pain (43.4% vs. 32.8%, P = 0.016), and have complete medication adherence (59.5% vs. 49.0%, P = 0.025) compared with patients treated with other JAKis. Of patients treated with upadacitinib, 42.5% were reported as having no fatigue compared with 36.1% of patients receiving other JAKis (P = 0.173).
conclusionsThis real-world study of patients with RA showed that greater proportions of patients who received upadacitinib attained physician-reported DAS28 remission, absence of pain, and complete adherence to medication compared with patients receiving other JAKis.
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.