ArticleClinical rheumatology2026
Real-world evidence on JAK inhibitors in rheumatology practice: comparative safety, efficacy, and outcomes between JAK inhibitors.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesJanus kinase inhibitors (JAKinibs) are increasingly used in rheumatic diseases, yet comparative real-world data on retention, safety, and prescribing patterns remain limited. We evaluated drug survival, adverse events, and discontinuation for three JAKinibs.
methodsThis retrospective, three-arm comparative cohort included patients with rheumatic diseases who received ≥ 1 JAKinib between May 2020 and July 2025.
resultsWe included 185 patients(median age 44 years, 67.0% female) with seropositive RA (n = 87), seronegative RA (n = 36), ankylosing spondylitis (n = 39), psoriatic arthritis(n = 17), and others(n = 6). Tofacitinib was prescribed in 94 patients(50.8%), baricitinib in 45 (24.3%), and upadacitinib in 69 (37.3%). Most (89.7%) received one JAKinib. Tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib were initiated as first JAKinib in 95.7%, 86.7%, and 81.2% of cases, respectively(p = 0.012). At last follow-up, 58.9% remained on any JAKinib. Six-month survival was 81.9% for tofacitinib, 77.8% for baricitinib, and 69.6% for upadacitinib(p = 0.049); median survival was 16.5, 17, and 11 months, respectively (p < 0.001). Secondary non-response was the leading cause of discontinuation, with adverse events accounting for less than 10%.
conclusionJAKinibs showed favourable retention and safety. Treatment sequencing and early access influenced persistence; tofacitinib predominated due to early availability and prior use in biologic-naive patients, while upadacitinib was mainly prescribed after advanced therapy failure yet remained effective in refractory cases. Key Points • JAKinibs remain effective and tolerable across a range of inflammatory rheumatic diseases,regardless of prior biologic exposure or treatment line. • Upadacitinib, although often prescribed after failure of multiple advanced therapies andother JAKinibs, showed high continuation and retention rates, highlighting its role as a viablelate-line option. • Secondary unresponsiveness is the primary barrier to long-term JAKinib persistence,suggesting a need for early recognition and individualized treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42334786What 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.