Comparable Clinical Effectiveness of Baricitinib and Filgotinib in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 RHEUMATOLOGY
Hironobu Kosugiyama, Shuji Asai, Kenya Terabe, Tomonori Kobayakawa, Yutaka Yoshioka, Tatsuo Watanabe, Toshihisa Kojima, Yasumori Sobue, Takefumi Kato, Takayoshi Fujibayashi, Yuji Hirano, Tsuyoshi Nishiume, Mihoko Kato, Yasuhide Kanayama, Toki Takemoto, Masahiro Hanabayashi, Hiroyuki Matsubara, Mochihito Suzuki, Ryo Sato, Junya Hasegawa, Yusuke Ohno, Takaya Sugiura, Nobunori Takahashi, Shiro Imagama
{"title":"Comparable Clinical Effectiveness of Baricitinib and Filgotinib in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis","authors":"Hironobu Kosugiyama,&nbsp;Shuji Asai,&nbsp;Kenya Terabe,&nbsp;Tomonori Kobayakawa,&nbsp;Yutaka Yoshioka,&nbsp;Tatsuo Watanabe,&nbsp;Toshihisa Kojima,&nbsp;Yasumori Sobue,&nbsp;Takefumi Kato,&nbsp;Takayoshi Fujibayashi,&nbsp;Yuji Hirano,&nbsp;Tsuyoshi Nishiume,&nbsp;Mihoko Kato,&nbsp;Yasuhide Kanayama,&nbsp;Toki Takemoto,&nbsp;Masahiro Hanabayashi,&nbsp;Hiroyuki Matsubara,&nbsp;Mochihito Suzuki,&nbsp;Ryo Sato,&nbsp;Junya Hasegawa,&nbsp;Yusuke Ohno,&nbsp;Takaya Sugiura,&nbsp;Nobunori Takahashi,&nbsp;Shiro Imagama","doi":"10.1111/1756-185X.70288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the clinical effectiveness of baricitinib and filgotinib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This retrospective study included 101 and 103 consecutive patients treated with baricitinib and filgotinib, respectively, between 2020 and 2023. Drug retention was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves, with the log-rank test for between-group comparisons. Differences in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score from baseline were assessed using paired <i>t</i>-tests, and generalized estimating equations were used to compare the treatment groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Baseline characteristics were similar between the baricitinib and filgotinib groups. Drug retention rates due to ineffectiveness or adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. In the baricitinib group, the estimated mean CDAI score significantly decreased from 17.8 at baseline to 9.1 at 4 weeks, 6.6 at 12 weeks, and 6.3 at 24 weeks (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001 for all comparisons). In the filgotinib group, the estimated mean CDAI score significantly decreased from 16.5 at baseline to 7.8 at 4 weeks, 6.2 at 12 weeks, and 6.1 at 24 weeks (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001 for all comparisons). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in CDAI score at any time point evaluated, or in the proportion of patients who achieved CDAI remission (CDAI ≤ 2.8) at baseline (7% vs. 5%) and after 4 (23% vs. 21%), 12 (33% vs. 33%), and 24 weeks (33% vs. 37%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Baricitinib and filgotinib demonstrated comparable drug retention rates and effectiveness in reducing disease activity among patients with RA over a 24-week follow-up period.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14330,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases","volume":"28 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1756-185X.70288","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

To compare the clinical effectiveness of baricitinib and filgotinib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

This retrospective study included 101 and 103 consecutive patients treated with baricitinib and filgotinib, respectively, between 2020 and 2023. Drug retention was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves, with the log-rank test for between-group comparisons. Differences in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score from baseline were assessed using paired t-tests, and generalized estimating equations were used to compare the treatment groups.

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar between the baricitinib and filgotinib groups. Drug retention rates due to ineffectiveness or adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. In the baricitinib group, the estimated mean CDAI score significantly decreased from 17.8 at baseline to 9.1 at 4 weeks, 6.6 at 12 weeks, and 6.3 at 24 weeks (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). In the filgotinib group, the estimated mean CDAI score significantly decreased from 16.5 at baseline to 7.8 at 4 weeks, 6.2 at 12 weeks, and 6.1 at 24 weeks (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in CDAI score at any time point evaluated, or in the proportion of patients who achieved CDAI remission (CDAI ≤ 2.8) at baseline (7% vs. 5%) and after 4 (23% vs. 21%), 12 (33% vs. 33%), and 24 weeks (33% vs. 37%).

Conclusion

Baricitinib and filgotinib demonstrated comparable drug retention rates and effectiveness in reducing disease activity among patients with RA over a 24-week follow-up period.

Baricitinib和Filgotinib在类风湿关节炎患者中的临床疗效比较
目的比较巴西替尼与非歌替尼治疗类风湿性关节炎的临床疗效。方法本回顾性研究纳入了2020年至2023年间分别接受巴西替尼和非戈替尼治疗的101例和103例连续患者。采用Kaplan-Meier曲线分析药物滞留,组间比较采用log-rank检验。使用配对t检验评估临床疾病活动指数(CDAI)评分与基线的差异,并使用广义估计方程来比较治疗组。结果巴厘替尼组和非戈替尼组的基线特征相似。由于无效或不良事件导致的药物保留率在两组之间没有显着差异。在巴西替尼组中,估计的平均CDAI评分从基线时的17.8显著下降到4周时的9.1、12周时的6.6和24周时的6.3(所有比较的p <; 0.001)。在非戈替尼组中,估计的平均CDAI评分从基线时的16.5显著下降到4周时的7.8、12周时的6.2和24周时的6.1(所有比较的p <; 0.001)。两组在任何评估时间点的CDAI评分,以及基线时(7%对5%)、4周(23%对21%)、12周(33%对33%)和24周(33%对37%)后达到CDAI缓解(CDAI≤2.8)的患者比例均无显著差异。结论Baricitinib和filgotinib在降低RA患者疾病活动性方面表现出相当的药物保留率和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
362
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases (formerly APLAR Journal of Rheumatology) is the official journal of the Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology. The Journal accepts original articles on clinical or experimental research pertinent to the rheumatic diseases, work on connective tissue diseases and other immune and allergic disorders. The acceptance criteria for all papers are the quality and originality of the research and its significance to our readership. Except where otherwise stated, manuscripts are peer reviewed by two anonymous reviewers and the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信