Tofacitinib Versus Methotrexate in Treating Mucocutaneous and Musculoskeletal Lesions of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Real-World Results From the CSTAR Cohort XXXII
Man Zhao, Leyao Ma, Xinwang Duan, Yuehong Huo, Shengyun Liu, Cheng Zhao, Qian Wang, Xinping Tian, Yunzhuan Chen, Mengtao Li
{"title":"Tofacitinib Versus Methotrexate in Treating Mucocutaneous and Musculoskeletal Lesions of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Real-World Results From the CSTAR Cohort XXXII","authors":"Man Zhao, Leyao Ma, Xinwang Duan, Yuehong Huo, Shengyun Liu, Cheng Zhao, Qian Wang, Xinping Tian, Yunzhuan Chen, Mengtao Li","doi":"10.1111/1756-185X.70283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib versus methotrexate in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) within a real-world cohort, with a particular focus on mucocutaneous and musculoskeletal involvement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a retrospective analysis based on the Chinese SLE Treatment and Research Group (CSTAR) cohort. Patients with SLE presenting with active mucocutaneous or musculoskeletal involvement who initiated treatment with tofacitinib or methotrexate were included. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving resolution of mucocutaneous and musculoskeletal symptoms, as defined by the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000, at 3 months.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 109 patients were included in the study, with 44 assigned to the tofacitinib group and 65 to the methotrexate group. The tofacitinib group exhibited a numerically higher trend in resolution proportion for both mucocutaneous (3 months: 88.0% vs. 69.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.162; 6 months: 83.3% vs. 77.8%, <i>p</i> > 0.999) and musculoskeletal (100.0% vs. 84.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.555; 100.0% vs. 73.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.289) involvement compared with the methotrexate group. However, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Survival analysis revealed that tofacitinib was associated with a faster resolution of mucocutaneous (<i>p</i> = 0.043) involvement compared to methotrexate within a 6-month follow-up period. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups (2.3% vs. 3.1%, <i>p</i> > 0.999).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Tofacitinib may demonstrate superior effectiveness over methotrexate in the resolution of mucocutaneous involvement in SLE patients, primarily by achieving remission more rapidly, while maintaining a comparable safety profile.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14330,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases","volume":"28 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","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.70283","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
Objectives
This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib versus methotrexate in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) within a real-world cohort, with a particular focus on mucocutaneous and musculoskeletal involvement.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective analysis based on the Chinese SLE Treatment and Research Group (CSTAR) cohort. Patients with SLE presenting with active mucocutaneous or musculoskeletal involvement who initiated treatment with tofacitinib or methotrexate were included. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving resolution of mucocutaneous and musculoskeletal symptoms, as defined by the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000, at 3 months.
Results
A total of 109 patients were included in the study, with 44 assigned to the tofacitinib group and 65 to the methotrexate group. The tofacitinib group exhibited a numerically higher trend in resolution proportion for both mucocutaneous (3 months: 88.0% vs. 69.6%, p = 0.162; 6 months: 83.3% vs. 77.8%, p > 0.999) and musculoskeletal (100.0% vs. 84.6%, p = 0.555; 100.0% vs. 73.7%, p = 0.289) involvement compared with the methotrexate group. However, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Survival analysis revealed that tofacitinib was associated with a faster resolution of mucocutaneous (p = 0.043) involvement compared to methotrexate within a 6-month follow-up period. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups (2.3% vs. 3.1%, p > 0.999).
Conclusions
Tofacitinib may demonstrate superior effectiveness over methotrexate in the resolution of mucocutaneous involvement in SLE patients, primarily by achieving remission more rapidly, while maintaining a comparable safety profile.
本研究旨在评估和比较托法替尼与甲氨蝶呤在系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)治疗中的有效性和安全性,特别关注皮肤粘膜和肌肉骨骼的受损伤。方法基于中国SLE治疗研究小组(CSTAR)队列进行回顾性分析。以活跃的粘膜皮肤或肌肉骨骼受累为表现的SLE患者开始接受托法替尼或甲氨蝶呤治疗。主要终点是根据SLE疾病活动指数2000,在3个月时实现皮肤粘膜和肌肉骨骼症状缓解的患者比例。结果109例患者纳入研究,其中托法替尼组44例,甲氨蝶呤组65例。托法替尼组在两种粘膜皮肤的解决比例上均表现出更高的数字趋势(3个月:88.0%对69.6%,p = 0.162;6个月:83.3% vs. 77.8%, p > 0.999)和肌肉骨骼(100.0% vs. 84.6%, p = 0.555;100.0% vs. 73.7% (p = 0.289),与甲氨蝶呤组相比。然而,这些差异没有达到统计学意义。生存分析显示,在6个月的随访期内,与甲氨蝶呤相比,托法替尼与更快地解决粘膜皮肤受损伤(p = 0.043)相关。两组不良事件发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(2.3% vs. 3.1%, p > 0.999)。结论:与甲氨蝶呤相比,托法替尼在解决SLE患者皮肤粘膜受损伤方面可能表现出更高的有效性,主要是通过更快地实现缓解,同时保持相当的安全性。
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.