Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and filgotinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Y H Lee, G G Song
{"title":"Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and filgotinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Y H Lee, G G Song","doi":"10.1007/s00393-019-00733-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We compared the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and filgotinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showing inadequate response to conventional synthetic (cs) or biologic (b) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and filgotinib in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with RA exhibiting inadequate cs- or bDMARD response.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine RCTs consisting of 5466 patients met the inclusion criteria. We obtained 15 pairwise comparisons, including 11 direct comparisons from 6 interventions. Tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and filgotinib 200 mg + MTX were among the most effective treatments for active RA showing an inadequate cs- or bDMARD response, followed by tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX, filgotinib 100 mg + MTX, and adalimumab + MTX. Ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and filgotinib 200 mg + MTX showed the highest probability of being the best treatment options in terms of ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.898, 0.782), followed by tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.602), filgotinib 100 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.359), adalimumab + MTX (SUCRA = 0.358), and placebo + MTX (SUCRA = 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of serious adverse events after treatment with tofacitinib + MTX, filgotinib + MTX, adalimumab + MTX, or placebo + MTX.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients with RA exhibiting an inadequate response to cs- or bDMARDs, tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and filgotinib 200 mg + MTX were the most efficacious interventions and risks of serious adverse events did not differ between tofacitinib and filgotinib groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":23843,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie","volume":"4 1","pages":"590-603"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00393-019-00733-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: We compared the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and filgotinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showing inadequate response to conventional synthetic (cs) or biologic (b) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

Methods: We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and filgotinib in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with RA exhibiting inadequate cs- or bDMARD response.

Results: Nine RCTs consisting of 5466 patients met the inclusion criteria. We obtained 15 pairwise comparisons, including 11 direct comparisons from 6 interventions. Tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and filgotinib 200 mg + MTX were among the most effective treatments for active RA showing an inadequate cs- or bDMARD response, followed by tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX, filgotinib 100 mg + MTX, and adalimumab + MTX. Ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and filgotinib 200 mg + MTX showed the highest probability of being the best treatment options in terms of ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.898, 0.782), followed by tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.602), filgotinib 100 mg + MTX (SUCRA = 0.359), adalimumab + MTX (SUCRA = 0.358), and placebo + MTX (SUCRA = 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of serious adverse events after treatment with tofacitinib + MTX, filgotinib + MTX, adalimumab + MTX, or placebo + MTX.

Conclusion: In patients with RA exhibiting an inadequate response to cs- or bDMARDs, tofacitinib 10 mg + MTX and filgotinib 200 mg + MTX were the most efficacious interventions and risks of serious adverse events did not differ between tofacitinib and filgotinib groups.

托法替尼和非戈替尼治疗活动性类风湿关节炎的疗效和安全性比较:随机对照试验的贝叶斯网络meta分析
目的:我们比较了托法替尼和非戈替尼在对常规合成(cs)或生物(b)疾病缓解抗风湿药物(DMARDs)反应不足的类风湿性关节炎(RA)患者的疗效和安全性。方法:我们进行了贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,结合随机对照试验(rct)的直接和间接证据,以检验托法替尼和非戈替尼联合甲氨蝶呤(MTX)治疗cs-或bDMARD反应不足的RA患者的有效性和安全性。结果:9项rct共5466例患者符合纳入标准。我们获得了15个两两比较,包括来自6个干预措施的11个直接比较。Tofacitinib 10毫克 + MTX和filgotinib 200 mg  + MTX治疗是最有效的治疗活动RA显示cs -或bDMARD反应不足,其次是Tofacitinib 5 mg  + MTX, filgotinib 100 mg  + MTX, adalimumab + MTX。排名基于概率累积排名曲线下的表面(SUCRA)表示,tofacitinib 10 mg MTX和filgotinib 200 mg  + MTX治疗+显示最好的治疗方案的概率最高的ACR20反应率(SUCRA = 0.898,0.782),其次是tofacitinib 5 mg  + MTX (SUCRA = 0.602),filgotinib 100 毫克 + MTX (SUCRA = 0.359),adalimumab + MTX (SUCRA = 0.358),和安慰剂 + MTX (SUCRA = 0.001)。在托法替尼 + MTX、非戈替尼 + MTX、阿达木单抗 + MTX或安慰剂 + MTX治疗后,严重不良事件的发生率无显著差异。结论:在对cs-或bDMARDs反应不足的RA患者中,托法替尼10 mg + MTX和非戈替尼200 mg + MTX是最有效的干预措施,严重不良事件的风险在托法替尼组和非戈替尼组之间没有差异。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信