Comparative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy for active rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

What is known and objective Several clinical trials have attempted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but their relative efficacy and safety as monotherapy remain unclear due to the lack of data from head-to-head comparison trials. The relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were assessed.

Methods We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy relative to placebo in patients with RA.

Results and discussion Five RCTs comprising 1547 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy showed a significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate. Peficitinib 150 mg monotherapy showed the highest ACR20 response rate (odds ratio, 17.24.39; 95% credible interval, 6.57-51.80). The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve indicated that peficitinib 150 mg had the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving the ACR20 response rate, followed by peficitinib 100 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, baricitinib 4 mg and placebo. However, the number of patients who experienced serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the JAK inhibitors, except for tofacitinib 5 mg, and placebo.

What is new and conclusion All five JAK inhibitors—tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib—were efficacious monotherapy interventions for active RA, and differences were noted in their efficacy and safety in monotherapy.