-
The Journal of Rheumatology Feb 2023Axial involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a common subset of this condition, but a unanimous definition has yet to be established. It has been...
OBJECTIVE
Axial involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a common subset of this condition, but a unanimous definition has yet to be established. It has been defined by using different criteria, ranging from the presence of at least unilateral grade 2 sacroiliitis to those used for ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or simply the presence of inflammatory low back pain (IBP). Our aim was to identify and evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic interventions for treatment of axial disease in PsA.
METHODS
This systematic review is an update of the axial PsA (axPsA) domain of the treatment recommendations project by the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).
RESULTS
The systematic review of the literature showed that new biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug classes, namely interleukin (IL)-17A and Janus kinase inhibitors, could be considered for the treatment of axPsA. This would be in addition to previously recommended treatments such as nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, physiotherapy, simple analgesia, and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Conflicting evidence still remains regarding the use of IL-12/23 and IL-23 inhibitors.
CONCLUSION
Further studies are needed for a better understanding of the treatment of axPsA, as well as validated outcome measures.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Psoriasis; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Interleukin-23; Low Back Pain
PubMed: 36318999
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.220309 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Apr 2023Biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) targeting interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-1β represent a steroid-sparing first-line therapy used in systemic-onset...
INTRODUCTION
Biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) targeting interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-1β represent a steroid-sparing first-line therapy used in systemic-onset juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA). Recently, the occurrence of pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (PAP) in sJIA patients was reported with early-onset and exposure to bDMARDs as potential risk factors. We report on a new case with longitudinal immunomonitoring successfully treated by Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKi) and review past clinical descriptions of this new entity.
METHODS
We report one case of pulmonary alveolar proteinosis and macrophage activation syndrome (PAP-MAS) with longitudinal immunomonitoring. We then conducted a review of the literature of seven publications reporting 107 cases of PAP-MAS sJIA, and included the main characteristics and evolution under treatment.
RESULTS
Of the seven articles analyzed, the incidence of PAP-MAS among sJIA patients varied from 1.28% to 12.9%. We report here a single case among a cohort of 537 sJIA patients followed in the pediatric department of the Hospices Civils de Lyon over the last 15 years. This child presented with all clinical and immunological characteristics of PAP-MAS. After several lines of treatment, he benefited from JAKi and improved with respect to both systemic symptoms and lung disease. In the literature, strategies with monoclonal antibodies targeting either INF-γ or IL-1β/IL-18 have been tested with variable results. Orally taken JAKi presents the advantage of targeting multiple cytokines and avoiding parenteral injections of monoclonal antibodies that may contribute to the pathogenesis.
CONCLUSIONS
JAKi represent a promising option in the treatment of lung disease associated with sJIA.
PubMed: 37048785
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12072702 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Coinfection; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Oxygen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; United States; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35695334
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015209 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jun 2020To perform an update of a review of the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
Pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature research for the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis.
OBJECTIVE
To perform an update of a review of the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
METHODS
This is a systematic literature research of 2015-2018 publications on all DMARDs in patients with PsA, searching Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Efficacy was assessed in randomised controlled trials. For safety, cohort studies, case-control studies and long-term extensions (LTEs) were analysed.
RESULTS
56 publications (efficacy: n=33; safety n=23) were analysed. The articles were on tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (n=6; golimumab, etanercept and biosimilars), interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitors (n=10; ixekizumab, secukinumab), IL-23-p19 inhibitors (n=2; guselkumab, risankizumab), clazakizumab (IL-6 inhibitor), abatacept (CD80/86 inhibitor) and ABT-122 (anti-TNF/IL-17A), respectively. One study compared ustekinumab (IL-12/23i) with TNF inhibitor therapy in patients with entheseal disease. Three articles investigated DMARD tapering. Trials on targeted synthetic DMARDs investigated apremilast (phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi; tofacitinib, filgotinib). Biosimilar comparison with bio-originator showed non-inferiority. Safety was evaluated in 13 LTEs, 9 cohort studies and 1 case-control study investigating malignancies, infections, infusion reactions, multiple sclerosis and major cardiovascular events, as well as efficacy and safety of vaccination. No new safety signals were identified; however, warnings on the risk of venous thromboembolic events including pulmonary embolism when using JAKi were issued by regulators based on other studies.
CONCLUSION
Many drugs in PsA are available and have demonstrated efficacy against placebo. Efficacy varies across PsA manifestations. Safety must also be taken into account. This review informed the development of the European League Against Rheumatism 2019 updated PsA management recommendations.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Biological Products; Humans; Interleukin-17; Interleukin-23 Subunit p19; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Synthetic Drugs; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 32381564
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217163 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Janus kinase inhibitors (JAK-i), a class of targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tDMARDs), are suggested as second or third-line therapies in...
Janus kinase inhibitors (JAK-i), a class of targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tDMARDs), are suggested as second or third-line therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Synthesized cost-effective evidence would aid in informed decision-making given the similar clinical effectiveness of JAKi, but incongruent cost-effectiveness reports. Literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Medical Centers' cost-effective analysis registry. We pooled the incremental net benefit (INB) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects model and the heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane-Q test and I2 statistic. Modified economic evaluation bias checklist was used to assess the quality of selected studies. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger's test. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was performed to assess the certainty of outcomes presented. We included seventeen relevant studies for systematic review, of which fifteen were eligible for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis results showed that JAK-i is cost-effective compared to csDMARDS/bDMARDs with a pooled INB (INBp) of $19,886 (95% CI, 1,635 to 38,137) but with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99.14). As a second-line treatment for csDMARD failed RA, JAK-i is cost-effective than csDMARD/bDMARD with a pooled INB of $23,144 (74.1-46,214) and high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.67). But on a separate analysis JAK-i as second-line treatment is not cost-effective than TNF-a-i (INBp = $25,813, -5,714 to 57,340). However, leave-one-out analysis found that omitting a single outlier makes JAK-i cost-effective. Further, JAK-i is not cost-effective as a third-line treatment for csDMARD-TNF-a-I failed RA, compared to csDMARDs/bDMARDs with INBp $26,157 (-7,284 to 59,598). Meta-analysis suggests that JAK-i is cost-effective when used after csDMARD failure but not cost-effective when used after csDMARD-TNF-a-i failure with low certainty of evidence. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021222541, identifier CRD42021222541.
PubMed: 36582538
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1090361 -
RMD Open Nov 2020Review of efficacy and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).
OBJECTIVES
Review of efficacy and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).
METHODS
A systematic literature research (SLR) of all publications on JAK inhibitors (JAKi) treatment published until March 2019 using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Efficacy and safety were assessed in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), integrating long-term extension periods additionally for safety evaluation.
RESULTS
3454 abstracts were screened with 85 included in the final analysis (efficacy and RCT safety: n=72; safety only: n=13). Efficacy of RCTs investigating tofacitinib (TOFA, n=27), baricitinib (BARI, n=9), upadacitinib (UPA, n=14), filgotinib (FILGO, n=7), decernotinib (DEC, n=3) and peficitinib (PEF, n=7) was evaluated. Six head-to-head trials comparing JAKi with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were included. Efficacy of JAKi was shown in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for all agents, psoriatic arthritis (TOFA, FILGO), ankylosing spondylitis (TOFA, FILGO), systemic lupus erythematosus (BARI), chronic plaque psoriasis (TOFA, BARI, PEF), ulcerative colitis (TOFA, UPA), Crohn's disease (UPA, FILGO) and atopic dermatitis (TOFA, BARI, UPA). Safety analysis of 72 RCTs, one cohort study and 12 articles on long-term extension studies showed increased risks for infections, especially herpes zoster, serious infections and numerically higher rates of venous thromboembolic events. No increased malignancy rates or major adverse cardiac events were observed.
CONCLUSION
JAKi provide good efficacy compared to placebo (and to TNFi in RA and Pso) across various IMIDs with an acceptable safety profile. This SLR informed the task force on points to consider for the treatment of IMIDs with JAKi with the available evidence.
Topics: Arthritis, Psoriatic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Psoriasis; Spondylitis, Ankylosing
PubMed: 33188136
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001374 -
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Dec 2017Aggregate data model-based meta-analysis is a regression approach to compare the dose-response and/or time-course across different treatments using summary level data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Aggregate data model-based meta-analysis is a regression approach to compare the dose-response and/or time-course across different treatments using summary level data from the literature. Literature search and systematic review following the Cochrane approach yielded 912 sources for investigational and approved treatments for psoriasis. In addition, data for tofacitinib were obtained from an internal database. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor. Two mathematical models were developed for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response in moderate to severe psoriasis patients to quantify the time to maximum effect for PASI75 and to evaluate the dose-response relationship for PASI responders (PASI50, PASI75, PASI90, PASI100) at Week 12. Body weight exhibited an inverse effect on the placebo component of both models, suggesting that body weight affects the overall PASI response regardless of drug. This analysis provides a quantitative framework for efficacy comparisons across psoriasis treatments.
Topics: Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Models, Statistical; Piperidines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Psoriasis; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Severity of Illness Index; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28480503
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.732 -
International Immunopharmacology Oct 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to July 12, 2021. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors with a placebo or standard care in treating COVID-19 patients were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality rate at day 28.
RESULTS
Three RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. The all-cause mortality rate at day 28 was lower among the patients receiving JAK inhibitors than among the controls (4.1% [28/647] versus 7.0% [48/684], OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.92, I = 0). The clinical recovery rate was higher among the patients receiving JAK inhibitors than among the controls (85.1% (579/680) versus 80.0% [547/684], OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.09-1.93, I = 0). Additionally, the use of JAK inhibitors was associated with a shorter time to recovery than among the controls (MD, -2.84; 95% CI, -5.56 to -0.12; I = 50%). The rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) was lower in the patients who used JAK inhibitors than among the controls. Finally, no significant difference was observed between the patients who used JAK inhibitors and the controls in the risk of any adverse events (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64-1.34; I = 33%) and serious adverse events (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.45-1.44; I = 46%).
CONCLUSIONS
JAK inhibitors can lead to a better clinical outcome of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and they are a safe agent in the treatment of COVID-19.
Topics: Azetidines; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Nitriles; Piperidines; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Sulfonamides; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34343937
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2021.108027 -
Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy Mar 2022Currently, JAK-inhibitors are repurposed for therapy of Covid-19 because of their ability in restraining immune response, yet the corroboration regarding their advantage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Currently, JAK-inhibitors are repurposed for therapy of Covid-19 because of their ability in restraining immune response, yet the corroboration regarding their advantage is still unclear. This study sought to analyze the efficacy of JAK-inhibitors to ameliorate the outcomes of Covid-19 sufferer. Using specific keywords, we comprehensively go through the potential articles on ClinicalTrials.gov, Europe PMC, and PubMed sources until June 2, 2021. All published studies on JAK-inhibitors and Covid-19 were collected.
RESULTS
There were 14 studies with 4,363 Covid-19 patients contained in the meta-analysis. Based on our data, we suggested that JAK-inhibitors corresponded with increased recovery rate (RR 1.17; 95%CI: 1.01-1.36, = 0.040, = 91%, random-effect modeling); shortened time to recovery (mean difference -0.96; 95%CI: -1.15, -0.77, < 0.00001, = 28%, random-effect modeling); reduction of clinical deterioration risk (RR 0.66; 95%CI: 0.48-0.89, = 0.008, = 57%, random-effect modeling); and reduction of Covid-19 mortality (RR 0.52; 95%CI: 0.36-0.76, = 0.0006, = 33%, random-effect modeling).
CONCLUSIONS
This study propose that JAK-inhibitors perhaps provide advantageous effects on Covid-19 outcomes. JAK-inhibitors may be given during 1-2 weeks of disease to optimize its beneficial effects in halting the exaggerated immune response.
Topics: Europe; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Janus Kinases; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34538216
DOI: 10.1080/14787210.2021.1982695 -
Journal of Immunology Research 2021To evaluate the effectiveness of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for the treatment of patients with autoimmune disease and associated inflammatory ocular diseases. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effectiveness of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for the treatment of patients with autoimmune disease and associated inflammatory ocular diseases.
METHODS
We identified relevant literature by screening the MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case controls, and case reports.
RESULTS
Seven studies, including 11 patients, were included in the final systematic analysis. Of the 11 patients, there were 5 cases of juvenile idiopathic arthritis- (JIA-) associated uveitis, 1 case of rheumatoid arthritis- (RA-) associated keratitis, 1 case of RA-associated scleritis, 1 case of psoriasis-associated conjunctivitis, 2 cases of noninfectious scleritis, and 1 case of uveitis with suspected autoimmune disease. None of these 11 patients responded adequately to conventional treatments, including biological agents; these were all refractory cases and switched to JAK inhibitor therapy. Irrespective of whether they were suffering from uveitis, scleritis, or other types of ocular inflammation, all 11 patients showed an improvement to JAK inhibitors without significant side effects. Different types of JAK inhibitors might be associated with different responses when used to treat ocular inflammation.
CONCLUSIONS
JAK inhibitors may represent an alternative treatment option for patients with autoimmune ocular inflammation.
Topics: Animals; Autoimmune Diseases; Disease Management; Disease Susceptibility; Eye Diseases; Humans; Inflammation; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34966823
DOI: 10.1155/2021/2324400