-
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 -
Postepy Dermatologii I Alergologii Feb 2024Atopic dermatitis (AD) patients have an increased risk of herpes zoster (HZ). The relationship of dupilumab, tralokinumab, upadacitinib, and abrocitinib to HZ incidence...
INTRODUCTION
Atopic dermatitis (AD) patients have an increased risk of herpes zoster (HZ). The relationship of dupilumab, tralokinumab, upadacitinib, and abrocitinib to HZ incidence in AD patients remains unclear.
AIM
To evaluate and compare the incidence and risk of HZ among patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis treated with advanced systemic therapies.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Systematic searches were conducted in Ovid Medline and Embase. The primary outcome was incidence of HZ in patients with moderate to severe AD receiving placebo or the aforementioned treatments. A frequentist random-effects NMA was conducted with odds ratio.
RESULTS
Our search identified 16 trials comprising 10,689 patients. Upadacitinib was associated with a dose-dependent increase in the incidence of HZ compared to placebo (OR = 2.55 [1.09, 5.95] and (OR = 4.29 [1.89, 9.74], respectively) and compared to various dupilumab doses (OR = 4.48 [1.29, 15.57], 3.61 [1.28, 10.18] and 7.54 [2.21, 25.68], 6.09 [2.24, 16.52], respectively). Upadacitinib 30 mg was associated with a higher incidence of HZ when compared to upadacitinib 15 mg (OR = 1.68 [1.19, 2.38]). Abrocitinib 200 mg was associated with a higher increase in HZ compared to placebo (OR = 3.34 [1.34, 8.31]). According to SUCRA ranks, both JAK-1 inhibitors had a higher cumulative incidence of HZ compared to dupilumab.
CONCLUSIONS
JAK-1 inhibitors are associated with a significantly higher incidence of HZ compared to dupilumab and placebo. Our results suggest that recombinant HZ vaccination should be highly considered for all adult patients prior to starting oral JAK-1 inhibitors.
PubMed: 38533363
DOI: 10.5114/ada.2023.135764 -
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 -
Infectious Diseases and Therapy Feb 2022Many immunomodulators have been studied in clinical trials for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, data identifying the most effective and...
INTRODUCTION
Many immunomodulators have been studied in clinical trials for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, data identifying the most effective and safest treatment are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank immunomodulators in the treatment of COVID-19 according to their efficacy and safety.
METHODS
Published and peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of immunomodulators in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were searched up to June 30, 2021. Direct and network meta-analyses were applied to assess the outcomes. The probability of efficacy and safety was estimated, and the drugs were awarded a numerical ranking.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies were eligible. Compared with standard of care, dexamethasone and tocilizumab had significantly lower mortality rates with pooled risk ratios (RRs) of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.99) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.96), respectively. Meanwhile, the most effective corticosteroid, interleukin-6 antagonist, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor were hydrocortisone, sarilumab, and ruxolitinib, respectively. However, when superimposed infection was considered, ruxolitinib was the best treatment followed by baricitinib. Moreover, methylprednisolone had the worst combined efficacy and safety among the examined treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, immunomodulators were more effective than standard of care. Important differences exist among immunomodulators regarding both efficacy and safety in favor of ruxolitinib and baricitinib. Further well-conducted randomized controlled trials should focus on JAK inhibitors. Methylprednisolone use should be discouraged because of its poor efficacy and high risk of superimposed infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration identifier CRD 42021257421.
PubMed: 34757578
DOI: 10.1007/s40121-021-00545-0 -
The Journal of Rheumatology Mar 2023Nail psoriasis is common, impairs fine motor finger functioning, affects cosmesis, and is associated with a lower quality of life. This review updates the previous Group...
OBJECTIVE
Nail psoriasis is common, impairs fine motor finger functioning, affects cosmesis, and is associated with a lower quality of life. This review updates the previous Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) treatment recommendations for nail psoriasis.
METHODS
This systematic literature review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases examined the updated evidence since the last GRAPPA nail psoriasis treatment recommendations published in 2014. Recommendations are based on preformed PICO (Patient/Population - Intervention - Comparison/Comparator - Outcome) questions formulated by an international group of dermatologists, rheumatologists, and patient panel members. Data from this literature review were evaluated in line with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
RESULTS
Overall, there is insufficient evidence to make any recommendation for the use of topical corticosteroids, topical calcipotriol, topical tazarotene, topical cyclosporine, dimethyl fumarates/fumaric acid esters, phototherapy, and alitretinoin. There is a low strength of evidence to support the use of calcipotriol and corticosteroid preparations, topical tacrolimus, oral cyclosporine, oral methotrexate, intralesional corticosteroids, pulsed dye laser, acitretin, Janus kinase inhibitors, and apremilast.
CONCLUSION
The highest strength of supporting evidence is for the recommendation of biologic agents including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and interleukin 12/23, 17, and 23 inhibitors.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Quality of Life; Psoriasis; Nail Diseases; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Cyclosporins
PubMed: 36319021
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.220313 -
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 -
PloS One 2022Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for haematological disorders. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a cause of morbidity and mortality is treated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for haematological disorders. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a cause of morbidity and mortality is treated with corticosteroids. However, patients with steroid-refractory GVHD after HSCT have a poor prognosis. Ruxolitinib, a selective Janus kinase inhibitor, is a novel treatment strategy for steroid-refractory GVHD.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of ruxolitinib for the treatment of steroid-refractory GVHD and analyse its adverse effects.
STUDY DESIGN
Meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of ruxolitinib-based therapy in patients with steroid-refractory GVHD were found in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science in March 2021. Outcomes included overall response rate, survival, and adverse effects. The Methodological Index for Non-randomised Studies (MINORS) and the Cochrane collaboration risk-of-bias tool were used to assess methodological quality. Funnel plots, Egger's test, and the trim and fill method were used to assess publication bias.
RESULTS
In total, 1470 studies were identified; 19 studies (17 non-RCTs, 2 RCTs) involving 1358 patients met our inclusion criteria. Survival rates at the longest follow-up in non-RCTs, were 57.5% (95% CI 46.9-67.4) and 80.3% (95% CI 69.7-87.9) for acute GVHD (aGVHD) and chronic GVHD (cGVHD), respectively. In non-RCTs, the overall response was 74.9% (95% CI 66.6-81.8, I2 = 49%) in aGVHD and 73.1% (95% CI 62.5-81.6, I2 = 49%) in cGVHD. In aGVHD, the response rates were gastrointestinal, 61.4-90.2%; skin, 52.5-80.6%; and liver, 41.8-71.8%. In cGVHD, the response rates were gastrointestinal, 30.1-70.4%; skin, 30.1-84.4%; lung, 27.0-83.0%; and mouth 3.5-98.1%. In addition, a lower aGVHD grade and moderate cGVHD were associated with a better clinical response. Common adverse events were cytopenia and infectious complications.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that ruxolitinib therapy could be a potentially effective and safe treatment for patients with steroid-refractory GVHD.
Topics: Graft vs Host Disease; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Nitriles; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Steroids
PubMed: 35905125
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271979 -
Advances in Therapy Feb 2024Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), non-radiographic axial... (Review)
Review
Safety of Upadacitinib in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Systematic Literature Review of Indirect and Direct Treatment Comparisons of Randomized Controlled Trials.
INTRODUCTION
Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), non-radiographic axial spondylarthritis (nr-axSpA), atopic dermatitis (AD), ulcerative colitis (UC), and Crohn's disease (CD) pose a substantial burden on patients and their quality of life. Upadacitinib is an orally administered, selective, and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor indicated for seven conditions, but data on its safety versus other active treatments are limited. A systematic literature review of indirect and direct treatment comparisons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to assess the safety profile of upadacitinib.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for indirect and direct treatment comparisons of RCTs that (1) included licensed upadacitinib dosages; (2) studied any of the seven conditions; (3) reported any adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), AEs leading to discontinuation, major adverse cardiovascular event, venous thromboembolism, malignancies, infections or serious infections, and death; and (4) were published between January 2018 and August 2022.
RESULTS
A total of 25 studies were eligible for inclusion. SAEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, and any AEs were commonly studied. RA was the most studied condition, followed by AD and UC. Most studies (16/25, 64%) reported no statistically significant difference in the studied safety outcomes between upadacitinib and other active treatments (e.g., tumor necrosis factor blockers, interleukin receptor antagonists, integrin receptor antagonists, T cell co-stimulation modulator), or placebo (placebo ± methotrexate or topical corticosteroids). Other studies (9/25, 36%) reported mixed results of no statistically significant difference and either statistically higher (8/25, 32%) or lower rates (1/25, 4%) on upadacitinib.
CONCLUSION
Most studies suggested that upadacitinib has no statistically significant difference in the studied safety outcomes compared to active treatments or placebo in patients with RA, PsA, AS, AD, UC, and CD. A few studies reported higher rates, but findings were inconsistent with limited interpretation.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Colitis, Ulcerative; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Methotrexate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spondylitis, Ankylosing
PubMed: 38169057
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-023-02732-6 -
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational... 2024Upadacitinib is a selective Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis (AD). This systematic review aims to summarize the most recent... (Review)
Review
Upadacitinib is a selective Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis (AD). This systematic review aims to summarize the most recent data in terms of effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib in the treatment of severe AD in a real-world setting. The review included a comprehensive search of databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar and Web of Science, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The literature search initially identified 242 studies. Of these, 214 were excluded after reviewing their titles and abstracts. We then conducted a full-text review of 25 studies, of which 17 met our inclusion criteria and were therefore included in our systematic review. The analysis of real-world studies showed high effectiveness of upadacitinib, in terms of both clinical signs and subjective symptoms, in different patient populations, including those resistant to other treatments. No new significant safety concerns have emerged as compared to randomized clinical trials.
PubMed: 38495913
DOI: 10.2147/CCID.S329442 -
The Journal of Rheumatology Jan 2020Understanding the placebo response is critical to interpreting treatment efficacy, particularly for agents with a ceiling to their therapeutic effect, where an...
OBJECTIVE
Understanding the placebo response is critical to interpreting treatment efficacy, particularly for agents with a ceiling to their therapeutic effect, where an increasing placebo response makes it harder to detect potential benefit. The objective of this study is to assess the change in placebo responses over time in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCT) for drug licensing authorization.
METHODS
The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register database was searched to identify RCT of biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in RA. Studies were excluded if patients were conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD)-naive, not receiving background csDMARD therapy, or were biologic experienced. Metaregression model was used to evaluate changes in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, ACR50, and ACR70 treatment response over time.
RESULTS
There were 32 trials in total: anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy (n = 15), tocilizumab (n = 4), abatacept (n = 2), rituximab (n = 2), and Janus kinase inhibitors (n = 9). From 1999 to 2018, there was no significant trend in the age or sex of patients in the placebo arm. Disease duration, swollen joint count, and 28-joint count Disease Activity Score using erythrocyte sedimentation rate at baseline all significantly declined over time. There was a statistically significant increase in placebo ACR50 and ACR70 responses (ACR50 β = 0.41, 95% CI 0.09-0.74, p = 0.01; ACR70 β = 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.31, p = 0.01) that remained significant after controlling for potential confounders.
CONCLUSION
There has been a rise in the placebo response in RA clinical trials over the last 2 decades. Shifting RA phenotype, changes in trial design, and expectation bias are possible explanations for this phenomenon. This observation has important implications when evaluating newer novel agents against established therapies.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Female; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Outcome Assessment; Placebo Effect; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 31043548
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.190008