-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2020To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).
DESIGN
Living systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.
METHODS
After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.
RESULTS
463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty).
CONCLUSION
Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.
READERS' NOTE
This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.; China; Coronavirus Infections; Databases, Factual; Drug Combinations; Evidence-Based Medicine; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Lopinavir; Network Meta-Analysis; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index; Standard of Care; Treatment Outcome; United States; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32732190
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m2980 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jun 2020To inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Efficacy of pharmacological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature research informing the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS
A systematic literature research (SLR) to investigate the efficacy of any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) (conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD, biological (b) and biosimilar DMARD, targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD) or glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in patients with RA was done by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2016 and 8 March 2019.
RESULTS
234 abstracts were selected for detailed assessment, with 136 finally included. They comprised the efficacy of bDMARDs versus placebo or other bDMARDs, efficacy of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAKi) across different patient populations and head-to-head of different bDMARDs versus JAKi or other bDMARDs. Switching of bDMARDs to other bDMARDs or tsDMARDs, strategic trials and tapering studies of bDMARDs, csDMARDs and JAKi were assessed. The drugs evaluated included abatacept, adalimumab, ABT-122, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, SBI-087, CNTO6785, decernotinib, etanercept, filgotinib, golimumab, GCs, GS-9876, guselkumab, hydroxychloroquine, infliximab, leflunomide, mavrilimumab, methotrexate, olokizumab, otilimab, peficitinib, rituximab, sarilumab, salazopyrine, secukinumab, sirukumab, tacrolimus, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, tregalizumab, upadacitinib, ustekinumab and vobarilizumab. The efficacy of many bDMARDs and tsDMARDs was shown. Switching to another tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi bDMARDs after TNFi treatment failure is efficacious. Tapering of DMARDs is possible in patients achieving long-standing stringent clinical remission; in patients with residual disease activity (including patients in LDA) the risk of flares is increased during the tapering. Biosimilars are non-inferior to their reference products.
CONCLUSION
This SLR informed the task force regarding the evidence base of various therapeutic regimen for the development of the update of EULAR's RA management recommendation.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Drug Substitution; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Synthetic Drugs; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 32033937
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216656 -
Skin Health and Disease Feb 2023Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are being evaluated as promising upcoming treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD).
BACKGROUND
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are being evaluated as promising upcoming treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD).
OBJECTIVES
To systematically assess the efficacy of oral JAK inhibitors in patients with AD and provide comparisons among JAK inhibitors.
METHODS
A systematic literature review of JAK inhibitors in the treatment of AD was conducted and reported based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses using PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, MEDLINE/Ovid, Embase and sponsor websites from inception to 30 September 2021. References of relevant articles were reviewed by two authors. Only RCTs of JAK inhibitors for treating AD with more than one study were included. Data was extracted and the meta-analysis was performed using the metan procedure in STATA version 12.1. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The four outcomes analysed included Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI)-75 response (≥75% improvement of EASI score from baseline), percent change in EASI score, percent of subjects achieving Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) of clear or almost clear (IGA 0/1), and ≥ 4-point improvement in pruritus numerical rating scale (NRS).
RESULTS
Fourteen randomized controlled trials (7051 subjects) assessing three different oral JAK inhibitors (abrocitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib) in patients with moderate-to-severe AD were included in the meta-analysis. Abrocitinib (100 and 200 mg), baricitinib (1, 2 and 4 mg) and upadacitinib (15 and 30 mg) were all found to be more efficacious compared to placebo in all four outcomes analysed. Upadacitinib 30 mg was more effective than all other dosages of JAK inhibitors in achieving EASI-75, decrease in percent change of EASI, IGA 0/1 response rate, and ≥ 4-point improvement in pruritus NRS.
CONCLUSIONS
JAK inhibitors were found to be an effective treatment for AD. Upadacitinib, at 30 mg, was found to be the most efficacious oral JAK inhibitor for AD. More clinical trial studies with comparisons among JAK inhibitors are needed to confirm these results as well as explore long-term efficacy and safety of these molecules.
PubMed: 36751339
DOI: 10.1002/ski2.133 -
PharmacoEconomics May 2023Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib versus current biologics, considering combinations of first-line (1L) and second-line (2L) therapies, from a Japanese payer's perspective in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC following an inadequate response to conventional therapy and in those who were naïve to biologics.
METHODS
A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted during the time horizon specified in the Markov model, which considers a patient's lifetime as 60 years and an annual discount rate of 2% on costs and effects. The model compared tofacitinib with vedolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab. The time of active treatment was divided into induction and maintenance phases. Patients not responding to their biologic treatment after induction or during the maintenance phase were switched to a subsequent line of therapy. Treatment response and remission probabilities (for induction and maintenance phases) were obtained through a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis that employed a multinomial analysis with fixed effects. Patient characteristics were sourced from the OCTAVE Induction trials. Mean utilities associated with UC health states and adverse events (AEs) were obtained from published sources. Direct medical costs related to drug acquisition, administration, surgery, patient management, and AEs were derived from the JMDC database analysis, which corresponded with the medical procedure fees from 2021. The drug prices were adjusted to April 2021. Further validation through all processes by clinical experts in Japan was conducted to fit the costs to real-world practices. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were also performed to confirm the accuracy and robustness of the base-case results.
RESULTS
In the base-case, the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib was more cost-effective than vedolizumab, infliximab, golimumab, and ustekinumab for 1L therapies in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (based on the Japanese threshold of 5,000,000 yen/QALY [38,023 United States dollars {USD}/QALY]). The base-case results demonstrated that the incremental costs would be reduced for all biologics, and decreases in incremental QALYs were observed for all biologics other than adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was found to be dominant for adalimumab; for the other biologics, it was found to be less costly and less efficacious. The efficiency frontier on the cost-effectiveness plane indicated that tofacitinib-infliximab and infliximab-tofacitinib were more cost-effective than the other treatment patterns. When infliximab-tofacitinib was compared with tofacitinib-infliximab, the ICER was 282,609,856 yen/QALY (2,149,157 USD/QALY) and the net monetary benefit (NMB) was -12,741,342 yen (-96,894 USD) with a threshold of 5,000,000 yen (38,023 USD) in Japan. Therefore, infliximab-tofacitinib was not acceptable by this threshold, and tofacitinib-infliximab was the cost-effective treatment pattern.
CONCLUSION
The current analysis suggests that the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib is a cost-effective alternative to the biologics for patients with moderate-to-severe UC from a Japanese payer's perspective.
Topics: Humans; Colitis, Ulcerative; Infliximab; Adalimumab; Ustekinumab; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Japan; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Biological Products; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 36884164
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01254-x -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024The European League of Rheumatology(EULAR)guidelines recommend Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are... (Review)
Review
Comparative efficacy of five approved Janus kinase inhibitors as monotherapy and combination therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
The European League of Rheumatology(EULAR)guidelines recommend Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are insensitive or under-responsive to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). But there was no recommendation for which one was preferred in five currently approved JAK inhibitors. The objective of this network meta-analysis study was to evaluate the efficacy of five JAK inhibitors as monotherapy and combination therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis.
METHODS
The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy or combined with csDMARD in the treatment of active RA were searched in database of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library, up to December 2023. The control group included placebo or csDMARD. Outcome indicators included American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20), ACR50, ACR70 and the percentage of patients achieving 28-joint disease activity score using C-reactive protein (DAS28(CRP))<2.6 at 12 weeks and 24 weeks. The statistical analysis was performed by Stata14 and RevMan5.4. Data processing, network evidence plots, surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranking, league plots and funnel plots were generated. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) as effect sizes to analyze the statistics.
RESULTS
This study included thirty-six RCTs with 16,713 patients. All JAK inhibitors were more effective than placebo in ACR20 (RRs ranging between 1.74 and 3.08), ACR50 (RRs ranging between 2.02 and 7.47), ACR70 (RRs ranging between 2.68 and 18.13), DAS28(CRP) < 2.6 (RRs ranging between 2.70 and 7.09) at 12 weeks. Upadacitinib 30 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg showed relatively good efficacy according to their relative SUCRA ranking. All JAK inhibitors were more effective than csDMARD or placebo in ACR20 (RRs ranging between 1.16 and 1.86), ACR50 (RRs ranging between 1.69 and 2.84), ACR70 (RRs ranging between 1.50 and 4.47), DAS28(CRP) < 2.6 (RRs ranging between 2.28 and 7.56) at 24 weeks. Upadacitinib 15 mg + csDMARD and baricitinib 4 mg + csDMARD showed relatively good efficacy according to their relative SUCRA ranking. The safety analysis results such as serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and venous thromboembolic events (VTE) showed no statistical difference.
CONCLUSION
This NMA study indicated that all JAK inhibitors performed better than placebo. Based on the results of this study, upadacitinib 30 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg + csDMARD and baricitinib 4 mg + csDMARD were recommended treatment options with relatively good efficacy and safety. However, attention should be paid to monitoring the occurrence of adverse events in high-risk RA patients with medication. Combination therapy with csDMARD might be more suitable for the maintenance of long-term efficacy. However, in clinical practice, it is still necessary to select the appropriate therapeutic regimen based on the actual clinical situation.
PubMed: 38725657
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1387585 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have emerged as a progressively utilized therapeutic approach for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, the complete...
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have emerged as a progressively utilized therapeutic approach for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, the complete determination of their cardiovascular safety remains inconclusive. Hence, the primary objective of this network meta-analysis is to meticulously assess and juxtapose the cardiovascular risks linked to distinct JAK inhibitors employed in RA patients. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were meticulously conducted, encompassing a collection of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that focused on investigating the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality associated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors administered to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Extensive exploration was performed across multiple electronic databases, incorporating studies published until March 2023. To be included in this analysis, the RCTs were required to involve adult participants diagnosed with RA who received treatment with JAK inhibitors. To ensure accuracy, two authors independently undertook the selection of eligible RCTs and meticulously extracted aggregate data. In order to examine the outcomes of MACE and all-cause mortality, a frequentist graph theoretical approach within network meta-analyses was employed, utilizing random-effects models. Third study has been registered on PROSPERO under the reference CRD42022384611. A specific selection encompassing a total of 14 meticulously chosen randomized controlled trials was undertaken, wherein 13,524 patients were assigned randomly to distinct treatment interventions. The analysis revealed no notable disparity in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) between the interventions and the placebo group. However, in comparison to adalimumab, the employment of JAK inhibitors exhibited an association with higher rates of all-cause mortality [odds ratio (OR): 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-2.81]. This observed increase in risk primarily stemmed from the usage of tofacitinib (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.12-3.23). None of the other JAK inhibitors exhibited a statistically significant variance in all-cause mortality when compared to adalimumab. Our study suggests that JAK inhibitors may not increase the risk of MACE in RA patients but may be associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to adalimumab, primarily due to tofacitinib use. Rheumatologists should carefully consider the cardiovascular risks when prescribing JAK inhibitors, particularly tofacitinib, for RA patients. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=384611, CRD42022384611.
PubMed: 37614310
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1237234 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Apr 2023The IL-23 p19-subunit inhibitor guselkumab has been previously compared with other targeted therapies for PsA through network meta-analysis (NMA). The objective of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The IL-23 p19-subunit inhibitor guselkumab has been previously compared with other targeted therapies for PsA through network meta-analysis (NMA). The objective of this NMA update was to include new guselkumab COSMOS trial data, and two key comparators: the IL-23 inhibitor risankizumab and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials up to February 2021. A hand-search identified newer agents up to July 2021. Bayesian NMAs were performed to compare treatments on ACR response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response, modified van der Heijde-Sharp (vdH-S) score, and serious adverse events (SAEs).
RESULTS
For ACR 20, guselkumab 100 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W) and every 4 weeks (Q4W) were comparable (i.e. overlap in credible intervals) to most other agents, including risankizumab, upadacitinib, subcutaneous TNF inhibitors and most IL-17A inhibitors. For PASI 90, guselkumab Q8W and Q4W were better than multiple agents, including subcutaneous TNF and JAK inhibitors. For vdH-S, guselkumab Q8W was similar to risankizumab, while guselkumab Q4W was better; both doses were comparable to most other agents. Most agents had comparable SAEs.
CONCLUSIONS
Guselkumab demonstrates better skin efficacy than most other targeted PsA therapies, including upadacitinib. For vdH-S, both guselkumab doses are comparable to most treatments, with both doses ranking higher than most, including upadacitinib and risankizumab. Both guselkumab doses demonstrate comparable ACR responses to most other agents, including upadacitinib and risankizumab, and rank favourably in the network for SAEs.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Treatment Outcome; Psoriasis; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 36102818
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac500 -
Heliyon Nov 2023In recent years, biologics targeting key cytokines and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety outcomes for atopic dermatitis (AD)...
BACKGROUND
In recent years, biologics targeting key cytokines and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety outcomes for atopic dermatitis (AD) therapy. To evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of AD therapy involving biologics, JAK inhibitors, and their combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) for patients with AD, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis. Using eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of 12 or 16 weeks of treatment with systemic medications and 4 weeks of topical treatment for AD.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception up to October 25, 2023. English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of 12 or 16 weeks of treatment with systemic medications and 4 weeks of topical treatment for AD were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were screened in duplicate. Of 7261 citations, 37 studies were included. The data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 and the outcomes were measured by the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), the pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), as well as instances of adverse events (AE), and serious AE (SAE), which were presented as risk ratio (RR) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI). The efficacy of the biological therapies was analyzed with the percentage of patients who have achieved EASI 75, EASI 90, IGA 0/1 and pruritus NRS4, while the safety of treatments was evaluated in terms of the number of patients who had ≥1 AE and who had at least one SAE.
RESULTS
A total of 37 studies with 43 cohorts that examined 9 medications and placebo and involved 18172 participants were included. Compared with the placebo, all biologics and JAK inhibitors were associated with a higher response rate in efficacy outcomes, while systematic administration was presented by dupilumab 200 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks with superior improvement in EASI 90 (RR 9.50, 95 % CI 2.31-39.03) and IGA0/1 (RR 17.00, 95 % CI 2.33-123.78), upadacitinib 30 mg once daily in EASI 75 (RR 5.14, 95 % CI 4.20-6.31) and Pruritus NRS4 (RR 5.73, 95 % CI 4.44-7.39), and external use was presented by ruxolitinib 1.5 % twice daily orally in EASI 75 (RR 4.14, 95 % CI 3.06-5.61) and Pruritus NRS4 (RR 4.08, 95 % CI 2.86-5.81), and most of doses led to a better safety profile. Most doses of baricitinib, dupilumab, tralokinumab, and upadacitinib in combination with TCS demonstrated good efficacy as compared with the control groups (placebo + TCS). However, patients receiving baricitinib at a dosage of 2 mg daily (RR 1.23, 95 % CI 1.02-1.49) and 4 mg daily (RR 1.39, 95 % CI 1.22-1.58) in combination with TCS, exhibited a higher incidence of one or more SAE as compared with those taking placebo + TCS.
CONCLUSION
Our research has revealed that ruxolitinib and dupilumab are effective and safe treatments for mild to moderate AD and moderate to severe AD, respectively. Additionally, the combination of dupilumab and TCS demonstrates greater efficacy and safety compared to baricitinib, tralokinumab, and upadacitinib with TCS as a background treatment for moderate to severe AD. We suggest that the use of topical JAK inhibitors could be a potential alternative to TCS when used in combination with systemic medications, as a novel approach to treat AD. Insufficient different data sources caused by partial interventions were only mentioned in a few articles and low event rates in safety analyses may lead to the results being biased. Further studies directly comparing existing and novel treatments are needed and will be included in forthcoming updates of this review. Our findings could form a useful foundation for developing a new generation of treatment guidelines for AD.
PubMed: 38034798
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22014 -
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 -
Clinical Drug Investigation May 2023Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are emerging as a therapeutic option for alopecia areata. The risk of potential adverse events is currently debated. In particular, several...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are emerging as a therapeutic option for alopecia areata. The risk of potential adverse events is currently debated. In particular, several safety data for JAK inhibitors are extrapolated from a single study in elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or adalimumab/etanercept as a comparator. The population of patients with alopecia areata is clinically and immunologically different from persons with rheumatoid arthritis and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are not effective in these patients. The objective of this systematic review was to analyze available data on the safety of various JAK inhibitors in patients with alopecia areata.
METHODS
The systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature review was performed by searching PubMed, Scopus and EBSCO databases with the last search on March 13, 2023.
RESULTS
In total, 36 studies were included. The frequency and odds ratio (OR) for most common adverse events versus placebo were: for baricitinib hypercholesterolemia (18.2% vs 10.5%, OR = 1.9) and headache (6.1% vs 5.1%, OR = 1.2), for brepocitinib elevated creatinine level (27.7% vs 4.3%, OR = 8.6) and acne (10.6% vs 4.3%, OR = 2.7), for ritlecitinib acne (10.4% vs 4.3%, OR = 2.6) and headache (12.5% vs 10.6%, OR = 1.2) and for deuruxolitinib headache (21.4% vs 9.1%, OR = 2.7) and acne (13.6% vs 4.5%, OR = 3.3). The respective numbers for upper respiratory infections were: baricitinib (7.3% vs 7.0%, OR = 1.0) and brepocitinib (23.4% vs 10.6%, OR = 2.6); for nasopharyngitis: ritlecitinib (12.5% vs 12.8%, OR = 1.0) and deuruxolitinib (14.6% vs 2.3%, OR = 7.3).
CONCLUSIONS
The most common side effects of JAK inhibitors in patients with alopecia areata were headache and acne. The OR for upper respiratory tract infections varied from over 7-fold increased to comparable to placebo. The risk of serious adverse events was not increased.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Alopecia Areata; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Alopecia
PubMed: 37138134
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-023-01260-z