User login
Key clinical point: In real medical practice, tofacitinib and baricitinib demonstrated comparable efficacies and similar safety profiles in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, predictive factors contributing to their treatment responses were different.
Major finding: At 24 weeks, clinical response (adjusted mean difference, −0.04; 95% confidence interval, −0.35 to 0.28) and adverse events (P = .866) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Factors independently associated with the achievement of disease activity score-low disease activity were concomitant oral steroid use (odds ratio [OR], 0.470) in the tofacitinib group and the number of previous use of biological and/or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (OR, 0.700) in the baricitinib group (both P < .05).
Study details: Findings are from the analysis of a real-world cohort of 242 patients with RA who were treated with tofacitinib (n=161) between August 2013 and October 2019 or baricitinib (n=81) between January 2018 and February 2020.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Iwamoto N et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Jul 23. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02582-z.
Key clinical point: In real medical practice, tofacitinib and baricitinib demonstrated comparable efficacies and similar safety profiles in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, predictive factors contributing to their treatment responses were different.
Major finding: At 24 weeks, clinical response (adjusted mean difference, −0.04; 95% confidence interval, −0.35 to 0.28) and adverse events (P = .866) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Factors independently associated with the achievement of disease activity score-low disease activity were concomitant oral steroid use (odds ratio [OR], 0.470) in the tofacitinib group and the number of previous use of biological and/or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (OR, 0.700) in the baricitinib group (both P < .05).
Study details: Findings are from the analysis of a real-world cohort of 242 patients with RA who were treated with tofacitinib (n=161) between August 2013 and October 2019 or baricitinib (n=81) between January 2018 and February 2020.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Iwamoto N et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Jul 23. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02582-z.
Key clinical point: In real medical practice, tofacitinib and baricitinib demonstrated comparable efficacies and similar safety profiles in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, predictive factors contributing to their treatment responses were different.
Major finding: At 24 weeks, clinical response (adjusted mean difference, −0.04; 95% confidence interval, −0.35 to 0.28) and adverse events (P = .866) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Factors independently associated with the achievement of disease activity score-low disease activity were concomitant oral steroid use (odds ratio [OR], 0.470) in the tofacitinib group and the number of previous use of biological and/or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (OR, 0.700) in the baricitinib group (both P < .05).
Study details: Findings are from the analysis of a real-world cohort of 242 patients with RA who were treated with tofacitinib (n=161) between August 2013 and October 2019 or baricitinib (n=81) between January 2018 and February 2020.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Iwamoto N et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Jul 23. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02582-z.