4.3 Review

How effective are JAK-inhibitors? Perspectives from clinical trials and real-world studies

期刊

EXPERT REVIEW OF CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 207-220

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/1744666X.2021.1982383

关键词

Comparative effectiveness; jak-inhibitors; janus kinase; rheumatoid arthritis; rheumatology; trials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trials of JAK-inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy in treating rheumatoid arthritis, but real-world studies evaluating their effectiveness are currently limited, especially for certain molecules. More high-quality studies are needed to assess the real-world effectiveness of JAK-inhibitors comprehensively.
Introduction JAK-inhibitors have emerged as a new treatment option for rheumatoid arthritis, with five molecules currently available in different parts of the world: tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, peficitinib, and filgotinib. These molecules have been the subject of numerous trials looking at their efficacy (how well they perform in controlled conditions) but also some observational studies from the general population to assess their effectiveness (how well treatment perform under real conditions). With each their own weaknesses and strengths, they give different but complementary information. Areas covered We will review what we can learn from trials and real-world studies on how effective JAK-inhibitors are in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Expert opinion Trials of JAK-inhibitors have shown that JAK-inhibitors are efficacious for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. However, their main outcomes are not clinically meaningful as their aim is mainly the regulatory authorization of the product. Real-world studies are important as they evaluate the real-life effectiveness of the compounds, however, they are scarce at the moment, mainly evaluating tofacitinib and of variable quality. Future high-quality studies are needed to assess the real-world effectiveness of JAK-inhibitors in a more complete manner.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据