4.7 Review

Janus Kinase Inhibitors Improve Disease Activity and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 24,135 Patients

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23031246

关键词

rheumatoid arthritis; JAK inhibitors; analgesic effect; PROs; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

JAK inhibitors have been shown to be effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by reducing joint inflammation and providing direct analgesic effect. This meta-analysis provides comprehensive evidence of the superiority of JAK inhibitors in improving patient-reported outcomes and disease activity indices in RA.
Pain, fatigue, and physical activity are major determinants of life quality in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have emerged as effective medications in RA and have been reported to exert direct analgesic effect in addition to reducing joint inflammation. This analysis aims to give an extensive summary of JAK inhibitors especially focusing on pain and patient reported outcomes (PRO). MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched on the 26 October 2020, and 50 randomized controlled trials including 24,135 adult patients with active RA met the inclusion criteria. JAK inhibitors yielded significantly better results in all 36 outcomes compared to placebo. JAK monotherapy proved to be more effective than methotrexate in 9 out of 11 efficacy outcomes. In comparison to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, JAK inhibitors show statistical superiority in 13 of the 19 efficacy outcomes. Analgesic effect determined using the visual analogue scale and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response rates was significantly greater in the JAK group in all comparisons, and no significant difference regarding safety could be explored. This meta-analysis gives a comprehensive overview of JAK inhibitors and provides evidence for their superiority in improving PROs and disease activity indices in RA.

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

4.7
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