@article{oai:nagasaki-u.repo.nii.ac.jp:00026864,
 author = {Iwamoto, Naoki and Sato, Shuntaro and Kurushima, Shota and Michitsuji, Toru and Nishihata, Shinya and Okamoto, Momoko and Tsuji, Yoshika and Endo, Yushiro and Shimizu, Toshimasa and Sumiyoshi, Remi and Suzuki, Takahisa and Okada, Akitomo and Koga, Tomohiro and Kawashiri, Shin-ya and Fujikawa, Keita and Igawa, Takashi and Aramaki, Toshiyuki and Ichinose, Kunihiro and Tamai, Mami and Nakamura, Hideki and Mizokami, Akinari and Origuchi, Tomoki and Ueki, Yukitaka and Eguchi, Katsumi and Kawakami, Atsushi},
 journal = {Arthritis Research & Therapy},
 month = {Jul},
 note = {Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and baricitinib in patients with RA in a real-world setting.
Methods: A total of 242 patients with RA who were treated with tofacitinib (n = 161) or baricitinib (n = 81) were enrolled. We evaluated efficacy and safety between tofacitinib and baricitinib using multivariable analyses to avoid confounding. Their clinical disease activity and AEs were evaluated for 24 weeks.
Results: The mean (SD) DAS28-ESR change from baseline to 24 weeks was 1.57 (1.55) (tofacitinib) and 1.46 (1.36) (baricitinib). There was no significant difference in the clinical response between the two groups (adjusted mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI, −0.35 to 0.28). The efficacy was not significantly changed in the patients without concomitant MTX use in both groups, but the concomitant MTX use showed better clinical efficacy in the cases of baricitinib treatment. In both groups, the most common AE was herpes zoster infection, and the AE rates were similar between the two groups. However, the predictive factors contributing to clinical response as revealed by a multivariable logistic analysis differed. The concomitant oral steroid use was independently associated with the achievement of DAS-low disease activity in the tofacitinib group, whereas in the baricitinib group, the number of biological and/or targeted synthetic DMARDs previously used was associated.
Conclusions: Our findings indicate that tofacitinib and baricitinib had comparable continuing efficacies and safety profiles. However, there is a possibility that the influence of clinical characteristics on the treatment response differs. The comparison provides useful information to the optimal use of JAK inhibitors in real-world settings., Arthritis Research and Therapy, 23, art. no. 197; 2021},
 title = {Real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib and baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis},
 volume = {23},
 year = {2021}
}