Publications

Schaefer et al. showed that treatment with JAKis (predominantly BARI and TOF) was associated with an increased HR of malignancies compared to treatment with bDMARDs in the overall study cohort, consistent with results from the ORAL surveillance trial. To better understand the complex role of JAKis in cancer development in RA patients, Schaefer et al. estimated the effects of JAKis compared to bDMARDs on the risk of malignancy (excluding NMSC) in patients with RA.

Eberhard et al. investigated the effectiveness of JAKi versus bDMARDs on pain reduction in RA patients, using Swedish national register data. JAKi treatment resulted in a significantly greater reduction in pain at three months compared with TNFis, with a higher proportion achieving low pain at 12 months, particularly in those previously treated with multiple bDMARDs.

Miyazaki et al. investigated the efficacy and safety of switching to bDMARDs versus cycling among JAKis in RA patients with inadequate JAKi response. Cycling to another JAKi proved more effective in improving disease activity at 26 weeks compared to switching to a bDMARD, and both groups had similar safety profiles.

Heutz et al. found that patients requiring bDMARDs rarely achieved DMARD-free remission, while 15–37% of those on non-bDMARDs reached this milestone, underscoring significant differences based on treatment type. This suggests the EULAR recommendation against DMARD cessation may be too generalised.

Adami et al. conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the GC sparing effects of JAKi versus bDMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis patients. They found that JAKi therapy was associated with a significant reduction in GC dose compared with bDMARDs. This suggests that JAKi could be more effective in reducing long-term GC exposure in RA patients.

Fleischmann et al. evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response or intolerance to bDMARDs over five years. The study demonstrated that upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg were effective in maintaining disease control, with >75% of patients achieving CDAI LDA by week 260. The safety profile remained consistent with no new issues identified.

Goldman, et al. conducted a pharmacovigilance study to evaluate the cardiovascular safety of JAK inhibitors in RA patients. The study demonstrated an increase in the reporting of VTE, stroke, and ischemic heart disease in patients treated with JAK inhibitor compared to bDMARDs, especially within the first year of treatment. This suggests a class effect of JAK inhibitors on cardiovascular risk, emphasising the need for ongoing surveillance and proactive cardiovascular risk management.

The authors found that there is a reduction in effectiveness of lines of bDMARDs after first-line in PsA, with inadequate data to determine response to tsDMARDs.

This study by Cho, et al. did not find any significant differences in remission rates in South Korean patients with RA that were treated with tofacitinib versus TNFi in a real-world setting. Remission rates were significantly higher for patients naïve to both JAKi and bDMARDs treated with tofacitinib versus TNFi.

The observed benefit:risk ratio strongly favours JAKi use in the majority of patients, and HCPs should consider and adhere to guidance on high-risk patients where applicable. Szekanecz et al summarised the safety and efficacy of approved JAKis tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib to aid in clinical decision making.