SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Comparative effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib vs. adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To provide the latest systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib and adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was conducted until April 2025. Randomized controlled trials and cohorts comparing tofacitinib and adalimumab in RA patients were included. Outcomes assessed were significant improvements in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 improvement criteria, changes in visual analog scale (VAS) (global activity), disease activity score (DAS) 28-C-reactive protein (CRP), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and adverse events. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analysis evaluated the robustness of results and heterogeneity. Data analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 and STATA 15.0. Results: Nine studies with 24,643 patients were analyzed. Tofacitinib showed superior effectiveness over adalimumab in ACR20 (risk ratio (RR): 1.28; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.55; P = 0.01), HAQ-DI (standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.20; 95% CI: 0.35, -0.05; P = 0.008), and VAS (SMD: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.56, -0.03; P = 0.03). No significant differences were found in adverse events (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.03; P = 0.22) or DSA28-CRP improvement (SMD: 0.02; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.02; P = 0.07). Sensitivity analyses confirmed stable outcomes for adverse events, HAQ-DI, and ACR20, but instability for VAS and DSA28-CRP. Subgroup analysis found that tofacitinib >5 mg twice daily was superior to ≤5 mg in terms of ACR20. Conclusion: Tofacitinib was more effective than adalimumab in improving ACR20, VAS, and HAQ-DI, with no significant differences in adverse events or DSA28-CRP improvement. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.