.
OBJECTIVES:To compare the 2-year clinical effectiveness of the four globally approved Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis; tofacitinib (TOF), baricitinib (BAR), upadacitinib (UPA) and filgotinib (FIL)) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in real-world settings. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study used data from FIRST registry, a multicentre registry of patients with RA. The primary endpoint was the change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score at year 2. Secondary endpoints included changes in individual CDAI components, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and reasons for JAKi discontinuation. Multivariable mixed-effects models adjusted for baseline characteristics were used to compare the four JAKis. RESULTS:A total of 607 treatment courses with JAKis (TOF: 159, BAR: 262, UPA: 122, FIL: 64) were included. Baseline characteristics differed notably among treatment groups: UPA and FIL were frequently used as the second-line JAKis for older patients with comorbidities. The 2-year overall retention rate was 78%. The most common reason for discontinuation was insufficient effectiveness, with 6.5/100 person-years (py), followed by adverse events of 4.2/100 py. As-observed analysis demonstrated the slower improvement in the UPA and FIL groups. However, multivariable analysis revealed no significant differences in CDAI or PROs. The UPA group demonstrated greater improvement in two CDAI components: tender joint count and evaluator's global assessment. CONCLUSION:This real-world study found no clinically meaningful differences in 2-year effectiveness among four JAKis, although the study was not powerful enough to detect differences in safety. Further long-term, real-world data are needed to evaluate the safety of these agents and refine their risk-benefit profiles.
Individuals with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with metastases to the ipsilateral mediastinum or subcarinal lymph nodes (N2 disease) have poor long-term survival. This exploratory analysis from the randomized phase 3 CheckMate 77T study assessed clinical outcomes by nodal status in individuals with stage III NSCLC who received neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab (nivolumab) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant placebo (placebo). Here we show that among patients with N2 disease, nivolumab versus placebo improved event-free survival (1-year rate, 70% versus 45%; hazard ratio, 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.70)) and pathological complete response rate (22.0% versus 5.6%); 77% versus 73% had definitive surgery, of whom 84% versus 74% received a simple lobectomy. Furthermore, nivolumab improved outcomes versus placebo in patients with multistation N2 NSCLC (1-year event-free survival rate: 71% versus 46%; hazard ratio, 0.43 (0.21-0.88); pathological complete response rate, 29.0% versus 2.7%). In the N2 subgroup with definitive surgery, 67% and 59% of patients had nodal downstaging after surgery (57% versus 44% downstaged to node-negative disease). Median EFS in randomized patients with stage III non-N2 NSCLC was not reached with nivolumab and 17.0 months with placebo (1-year EFS rate, 74% versus 62%; hazard ratio, 0.60 (0.33-1.08)). No new safety signals were identified. These findings support perioperative nivolumab plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy as an efficacious treatment for stage III N2 disease and suggest that N2 status may not predict poor prognosis in resectable NSCLC treated with perioperative immunotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04025879 .
Although the global emergency phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has ended, antiviral therapy remains crucial for patients at high risk of severe illness. In Japan, the out-of-pocket costs for antiviral drugs shifted from full public coverage to partial patient payment in April 2024. However, the impact of physicians’ background characteristics on antiviral cost perceptions and prescribing behavior remains underexplored. This study involved a secondary analysis of a nationwide, web-based interventional survey of 1,500 physicians treating COVID-19. Participants reported whether they avoided prescribing antivirals owing to drug costs and identified what they considered an appropriate cost per treatment course. Associations between physicians’ characteristics and their cost perceptions were analyzed. Among 1,500 physicians surveyed, 1,193 (79.5
