Medicine Matters rheumatology

So JAKPOTs have only been recently initiated in some countries. So we already work in the role with collaboration of registers. And we wanted to see if we could look at the efficacy-- effectiveness-- sorry-- and safety of JAK inhibitors using this collaboration.

So in the JAKPOT study, we looked at the retention of JAK inhibitors compared to ISX inhibitors, TNF inhibitors, and abatacept. Because retention is a measure that looks at effectiveness, but also, a kind of safety. So it looks at the time from when someone starts a drug and then stops it. And what we found is that looking at the different register we had, we did not find any differences in retention between JAK inhibitors compared to TNF inhibitors compared to I6 or abatacepts compared to TNF inhibitors.

So the hazard ratio of this contribution was the same for all these drug outputs for JAK inhibitors. The point estimate was a bit lower, meaning that maybe the retention is longer, but the confidence interval was very wide. So we cannot conclude that at the moment.

And another finding we had is that the retention-- there was a lot of heterogeniety between countries in the retention, particularly for JAK features I6 inhibitors. It was less so for abatacept.

We looked in a previous abstract we had for ACR We looked if there were different guidelines between the countries about JAK inhibitors in particular. And we did not find there were particular guidelines that were invoked.

But maybe what's possible is that in some countries, JAK inhibitors are a lot more expensive than biologic biosimilars. And they let me switch to biosimilars faster because of that if they don't see a really great, great improvement. And in some countries, JAK inhibitors-- even if there is no real guidelines that are given to patients who are more severe or fail more treatments, so this may explain of the heterogeneity in the country. But it's something we want to explore a bit more.

The conclusion we had is that what we found was reassuring when we looked at the retention of JAK inhibitors because the population to which JAK inhibitors was given was more severe with more active disease. And despite this, we did not find a lower retention in the JAK inhibitors.

It looks like with this study, that effectiveness and product safety seems to be not very different between the drugs, but we need to explore other aspects of effectiveness and safety to really be sure of a conclusion. But the first results we have are reissuing.

The next steps we have-- we will look in terms of effectiveness, we'll look at other aspects, like, CDAI activity. And the other big steps we have is looking at the safety in our collaboration.