Background: This pilot study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of baricitinib in relapsing polychondritis (RP) patients. Objectives: Aim of this case report was to show efficacy of baricitinib in a patients with relapsing polychondritis. Methods: A single-center, cohort analysis was performed to enroll RP patients who received baricitinib (2 mg per day) along with glucocorticoids (GC) and immunosuppressants. Efficacy assessment and side effects were recorded. Results: 16 patients (12 males) were included with a mean follow-up of 12.7 ± 4.3 months. At 3 months of follow-up, 80.5% of patients achieved a complete response and the proportion increased to 90.2% at the one year follow up visit. During the follow-up, ESR (p < 0.01) and hsCRP (p < 0.0001) decreased significantly, as well as the relapsing polychondritis disease activity index (RPDAI) (p < 0.01). In addition, baricitinib showed a GCs-sparing effect. No serious adverse events were noted. Conclusion: Our study suggests that baricitinib is well-tolerated and effective in treating relapsing polychondritis patients. REFERENCES: [1] Meshkov AD, Novikov PI, Zhilyaev EV, et al. Tofacitinib in steroid-dependent relapsing polychondritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:e72–e72. DOI:10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213554. [2] Moulis G, Pugnet G, Costedoat-Chalumeau N, et al. Efficacy and safety of biologics in relapsing polychondritis: a French national multicentre study. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;77:1172–8. DOI:10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212705. [3] Rednic S, Damian L, Talarico R, et al. Relapsing polychondritis: state of the art on clinical practice guidelines. RMD Open 2018;4:e000788. DOI:10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000788. [4] Yoshida T, Yoshifuji H, Shirakashi M, et al. Risk factors for the recurrence of relapsing polychondritis. Arthritis Res Ther 2022;24:127. DOI:10.1186/s13075-022-02810-0. Acknowledgements: NIL. Disclosure of Interests: None declared.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: