Evidence Hub

Real‐World Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Filgotinib and Upadacitinib for Ulcerative Colitis: A Multicentre Cohort Study

A. Nogami, K. Asonuma, Shinji Okabayashi, Maiko Ikenouchi, Takahisa Matsuda, S. Shinzaki, M. Fukata, Taku Kobayashi

United European Gastroenterology journal, 2024

168 participants · 19 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, filgotinib (FIL) and upadacitinib (UPA) have emerged as promising treatments for ulcerative colitis (UC). However, a comparative analysis of these JAK inhibitors, particularly in patients previously treated with tofacitinib (TOF), has not been performed. Aims To compare the efficacy and safety of FIL and UPA in patients with UC, including those previously exposed to TOF. Methods A multicentre retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of FIL and UPA in patients with UC whose treatment was initiated between March 2022 and December 2023. The co‐primary outcomes were clinical response and remission at week 8. The secondary outcomes included treatment persistence and adverse events (AEs). Modified Poisson and Cox regression models with multivariable analysis to adjust for confounders and propensity score matching were conducted. Subgroup analyses stratified by previous exposure to TOF and biologics were also conducted. Results In total, 168 patients (98 treated with FIL and 70 treated with UPA) were enrolled in this study, with a median follow‐up period of 181 days. The clinical response/remission rates at week 8 were 55.1/46.9% for FIL and 71.4/65.7% for UPA, respectively. UPA was associated with significantly higher rates of clinical response (adjusted risk ratio [RR] 1.40 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.80]) and clinical remission (adjusted RR 1.54 [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.05])…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 168 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free