P549 One-Year Comparison of Clinical and Endoscopic Outcomes of Tofacitinib Versus Vedolizumab for Ulcerative Colitis After Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Failure: A Real-World Cohort Study in the United States
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Tofacitinib (tofa) is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). We compared 52 week real-world outcomes of tofa vs vedolizumab (vedo) for UC after anti-TNF failure. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, adults initiated tofa or vedo after failure of ≥1 anti-TNF between 5/1/18 and 4/1/21 at a large U.S. medical center. Vedo patients were frequency matched to tofa patients 2:1 by age and sex. The primary outcome was steroid-free clinical remission at 12 and 52 (+/- 4) weeks (SFCR 12 and 52, simple clinical colitis activity index [SCCAI] ≤2 or provider assessment and no use of oral/IV steroids for ≥30 days). The secondary outcome was endoscopic response (ER) within 52 weeks (decrease in Mayo endoscopic subscore [MES] by ≥1 point). Other outcomes within 52 weeks: endoscopic remission (MES=0), biochemical response/remission (improvement by 25%/normalization of C-reactive protein), drug discontinuation for non-response (NR), improvement in arthralgia, UC hospitalization, and adverse events (AEs). Multivariable logistic regression was performed for primary/secondary outcomes adjusting for UC duration, number of prior anti-TNFs, steroid/immunomodulator use, albumin, Montreal disease extent >E1, MES = 3, and UC hospitalization within 12 months. Results 136 vedo patients were matched to 68 tofa patients. Tofa patients had more anti-TNF exposures, higher CRP and SCCAI, and most had prior vedolizumab exposure (Table 1). 54% of tofa vs 46% of vedo patients achieved SFCR 12 and 59% vs 45% achieved SFCR 52. Within 52 weeks, 74% tofa vs 55% vedo had ER, 30% vs 27% had endoscopic remission, 55% vs 50% had improvement in arthralgia, 71% vs 59% had biochemical response, 46% vs 32% had biochemical remission, 5% vs 13% had UC hospitalization, 30% vs 29% discontinued treatment for NR, and 0% vs 2% discontinued treatment due to AEs (vedo group only: perforated diverticulitis, nausea, and oral pain) (Figure 1). During available follow-up (not limited to 52 weeks), the most common AEs (reported among >1% of total cohort) included rash (0% tofa vs 4% vedo), C. difficileinfection (1% vs 2%), shingles (2% vs 1%), COVID-19 (1% vs 2%), other infection (2% vs 4%), and elevated liver enzymes (1% vs 2%) (Figure 2). After multivariable logistic regression, tofa was associated with a non-significantly higher odds of SFCR 12 (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.77-3.62) and significantly higher odds of SFCR 52 (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.01-4.61) and ER within 52 weeks (aOR 3.42, 95% CI 1.08-10.80) vs vedo. Conclusion Tofa was associated with higher odds of SFCR 52 and ER vs vedo for UC. AEs were consistent with known safety profiles. Due to limited sample sizes, larger cohort studies are needed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».