O31 Tofacitinib versus vedolizumab among bio-naïve patients with ulcerative colitis: a real-world propensity-weighted comparison
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Over the last decade, treatment options for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) have expanded. However, comparative studies between these agents are limited, especially among biologic naïve patients. There are sparse data comparing biologics with small molecules for IBD. We aimed to compare the efficacy, safety and persistence of tofacitinib and vedolizumab as the first advanced treatment for patients with UC. Methods Patients who received tofacitinib or vedolizumab as first advanced therapy for UC in NHS Lothian were included. We capped the upper age limit at 65 years to take into account regulatory guidelines for the use of JAKi as first line therapies across IMIDs. To allow treatment effect to be assessed outside of a randomized trial, we used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). This approach takes the probability of treatment assignment into account without potentially drastically reducing the analysable cohort size. The probability of treatment assignment was calculated via logistic regression using age, gender, IBD duration, Montreal extent, CRP, concomitant corticosteroids and partial Mayo score at drug commencement. Missing data for these variables were imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations. Confounder-adjusted survival curves were created using Kaplan-Meier estimates weighted via IPTW. The Pepe and Fleming test was used to compare survival curves from drug commencement to day 1000 of treatment. Results We included 158 patients of whom 81 (51.2%) received vedolizumab and 77 (48.7%) tofacitinib. Median follow-up for patients on vedolizumab was 3.1 (1.6–4.8) years and for tofacitinib 1.5 (0.34–2.3) years. Baseline demographics were comparable except for disease extent (Montreal E3 58% vedolizumab versus 31.2% tofacitinib, p=0.001). At drug commencement there were no differences in steroid prescription (60.5% vedolizumab versus 57.1% tofacitinib), partial Mayo score, CRP or faecal calprotectin. At week 12, steroid free clinical remission was more frequent in the vedolizumab group (69% vs 51.4%, p=0.030) figure 1B. Vedolizumab persistence was superior to tofacitinib (p=0.005) figure 1A. Primary non-response and secondary loss of response were 9.9% and 17.3% for vedolizumab and 23.4% and 13% for tofacitinib respectively. There were no differences in the frequency of adverse events (11 [13.6%] vedolizumab vs 19 [24.7%] tofacitinib, p=0.629). However, adverse events resulting in temporary discontinuation of the drug occurred in 1 (1.2%) vedolizumab versus 11 (14.3%) tofacitinib, p=0.013. Conclusions We found that the persistence and tolerability of vedolizumab was superior to tofacitinib in bionaive UC, although the rates of clinical and biomarker remission were comparable. These data may help inform positioning of advanced therapy in UC.
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 | 0,008 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
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 ».