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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".