MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412658362 · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2025.07.025

Comparative Effectiveness of Tofacitinib vs Upadacitinib for the Treatment of Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis

2025· article· en· W4412658362 on OpenAlexaff
Sailish Honap, Joëlle St‐Pierre, Michael Colwill, Kamal Patel, Catherine Le Berre, Bénédicte Caron, Akira Nogami, Taku Kobayashi, Romain Altwegg, David Laharie, Xavier Hébuterne, Maria Nachury, Xavier Roblin, Mathieu Uzzan, Paulo Gustavo Kotze, Milan Lukáš, Sophie Vieujean, Ferdinando D’Amico, Ahmad Albshesh, Lucas Guillo, Mathurin Fuméry, Stéphane Nancey, Byong Duk Ye, Daniel Bergemalm, Jonas Halfvarson, Anthony Buisson, Konstantinos Κarmiris, David Rubin, Éric Vicaut, Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTofacitinibMedicineUlcerative colitisInternal medicineGastroenterologyRheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Tofacitinib and upadacitinib are Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors that are increasingly used for the treatment of acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC). However, comparative analyses of safety and effectiveness have not been performed for their use in this setting. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study enrolled hospitalized adult patients treated with tofacitinib or upadacitinib for ASUC between January 2019 and June 2024. The main outcomes were clinical response, clinical remission, and colectomy-free survival. Propensity-adjusted analyses using inverse probability treatment weighting, and double robust estimations were used to control for confounding factors. RESULTS: In total, 111 patients (60 tofacitinib, 51 upadacitinib) were enrolled across 23 international centers. JAK inhibitors were used to induce response in 86 patients (77%) and used to maintain response after adequate intravenous steroid response in 25 (23%). The median follow up was 31 weeks (interquartile range, 13-64 weeks). Between days 3 and 7 after treatment initiation, upadacitinib was associated with greater response rates (84% vs 54%; P = .02), but response/remission was comparable at day 98 (45%/36% vs 55%/48%) and day 182 (29/29% vs 39/34%). Sub-analyses for JAK inhibitor use as salvage therapy (tofacitinib [n = 35] vs upadacitinib [n = 31]) showed similar effectiveness outcomes across both groups. The probabilities of colectomy-free survival at days 98 and 182 for tofacitinib and upadacitinib were 79% and 75% and 80% and 78%, respectively, with no significant differences in the comparison of survival curves (P = .99). Treatment failure rates (where JAK inhibitors were used to maintain remission) were similar at days 98 and 182. The frequency of adverse events was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib and upadacitinib appear to have similar effectiveness and safety profiles when used for the treatment of ASUC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Gastroenterology and HepatologySame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207