Is 2nd JAKi treatment for UC worth the effort? A retrospective, multi-centre UK study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) provide effective treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC), but inadequate response (IR) or intolerance occurs frequently. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a second JAKi in a real-world UC cohort. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter cohort study encompassing 19 UK hospitals was undertaken. Primary outcome was clinical remission (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index/partial Mayo Score ≤ 1) at weeks 8 and 24, based on available assessments. Biochemical (CRP ≤ 5mg/L and fecal calprotectin ≤ 200µg/g) and endoscopic (Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity/Mayo Endoscopic Subscore ≤ 1) remission were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 131 patients with active UC were included. The majority (60%) had exposure to ≥3 advanced therapies and 50% required corticosteroids at induction. Clinical remission rates were 59% and 51% at weeks 8 and 24. Biochemical and endoscopic remission rates were 61% and 60% at week 8, and 47% and 32% at week 24. All disease activity parameters significantly reduced by week 8 (P < .001). At week 24 no difference was detected in clinical remission rates between those with primary non-response (42%) or secondary loss of response (52%) to their first JAKi (P = .518). Clinical remission did not differ between upadacitinib (54%) and filgotinib (36%), P = .253. Adverse events occurred in 27% of patients, and serious adverse events in 8%. CONCLUSIONS: In this highly refractory cohort with active UC a second JAKi effectively achieved remission following IR to first JAKi. Type of first JAKi failure did not appear to influence clinical remission. No new safety signals were found.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".