Introduction
Owing to the multiplication of therapeutic options in ulcerative colitis (UC), how sequencing the drugs is a burning question. For chosing the best treatment, efficacy is a key point. However, only one head-to-head randomized controlled trial is available (VARSITY) and network meta-analyses are difficult to interpret. Then, real-world data are necessary to help ranking the treatment in UC.
Aims & Methods
We aimed to compare the effectiveness of tofacitinib and ustekinumab in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) previously exposed to at least one anti-TNF agent.
In this multicenter study, we retrospectively included consecutive UC adult patients previously exposed to at least one anti-TNF agent, with partial Mayo score (pMS) > 2, having who started tofacitinib or ustekinumab between January 2019 and June 2022.
The primary endpoint was steroid-free clinical remission (pMS ≤ 2) (CFREM) at week 16 (W16). Secondary endpoints were endoscopic remission (CFREM + Mayo endoscopic score (MES) ≤ 1), and histological remission (CFREM + MES ≤ 1 + Nancy index ≤ 1).
Comparisons were performed using propensity score analyses adjusted on potential confounders.
Results
Overall, 289 patients were included (tofacitinib = 124 patients, ustekinumab = 165 patients). The groups were comparable (tofacitinib vs vedolizumab) for male gender (50.8% vs 43.3%), mean age (40.7 vs 42.9 years), median UC duration (8.6 vs 9.3 years), concomitant use of 5-ASA (13.7% vs 9.7%), steroids (25.0% vs 29.7%), immunosuppressants (7.3% vs 5.5%), and ≥ 2 prior biologics (85.5% vs 82.4%). Tofacitinib group had more pancolitis (55.6% vs 42.4%, p = 0.026) and UC with pMS > 6 (64.5% vs 50.3%, p = 0.016). In our study, 42.1 % of the patients treated with tofacitinib continued using a dose of 10 mgx2/day until W16 while 47.3% of the patients on ustekinumab required dose escalation to 90 mg/4 weeks before W16.
After propensity score analysis, the rate of CFREM at W16 was 37.8% and 35.6% in the tofacitinib and ustekinumab arms, respectively arm (p=0.75). CFREM at W16 was achieved in 43.3% vs 57.1% (p = 0.48) after failure of one biologic, 20.7% vs 37.9% (p=0.16) two biologics and 46.7% vs 23.2% (p=0.047) if ≥ 3 biologics, in tofacitinib and ustekinumab arms, respectively. After primary failure to at least one biologic, the rate of CFREM at W16 was 46.3% on tofacitinib vs 25.9% on ustekinumab (p = 0.13). CFREM at W16 was similar with tofacitinib and ustekinumab in case of more severe UC such as pMS ≥ 6 (40.6% vs 41.5%) and CRP > 30 (27.2% vs 33.0%).
No predictor of tofacitinib effectiveness has been identified. Factors associated with no CFREM at W16 on ustekinumab were male gender (p=0.035), ≥ 3 prior biologics (p=0.013), prior use of tofacitinib (p=0.03), primary failure to at least one biologic (p=0.013).
After propensity score analysis, endoscopic remission was achieved in 17.0% vs 11.7% (p =0.47) and histological remission in 4.4% vs 7.8% (p=0.32) of the patients treated with tofacitinib and ustekinumab, respectively.
At last follow-up, we did not observe any difference between the two groups regarding the time to drug discontinuation, time to hospitalization and time to colectomy.
Conclusion
Tofacitinib and ustekinumab have similar effectiveness at short and long-term in UC after anti-TNF failure. However, the efficacy of ustekinumab could be more impacted by prior therapeutic failures but not by UC severity.
Disclosure
Anthony Buisson: Consulting fees for Abbvie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Celtrion, CTMA, Fresenius-Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Nexbiome, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda and Tillotts. Lecture fees for Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Fresenius-Kabi Galapagos, Janssen, Mayoli-Spindler, MSD, Norgine, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Tillotts and Vifor Pharma. Research grants from Abbvie, Celltrion, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda.
Maria Nachury: MN received board membership, consultancy, or lecture fees from Abbvie, Adacyte, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, CTMA, Celltrion, Ferring, Fresenius-Kabi, Janssen, Mayoli-Spindler, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda
Thomas Guilmoteau: None
Romain Altwegg: Received lecture and consulting fees from Abbvie, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda.
Xavier Treton: Received honoraria from Abbvie, MSD, Takeda, Ferring, Norgine and Janssen.
Mathurin Fumery: Consulting/lecture fees for Abbvie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Celtrion, CTMA, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, Tillotts. MSD, Gilead, Celgene, Sandoz and Ferring.
Mélanie Serrero: Declared fees from Pfizer, Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, MSD, Amgen, Ferring, Tillotts, Celltrion
Ludovic Caillo: Declared fees from Janssen, abbvie, Takeda, amgen, Pfizer, norgine
Bruno Pereira: None
Aurélien Amiot: Has served as a consultant, served on the advisory board, received lecture fees, and received travel fees from AbbVie, Hospira, Takeda, Gilead, Biocodex, Janssen, Ferring, and MSD.
Guillaume Bouguen: Received lecture fees from Abbvie, Ferring, MSD, Takeda and Pfizer and consultant fees from Takeda, Janssen.
