Comparison between tofacitinib and ustekinumab as a third-line therapy in refractory ulcerative colitis: multicenter international study

Background: Ustekinumab and tofacitinib have recently been approved for the management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). However, there is no evidence on how they should be positioned in the therapeutic algorithm. The aim of this study was to compare tofacitinib and ustekinumab as third-line therapies in UC patients in whom anti-TNF and vedolizumab had failed. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective observational study. The primary outcome was disease progression, defined as the need for steroids, therapy escalation, UC-related hospitalization and/or surgery. Secondary outcomes were clinical remission, normalization of C-reactive protein, endoscopic remission, treatment withdrawal, and adverse events. Results: One-hundred seventeen UC patients were included in the study and followed for a median time of 11.6 months (q₁–q₃, 5.5-18.7). Overall, 65% of patients were treated with tofacitinib and 35% with ustekinumab. In the entire study cohort, 63 patients (54%) had disease progression during the follow-up period. Treatment with ustekinumab predicted increased risk of disease progression compared to treatment with tofacitinib in Cox regression analysis (HR: 1.93 [95% CI: 1.06-3.50] p = 0.030). Twenty-eight (68%) patients in the ustekinumab group and 35 (46%) in the tofacitinib group had disease progression over the follow-up period (log-rank test, p < 0.054). No significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes. Six and 22 adverse events occurred in the ustekinumab and tofacitinib groups, respectively (15% vs. 31%, p = 0.11). Conclusions: Tofacitinib was more efficacious in reducing disease progression than ustekinumab in this cohort of refractory UC patients. However, prospective head-to-head clinical trials are needed as to confirm these data.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Open access funding provided by BIBLIOSAN