A Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Ustekinumab and Upadacitinib in Biologically Experienced Ulcerative Colitis Patients

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> Ustekinumab (UST) and upadacitinib (UPA) are molecules that have been used in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) since 2019 and 2022, respectively. Both agents are generally preferred for biologically experienced UC patients. However, the number of head-to-head studies comparing the efficacy and adverse events of UST and UPA in this patient group is limited. <b>Methods:</b> This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating the efficacy and safety of UST (<i>n</i> = 57) and UPA (<i>n</i> = 32) in biologically experienced UC patients during the induction and 24-week maintenance treatment periods. Most patients in both groups had received prior anti-TNF treatment (98.2% and 96.9%, respectively). Clinical response and remission rates were determined based on the partial Mayo score (PMS). Additionally, patients' pre-treatment laboratory parameters were compared with their results at week 24. <b>Results:</b> During the induction phase, clinical response and remission were achieved in 84.2% and 43.9% of the UST group and 93.8% and 50% of the UPA group, respectively (OR [95% CI] = 2.81 [0.57-6.87] and 1.28 [0.54-3.05]). At week 24, the clinical response and remission rates in the UST and UPA groups were similar (77.1% vs. 80% and 58.3% vs. 63.3%, respectively). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Both UST and UPA provided a marked reduction in fecal calprotectin and CRP levels. Regarding safety, UPA treatment led to increased total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol levels, whereas UST did not. In both groups, glucose; HbA1c; and thyroid, renal, and liver functions remained stable. No serious adverse events were observed in either group. At week 24, treatment continuation rates were 68.4% (<i>n</i> = 39) for UST and 78.2% (<i>n</i> = 25) for UPA (OR = 0.61 [0.22-1.66]). <b>Conclusions:</b> In biologically experienced ulcerative colitis, both UST and UPA are effective and safe treatment options. This study did not statistically demonstrate the superiority of UPA over UST. Given the preliminary nature and limited patient numbers of this investigation, our findings require confirmation through future multicenter, large-scale, and long-term prospective studies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biomedicines
Published
2025-10-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines13102455
Primary Topic
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Ustekinumab and Upadacitinib in Biologically Experienced Ulcerative Colitis Patients

Fehmi Ateşž, Serkan Yaraş, Osman Özdoğan, Orhan Sezgın et al.
Biomedicines
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
article

A Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Ustekinumab and Upadacitinib in Biologically Experienced Ulcerative Colitis Patients

Fehmi Ateşž, Serkan Yaraş, Osman Özdoğan, Orhan Sezgın, Engin Altıntaşž, Mehmet Kasım Aydın
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> Ustekinumab (UST) and upadacitinib (UPA) are molecules that have been used in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) since 2019 and 2022, respectively. Both agents are generally preferred for biologically experienced UC patients. However, the number of head-to-head studies comparing the efficacy and adverse events of UST and UPA in this patient group is limited. <b>Methods:</b> This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating the efficacy and safety of UST (<i>n</i> = 57) and UPA (<i>n</i> = 32) in biologically experienced UC patients during the induction and 24-week maintenance treatment periods. Most patients in both groups had received prior anti-TNF treatment (98.2% and 96.9%, respectively). Clinical response and remission rates were determined based on the partial Mayo score (PMS). Additionally, patients' pre-treatment laboratory parameters were compared with their results at week 24. <b>Results:</b> During the induction phase, clinical response and remission were achieved in 84.2% and 43.9% of the UST group and 93.8% and 50% of the UPA group, respectively (OR [95% CI] = 2.81 [0.57-6.87] and 1.28 [0.54-3.05]). At week 24, the clinical response and remission rates in the UST and UPA groups were similar (77.1% vs. 80% and 58.3% vs. 63.3%, respectively). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Both UST and UPA provided a marked reduction in fecal calprotectin and CRP levels. Regarding safety, UPA treatment led to increased total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol levels, whereas UST did not. In both groups, glucose; HbA1c; and thyroid, renal, and liver functions remained stable. No serious adverse events were observed in either group. At week 24, treatment continuation rates were 68.4% (<i>n</i> = 39) for UST and 78.2% (<i>n</i> = 25) for UPA (OR = 0.61 [0.22-1.66]). <b>Conclusions:</b> In biologically experienced ulcerative colitis, both UST and UPA are effective and safe treatment options. This study did not statistically demonstrate the superiority of UPA over UST. Given the preliminary nature and limited patient numbers of this investigation, our findings require confirmation through future multicenter, large-scale, and long-term prospective studies.

BiomedicinesVol. 13(10)
Mersin Üniversitesi (TR)
Mersin Üniversitesi
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.