Skip to main content
Download PDF

Safety and effectiveness of tofacitinib in Korean adult patients with ulcerative colitis: post-marketing surveillance study

BMC Gastroenterology volume 24, Article number: 273 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to identify the safety and effectiveness of tofacitinib in patients with UC in routine clinical settings in Korea.

Methods

This open-label, observational, prospective, post-marketing surveillance study was conducted at 22 hospitals in the Republic of Korea. Patients with moderate to severe active UC who received tofacitinib were included and followed up for up to 52 weeks. Tofacitinib was administered at a dosage of 10 mg twice daily for at least 8 weeks, followed by 5 or 10 mg twice daily at the investigator’s discretion based on clinical evaluation according to the approved Korean label. Safety including adverse events (AEs) and effectiveness including clinical remission, clinical response, and endoscopic mucosal healing were evaluated. Safety analysis set was defined as all patients registered for this study who received at least one dose of tofacitinib according to the approved Korean label and followed up for safety data. Effectiveness analysis set included patients in the safety analysis set who were evaluated for overall effectiveness assessment and excluded patients who had received tofacitinib less than 8 weeks.

Results

A total of 110 patients were enrolled, of whom 106 patients were included in the safety population. The median duration of treatment was 370 days and the treatment duration ranged from 16 to 684 days for the safety population. AEs occurred in 42 patients (39.6%). Serious AEs (SAEs) occurred in 7 patients (6.6%) and of them, there were 2 cases of serious infections. These serious infections were reported as Adverse Event of Special Interest (AESI) in this study and no other AESI were reported. There were no cases of death during the study period. Clinical remission rates were 40.0%, 46.7%, 57.6%, and 55.1% at 8, 16, 24, and 52 weeks, and clinical response rates were 77.8%, 87.9%, 56.6%, and 81.4% at each visit, respectively. Endoscopic mucosal healing rates were 58.7% at 16 weeks and 46.2% at 52 weeks.

Conclusion

Tofacitinib was effective in Korean patients with moderate to severe active UC and the safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of tofacitinib.

Summary

This study confirmed the safety and effectiveness of tofacitinib in Korean patients with moderate to severe active UC in routine clinical settings.

Trial registration

This study is registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT04071405, registered on 28 August 2019.

Peer Review reports

Background

Ulcerative Colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the colorectum and the extent of the disease is variable. It most commonly presents with rectal bleeding and diarrhea and is characterized by periodic relapse and remission of mucosal inflammation [1]. Treatment options for UC include corticosteroids, aminosalicylates, immunosuppressant such as azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine, and biologics such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab [2]. The introduction of TNF inhibitors has improved the clinical outcomes and quality of life in patients with UC by less hospitalizations or surgeries, and greater clinical remission and mucosal healing rates as well as symptomatic improvement [3,4,5,6]. However, the rate of primary or secondary failure to anti-TNF therapies still remains high in patients with UC. Up to 40% of patients who receive TNF inhibitor therapy fail to respond to induction dosing, and up to 46% of patients experience loss of response to TNF inhibitors [6,7,8].

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor and inhibits JAK1, JAK2, JAK3 and, to a lesser extent, tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) [9]. In cellular settings, where JAKs signal in pairs, tofacitinib preferentially inhibits signaling by cytokine receptors associated with JAK3 and/or JAK1 with functional selectivity over receptors that signal via pairs of JAK2 [9]. JAK mediates signal transduction pathways for several cytokines such as pro-inflammatory cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases [10,11,12,13]. The efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with moderate to severe UC have been evaluated in clinical trials [14,15,16,17,18,19]. In a phase 2 induction study, [14] two phase 3 induction studies (OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2), a phase 3 maintenance study (OCTAVE Sustain), [15] an open-label, extension study (OCTAVE Open) [16] and a phase 3b/4 study (RIVETING), [17] tofacitinib has been shown to be effective for both induction and maintenance of remission and mucosal healing. Furthermore, the effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib were confirmed in real-world studies in patients with moderate to severe active UC [18].

In controlled trials, rare side effects or adverse events in special situations and in patients with long-term comorbidity may not become apparent since patients who are ineligible for the controlled trials such as women of potential child-bearing, the elderly, and patients with comorbid conditions are excluded from the studies. Therefore, post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study is important to further characterize the safety profile of a product after launch under routine clinical practice [20, 21]. This PMS study is aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of tofacitinib in patients with moderate to severe active UC during routine clinical practice in the Republic of Korea.

Methods

Study design and treatment

This open-label, observational, prospective, PMS study was conducted at 22 hospitals in the Republic of Korea to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of tofacitinib in patients with UC. In total, 110 patients participated in the study from 20 September 2018 to 19 September 2022. Adult patients who received at least one dose of tofacitinib for the treatment of moderate to severe active UC who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to the basic treatments or biological agents were enrolled and followed up for up to 52 weeks after the first treatment of tofacitinib. Patients with a history of hypersensitivity to any ingredients of this product (Tofacitinib Tablets 5 mg, 10 mg), those with current serious or active infections including localized infection active tuberculosis, those with severe hepatic function disorder, an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) (< 1,000 cells/mm3), a lymphocyte count (< 500 cells/mm3), a hemoglobin level (< 9 g/dL) or hereditary problems including galactose intolerance, Lapp lactase deficiency or glucose-galactose malabsorption, and pregnant or possibly pregnant women were excluded. Tofacitinib was administered at a dosage of 10 mg twice daily for at least 8 weeks, followed by 5 or 10 mg twice daily at the investigator’s discretion based on clinical evaluation according to the approved Korean label. The variables for patient demographics and baseline characteristics were age, sex, height, weight, disease duration, disease severity, latent tuberculosis, herpes zoster (HZ) vaccination, smoking status, previous UC treatment, and concomitant medication. Disease severity was defined as severe (Mayo Score 11–12, Partial Mayo Score 7–9), moderate (Mayo Score 6–10, Partial Mayo Score 5–6), mild (Mayo Score 3–5, Partial Mayo Score 2–4) and remission (Mayo Score 0–2, Partial Mayo Score 0–1). Demographics and baseline characteristics were investigated through medical records of each patient or by asking patients.

Assessments

Safety

Safety was assessed according to adverse events (AEs) reported throughout the study period from all patients who received at least one dose of tofacitinib. The severity of AEs was categorized as mild (not causing any significant problem to the patient. Administration of medicinal product continues without dose adjustment), moderate (causes a problem that does not interfere significantly with usual activities or the clinical status. Dose of the medicinal product is adjusted, or other therapies are added due to the AE) and severe (causes a problem that interferes significantly with usual activities or the clinical status. The medicinal product is stopped due to the AE). Serious AEs (SAEs) were defined as life-threatening AEs or AEs resulting in death, inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/in capacity, or congenital anomaly/birth defect. The AEs of special interest comprised serious infection, tuberculosis, malignancy, or lymphocyte proliferative disorders. AEs were coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) version 25.0.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness was assessed at baseline, 8, 16, 24, and 52 weeks by the proportion of patients achieving clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic mucosal healing, steroid-free clinical remission and steroid-free clinical response as it was observed. Clinical remission was defined as Mayo score of ≤ 2 (in case of partial Mayo score, the score of ≤ 1) and no subscores > 1 and rectal bleeding score of 0 [15]. Clinical response was defined as a decrease in Mayo score of ≥ 3 points and 30% from the baseline and a decrease of ≥ 1 in rectal bleeding score or rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1 (in case of partial Mayo score, a decrease of partial Mayo score of ≥ 2 and 30% from the baseline and decrease of ≥ 1 in rectal bleeding score or rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1) [15]. Endoscopic mucosal healing was defined as a Mayo endoscopic score (MES) of 0 or 1 [15]. Steroid-free clinical remission/response were defined as the clinical remission/response status without the use of systemic corticosteroids at the time of evaluation.

Statistical analyses

The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of tofacitinib and followed up for safety information. The effectiveness population included all patients in the safety population who received tofacitinib for at least 8 weeks and had an overall effectiveness assessment by the investigator. Continuous variables were summarized by descriptive statistics including n, mean, Standard deviation (SD), median, minimum, maximum, and categorial variables were presented in frequency and percentage. Changes in MES from baseline to 52 weeks were tested by using Wilcoxon signed rank test. All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS institute, Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Patient disposition and demographics

The patient disposition is presented in Fig. 1. Out of 110 patients, 106 patients were included in the safety population. Among the 106 patients, a total of 100 patients were included in the effectiveness population. The median age of the patients was 39.0 years (Interquartile range (IQR) 20) and 75 patients (70.8%) were male. The median disease duration was 5 years (range, 0.3–27.0), and 15 patients (14.2%) and 91 patients (85.8%) were severe and moderate in disease severity, respectively.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Patient disposition of the study

Full size image

10 patients (9.4%) had a history of latent tuberculosis at baseline. For patients with latent tuberculosis, the treatment for latent tuberculosis were preceded before administration of tofacitinib. All the 106 patients (100.0%) had both previous UC treatments and concomitant medications; 44 patients (41.5%), 93 patients (87.7%), 39 patients (36.8%), and 52 patients (49.1%) had previously been treated with systemic corticosteroids, 5-aminosalicylic acids, Thiopurines, and biologic agents, respectively. Concomitant systemic corticosteroids were prescribed to 35 patients (33.0%) (Table 1). The median duration of treatment was 370 days and the treatment duration ranged from 16 to 684 days. The overall treatment retention rate was 84.9% (90/106) during the study period (Fig. 2). Among the 101 patients undergoing maintenance therapy of tofacitinib, patients undergoing maintenance therapy by 5 mg bid of tofacitinib were 44 patients (43.6%), while those undergoing maintenance therapy by 10 mg bid of tofacitinib were 56 patients (55.4%). The patient undergoing maintenance therapy by 20 mg bid of tofacitinib was one patient (1.0%).

Table 1 Patient demographics & baseline characteristics
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Treatment retention rate for all patients in the study

Full size image

Safety

Of the 106 patients, 42 patients (39.6%) experienced a total of 85 AEs. The most common AEs were UC aggravation, which occurred in 7 patients (6.6%, 8 events) and anemia in 7 patients (6.6%, 7 events). Eight SAEs occurred in 7 patients (6.6%), who all required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization. Of these, eight events were assessed as unlikely to be related to tofacitinib treatment by investigators with the exception of one event (drug ineffective). There were no deaths (Table 2). Out of 85 AEs, the majority of AEs were mild (64 events [75.3%]) or moderate (17 events [20.0%]) in severity, and severe (4 events [4.7%]) AEs were UC aggravation and abdominal pain.

Table 2 AEs and SAEs during tofacitinib treatment
Full size table

In AEs of special interest (serious infection, tuberculosis, malignancy, lymphocyte proliferative disorders), serious infections were observed in 2 patients (1.9%, 2 events), which were anal abscess and cytomegalovirus colitis, respectively. No cases of tuberculosis, malignancy, or lymphocyte proliferative disorders were reported (Table 3). In addition, none of HZ, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and venous thromboembolism (VTE) were reported. There was no statistically significant difference in AEs rates by age group (p = 0.1456).

Table 3 AEs of special interest†
Full size table

Effectiveness

The number of patients who have evaluated at each time point for each effectiveness endpoint is used as a denominator calculating proportions of patients achieving clinical remission, clinical response. Since this study was a non-interventional study conducted under routine clinical practice and there were no fixed visits, the number of patients evaluated for each effectiveness endpoint (clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic mucosal healing rate) and each time point was different. Therefore, differences occurred in the denominator at each time point within each effectiveness endpoint. In the effectiveness population, according to observed data, proportions of patients who achieved clinical remission were 40.0% (34/85 patients), 46.7% (42/90 patients), 57.6% (34/59 patients), and 55.1% (27/49 patients) at 8, 16, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively (Fig. 3A) and those who achieved clinical response were 77.8% (77/99 patients), 87.9% (87/99 patients), 56.6% (56/99 patients), and 81.4% (48/59 patients) at 8, 16, 24 and 52 weeks, respectively (Fig. 3B).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Proportion of patients achieving (A) clinical remission; and (B) clinical response at 8, 16, 24 and 52 weeks

Full size image

Proportions of patients who achieved endoscopic mucosal healing were 58.7% (37/63 patients) and 46.2% (6/13 patients) at 16 weeks and 52 weeks, respectively (Fig. 4A). When we compared measured values from the last value to those from baseline by each patient, MES was decreased from baseline to 16 weeks (p < 0.001) and maintained until 52 weeks with a significant difference from baseline (p < 0.001) (Fig. 4B). The proportions of patients who achieved clinical remission at 8, 16, 24, and 52 weeks and endoscopic mucosal healing at 52 weeks were numerically higher in biologic-naïve patients than biologic-experienced patients (Figs. 3A and 4A). Proportions of clinical response were similar between biologic-naïve patients and biologic-experienced patients at all time points (Fig. 3B).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Proportion of patients achieving (A) endoscopic mucosal healing at 16 and 52 weeks; and (B) the changes in Mayo endoscopic score (MES) to 52 weeks

Full size image

Steroid-free clinical remission and steroid-free clinical response is presented in Table 4. At week 8, steroid-free clinical remissions of 71 patients were evaluated and 30 patients (42.3%) achieved steroid-free clinical remission. At week 16, steroid-free clinical remissions of 77 patients were evaluated, and 38 patients (49.4%) achieved steroid-free clinical remission. At week 24, steroid-free clinical remissions of 56 patients were evaluated and 32 patients (57.1%) achieved steroid-free clinical remission. At week 52, steroid-free clinical remissions of 46 patients were evaluated and 26 patients (56.5%) achieved steroid-free clinical remission.

Table 4 Steroid-free clinical remission, clinical response
Full size table

Also, steroid-free clinical responses of 82 patients were evaluated at week 8 and 66 patients (80.5%) achieved steroid-free clinical response. At week 16, steroid-free clinical responses of 86 patients were evaluated and 74 patients (86.0%) achieved steroid-free clinical response. At week 24, steroid-free clinical responses of 93 patients were evaluated and 53 patients (57.0%) achieved steroid-free clinical response. At week 52, steroid-free clinical responses of 56 patients were evaluated and 45 patients (80.4%) achieved steroid-free clinical response (Table 4).

Discussion

This PMS study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of tofacitinib in patients with moderate to severe active UC during routine clinical practice in the Republic of Korea. We evaluated AEs and effectiveness including clinical remission, clinical response, and endoscopic mucosal healing for 52 weeks after the first dose of tofacitinib. Overall, tofacitinib was well tolerated and the safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of tofacitinib. Approximately, 40% of patients experienced AEs, which were mostly mild or moderate in severity. The most common AE was UC aggravation as reported in previous randomized controlled studies of tofacitinib and a real-world study [15,16,17,18, 22]. The risk of serious infections including HZ has been reported in patients with tofacitinib [23,24,25,26,27,28]. In this PMS study, there were two serious infections including anal abscess and cytomegalovirus colitis but there was no case of HZ. At baseline, 4.7% (5/106 patients) of the safety population had a history of HZ vaccination, 35.8% (38/106 patients) had no history of HZ vaccination, and 59.4% (63/106 patients) were unknown. Information on HZ vaccination during tofacitinib treatment was not collected. Since the proportion of patients whose HZ vaccination status was unknown was high, it could not be concluded that HZ vaccination is the main reason for no case of HZ in this study. Recently, the incidence rate of HZ was reported as 3.19/100 patient-years in a retrospective real-world study of tofacitinib in a Korean cohort with UC [29]. In tofacitinib UC clinical program, the incidence rate of HZ was 3.38/100 patient-years [30]. The reasons why this study showed the different trend of occurrence for HZ cases may include differences in patient characteristics, especially those with identified risk factors for HZ such as older age and prior TNF inhibitor failure [27, 30]. Although no case of HZ was reported in this study, this does not suggest that HZ should be excluded from the risk of tofacitinib since information on HZ vaccination and the sample size were limited. In addition, tofacitinib has been associated with the risk of tuberculosis, malignancy, and lymphocyte proliferative disorders in rheumatoid arthritis or in UC infrequently, [25, 31,32,33,34,35] but none of those cases were reported in this study.

A Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID) multicenter cohort study was the retrospective observational study and analyzed the data of 148 patients with UC who received tofacitinib treatment at 12 hospitals in Korea between January 2018 and November 2020 [29]. It showed proportions of patients who achieved clinical remission 60.6% (86/142 patients), 54.9% (78/142 patients) and 52.8% (75/142 patients) at 16, 24, 52 weeks, respectively and those who achieved clinical response were 71.8% (102/142 patients), 67.6% (96/142 patients), 59.9% (85/142 patients) at 16, 24, 52 weeks, respectively [29]. The results of effectiveness analysis had differences by each time points of this study but most of them showed a similar tendency. In safety analysis, AEs were reported to be 12.8% (19/148 patients), which was lower than that of this study. However, SAEs and cytomegalovirus colitis were reported to be 8.1% (12/148 patients), 4.1% (4/148 patients) respectively, which were higher than those of this study. In the KASID study, considering of retrospective study design we assessed that SAE interested by clinicians had been collected appropriately but there was a possibility that general AE could had been collected relatively less. Therefore, we assessed that safety results of tofacitinib in this study was more reliable considering of the prospective study design which could collect and monitor AEs closely during the study period.

In the OCTAVE Induction trial, clinical remission and clinical response rates were 16.6-18.5% and 55.0-59.9% at 8 weeks, respectively. In the OCTAVE Sustain trial, the clinical remission rate was 34.3-40.6%, and the clinical response rate was 51.5-61.9% at 52 weeks [15]. In the effectiveness analyses of this study, clinical remission rates were 40.0%, 46.7%, 57.6%, and 55.1%, and clinical response rates were 77.8%, 87.9%, 56.6%, and 81.4% at 8, 16, 24 and 52 weeks, respectively. These results showed maintained clinical remission and response to 52 weeks after starting tofacitinib treatment in patients who remained in the study, and comparable effectiveness to those reported in other real-world studies. Taxonera C, et al. [18] reported the meta-analysis of real-world studies of tofacitinib for investigating safety and effectiveness, which included seventeen studies with a total of 1,162 patients with moderate to severe active UC; Clinical remission was achieved in 34.7% of patients at 8 weeks and in 47% at 12–16 weeks. At 6 and 12 months, 38.3% and 41.4% of patients were in clinical remission, respectively. Clinical response was achieved in 62.1% of patients at 8 weeks and in 64.2% at 12–16 weeks. At 6 and 12 months, 50.8% and 41.8% of patients had sustained response, respectively [18]. Our study also showed similar endoscopic outcomes to those of previous studies, that is, endoscopic mucosal healing rates were 58.7% and 46.2% at 16 and 52 weeks, respectively. In OCTAVE trial, endoscopic mucosal healing was achieved in 28.4-31.3% of patients at 8 weeks and in 37.4-45.7% of patients at 52 weeks [15]. In real-world studies, 50.0-64.9% of patients achieved endoscopic mucosal healing at 12–16 weeks [36, 37]. In the effectiveness analysis of this study according to prior biologic exposure, the effectiveness of tofacitinib was confirmed in both biologic-naïve and experienced patients. Clinical response was similar between the two cohorts at 8, 16, 24, and 52 weeks. In biologic-naïve patients, clinical remission and mucosal healing showed numerically higher trends during the study period than those in biologic-experienced patients; however, cautious interpretation with this finding may be needed to conclude the better effectiveness of tofacitinib in biologic-naïve patients than in experienced patients.

Tofacitinib was approved as a treatment for UC in September 2018 in Korea, and it included all biologic-naïve and experienced patients. Since ORAL surveillance study [33], the use of JAK inhibitor was restricted to biologic-inadequate responder in high-risk patients (patients 65 years and older, at high risk for cardiovascular disease, at risk for malignancy), and it is still available in biologic-naïve in other patients. In this PMS study, the recruitment of patients was conducted from September 2018 to September 2022, and the label change in Korea was announced in June 2022. Therefore, all biologic-naïve and experienced patients were recruited in this PMS study.

In OCTAVE trial, clinical remission rates at 8 weeks were almost double in TNF inhibitor-naïve patients compared to TNF inhibitor-experienced patients and endoscopic mucosal healing rates at 8 weeks were also higher in TNF inhibitor-naïve patients than in TNF inhibitor-experienced patients, but the differences of rates of both clinical remission and endoscopic mucosal healing between placebo and tofacitinib treatment were similar in TNF inhibitor-naïve and experienced patients [15]. A real-world study for the effectiveness of tofacitinib also showed similar corticosteroid-free clinical remission between biologic-naïve and experienced patients [38]. Thus, further research is needed to establish evidence for comparing the effectiveness of tofacitinib between biologic-naïve and experienced patients given the differences between studies such as design and study population.

This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of tofacitinib in patients with moderate to severe active UC; however, the findings of this study should be interpreted with care considering the several potential limitations of this study; First, the size of the study population was relatively small; the number of patients in safety analysis and effectiveness analysis was 106 and 100, respectively. Besides, only 13 patients were assessed at week 52 on endoscopic mucosal healing; this also meant a lack of objective biochemical data. Second, there was no comparative arm or placebo in this observational study; therefore, the effectiveness could be overestimated. Conversely, this study has the strength that the observational study is more likely to reflect clinical practice compared to the randomized controlled trials in terms of the heterogeneous populations and medications which patients have received. In addition, AEs were closely monitored and collected during the study period in terms of the nature of the prospective study. As a result, there were no AEs such as HZ, MACE and VTE which have been reported as increased risks in patients with tofacitinib treatment or in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) [39]. Therefore, the results of this study provide evidence of safety and effectiveness of tofacitinib in patients with moderate to severe active UC.

Conclusions

The results of the study showed an acceptable safety consistent with known safety profile of tofacitinib and effectiveness with for Korean patients with moderate to severe active UC in routine clinical practice.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from Pfizer Pharmaceutical Korea Ltd, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Pfizer Pharmaceutical Korea Ltd.

Abbreviations

AE:

Adverse Event

AESI:

Adverse Event of Special Interest

ANC:

Absolute Neutrophil Count

GPP:

Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practice

HZ:

Herpes Zoster

IBD:

Inflammatory Bowel Disease

IRB:

Institutional Review Board

IQR:

Interquartile range

ISPE:

International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology

JAK:

Janus kinase

KASID:

Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases

MACE:

Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event

MedDRA:

Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities

MES:

Mayo Endoscopic Score

MFDS:

Ministry of Food and Drug Safety

PhRMA:

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association

PMS:

Post-marketing Surveillance

SAE:

Serious Adverse Event

SD:

Standard deviation

TNF:

Tumor Necrosis Factor

TYK:

Tyrosine kinase

UC:

Ulcerative Colitis

VTE:

Venous thromboembolism

References

  1. Ungaro R, Mehandru S, Allen PB, et al. Ulcerative Colitis Lancet. 2017;389(10080):1756–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Na SY, Choi CH, Song EM et al. Korean clinical practice guidelines on biologics and small molecules for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. 2023;21(1):61–87.

  3. Rutgeerts P, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. Infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(23):2462–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Feagan BG, Sandborn WJ, Lazar A, et al. Adalimumab therapy is associated with reduced risk of hospitalization in patients with ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2014;146(1):110–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sherman M, Tsynman DN, Kim A, et al. Sustained improvement in health-related quality of life measures in patients with inflammatory bowel disease receiving prolonged anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. J Dig Dis. 2014;15(4):174–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fausel R, Afzali A. Biologics in the management of ulcerative colitis - comparative safety and efficacy of TNF-α antagonists. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2015;11:63–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. López-Ibáñez M. Ignacio Marín-Jiménez. Drugs and anti-drug antibody levels in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;39(4):265–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mayer AT, Holman DR, Sood A, et al. A tissue atlas of ulcerative colitis revealing evidence of sex-dependent differences in disease-driving inflammatory cell types and resistance to TNF inhibitor therapy. Sci Adv. 2023;9(3):eadd1166.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Hodge JA, Kawabata TT, Krishnaswami S, Clark JD, Telliez JB, Dowty ME, Menon S, Lamba M, Zwillich S. The mechanism of action of tofacitinib - an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2016 Mar-Apr;34(2):318–28. Epub 2016 Mar 10. PMID: 26966791.

  10. McInnes IB, Byers NL, Higgs RE, et al. Comparison of baricitinib, upadacitinib, and tofacitinib mediated regulation of cytokine signaling in human leukocyte subpopulations. Arthritis Res Ther. 2019;21(1):183.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Boland BS, Sandborn WJ, Chang JT. Update on Janus kinase antagonists in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2014;43(3):603–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee J. The role and prospect of tofacitinib in patients with ulcerative colitis. J Intest Res. 2023;21(1):168–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hibi T, Motoya S, Hisamatsu T, et al. Efficacy and safety of filgotinib as induction and maintenance therapy for Japanese patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a post-hoc analysis of the phase 2b/3 SELECTION trial. Intest Res. 2023;21(1):110–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sandborn WJ, Ghosh S, Panes J, et al. Tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, in active ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(7):616–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sandborn WJ, Su C, Sands BE, et al. Tofacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy for Ulcerative Colitis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(18):1723–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Colombel JF, Osterman MT, Thorpe AJ, et al. Maintenance of Remission with Tofacitinib Therapy in patients with Ulcerative Colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(1):116–e1255.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Vermeire S, Su C, Lawendy N, et al. Outcomes of Tofacitinib Dose reduction in patients with Ulcerative Colitis in stable remission from the Randomised RIVETING Trial. J Crohns Colitis. 2021;15(7):1130–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Taxonera C, Olivares D, Alba C. Real-world effectiveness and safety of Tofacitinib in patients with Ulcerative Colitis: systematic review with Meta-analysis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2022;28(1):32–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shimizu H, Fujii T, Hibiya S, et al. Rapid prediction of 1-year efficacy of tofacitinib for treating refractory ulcerative colitis. Intest Res. 2021;19(1):115–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ball G, Reblin T, Buchanan J, et al. A Framework for Safety evaluation throughout the Product Development Life-Cycle. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54(4):821–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lahiff C, Kane S, Moss AC. Drug development in inflammatory bowel disease: the role of the FDA. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2011;17(12):2585–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoffmann P, Globig AM, Thomann AK, et al. Tofacitinib in treatment-refractory moderate to severe Ulcerative Colitis: real-world experience from a Retrospective Multicenter Observational Study. J Clin Med. 2020;9(7):2177.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Winthrop KL, Yamanaka H, Valdez H, et al. Herpes zoster and tofacitinib therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014;66(10):2675–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Cohen SB, Tanaka Y, Mariette X, et al. Long-term safety of tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis up to 8.5 years: integrated analysis of data from the global clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(7):1253–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Winthrop KL, Park SH, Gul A, et al. Tuberculosis and other opportunistic infections in tofacitinib-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(6):1133–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Valenzuela F, Korman NJ, Bissonnette R, et al. Tofacitinib in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis: long-term safety and efficacy in an open-label extension study. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(4):853–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Winthrop KL, Melmed GY, Vermeire S, et al. Herpes zoster infection in patients with Ulcerative Colitis receiving Tofacitinib. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018;24(10):2258–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Matsuoka K, Togo K, Yoshii N, et al. Incidence rates for hospitalized infections, herpes zoster, and malignancies in patients with ulcerative colitis in Japan: an administrative health claims database analysis. Intest Res. 2023;21(1):88–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shin SH, Oh K, Hong SN, et al. Real-life effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib treatment in patients with ulcerative colitis: a KASID multicenter cohort study. Th Adv Gastroenterol. 2023;16:17562848231154103.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Winthrop KL, Vermeire S, Long MD, et al. Long-term risk of Herpes Zoster Infection in patients with Ulcerative Colitis receiving Tofacitinib. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2023;29(1):85–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Charpy F, Altwegg R, Debourdeau A. Disseminated tuberculosis in a patient treated with Tofacitinib for Ulcerative Colitis. J Crohns Colitis. 2022;16(4):685–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Maiga M, Lun S, Guo H, et al. Risk of Tuberculosis reactivation with tofacitinib (CP-690550). J Infect Dis. 2012;205(11):1705–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Curtis JR, Yamaoka K, Chen YH, et al. Malignancy risk with tofacitinib versus TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the open-label, randomised controlled ORAL surveillance trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023;82(3):331–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Laredo V, García-Mateo S, Martínez-Domínguez SJ, et al. Risk of Cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases and Keys for Patient Management. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(3):871.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Curtis JR, Lee EB, Kaplan IV, et al. Tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor: analysis of malignancies across the rheumatoid arthritis clinical development programme. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(5):831–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cremer A, Lobaton T, Vieujean S, et al. P422 Tofacitinib induces clinical and endoscopic remission in biologic refractory ulcerative colitis patients: a real-world Belgian cohort study. J Crohns Colitis. 2020;14:S384–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ungaro R, Fenster M, Dimopoulos C, et al. P344 real-world effectiveness of tofacitinib in ulcerative colitis: a multi-centre study. J Crohns Colitis. 2019;13:S274–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Honap S, Chee D, Chapman TP, et al. Real-world effectiveness of Tofacitinib for moderate to severe Ulcerative Colitis: a Multicentre UK Experience. J Crohns Colitis. 2020;14(10):1385–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Aoki Y, Kiyohara H, Mikami Y et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism with a central venous catheter in hospitalized Japanese patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a propensity score-matched cohort study. Intest Res. 2023 Feb 10.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participants, physicians, and patients who participated in this PMS study. Medical writing support was provided by Jimin Kim at Medi Help Line Co., Ltd. and was funded by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Korea Ltd.

Funding

This study was sponsored by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Korea Ltd.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Gyeonggi-do, Korea

    Hyuk Yoon

  2. University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

    Byong Duk Ye

  3. The Catholic University of Korea, Daejeon ST. Mary’s Hospital, Daejeon, Korea

    Sang-Bum Kang

  4. The Catholic University of Korea, ST. Vincent’s Hospital, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, Korea

    Kang-Moon Lee

  5. Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Chang Hwan Choi

  6. Pfizer Pharmaceutical Korea Ltd, Seoul, Korea

    Joo-young Jo & Juwon Woo

  7. Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Yonsei University, 50-1, Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Jae Hee Cheon

Authors
  1. Hyuk Yoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Byong Duk Ye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sang-Bum Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kang-Moon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chang Hwan Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joo-young Jo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Juwon Woo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jae Hee Cheon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HY, BY, SK, KL, CC, and JC reviewed the study design and data collection instruments. HY, BY, SK, KL, CC, and JC conducted the study and investigation process, and data/evidence collection. JW managed and coordinated the study activity planning and execution. JJ coordinated the research activity planning and data collection. All authors reviewed the analysis result and the original manuscript draft. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jae Hee Cheon.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all patients at the time of enrollment. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and followed generally accepted research practices described in Guidelines for Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practice (GPP) issued by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) guidelines, and local regulations/guidelines for PMS. This study was approved by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) and a total of 22 institutional review boards (IRBs) prior to data collection. The full name of each IRB was as follows. Samsung Medical Center IRB. Chung-Ang University Hospital IRB. Severance Hospital IRB. Seoul National University Hospital IRB. The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul ST. Mary’s Hospital IRB. Gangnam Severance Hospital IRB. The Catholic University of Korea, Daejeon ST. Mary’s Hospital IRB. Korea University Ansan Hospital IRB. Yeungnam University Medical Center IRB. Pusan National University Hospital IRB. Seoul National University Bundang Hospital IRB. The Catholic University of Korea, ST. Vincent’s Hospital IRB. Kosin University Gospel Hospital IRB. Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital IRB. Hanyang University Guri Hospital IRB. Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center IRB. The Catholic University of Korea, Bucheon ST.Mary’s Hospital IRB. Asan Medical Center IRB. Wonju Severance Christian Hospital IRB. CHA University Bundang Medical Center IRB. Soon Chun Hyang University Hospital Seoul IRB. Soon Chun Hyang University Hospital Cheonan IRB.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors do not have an actual or potential conflict of interest and do not have any interest to declare regarding this work. Joo-young Jo and Juwon Woo are employed by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Korea Ltd. All the other authors have no competing interest.

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yoon, H., Ye, B.D., Kang, SB. et al. Safety and effectiveness of tofacitinib in Korean adult patients with ulcerative colitis: post-marketing surveillance study. BMC Gastroenterol 24, 273 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03336-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03336-2

Keywords

BMC Gastroenterology

ISSN: 1471-230X

Contact us