Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Intest Res : Intestinal Research

Search
Advanced Search
IMPACT FACTOR
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Intest Res > Ahead-of print articles > Article
Review What to do when traditional rescue therapies fail in acute severe ulcerative colitis
Christopher F. D. Li Wai Suen1,2orcid, Matthew C. Choy1,2orcid, Peter De Cruz1,2,orcid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2024.00003
Published online: May 16, 2024

1Department of Gastroenterology, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia

2Department of Medicine, Austin Academic Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Correspondence to Peter De Cruz, Department of Gastroenterology, Austin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC 3084, Australia. Tel: +61-3-9496-5000, Fax: +61-3-9496-2732, E-mail: ppdecruz@gmail.com
• Received: January 7, 2024   • Revised: March 15, 2024   • Accepted: March 22, 2024

© Copyright 2024. Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 1,279 Views
  • 197 Download
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is a medical emergency that affects approximately 25% of patients with ulcerative colitis at some point in time in their lives. Outcomes of ASUC are highly variable. Approximately 30% of patients do not respond to corticosteroids and up to 50% of patients do not respond to rescue therapy (infliximab or cyclosporin) and require emergency colectomy. Data are emerging on infliximab dosing strategies, use of cyclosporin as a bridge to slower acting biologic agents and Janus kinase inhibition as primary and sequential therapy. In this review, we outline contemporary approaches to clinical management of ASUC in the setting of failure to respond to traditional rescue therapies.
  • Keywords: Acute severe ulcerative colitis; Ulcerative colitis; Infliximab; Cyclosporin; Janus kinase inhibitors
Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is a severe flare of ulcerative colitis (UC) that affects approximately 25% of patients with UC at some point in their lives [1]. It is defined by the Truelove and Witts criteria as 6 or more bowel actions per day with blood, along with at least one of the following: pulse rate > 90 beats/min, temperature > 37.8°C, hemoglobin < 10.5 g/dL, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate > 30 mm/hr [2].
Approximately 30% of patients are refractory to intravenous (IV) steroids and require rescue therapy with either infliximab or cyclosporin [3,4]. Approximately 50% of patients respond to infliximab or cyclosporin [3,5,6]. Patients who fail rescue therapy face the prospect of emergency colectomy. Poor prognostic factors associated with lack of response to traditional rescue therapy have been recently identified [7] and are summarized in Fig. 1.
Emerging data suggests that clinical outcomes of steroid-refractory ASUC may be improved with novel infliximab dosing strategies, use of cyclosporin as a bridge to slower acting biologic agents and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors as sequential therapy [8-11]. In this review, we provide an overview of the traditional rescue therapies available in ASUC and mechanisms of failure of rescue therapies. We then summarize and synthesize the emerging literature on contemporary approaches to clinical management of ASUC in the setting of failure to respond to traditional rescue therapies.
References for this review were identified through electronic searches of Ovid Medline and EMBASE (inception to December 2023), and conference proceedings identified using EMBASE (January 2020 to December 2023). The following search terms were used alone or in combination: “acute severe colitis,” “ASUC,” “ulcerative colitis,” “hospital,” “severe,” “infliximab,” “cyclosporin,” “ciclosporin,” “tofacitinib,” “upadacitinib,” “vedolizumab”, or “ustekinumab.” Only papers published in English were reviewed. The final reference list was generated based on originality and relevance to the scope of this review.
Therapies in ASUC require a rapid onset of action to target the aberrant immune response. Patients with ASUC who fail first-line therapy with steroids need rescue therapy with either infliximab or cyclosporin, both of which are equally effective based on data from 2 randomized controlled trials [5,12]. A meta-analysis of non-randomized studies indicated that infliximab was associated with better clinical response, odds ratio (OR) 2.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.12–4.12) and lower 12 months colectomy rates, OR 0.42 (95% CI, 0.22–1.28) [6]. Regardless of these findings the clinical response and early colectomy rates have been similar between the 2 drugs. Long-term response rates have also remained similar; albeit with higher relapse rates in cyclosporin compared with infliximab-treated patients [3].
1. Cyclosporin
Cyclosporin exerts its action by binding to the cytoplasmic protein cyclophilin, thereby inhibiting calcineurin, a regulatory factor. This in turn inhibits the production of multiple cytokines including interleukin (IL)-2, IL-3, IL-4, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interferon-gamma and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, thereby inhibiting T-cell proliferation and differentiation [13].

1) Short-term Efficacy

In clinical trials, cyclosporin has been shown to have immediate response rates at 1 to 2 weeks between 64% and 82% [14,15] and colectomy rates at 3 months have ranged from 26% to 47% [5,12,14-16]. Rates of short-term clinical response, 3 months after cyclosporin have been between 40% and 54% [5,12,16].

2) Long-term Efficacy

Cyclosporin response rates in randomized controlled trials, at 1-year follow-up and beyond have been in the range of 42% to 50%, whereas long-term colectomy rates have been between 36% and 58% [5,12,15,16].

3) Safety Profile

Due to its narrow therapeutic window and the potential for adverse events including nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, anaphylaxis and infectious complications, therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporin is required and its use as long-term therapy is limited [17,18].

4) Dosing Schedule

Cyclosporin is administered as a continuous IV infusion for 7 days, following which patients are transitioned to oral cyclosporin. Given the lack of difference found in short-term colectomy rates, median time to response and side effects between patients receiving 2 and 4 mg/kg/day [19], current guidelines suggest 2 mg/kg/day along with therapeutic drug monitoring to minimize the risk of long-term cyclosporin toxicity [20]. Although the optimal duration of therapy is unknown, it is often limited to 3 months to minimize the risk of adverse events.
2. Infliximab
Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to TNF-α, preventing its interaction with TNF receptors, thereby inhibiting downstream inflammatory activity [21]. Infliximab also enhances apoptosis of activated effector lymphocytes and restores the number of T-regulatory cells in the mucosa [22-24].

1) Short-term Efficacy

Clinical response rates in randomized controlled trials have ranged from 50% to 83% for immediate response, whereas short-term response rates have ranged from 46% to 83% [5,16,25-27].

2) Long-term Efficacy

Longer-term response rates have been slightly lower in the range of 50% to 65% [16,28].

3) Safety Profile

Infliximab has a good safety profile in ASUC; however, it is contraindicated in untreated tuberculosis, demyelinating disease, congestive cardiac failure (New York Heart Association Class iii or IV) and active infection [29].

4) Dosing Schedule

The traditional administration schedule of infliximab has been three 5 mg/kg doses at weeks 0, 2, and 6. However, in clinical practice, dose-escalated infliximab rescue strategies are often employed in an effort to improve response rates. Dose-escalated infliximab rescue strategies include an accelerated schedule whereby patients may receive three 5 mg/kg doses in a shorter time frame (e.g., within 3 weeks) and an intensified dosing schedule whereby patients are administered higher infliximab doses (e.g., 10 mg/kg doses).
The optimal infliximab dosing regimen in ASUC is unknown. A meta-analysis concluded that infliximab dose intensification with either accelerated or high-dose induction strategies did not reduce 3-month colectomy rates compared to standard induction (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.39–1.27; P= 0.24) [9]. However, patients with more severe disease (higher C-reactive protein and lower albumin) were more likely to have received dose-escalated infliximab, thereby potentially confounding the results. Randomized controlled trial data are therefore required to help inform the optimal infliximab dosing strategy in ASUC. Trials exploring a pharmacokinetics driven dashboard model of infliximab dosing versus standard care (NCT03937609) and intensified versus standard infliximab dosing (NCT02770040) strategy are currently under way.
Whilst infliximab and cyclosporin are considered equally effective as rescue therapy in steroid-refractory ASUC, selecting the right rescue therapy in ASUC can be challenging and should be individualized based on patient factors, the presence of comorbidities, the intended choice of maintenance therapy after successful induction of remission, and physician and local hospital familiarity with the rescue therapy of choice.
1. When to Consider Infliximab as Rescue Therapy
Infliximab is preferred by many clinicians in view of its ease of administration [30,31]. It also enables the administration of dose-escalated doses (higher or additional doses) although there is insufficient evidence to support such practice.
Infliximab should be considered preferentially in patients in whom cyclosporin is contraindicated (e.g., the presence of renal impairment) and where the risk of nephrotoxicity is high (e.g., concomitant nephrotoxic drug use). Given the narrow therapeutic window of cyclosporin, infliximab is also preferred in settings where cyclosporin therapeutic drug monitoring is unavailable.
While most patients presenting with ASUC have either a known history of UC or typical findings of UC at endoscopy, in some patients the diagnosis is less clear raising the possibility of an acute severe presentation of Crohn’s disease. In the setting of diagnostic uncertainty, infliximab is the preferred rescue therapy given the wider body of evidence supporting infliximab’s use in both UC and Crohn’s disease.
2. When to Consider Cyclosporin as Rescue Therapy
Cyclosporin should be considered as first-line rescue therapy in patients who are thiopurine naïve and those with contraindications to infliximab including the presence of demyelinating conditions such as multiple sclerosis and moderate to severe heart failure.
3. How Anticipated Maintenance Therapy May Influence Choice of Rescue Therapy
Although successful induction of remission is the primary focus when faced with a patient with ASUC, anticipating the choice of maintenance therapy after successful of remission may also guide the choice of rescue therapy. As a monoclonal antibody, infliximab is at risk of immunogenicity which involves the development of antibody formation to infliximab itself. The highest risk of immunogenicity occurs during periods of low trough infliximab levels which tends to occur following initial infliximab dose administration due to increased infliximab clearance and in patients in whom infliximab is used solely as a rescue agent without its continuation as a maintenance therapy [32]. Periods of low infliximab levels increase the potential for pseudo-episodic exposure to infliximab, which increases the likelihood of antibody formation and risk of infliximab failure should it be required as a therapy in the future. Similarly, patients who go on to receive maintenance infliximab monotherapy may also be at increased risk of immunogenicity [33].
There has been growing interest in the use of cyclosporin as an induction regimen followed by maintenance with a slower acting agent such as vedolizumab or ustekinumab, both of which carry a lower risk of immunogenicity [34]. Cyclosporin induction with vedolizumab or ustekinumab as maintenance may be employed in patients with a history of severe infections or active malignancy for whom prolonged systemic immunosuppression with infliximab may not be desirable. Such “bridging” approaches are discussed further in the maintenance section of this article.
Overall, in patients in whom infliximab maintenance therapy is anticipated, infliximab induction is preferred. In contrast, in patients in whom an alternative biologic is anticipated as maintenance therapy, cyclosporin induction may be preferable.
Three main mechanisms of infliximab failure have been postulated in ASUC: (1) altered pharmacokinetics of infliximab in ASUC; (2) high TNF burden in ASUC leading to target-mediated drug deposition; and (3) alternate (non-TNF-mediated) immune pathways in some patients [35]. Fig. 2 provides a summary of the mechanisms of infliximab failure and how clinical management may be adapted.
1. Altered Pharmacokinetics of Infliximab
Infliximab clearance is considered to be the biggest driver of therapeutic outcomes in ASUC [35].
Whilst a definite dose-exposure relationship for infliximab in ASUC is yet to be established, 2 studies have examined the relationship between infliximab clearance and outcomes [32,36]. In a pharmacokinetic study of 36 patients with corticosteroid-refractory UC who received infliximab, infliximab responders at week 14 had a longer effective infliximab half-life (P= 0.005) and reduced clearance (P= 0.002) compared to non-responders [32].
Similarly, in a recent study of 39 patients with ASUC where infliximab clearance was calculated based on an existing formula, patients who required colectomy at 6 months had a higher median infliximab clearance compared to those who avoided colectomy (0.733 L/day vs. 0.569 L/day, P= 0.005). Patients with a calculated clearance above 0.627 L/day were more likely to require colectomy at 6 months compared to those with lower clearance (61.5% vs. 7.7%, P= 0.001). Baseline infliximab clearance was the only factor associated with colectomy on multivariable logistic regression [36].
Factors known to influence clearance include serum albumin level, sex and the presence of anti-drug antibodies [37]. As an acute phase reactant of inflammation, hypoalbuminemia is often observed in patients with more severe disease, thus contributing to the higher infliximab drug clearance in such patients.
Disruption of the intestinal barrier in the setting of inflammation has also been proposed as a factor contributing to increased drug clearance [35]. In ASUC, patients with more severe disease often exhibit severe mucosal lesions characterised by deep or large ulcers. Whilst no direct correlation has yet been found between the severity of endoscopic findings and fecal infliximab loss in the stool [38], it remains plausible that endoscopic severity may contribute to increased gut permeability, and in turn result in increased fecal infliximab loss.
While increased infliximab clearance has been linked to poorer outcomes in ASUC, it is currently unclear whether increased clearance can be overcome via more intensive infliximab dosing (NCT02770040) or dashboard-driven infliximab dosing (NCT03937609).
2. Target-Mediated Drug Deposition
Target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD) is another major mechanism implicated in infliximab failure in ASUC. TMDD refers to a phenomenon where a drug has a high affinity to a pharmacological target, leading to significant drug binding to the target, thereby affecting the pharmacokinetic properties of the drug [39].
Tissue TNF levels have been shown to correlate with disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease with patients with more severe disease having higher levels of TNF in the intestinal mucosa [40,41]. As a monoclonal antibody, infliximab has a high affinity for TNF. High levels of TNF in the setting of severe inflammation have been likened to a “sponge” that rapidly binds to or mops up infliximab molecules [35], resulting in increased infliximab clearance.
In a study of patients with Crohn’s disease and UC, patients with active inflammation had a higher TNF to anti-TNF ratio in tissue compared to uninflamed tissue [40]. While this study did not directly examine TMDD, it provides a potential mechanistic explanation for infliximab failure in patients with ASUC who have a high inflammatory burden.
Higher infliximab dosing may be able to overcome the high TNF burden and increased TMDD observed in some patients. Controlled data supporting this approach are however currently lacking and is the subject of ongoing research (NCT02770040 and NCT03937609).
3. Alternate Immune Pathways
Whilst TNF-α blockade has been the mainstay of ASUC management, a significant proportion of patients still however do not respond to standard or dose-intensified infliximab. This hints to a potential alternate, non-TNF-mediated pathway being predominantly activated in some patients. This hypothesis is supported by studies where cyclosporin, tofacitinib, and upadacitinib have been successful in inducing remission in some patients who had previously not responded to infliximab [10,11,34,42-50].
Data on mechanisms of cyclosporin failure in ASUC are limited. Multidrug resistance gene-1 (MDR1) encodes for the transporter P-glycoprotein, a plasma membrane protein involved in the transport of cyclosporin out of the cell into the gut lumen [51]. In ASUC patients receiving cyclosporin, Daniel et al. [51] observed significant differences in MDR1 between responders and non-responders.
Other potential reasons for cyclosporin failure may relate to the high interindividual variability in cyclosporin metabolism and pharmacokinetics, which can in turn be partly explained by genetic polymorphisms. Cyclosporin is predominantly metabolized by cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) in the liver and small bowel [52], and primarily excreted by the biliary system [53]. As such, inter-patient differences in metabolism via the CYP3A4 system may affect cyclosporin levels and/or dosing requirements [54]. Similarly, concomitant use of drugs, such as phenytoin and carbamazepine, that induce CYP3A4 may contribute to subtherapeutic cyclosporin levels [55] and potentially contribute to higher rates of non-response.
In view of the hepatic metabolism of cyclosporin, patients with advanced chronic liver disease may be at increased risk of supratherapeutic cyclosporin levels [56] and therefore require closer monitoring of blood cyclosporin levels and dose titration.
Sequential therapy refers to the use of a second rescue agent after failure of a first rescue agent in a bid to induce remission and avoid emergency colectomy.
1. Sequential Therapy with Infliximab or Calcineurin inhibition

1) Short-term Response Rate

In a systematic review of 314 patients who received infliximab after non-response to calcineurin inhibition (cyclosporin/tacrolimus), or vice-versa, sequential therapy was associated with an overall immediate clinical response rate of 62.4% (95% CI, 57.0%–67.8%), clinical remission rate of 38.9% (95% CI, 33.5%–44.3%), colectomy rate at 3 months of 28.3% (95% CI, 21.7%–34.5%) and 12 months of 42.3% (95% CI, 36.0%–48.6%) [57]. Overall, clinical outcomes including response rates, colectomy rates, adverse events and the risk of infection appeared similar irrespective of whether infliximab or a calcineurin inhibitor was used as the first agent [57]. While 3 deaths occurred in the 252 patients who received infliximab sequential therapy after failure of calcineurin inhibition, compared to no deaths in the 62 patients who received a calcineurin inhibitor after infliximab failure, conclusions on comparative safety cannot be drawn due to the small number of patients who received the latter regimen [57].

2) Long-term Response Rate

A significant proportion of patients went on to require colectomy at 3 and 12 months (30.0% and 56.7%, respectively) [57].

3) Safety Profile

The rate of adverse events was 23.0% (95% CI, 17.7%–28.3%); serious infections, 6.7%; and, mortality, 1% [57]. The risk of sequential therapy is lower than originally reported but is a strategy that is best reserved for selected patients in specialist centers familiar with calcineurin inhibition with close monitoring and engagement of the multidisciplinary team.
2. Tofacitinib Use after Biologic Failure
More recently, tofacitinib has been used as a sequential therapy in ASUC predominantly after failure of one or more biologics, or as first-line rescue in biologic-experienced patients presenting with ASUC [10,42,44-48,58-69]. These studies are summarized in Table 1. Tofacitinib works by inhibiting intracellular JAK (predominantly JAK 1 and 3, and to a lesser extent JAK 2) and subsequent phosphorylation of signal transducers and activators of transcription, causing decreased production of multiple cytokines [70]. This in turn leads to a decreased differentiation of naïve T helper cells into the Th1, Th2, and Th17 cells [71].

1) Short-term Response

In a review of 14 studies involving 134 patients, most of whom had failed one or more biologics, the overall response rate (with avoidance of colectomy) was 77% (95% CI, 70%–85%) [34]. In a subset of these patients (n = 55) from a GETAID-TALC (the largest of the cohorts), of whom 49 had failed infliximab previously and 19 had previously been exposed to cyclosporin, at week 6, 33 out of 55 (60%) had clinically responded, 25 out of 55 (45.5%) achieved clinical remission and 20 out of 55 (37.5%) achieved clinical steroid-free remission [44]. In the latter study, at week 14, 23 out of 55 (41.8%) had clinically responded, 19 out of 55 (34.5%) achieved clinical remission and 18 out of 55 (32.7%) achieved clinical steroid-free remission. Colectomy-free survival at 3 months was 78.9% [44].

2) Long-term Response

A theoretical advantage of tofacitinib is the ability to continue it as maintenance once remission has been achieved; however, long-term data are limited and some patients may experience a loss of efficacy over time. In the GETAID-TALC study of 55 patients colectomy-free survival at 6 months was 73.6% [44]. Of the 3 other small series with long-term outcomes response rates are variable; in one study 2 out of 5 initial responders to tofacitinib required IV steroids at 6 months [47]; in a second study 2 out of 5 patients who initially avoided colectomy required colectomy by week 26 [48] and in the third series of those who initially responded to tofacitinib all remained colectomy free out to 12 months [46].

3) Safety Profile

In a review of 14 studies of tofacitinib in ASUC the overall serious adverse rate was 3.3% with no mortality directly attributable to tofacitinib [34]. Nonetheless among the 2 patients who were exposed to tofacitinib as sequential therapy one death was in a patient with COVID-19 and probable pulmonary embolus [63] while the second death was in an 81-year-old man with chronic obstructive airways disease and concomitant diabetes mellitus who had a delayed colectomy [44].

4) Dosing

The tofacitinib dosing applied to ASUC has varied in total dose and duration and has generally comprised 10 mg BD (twice a day) or 10 mg TDS (three times a day) induction dosing, with the total duration of the TDS dosing varying from 2 days to 2 weeks.
These preliminary data suggest that tofacitinib is a promising rescue therapy for ASUC. However, further data are required regarding tofacitinib’s safety, efficacy and durability of response which may be informed by 2 prospective open-label studies (NCT04925973 and NCT05112263).
3. Upadacitinib Use after Biologic Failure
Upadacitinib, a newer JAK inhibitor, has a more pronounced inhibitory effect on JAK1 compared to JAK 2, JAK 3, and TYK2 [72]. The relationship between inhibition of specific JAKs and treatment response in ASUC is however unknown. Data regarding upadacitinib are limited to case studies and case series [11,49,50,73].

1) Short-term Response

In an Australian study by Gilmore et al. [49] of 6 patients, all of whom had been previously exposed to infliximab prior to admission (3 with primary non-response; 2 with secondary loss of response, and 1 who was intolerant), upadacitinib 45 mg daily was commenced for 16 weeks after failure to respond to 3 days of IV hydrocortisone. Five of 6 patients achieved colectomy-free survival at 30 days. In a study from Israel of 4 patients who had failed IV steroids and infliximab, upadacitinib 45 mg orally daily was commenced. Three of 4 patients achieved clinical response within 4 to 8 days and 1 of 4 patients underwent colectomy within 3 weeks. Three of 4 patients demonstrated colectomy-free survival at 4 months [11]. In a separate study by Berinstein et al. [50], (presented in abstract form) of 13 patients comprised of 10 patients with UC and 3 with Crohn’s disease, high-dose upadacitinib 30 mg orally BD was used for 1 week. More than half (61.5%) avoided bowel surgery.

2) Long-term Response

A single case report has indicated colectomy-free survival out to 6 months in a patient previously exposed to azathioprine, infliximab, adalimumab, and tofacitinib [73].

3) Safety Profile

In the study of 6 patients by Gilmore et al. [49] with patients exposed to infliximab prior to admission 2 patients experienced acne. In the study by Berinstein et al. [50] exploring high-dose upadacitinib severe adverse events included: 1 case of venous thromboembolism and several infections; (1) COVID-19; (2) bacteremia; (3) cytomegalovirus; (4) Nocardia; (5) 2 post-surgical infections. There were no severe adverse events and no cardiovascular or thrombo-embolic events in the remaining case series to date [11,49,73].

4) Dosing

The dosing applied to ASUC has varied in total dose and duration and comprise both 30 mg BD and 45 mg daily with total duration varying from 3 days to 60 days respectively.
Taken together these data suggest that upadacitinib may be a feasible rescue therapy in those previously exposed to anti-TNF prior to or during their admission for ASUC. However, randomized controlled data are required to establish the optimal dose, duration of therapy and safety and efficacy profile of upadacitinib in ASUC.
At present, the evidence supporting maintenance therapy following successful induction of remission following rescue therapy is relatively limited. Data to guide the optimal maintenance strategy following successful induction of remission with sequential therapy or third-line strategies are also lacking.
Data from a retrospective multicenter French study found lower rates of relapse after a first episode of ASUC in those treated with anti-TNF containing maintenance regimens compared to those containing 5-aminosalicylates or conventional immunosuppressants [74].
In biologic-naïve patients, 5-aminosalicylates and/or azathioprine with or without combination infliximab can be used. The use of maintenance azathioprine compared to azathioprine in combination with infliximab is currently being investigated in the ACTIVE trial (NCT02425852) among IV steroid responders and PREDICT UC (NCT02770040) among IV steroid-refractory patients.
In previous failure of infliximab, drugs that are yet to be evaluated in clinical trials include vedolizumab, ustekinumab, and JAK-inhibitors.
Vedolizumab, a selective anti-adhesion monoclonal antibody targeting α4β7 integrin has been demonstrated to be effective in moderate to severe UC [75]. Vedolizumab prevents α4β7 integrin interaction with MAdCAM-1 expressed on gastrointestinal epithelial cells, thereby inhibiting T-cell migration into intestinal tissue. Its slow onset of action limits its use in ASUC; however, it can be used in combination with a rapid-acting agent such as IV steroids or cyclosporin rescue as a bridge to vedolizumab maintenance [76].
The safety and effectiveness of vedolizumab has been evaluated in a recent systematic review by Gisbert et al. of 8 studies [34,76-83]. The majority of studies were retrospective, included patients who had failed anti-TNFs and most used cyclosporin as bridge to vedolizumab. The colectomy-free rate in patients treated with vedolizumab for ASUC was 69% (weighted mean 95% CI, 61%–76%) and the rate of serious adverse events (or adverse events leading to discontinuation) was 1.8% with no mortality due to cyclosporin or vedolizumab [34]. Since then, another successful case of cyclosporin rescue as a bridge to vedolizumab has been reported by Ashat et al. [84]. Hence, calcineurin inhibition as a bridge to vedolizumab maintenance therapy appears to be a safety and effective strategy in patients with ASUC.
Ustekinumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the p40 subunit of IL-12 and IL-23, has also been shown to be effective in patients with moderate to severe UC. Use of cyclosporin/tacrolimus as a bridge to ustekinumab in ASUC has been evaluated in 3 small retrospective studies comprising a total of 13 patients who had previously failed anti-TNF and/or vedolizumab [34,85-87]. Colectomy was avoided in all patients with no severe adverse events or mortality observed with either agent [34].
In a recent prospective study of 11 patients with steroid-refractory ASUC (10 of whom were biologic experienced, and 8 of whom had previously failed ≥ 3 biologic therapies), ustekinumab was commenced after a mean of 3.2 weeks after initiation of cyclosporin rescue, and combination therapy continued for a mean of 11.5 weeks. Six patients (54%) were clinical responders at week 16, with 5 patients (45%) in endoscopic remission at the same time point. At long-term follow-up at 52 weeks, 5 patients (45%) were in histological remission [88].
Hence, although the data are limited calcineurin inhibition as bridge to ustekinumab maintenance therapy may be a safe and effective strategy in ASUC, even in the setting of prior biologic treatment experience.
The JAK-inhibitors tofacitinib, upadacitinib and filigotinib are effective in MSUC [89-91]. Potential benefits of these agents include their oral administration, relatively rapid onset of action, ease of transition from induction to maintenance therapy and lack of immunogenicity. However, data regarding the safety and efficacy of these agents to maintain remission following successful induction of remission in ASUC are awaited.
The evolving nature of therapeutic approaches and availability of new drugs for ASUC has increased the complexity behind decision making as to when it is appropriate to proceed to colectomy. The time to clinical response of individual drugs varies from patient to patient, hence decision making is a day-by-day proposition. In the absence of validated predictive indices of therapeutic response to rescue therapies, one should proceed to colectomy if there is a negative trend in: clinical indices (comprised of vital signs, rectal bleeding and abdominal tenderness), biomarkers (rising CRP), colonic dilatation on abdominal imaging or endoscopic deterioration. Monitoring of such parameters is all the more important in the setting of sequential therapy. Decision making regarding when to proceed to colectomy therefore involves timely risk assessment, assessment of treatment response and multidisciplinary team management.
The treatment landscape of ASUC is rapidly evolving with new rescue therapy options, although most of these are still under evaluation. Whilst the traditional therapies of infliximab and cyclosporin remain the mainstays of treating steroid-refractory disease, these therapies are not always effective. Hence, attention has shifted towards investigating mechanisms of drug failure, predicting non-response to therapy and devising strategies to overcome non-response.
Non-response or incomplete response to infliximab may be driven by increased infliximab clearance, tissue mediated drug deposition or alternate non-TNF mediated pathways [35]. While incomplete response may be overcome by dose optimization via accelerated or intensified dosing, the optimal infliximab dosing strategy is yet to be defined and is the subject of ongoing trials (NCT03937609 and NCT02770040). Non-response to infliximab in ASUC that cannot be overcome by dose optimization suggests the need for sequential therapy to address alternate non-TNF mediated pathways. While cyclosporin has represented a feasible alternative in such patients, preliminary data suggest that JAK inhibitors may be safe and effective as sequential therapy and therefore require further investigation in relation to their safety, efficacy, role and positioning as rescue therapy agents.
Despite its more challenging route of administration cyclosporin is enjoying a renaissance in some centers familiar with its use. Not only is cyclosporin being used among those who are thiopurine and infliximab naïve but it is also finding a role as a bridging therapy induction agent to allow slower acting biologic therapies such as vedolizumab and ustekinumab to take effect as maintenance agents.
A unique advantage of JAK inhibitors is their capacity to act as both a rescue therapy option as sequential therapy as well as a maintenance agent following successful induction; however, the optimal dosing regimen for both induction and maintenance also requires further investigation.
Whilst advanced therapies have traditionally been used in the setting of steroid non-response (failure) in ASUC, the treatment paradigm may shift in the future with the potential use of JAK inhibition either as an alternative or adjunct to IV steroids. In the recent TACOS study, patients with ASUC were randomized to a 7-day course of tofacitinib 10 mg TDS or placebo TDS while continuing IV hydrocortisone, and treatment response was assessed at day 7 [92]. Patients who responded to tofacitinib received tofacitinib 10 mg BD maintenance therapy whereas steroid monotherapy responders received oral 5-aminosalicylates and thiopurine therapy. Patients who received tofacitinib were more likely to be treatment responders compared to those who received placebo (83.01% vs. 58.82%; OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.37–8.48; P= 0.007). Similarly, patients in the tofacitinib group were less likely to require rescue therapy at 7 days (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09–0.78; P= 0.01) and at 90 days compared to those in the placebo group (cumulative probability 0.13 vs. 0.38 respectively, P= 0.003) [92]. Although most adverse events were mild, there was 1 case of dural venous thrombosis in the tofacitinib arm [92]. Whilst the use of tofacitinib as an adjunct to steroids seems promising, such an approach may risk over-treating patients who will respond to conventional therapy. Similar to calcineurin-inhibitor treatment, JAK inhibitors may be used as induction therapy to bridge to selective therapies with more favorable safety profiles.
Although infliximab and cyclosporin have traditionally been used as first-line rescue therapies, 2 small recent case series have examined the use of tofacitinib as first-line rescue therapy in steroid-refractory patients with ASUC, in predominantly biologic-naïve cohorts [93,94]. Short-term clinical response rates in both series were promising and in the order of 75% to 88% (Table 2). However, the serious adverse events included a case of herpes zoster and 2 deaths, including 1 occurring in a patient who developed sepsis after colectomy, and 1 who died of bacterial pneumonia 1 month after commencement of tofacitinib [93,94]. These preliminary data suggest that although effective, first-line tofacitinib rescue may be associated with significant risks and therefore warrants further evaluation of safety and efficacy within controlled clinical trials.
In the setting of a broadening armamentarium of traditional versus novel rescue therapies and dosing regimens it is difficult to establish the optimal timing, dosing, and duration of each successive rescue therapy agent. Novel strategies and predictive indices of rescue therapy response are currently under development in ASUC to help with decision-making regarding each of the rescue therapies and to determine the specific parameters that define therapeutic success or failure. Whilst randomized controlled trials are ideally required to discern the positioning of advanced therapies in ASUC, such trials are often not practical to conduct in the setting of failure of first-line rescue therapy. Hence, data to guide management following failure of first-line rescue are more likely to come from both real-world and modeling studies. Irrespective of the advances in medical therapy, knowing when to proceed to colectomy requires timely risk assessment, assessment of treatment response and multidisciplinary management. Colectomy constitutes an appropriate intervention for treatment refractory disease and should therefore not be considered a failure of contemporary ASUC management.

Funding Source

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of Interest

Li Wai Suen CFD has served as a speaker for DiaSorin, has received educational support from Pfizer, and has received research funding from the Robert C Bulley Charitable Foundation and the St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne Research Endowment Fund. And he is supported by a NHMRC Postgraduate scholarship. Choy MC has received research funding from Janssen and Gandel Philanthropy. De Cruz P has served as a consultant, an advisory board member, or a speaker for AbbVie, Baxter, Ferring, Janssen, Celltrion, Emerge Health, Shire, and Takeda. And he is supported by an NHMRC Emerging Leader 2 Fellowship and has received research support from AbbVie, Ferring, Shire, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Li Wai Suen CFD, De Cruz P. Data curation; Formal analysis: Li Wai Suen CFD, De Cruz P. Investigation; Methodology; Project administration: Li Wai Suen CFD, De Cruz P. Software: Li Wai Suen CFD. Supervision: De Cruz P. Visualization: Li Wai Suen CFD. Writing - original draft: Li Wai Suen CFD, De Cruz P. Writing - review & editing: Li Wai Suen CFD, Choy MC, De Cruz P. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Fig. 1.
Factors associated with lack of response to traditional rescue therapy in acute severe ulcerative colitis. CMV, cytomegalovirus; C. difficile, Clostridioides difficile; CRP, C-reactive protein; UCEIS, ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity. This figure was created with BioRender.com.
ir-2024-00003f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Mechanisms of infliximab failure and potential ways to overcome them. ASUC, acute severe ulcerative colitis; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; JAK, Janus kinase. This figure was created with BioRender.com.
ir-2024-00003f2.jpg
Table 1.
Studies Where Tofacitinib Has Been Employed as Sequential Therapy or in Biologic-Experienced Patients in ASUC
Use of tofacitinib Author (year) No. Study design Patient profile Intervention with tofacitinib Exposure to advanced therapy prior to tofacitinib Follow-up Main results/salient findings: Colectomy rate Major AEs
Sequential Bercier (2020) [58] 1 Case report ASUC after 2nd IFX induction dose for severely active UC. Received IFX rescue prior to tofacitinib Tofacitinib 10 mg BD for 5 day; Escalated to 10 mg TDS at day 7 due to partial response; Dose decreased to 10 mg BD at follow-up 12 day later IFX outpatient induction+IFX rescue therapy for ASUC for current admission 30 day Patient in clinical remission at day 30 0% Nil
Sequential Chen (2020) [59] 1 Case report ASUC, refractory to IFX rescue Tofacitinib 10 mg BD Previous secukinumab for psoriatic arthritis 4 wk Patient in endoscopic and histological remission at 4 wk 0% Nil
IFX as rescue therapy for ASUC
Sequential Griller (2019) [60] 1 Case report Hospitalized patient with UC, with severe inflammation at endoscopy, after vedolizumab and IFX failure Tofacitinib 10 mg BD Vedolizumab, IFX 8 mo Patient in endoscopic remission and colectomy-free at 8 mo 0% Nil
Sequential Khan (2022) [61] 1 Case report ASUC, refractory to IV steroids and IFX rescue Tofacitinib 10 mg TDS (duration of TDS dosing not stated) IFX prior to admission and as rescue during same admission Also received IV ganciclovir for CMV colitis 3 mo Patient in clinical and biochemical remission at 3 mo. MES of 1 at 3 mo 0% Nil
Sequential Yang (2021) [62] 1 Case report ASUC, refractory to IV steroids and single dose IFX rescue Commenced sequential therapy with combination tofacitinib and cyclosporin Tofacitinib 10 mg BD, in combination with IV cyclosporin 3 mg/kg daily IFX 1 yr Clinical response after 10 day of combination therapy 0% Nil
At 1 mo, changed to oral cyclosporin 150 mg BD+tofacitinib 5 mg BD Endoscopic healing with scars noted at 6 mo
At 6 mo, tofacitinib decreased to 5 mg BD and mesalazine 1.5 g BD commenced
At 1 yr, tofacitinib ceased
Bio-experienced Berinstein (2019) [10] 4 Case series ASUC in 4 patients with features of severe disease, at high risk of failing medical therapy 3 patients: IV methylprednisolone 60 mg daily+tofacitinib 10 mg TDS for 9 doses 2 patients: IFX and/or adalimumab 2–18 mo 3 out of 4 patients achieved clinical remission 50% No major AE. 1 patient: rashtherapy changed
2 patients were anti-TNF experienced and 1 was on chronic steroids 1 patient: budesonide+tofacitinib 10 mg TDS for 9 doses 2 out of 4 patients required colectomy (1 due to medically refractory disease to tofacitinib; 1 due to dysplasia)
Bio-experienced Berinstein (2021) [45] 40 Retrospective case-control study ASUC patients who were biologicexperienced and were commenced on tofacitinib as an inpatient Standard (tofacitinib 10 mg BD for the length of hospitalization) or highintensity tofacitinib (10 mg TDS for 9 doses followed by 10 mg BD) IFX: 85%; Adalimumab: 40%; Golimumab: 5%; Vedolizumab 52.5%; Ustekinumab: 2.5% 90 day 90-day colectomy rate of 15.0% (6/40) in tofacitinib group compared to 20.4% (23/113) in control group 15% Similar rates of infection, venous thromboembolic events and cardiovascular events in tofacitinib group and controls
All patients also received IV corticosteroids At 90 day follow-up, tofacitinib group had a decreased risk of colectomy compared to controls (HR=0.28, P=0.018)
40 cases; 113 controls Subgroup analysis suggest that benefit might be confined to intensified tofacitinib dosing group
Bio-experienced Kotwani (2020) [66] 4 Case series ASUC, with previous biologic experience and refractory to IV steroids. Mayo activity index ≥ 10 at presentation Tofacitinib 10 mg BD; Dose increased to 15 mg BD in 1 patient All previously exposed to IFX and vedolizumab 5–14 mo All 4 patients experienced clinical improvement and were discharged on tofacitinib 0% at 30 and 90 day Nil
1 patient also previously exposed to adalimumab At follow-up, 2 patients in steroid-free remission and 2 had endoscopically active disease
Of the latter 2 patients, 1 was referred for surgery due to colonic biopsies being indefinite for dysplasia
Bio-experienced Santos (2022) [67] 2 Case series ASUC, with previous biologic experience and previous history of ASUC, refractory to IV steroids Tofacitinib 10 mg BD; Maintenance dose of 5 mg BD in 1 patient Both patients previously failed anti-TNF, vedolizumab and tacrolimus 11–14 mo Both patients in clinical and endoscopic remission at wk 16 0% Nil
Bio-experienced Sedano (2021) [68] 1 Case report ASUC, with previous biologic experience; active disease despite tofacitinib 10 mg BD and refractory to IV steroids Tofacitinib 30 mg daily for 48 hr, then 10 mg BD IFX 10 mg/kg 4-weekly 50 day Endoscopic and histological remission at day 50 0% Nil
Mixed Jena (2021) [63] 4 Case series ASUC, refractory to IV steroids Tofacitinib 10 mg BD IFX: 2/4 patients 15 day to 1 mo Clinical improvement in 3 patients, however 1 of them subsequently died of COVID-19 infection or pulmonary embolism 25% 1 death from COVID-19 infection or pulmonary embolism
3 patients also failed rescue therapy with either IFX or cyclosporin during same admission Cyclosporin: 1/4 patients Colectomy: 1 patient due to failure to respond to tofacitinib
Mixed Constant (2022) [64] 11 Case series/Retrospective cohort study Pediatric patients, hospitalized with flare of UC-steroid and biologic refractory 3/11: tofacitinib TDS; 8/11: tofacitinib BD 10/11 patients had prior exposure to anti-TNF, 3 of which also failed vedolizumab previously Median 182 day Colectomy: 45% Nil
5 patients also received combination antibiotic salvage 1 patient was biologic naive at time of presentation failed to respond to IFX rescue therapy for the current admission 3/11 patients at day 90
1 patient received tacrolimus 5/11 patients over median 182 day follow-up
Mixed Uzzan (2021) [44] 55 Multicenter cohort study-Retrospective and Prospective Patients hospitalized with UC flare Tofacitinib induction regimen not specified. At wk 6, the 43 patients still on tofacitinib were all on 10 mg BD IFX: 49 (89.1%); Cyclosporin: 19 (34.5%); Vedolizumab (69.1%); Ustekinumab (10.9%) Median 6.5 mo (IQR, 3–12.3) Wk 6-clinical response 60%, clinical remission 45.5%, clinical steroid-free remission 37.5% 27.3% 4 severe AE, including 2 cases of Herpes Zoster (age > 60 yr). 1 death post-colectomy, believed unrelated to tofacitinib
75% of patients had Lichtiger score ≥ 10
66% of patients were on IV steroids at time of tofacitinib initiation
Only 10 patients received rescue therapy before tofacitinib for the current flare: 2 (3.6%) IFX, 8 (14.5%) cyclosporin Wk 14-clinical response 41.8%, clinical remission 34.5%, clinical steroid-free remission 32.7%
Not all patients met Lichtiger or Truelove and Witts criteria for ASUC
Mixed Eqbal (2023) [46] 11 Case series/Retrospective cohort study ASUC, refractory to 3 day of IV steroids Tofacitinib 10 mg TDS for 14 day, then 10 mg BD IFX: 11/11 patients 12 mo Clinical response at 6 and 12 mo: 9/11 patients 18% 1 transient hepatitisimproved after tofacitinib dose was decreased
5 patients were previously anti-TNF naive and failed IFX rescue for the current admission Of these, 5/11 patients had IFX rescue therapy for current admission Colectomy: 2/11 patients
6 patients had a history of primary non-response to IFX induction within the preceding 3 mo 6/11 patients had primary non- response to outpatient IFX induction in the preceding 3 mo
3/6 patients in the latter group also had previous vedolizumab exposure
Mixed Gilmore (2022) [42] 5 Case series ASUC, receiving tofacitinib immediately after IFX failure Tofacitinib 10 mg TDS for up to 14 day, then 10 mg BD for 8 wk, then 5 mg BD maintenance IFX: 5/5 patients 90 day Clinical response during inpatient stay: 4 out of 5 patients 1 failed to respond and required inpatient colectomy 20% Nil
2 patients were biologic naïve at admission and received IFX rescue 1 patient also previously exposed to vedolizumab
3 patients were admitted with ASUC within 7 day of completed IFX induction 90-day outcomes: 4 responders remained colectomy-free 2 patients in combined clinical and endoscopic remission
Mixed Honap (2020) [48] 7 Case series UC patients with previous biologic experience and severe colitis (MES 3) receiving inpatient tofacitinib after IV hydrocortisone failure Tofacitinib regimen not specified Anti-TNF (IFX, golimumab, adalimumab): 7/7 patients 2–52 wk 2 inpatient colectomies; 2 colectomies after initial response; 3 patients still on tofacitinib at wk 26 57% 1 CMV colitis
5/7 patients met Truelove and Witts criteria for ASUC Most patients failed more than one line of therapy: Vedolizumab: 4/7 patients; Ustekinumab: 1/7 patients; Cyclosporin: 1/7 patients
Only 1 patient received IFX rescue the same admission
Mixed Naganuma (2023) [69] 9 Prospective cohort study ASUC patients who received tofacitinib following initial treatment with IFX, tacrolimus, apheresis or cyclosporin during the same admission Tofacitinib regimen not specified As per “Patient profile” column 28 day Clinical remission: 5 out of 9 patients at day 28 44% 1 CMV reactivation
4 patients had IFX rescue and 3 patients had tacrolimus rescue History of experience to biologics prior to admission not stated Colectomy: 4 out of 9 patients at day 28
1 patient received adalimumab and 1 patient received plasmapheresis prior to tofacitinib
Mixed Rutka (2020) [65] 3 Case series ASUC, biologic-experienced patients with inadequate response to IV steroids Tofacitinib 10 mg BD All patients had previously failed at least 2 biologics prior to presentation 90 day Clinical response at 8 wk: 3/3 patients 0% Nil
Clinical remission at 8 wk: 2/3 patients
2 patients received IV cyclosporin or IFX rescue for the current admission prior to tofacitinib IFX: 3/3 patients; adalimumab: 2/3 patients; vedolizumab: 2/3 patients; cyclosporin: 1/3 patients Colectomy at 30 and 90 day: 0/3 patients
Mixed Xiao (2022) [47] 8 Case series/Retrospective cohort study Patients with ASUC, defined as UC requiring hospitalization and IV steroids Tofacitinib 10 mg BD, or 10 mg TDS followed by 10 mg BD, at physician’s discretion 3 patients started anti-TNF during current admission 6 mo Clinical response in 5/8 patients during index hospitalization 37.5% Nil
All patients failed or were intolerant to anti-TNF therapy and started tofacitinib as inpatient 5 patients received anti-TNF prior to hospitalization (3 anti-TNF+ vedolizumab; 2: anti-TNF+vedolizumab+ustekinumab) Clinical remission: all clinical responders (5/5) at 30 and 90 day. However, only 3/5 responders were still in clinical remission at 6 mo
3 patients who were IFX-naive received IFX rescue during the same admission
5 patients received anti-TNF prior to the current hospitalization Colectomy: 3/8 patients by 6 mo

Studies have been classified as follows: (1) “Sequential” studies where patients received tofacitinib as true sequential therapy after failure of IFX or cyclosporin rescue therapy during the same admission; (2) “Bio-experienced” studies where patients received tofacitinib as inpatient following prior treatment with 1 or more biologic agent, but IFX or cyclosporin rescue was not administered during the same admission that tofacitinib was commenced; (3) “Mixed” studies combining patients from the 2 former group.

ASUC, acute severe ulcerative colitis; AE, adverse events; IFX, infliximab; UC, ulcerative colitis; BD, twice a day; TDS, three times a day; CMV, cytomegalovirus; MES, Mayo endoscopic score; IV, intravenous; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; HR, hazard ratio.

Table 2.
Studies Where Tofacitinib Has Been Used as First-Line Rescue in Steroid-Refractory Patients with ASUC
Use of tofacitinib Author (year) No. Study design Patient profile Intervention with tofacitinib Exposure to advanced therapy prior to tofacitinib Follow-up Main results/salient findings: Response rate Colectomy rate Major adverse events
Bio-naïve patients Komeda (2023) [93] 8 Case series/retrospective cohort study Biologic-naïve patients with ASUC who were refractory to IV steroids and received tofacitinib as first-line rescue therapy Tofacitinib 20 mg/day Nil Date of discharge from hospital 6 out of 8 patients responded to tofacitinib rescue Time to clinical response: 2–5 day 75% 12.5% However note that 1 patient responded to IFX after tofacitinib failure Herpes zoster in 1 patient-treated with antiviral therapy while tofacitinib was continued
2 patients did not respond to tofacitinib
Of the 2 tofacitinib nonresponders, 1 patient achieved clinical remission with IFX while 1 patient did not respond to IFX and required colectomy
Predominantly bio-naïve patients Malakar (2023) [94] 8a Case series/retrospective cohort study Patients with ASUC, all biologic-naïve except for 1, refractory to IV hydrocortisone and received first-line tofacitinib rescue therapy Tofacitinib 10 mg BD All biologicnaïve except for 1 patient experienced to IFX and vedolizumab 10 day to 16 mo (median: 6 mo) 7 out of 8 patients responded to tofacitinib 88% 13% 2 deaths: 1 patient died of sepsis after colectomy, 1 patient died of bacterial pneumonia
Time to clinical response: 3 to 5 day
Colectomy: 1 out of 8 patients. The colectomy occurred in a bio-naïve patient

a 7 out of 8 patients were biologic-naïve.

ASUC, acute severe ulcerative colitis; IV, intravenous; IFX, infliximab; BD, twice a day.

  • 1. Dinesen LC, Walsh AJ, Protic MN, et al. The pattern and outcome of acute severe colitis. J Crohns Colitis 2010;4:431–437.ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Truelove SC, Witts LJ. Cortisone in ulcerative colitis; final report on a therapeutic trial. Br Med J 1955;2:1041–1048.PubMedPMC
  • 3. Seah D, De Cruz P. Review article: the practical management of acute severe ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2016;43:482–513.ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Turner D, Walsh CM, Steinhart AH, Griffiths AM. Response to corticosteroids in severe ulcerative colitis: a systematic review of the literature and a meta-regression. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5:103–110.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Laharie D, Bourreille A, Branche J, et al. Ciclosporin versus infliximab in patients with severe ulcerative colitis refractory to intravenous steroids: a parallel, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012;380:1909–1915.PubMed
  • 6. Narula N, Marshall JK, Colombel JF, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis: infliximab or cyclosporine as rescue therapy in patients with severe ulcerative colitis refractory to steroids. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111:477–491.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 7. Li Wai Suen CF, Seah D, Choy MC, De Cruz P. Factors associated with response to rescue therapy in acute severe ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2023;Sep 19 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1093/ibd/izad183.Article
  • 8. Gibson DJ, Heetun ZS, Redmond CE, et al. An accelerated infliximab induction regimen reduces the need for early colectomy in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;13:330–335.ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Choy MC, Seah D, Faleck DM, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis: optimal salvage therapy in acute severe ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2019;25:1169–1186.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 10. Berinstein JA, Steiner CA, Regal RE, et al. Efficacy of induction therapy with high-intensity tofacitinib in 4 patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17:988–990.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 11. Zinger CH, Ringel Y, Eitan M, et al. Upadacitinib for acute severe ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2023;29:1667–1669.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 12. Williams JG, Alam MF, Alrubaiy L, et al. Infliximab versus ciclosporin for steroid-resistant acute severe ulcerative colitis (CONSTRUCT): a mixed methods, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;1:15–24.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 13. Weissman S, Chris-Olaiya A, Mehta TI, et al. A novel player: cyclosporine therapy in the management of inflammatory bowel disease. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;4:67.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 14. Lichtiger S, Present DH, Kornbluth A, et al. Cyclosporine in severe ulcerative colitis refractory to steroid therapy. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1841–1845.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. D’Haens G, Lemmens L, Geboes K, et al. Intravenous cyclosporine versus intravenous corticosteroids as single therapy for severe attacks of ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2001;120:1323–1329.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Croft A, Walsh A, Doecke J, Cooley R, Howlett M, RadfordSmith G. Outcomes of salvage therapy for steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis: ciclosporin vs. infliximab. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2013;38:294–302.ArticlePubMed
  • 17. Molnár T, Farkas K, Szepes Z, et al. Long-term outcome of cyclosporin rescue therapy in acute, steroid-refractory severe ulcerative colitis. United European Gastroenterol J 2014;2:108–112.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 18. Sternthal MB, Murphy SJ, George J, Kornbluth A, Lichtiger S, Present DH. Adverse events associated with the use of cyclosporine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:937–943.ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Van Assche G, D’Haens G, Noman M, et al. Randomized, double-blind comparison of 4 mg/kg versus 2 mg/kg intravenous cyclosporine in severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2003;125:1025–1031.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Lamb CA, Kennedy NA, Raine T, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults. Gut 2019;68(Suppl 3): s1–s106.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 21. Berends SE, van Steeg TJ, Ahsman MJ, et al. Tumor necrosis factor-mediated disposition of infliximab in ulcerative colitis patients. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2019;46:543–551.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 22. Guo Y, Lu N, Bai A. Clinical use and mechanisms of infliximab treatment on inflammatory bowel disease: a recent update. Biomed Res Int 2013;2013:581631.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 23. Van den Brande JM, Braat H, van den Brink GR, et al. Infliximab but not etanercept induces apoptosis in lamina propria T-lymphocytes from patients with Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2003;124:1774–1785.ArticlePubMed
  • 24. Veltkamp C, Anstaett M, Wahl K, et al. Apoptosis of regulatory T lymphocytes is increased in chronic inflammatory bowel disease and reversed by anti-TNFα treatment. Gut 2011;60:1345–1353.ArticlePubMed
  • 25. Sands BE, Tremaine WJ, Sandborn WJ, et al. Infliximab in the treatment of severe, steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis: a pilot study. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2001;7:83–88.ArticlePubMed
  • 26. Järnerot G, Hertervig E, Friis-Liby I, et al. Infliximab as rescue therapy in severe to moderately severe ulcerative colitis: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Gastroenterology 2005;128:1805–1811.ArticlePubMed
  • 27. Ochsenkühn T, Sackmann M, Göke B. Infliximab for acute, not steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis: a randomized pilot study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;16:1167–1171.PubMed
  • 28. Halpin SJ, Hamlin PJ, Greer DP, Warren L, Ford AC. Efficacy of infliximab in acute severe ulcerative colitis: a single-centre experience. World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:1091–1097.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 29. Pola S, Patel D, Ramamoorthy S, et al. Strategies for the care of adults hospitalized for active ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:1315–1325.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 30. Gordon BL, Battat R. Therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab in acute severe ulcerative colitis. J Clin Med 2023;12:3378.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 31. Fiske J, Conley T, Sebastian S, Subramanian S. Infliximab in acute severe colitis: getting the right dose. Frontline Gastroenterol 2020;11:427–429.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 32. Kevans D, Murthy S, Mould DR, Silverberg MS. Accelerated clearance of infliximab is associated with treatment failure in patients with corticosteroid-refractory acute ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis 2018;12:662–669.ArticlePubMed
  • 33. Kennedy NA, Heap GA, Green HD, et al. Predictors of anti-TNF treatment failure in anti-TNF-naive patients with active luminal Crohn’s disease: a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;4:341–353.PubMed
  • 34. Gisbert JP, García MJ, Chaparro M. Rescue therapies for steroidrefractory acute severe ulcerative colitis: a review. J Crohns Colitis 2023;17:972–994.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 35. Rosen MJ, Minar P, Vinks AA. Review article: applying pharmacokinetics to optimise dosing of anti-TNF biologics in acute severe ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015;41:1094–1103.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 36. Battat R, Hemperly A, Truong S, et al. Baseline clearance of infliximab is associated with requirement for colectomy in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;19:511–518.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 37. Vande Casteele N, Jeyarajah J, Jairath V, Feagan BG, Sandborn WJ. Infliximab exposure-response relationship and thresholds associated with endoscopic healing in patients with ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17:1814–1821.ArticlePubMed
  • 38. Poullenot F, Nivet D, Paul S, Riviere P, Roblin X, Laharie D. Severe endoscopic lesions are not associated with more infliximab fecal loss in acute severe ulcerative colitis. Dig Liver Dis 2018;50:1100–1103.ArticlePubMed
  • 39. Mager DE. Target-mediated drug disposition and dynamics. Biochem Pharmacol 2006;72:1–10.ArticlePubMed
  • 40. Yarur AJ, Jain A, Sussman DA, et al. The association of tissue anti-TNF drug levels with serological and endoscopic disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease: the ATLAS study. Gut 2016;65:249–255.ArticlePubMed
  • 41. Olsen T, Goll R, Cui G, et al. Tissue levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha correlates with grade of inflammation in untreated ulcerative colitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007;42:1312–1320.ArticlePubMed
  • 42. Gilmore R, Hilley P, Srinivasan A, Choy M, De Cruz P. Sequential use of high-dose tofacitinib after infliximab salvage therapy in acute severe ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis 2022;16:166–168.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 43. Weisshof R, Ollech JE, El Jurdi K, et al. Ciclosporin therapy after infliximab failure in hospitalized patients with acute severe colitis is effective and safe. J Crohns Colitis 2019;13:1105–1110.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 44. Uzzan M, Bresteau C, Laharie D, et al. Tofacitinib as salvage therapy for 55 patients hospitalised with refractory severe ulcerative colitis: a GETAID cohort. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2021;54:312–319.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 45. Berinstein JA, Sheehan JL, Dias M, et al. Tofacitinib for biologic-experienced hospitalized patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis: a retrospective case-control study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;19:2112–2120.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 46. Eqbal A, Hilley P, Choy M, Srinivasan A, de Cruz P. Outcomes out to 12 months after sequential use of high-dose tofacitinib following infliximab in acute severe ulcerative colitis. Intern Med J 2023;53:1497–1500.ArticlePubMed
  • 47. Xiao Y, Benoit N, Sedano R, et al. Effectiveness of tofacitinib for hospitalized patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis: case series. Dig Dis Sci 2022;67:5213–5219.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 48. Honap S, Pavlidis P, Ray S, et al. Tofacitinib in acute severe ulcerative colitis: a real-world tertiary center experience. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2020;26:e147. –e149.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 49. Gilmore R, Tan WL, Fernandes R, An YK, Begun J. Upadacitinib salvage therapy for infliximab-experienced patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis 2023;17:2033–2036.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 50. Berinstein J, Levine J, Satishchandran A, et al. Tu1769 Off-label, high-intensity upadacitinib for hospitalized patients with severe inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 2023;164:S–1118-S-1119.Article
  • 51. Daniel F, Loriot MA, Seksik P, et al. Multidrug resistance gene1 polymorphisms and resistance to cyclosporine A in patients with steroid resistant ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2007;13:19–23.ArticlePubMed
  • 52. Hebert MF. Contributions of hepatic and intestinal metabolism and P-glycoprotein to cyclosporine and tacrolimus oral drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1997;27:201–214.ArticlePubMed
  • 53. Burckart GJ, Starzl TE, Venkataramanan R, et al. Excretion of cyclosporine and its metabolites in human bile. Transplant Proc 1986;18(6 Suppl 5): 46–49.PubMedPMC
  • 54. Wang CE, Lu KP, Chang Z, Guo ML, Qiao HL. Association of CYP3A4*1B genotype with cyclosporin A pharmacokinetics in renal transplant recipients: a meta-analysis. Gene 2018;664:44–49.ArticlePubMed
  • 55. Hole K, Wollmann BM, Nguyen C, Haslemo T, Molden E. Comparison of CYP3A4-inducing capacity of enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs using 4β-hydroxycholesterol as biomarker. Ther Drug Monit 2018;40:463–468.ArticlePubMed
  • 56. Takaya S, Zaghloul I, Iwatsuki S, et al. Effect of liver dysfunction on cyclosporine pharmacokinetics. Transplant Proc 1987;19(1 Pt 2): 1246–1247.PubMedPMC
  • 57. Narula N, Fine M, Colombel JF, Marshall JK, Reinisch W. Systematic review: sequential rescue therapy in severe ulcerative colitis: do the benefits outweigh the risks? Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015;21:1683–1694.PubMed
  • 58. Bercier B, Niland B. S2282 Use of tofacitinib as rescue therapy in a biologic-experienced patient hospitalized with acute severe ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:S1207.Article
  • 59. Chen CY, Davis E, White L, Patrick D. Tofacitinib-induced remission of infliximab-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis: a case report. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;35:130–131.
  • 60. Griller N, Cohen L. Rapid onset of tofacitinib induction therapy for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17:1213.Article
  • 61. Khan M, Mushtaq K, Yakoob R, AlSoub D. High dose tofacitinib as salvage therapy in steroid refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis following non-response to infliximab. Gastroenterology 2022;162:S107.Article
  • 62. Yang Q, Chen L, Feng L, et al. Success of cyclosporin and tofacitinib combination therapy in a patient with severe steroidrefractory ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2021;27:e157–e158.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 63. Jena A, Mishra S, Sachan A, Singh H, Singh AK, Sharma V. Tofacitinib in acute severe ulcerative colitis: case series and a systematic review. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2021;27:e101–e103.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 64. Constant BD, Baldassano R, Kirsch J, Mitchel EB, Stein R, Albenberg L. Tofacitinib salvage therapy for children hospitalized for corticosteroid- and biologic-refractory ulcerative colitis. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2022;75:724–730.ArticlePubMed
  • 65. Rutka M, Pigniczki D, Molnár T. Tofacitinib therapy, the lender of last resort. J Crohns Colitis 2021;15:694.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 66. Kotwani P, Terdiman J, Lewin S. Tofacitinib for rescue therapy in acute severe ulcerative colitis: a real-world experience. J Crohns Colitis 2020;14:1026–1028.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 67. Santos S, Gamelas V, Saraiva R, Simões G, Saiote J, Ramos J. Tofacitinib: an option for acute severe ulcerative colitis? GE Port J Gastroenterol 2021;29:132–134.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 68. Sedano R, Jairath V. High-dose rescue tofacitinib prevented inpatient colectomy in acute severe ulcerative colitis refractory to anti-TNF. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2021;27:e59–e60.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 69. Naganuma M, Kobayashi T, Kunisaki R, et al. Real-world efficacy and safety of advanced therapies in hospitalized patients with ulcerative colitis. J Gastroenterol 2023;58:1198–1210.PubMed
  • 70. Danese S, Grisham M, Hodge J, Telliez JB. JAK inhibition using tofacitinib for inflammatory bowel disease treatment: a hub for multiple inflammatory cytokines. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2016;310:G155–G162.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 71. Fernández-Clotet A, Castro-Poceiro J, Panés J. Tofacitinib for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol 2018;14:881–892.ArticlePubMed
  • 72. Parmentier JM, Voss J, Graff C, et al. In vitro and in vivo characterization of the JAK1 selectivity of Upadacitinib (ABT-494). BMC Rheumatol 2018;2:23.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 73. Ali NM, Shehab MA. Upadacitinib as a rescue therapy in acute severe ulcerative colitis: a case report and review of the literature. Am J Case Rep 2023;24:e940966.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 74. Salameh R, Kirchgesner J, Allez M, et al. Long-term outcome of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis responding to intravenous steroids. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2020;51:1096–1104.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 75. Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Sands BE, et al. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 2013;369:699–710.ArticlePubMed
  • 76. Ollech JE, Dwadasi S, Rai V, et al. Efficacy and safety of induction therapy with calcineurin inhibitors followed by vedolizumab maintenance in 71 patients with severe steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2020;51:637–643.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 77. Pellet G, Stefanescu C, Carbonnel F, et al. Efficacy and safety of induction therapy with calcineurin inhibitors in combination with vedolizumab in patients with refractory ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17:494–501.ArticlePubMed
  • 78. Christensen B, Gibson PR, Micic D, et al. Safety and efficacy of combination treatment with calcineurin inhibitors and vedolizumab in patients with refractory inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17:486–493.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 79. Graziano F, Macaluso FS, Cassata N, Citrano M, Orlando A. Rescue therapy with intensive vedolizumab optimization in a seventeen-year-old girl with acute severe ulcerative colitis. Dig Dis Sci 2021;66:2470–2471.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 80. Hamel B, Wu M, Hamel EO, Bass DM, Park KT. Outcome of tacrolimus and vedolizumab after corticosteroid and antiTNF failure in paediatric severe colitis. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 2018;5:e000195.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 81. Resál T, Pigniczki D, Szántó K, Rutka M, Farkas K, Molnar T. Letter: ciclosporin and vedolizumab for steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2020;52:578–579.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 82. Szántó K, Molnár T, Farkas K. New promising combo therapy in inflammatory bowel diseases refractory to anti-TNF agents: cyclosporine plus vedolizumab. J Crohns Colitis 2018;12:629.ArticlePubMed
  • 83. Tarabar D, El Jurdi K, Traboulsi C, et al. A prospective trial with long term follow-up of patients with severe, steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis who received induction therapy with cyclosporine and were maintained with vedolizumab. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2022;28:1549–1554.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 84. Ashat D, Jain A, Weaver KN, Long MD, Herfarth HH, Barnes EL. An old bridge to the newer biologics: cyclosporine for rescue therapy in acute severe ulcerative colitis. Dig Dis Sci 2022;67:5439–5443.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 85. Veyrard P, Pellet G, Laharie D, Nachury M, Juillerat P, Roblin X. Efficacy of induction therapy with calcineurin inhibitors in combination with ustekinumab for acute severe ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023;21:1354–1355.ArticlePubMed
  • 86. Shaffer SR, Traboulsi C, Krugliak Cleveland N, Rubin DT. Combining cyclosporine with ustekinumab in acute severe ulcerative colitis. ACG Case Rep J 2021;8:e00604.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 87. Ganzleben I, Geppert C, Osaba L, et al. Successful cyclosporin and Ustekinumab combination therapy in a patient with severe steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2020;13:1756284820954112.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 88. Vitali F, Rath T, Klenske E, et al. Long-term outcomes of cyclosporin induction and ustekinumab maintenance combination therapy in patients with steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2023;17:17562848231218555.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 89. Sandborn WJ, Su C, Sands BE, et al. Tofacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1723–1736.ArticlePubMed
  • 90. Danese S, Vermeire S, Zhou W, et al. Upadacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: results from three phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomised trials. Lancet 2022;399:2113–2128.ArticlePubMed
  • 91. Feagan BG, Danese S, Loftus EV Jr, et al. Filgotinib as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis (SELECTION): a phase 2b/3 double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2021;397:2372–2384.ArticlePubMed
  • 92. Singh A, Goyal MK, Midha V, et al. Tofacitinib in Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis (TACOS): a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2024;Jan 22 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000002635.Article
  • 93. Komeda Y, Kono M, Kashida H, et al. Successful initial tofacitinib treatment for acute severe ulcerative colitis with steroid resistance: a case series. Ann Gastroenterol 2023;36:97–102.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 94. Malakar S, Kothalkar S, Shamsul Hoda U, Ghoshal UC. Tofacitinib in steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis: a retrospective analysis. Cureus 2023;15:e45416.ArticlePubMedPMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • PubReader PubReader
      • ePub LinkePub Link
      • Cite
        CITE
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        What to do when traditional rescue therapies fail in acute severe ulcerative colitis
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      What to do when traditional rescue therapies fail in acute severe ulcerative colitis
      Image Image
      Fig. 1. Factors associated with lack of response to traditional rescue therapy in acute severe ulcerative colitis. CMV, cytomegalovirus; C. difficile, Clostridioides difficile; CRP, C-reactive protein; UCEIS, ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity. This figure was created with BioRender.com.
      Fig. 2. Mechanisms of infliximab failure and potential ways to overcome them. ASUC, acute severe ulcerative colitis; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; JAK, Janus kinase. This figure was created with BioRender.com.

      Fig. 1.

      Fig. 2.

      What to do when traditional rescue therapies fail in acute severe ulcerative colitis
      Use of tofacitinib Author (year) No. Study design Patient profile Intervention with tofacitinib Exposure to advanced therapy prior to tofacitinib Follow-up Main results/salient findings: Colectomy rate Major AEs
      Sequential Bercier (2020) [58] 1 Case report ASUC after 2nd IFX induction dose for severely active UC. Received IFX rescue prior to tofacitinib Tofacitinib 10 mg BD for 5 day; Escalated to 10 mg TDS at day 7 due to partial response; Dose decreased to 10 mg BD at follow-up 12 day later IFX outpatient induction+IFX rescue therapy for ASUC for current admission 30 day Patient in clinical remission at day 30 0% Nil
      Sequential Chen (2020) [59] 1 Case report ASUC, refractory to IFX rescue Tofacitinib 10 mg BD Previous secukinumab for psoriatic arthritis 4 wk Patient in endoscopic and histological remission at 4 wk 0% Nil
      IFX as rescue therapy for ASUC
      Sequential Griller (2019) [60] 1 Case report Hospitalized patient with UC, with severe inflammation at endoscopy, after vedolizumab and IFX failure Tofacitinib 10 mg BD Vedolizumab, IFX 8 mo Patient in endoscopic remission and colectomy-free at 8 mo 0% Nil
      Sequential Khan (2022) [61] 1 Case report ASUC, refractory to IV steroids and IFX rescue Tofacitinib 10 mg TDS (duration of TDS dosing not stated) IFX prior to admission and as rescue during same admission Also received IV ganciclovir for CMV colitis 3 mo Patient in clinical and biochemical remission at 3 mo. MES of 1 at 3 mo 0% Nil
      Sequential Yang (2021) [62] 1 Case report ASUC, refractory to IV steroids and single dose IFX rescue Commenced sequential therapy with combination tofacitinib and cyclosporin Tofacitinib 10 mg BD, in combination with IV cyclosporin 3 mg/kg daily IFX 1 yr Clinical response after 10 day of combination therapy 0% Nil
      At 1 mo, changed to oral cyclosporin 150 mg BD+tofacitinib 5 mg BD Endoscopic healing with scars noted at 6 mo
      At 6 mo, tofacitinib decreased to 5 mg BD and mesalazine 1.5 g BD commenced
      At 1 yr, tofacitinib ceased
      Bio-experienced Berinstein (2019) [10] 4 Case series ASUC in 4 patients with features of severe disease, at high risk of failing medical therapy 3 patients: IV methylprednisolone 60 mg daily+tofacitinib 10 mg TDS for 9 doses 2 patients: IFX and/or adalimumab 2–18 mo 3 out of 4 patients achieved clinical remission 50% No major AE. 1 patient: rashtherapy changed
      2 patients were anti-TNF experienced and 1 was on chronic steroids 1 patient: budesonide+tofacitinib 10 mg TDS for 9 doses 2 out of 4 patients required colectomy (1 due to medically refractory disease to tofacitinib; 1 due to dysplasia)
      Bio-experienced Berinstein (2021) [45] 40 Retrospective case-control study ASUC patients who were biologicexperienced and were commenced on tofacitinib as an inpatient Standard (tofacitinib 10 mg BD for the length of hospitalization) or highintensity tofacitinib (10 mg TDS for 9 doses followed by 10 mg BD) IFX: 85%; Adalimumab: 40%; Golimumab: 5%; Vedolizumab 52.5%; Ustekinumab: 2.5% 90 day 90-day colectomy rate of 15.0% (6/40) in tofacitinib group compared to 20.4% (23/113) in control group 15% Similar rates of infection, venous thromboembolic events and cardiovascular events in tofacitinib group and controls
      All patients also received IV corticosteroids At 90 day follow-up, tofacitinib group had a decreased risk of colectomy compared to controls (HR=0.28, P=0.018)
      40 cases; 113 controls Subgroup analysis suggest that benefit might be confined to intensified tofacitinib dosing group
      Bio-experienced Kotwani (2020) [66] 4 Case series ASUC, with previous biologic experience and refractory to IV steroids. Mayo activity index ≥ 10 at presentation Tofacitinib 10 mg BD; Dose increased to 15 mg BD in 1 patient All previously exposed to IFX and vedolizumab 5–14 mo All 4 patients experienced clinical improvement and were discharged on tofacitinib 0% at 30 and 90 day Nil
      1 patient also previously exposed to adalimumab At follow-up, 2 patients in steroid-free remission and 2 had endoscopically active disease
      Of the latter 2 patients, 1 was referred for surgery due to colonic biopsies being indefinite for dysplasia
      Bio-experienced Santos (2022) [67] 2 Case series ASUC, with previous biologic experience and previous history of ASUC, refractory to IV steroids Tofacitinib 10 mg BD; Maintenance dose of 5 mg BD in 1 patient Both patients previously failed anti-TNF, vedolizumab and tacrolimus 11–14 mo Both patients in clinical and endoscopic remission at wk 16 0% Nil
      Bio-experienced Sedano (2021) [68] 1 Case report ASUC, with previous biologic experience; active disease despite tofacitinib 10 mg BD and refractory to IV steroids Tofacitinib 30 mg daily for 48 hr, then 10 mg BD IFX 10 mg/kg 4-weekly 50 day Endoscopic and histological remission at day 50 0% Nil
      Mixed Jena (2021) [63] 4 Case series ASUC, refractory to IV steroids Tofacitinib 10 mg BD IFX: 2/4 patients 15 day to 1 mo Clinical improvement in 3 patients, however 1 of them subsequently died of COVID-19 infection or pulmonary embolism 25% 1 death from COVID-19 infection or pulmonary embolism
      3 patients also failed rescue therapy with either IFX or cyclosporin during same admission Cyclosporin: 1/4 patients Colectomy: 1 patient due to failure to respond to tofacitinib
      Mixed Constant (2022) [64] 11 Case series/Retrospective cohort study Pediatric patients, hospitalized with flare of UC-steroid and biologic refractory 3/11: tofacitinib TDS; 8/11: tofacitinib BD 10/11 patients had prior exposure to anti-TNF, 3 of which also failed vedolizumab previously Median 182 day Colectomy: 45% Nil
      5 patients also received combination antibiotic salvage 1 patient was biologic naive at time of presentation failed to respond to IFX rescue therapy for the current admission 3/11 patients at day 90
      1 patient received tacrolimus 5/11 patients over median 182 day follow-up
      Mixed Uzzan (2021) [44] 55 Multicenter cohort study-Retrospective and Prospective Patients hospitalized with UC flare Tofacitinib induction regimen not specified. At wk 6, the 43 patients still on tofacitinib were all on 10 mg BD IFX: 49 (89.1%); Cyclosporin: 19 (34.5%); Vedolizumab (69.1%); Ustekinumab (10.9%) Median 6.5 mo (IQR, 3–12.3) Wk 6-clinical response 60%, clinical remission 45.5%, clinical steroid-free remission 37.5% 27.3% 4 severe AE, including 2 cases of Herpes Zoster (age > 60 yr). 1 death post-colectomy, believed unrelated to tofacitinib
      75% of patients had Lichtiger score ≥ 10
      66% of patients were on IV steroids at time of tofacitinib initiation
      Only 10 patients received rescue therapy before tofacitinib for the current flare: 2 (3.6%) IFX, 8 (14.5%) cyclosporin Wk 14-clinical response 41.8%, clinical remission 34.5%, clinical steroid-free remission 32.7%
      Not all patients met Lichtiger or Truelove and Witts criteria for ASUC
      Mixed Eqbal (2023) [46] 11 Case series/Retrospective cohort study ASUC, refractory to 3 day of IV steroids Tofacitinib 10 mg TDS for 14 day, then 10 mg BD IFX: 11/11 patients 12 mo Clinical response at 6 and 12 mo: 9/11 patients 18% 1 transient hepatitisimproved after tofacitinib dose was decreased
      5 patients were previously anti-TNF naive and failed IFX rescue for the current admission Of these, 5/11 patients had IFX rescue therapy for current admission Colectomy: 2/11 patients
      6 patients had a history of primary non-response to IFX induction within the preceding 3 mo 6/11 patients had primary non- response to outpatient IFX induction in the preceding 3 mo
      3/6 patients in the latter group also had previous vedolizumab exposure
      Mixed Gilmore (2022) [42] 5 Case series ASUC, receiving tofacitinib immediately after IFX failure Tofacitinib 10 mg TDS for up to 14 day, then 10 mg BD for 8 wk, then 5 mg BD maintenance IFX: 5/5 patients 90 day Clinical response during inpatient stay: 4 out of 5 patients 1 failed to respond and required inpatient colectomy 20% Nil
      2 patients were biologic naïve at admission and received IFX rescue 1 patient also previously exposed to vedolizumab
      3 patients were admitted with ASUC within 7 day of completed IFX induction 90-day outcomes: 4 responders remained colectomy-free 2 patients in combined clinical and endoscopic remission
      Mixed Honap (2020) [48] 7 Case series UC patients with previous biologic experience and severe colitis (MES 3) receiving inpatient tofacitinib after IV hydrocortisone failure Tofacitinib regimen not specified Anti-TNF (IFX, golimumab, adalimumab): 7/7 patients 2–52 wk 2 inpatient colectomies; 2 colectomies after initial response; 3 patients still on tofacitinib at wk 26 57% 1 CMV colitis
      5/7 patients met Truelove and Witts criteria for ASUC Most patients failed more than one line of therapy: Vedolizumab: 4/7 patients; Ustekinumab: 1/7 patients; Cyclosporin: 1/7 patients
      Only 1 patient received IFX rescue the same admission
      Mixed Naganuma (2023) [69] 9 Prospective cohort study ASUC patients who received tofacitinib following initial treatment with IFX, tacrolimus, apheresis or cyclosporin during the same admission Tofacitinib regimen not specified As per “Patient profile” column 28 day Clinical remission: 5 out of 9 patients at day 28 44% 1 CMV reactivation
      4 patients had IFX rescue and 3 patients had tacrolimus rescue History of experience to biologics prior to admission not stated Colectomy: 4 out of 9 patients at day 28
      1 patient received adalimumab and 1 patient received plasmapheresis prior to tofacitinib
      Mixed Rutka (2020) [65] 3 Case series ASUC, biologic-experienced patients with inadequate response to IV steroids Tofacitinib 10 mg BD All patients had previously failed at least 2 biologics prior to presentation 90 day Clinical response at 8 wk: 3/3 patients 0% Nil
      Clinical remission at 8 wk: 2/3 patients
      2 patients received IV cyclosporin or IFX rescue for the current admission prior to tofacitinib IFX: 3/3 patients; adalimumab: 2/3 patients; vedolizumab: 2/3 patients; cyclosporin: 1/3 patients Colectomy at 30 and 90 day: 0/3 patients
      Mixed Xiao (2022) [47] 8 Case series/Retrospective cohort study Patients with ASUC, defined as UC requiring hospitalization and IV steroids Tofacitinib 10 mg BD, or 10 mg TDS followed by 10 mg BD, at physician’s discretion 3 patients started anti-TNF during current admission 6 mo Clinical response in 5/8 patients during index hospitalization 37.5% Nil
      All patients failed or were intolerant to anti-TNF therapy and started tofacitinib as inpatient 5 patients received anti-TNF prior to hospitalization (3 anti-TNF+ vedolizumab; 2: anti-TNF+vedolizumab+ustekinumab) Clinical remission: all clinical responders (5/5) at 30 and 90 day. However, only 3/5 responders were still in clinical remission at 6 mo
      3 patients who were IFX-naive received IFX rescue during the same admission
      5 patients received anti-TNF prior to the current hospitalization Colectomy: 3/8 patients by 6 mo
      Use of tofacitinib Author (year) No. Study design Patient profile Intervention with tofacitinib Exposure to advanced therapy prior to tofacitinib Follow-up Main results/salient findings: Response rate Colectomy rate Major adverse events
      Bio-naïve patients Komeda (2023) [93] 8 Case series/retrospective cohort study Biologic-naïve patients with ASUC who were refractory to IV steroids and received tofacitinib as first-line rescue therapy Tofacitinib 20 mg/day Nil Date of discharge from hospital 6 out of 8 patients responded to tofacitinib rescue Time to clinical response: 2–5 day 75% 12.5% However note that 1 patient responded to IFX after tofacitinib failure Herpes zoster in 1 patient-treated with antiviral therapy while tofacitinib was continued
      2 patients did not respond to tofacitinib
      Of the 2 tofacitinib nonresponders, 1 patient achieved clinical remission with IFX while 1 patient did not respond to IFX and required colectomy
      Predominantly bio-naïve patients Malakar (2023) [94] 8a Case series/retrospective cohort study Patients with ASUC, all biologic-naïve except for 1, refractory to IV hydrocortisone and received first-line tofacitinib rescue therapy Tofacitinib 10 mg BD All biologicnaïve except for 1 patient experienced to IFX and vedolizumab 10 day to 16 mo (median: 6 mo) 7 out of 8 patients responded to tofacitinib 88% 13% 2 deaths: 1 patient died of sepsis after colectomy, 1 patient died of bacterial pneumonia
      Time to clinical response: 3 to 5 day
      Colectomy: 1 out of 8 patients. The colectomy occurred in a bio-naïve patient
      Table 1. Studies Where Tofacitinib Has Been Employed as Sequential Therapy or in Biologic-Experienced Patients in ASUC

      Studies have been classified as follows: (1) “Sequential” studies where patients received tofacitinib as true sequential therapy after failure of IFX or cyclosporin rescue therapy during the same admission; (2) “Bio-experienced” studies where patients received tofacitinib as inpatient following prior treatment with 1 or more biologic agent, but IFX or cyclosporin rescue was not administered during the same admission that tofacitinib was commenced; (3) “Mixed” studies combining patients from the 2 former group.

      ASUC, acute severe ulcerative colitis; AE, adverse events; IFX, infliximab; UC, ulcerative colitis; BD, twice a day; TDS, three times a day; CMV, cytomegalovirus; MES, Mayo endoscopic score; IV, intravenous; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; HR, hazard ratio.

      Table 2. Studies Where Tofacitinib Has Been Used as First-Line Rescue in Steroid-Refractory Patients with ASUC

      7 out of 8 patients were biologic-naïve.

      ASUC, acute severe ulcerative colitis; IV, intravenous; IFX, infliximab; BD, twice a day.

      Table 1.

      Table 2.

      Intest Res : Intestinal Research
      © Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases.
      Close layer
      TOP