Filgotinib effectiveness and safety as second or third-line therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis: data from a real-world study

Antonio Tursi; Giammarco Mocci; Francesco Costa; Linda Ceccarelli; Edoardo Savarino; Caterina De Barba; Caterina Mucherino; Elvira D’Antonio; Laura Montesano; Manuela Marzo; Franco Scaldaferri; Daniele Napolitano; Daniela Pugliese; Antonietta Gerarda Gravina; Raffaele Pellegrino; Rocco Spagnuolo; Francesco Luzza; Antonio Cuomo; Laura Donnarumma; Giovanni Maconi; Giovanni Cataletti; Lorenzo Bertani; Giorgia Bodini; Andrea Pasta; Simona Piergallini; Mariaelena Serio; Antonella Scarcelli; Pietro Capone; Fabio Cortellini; Stefano Rodino; Ladislava Sebkova; Giuliana Vespere; Silvia Sedda; Vittorio D’Onofrio; Leonardo De Luca; Federica Gaiani; Stefano Kayali; Cristiano Pagnini; Maria Giovanna Graziani; Maria Carla Di Paolo; Leonardo Allegretta; Alessia Immacolata Cazzato; Stefano Scorza; Antonio Ferronato; Davide Giuseppe Ribaldone; Giovanni Aragona; Patrizia Perazzo; Giacomo Forti; Michela Di Fonzo; Federico Iacopini; Roberta Pica; Claudio Cassieri; Francesca Maria Onidi; Paolo Usai Satta; Walter Elisei; Marcello Picchio; Alfredo Papa

doi:10.5217/ir.2025.00067

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Intest Res > Ahead-of print articles > Article

Original Article Filgotinib effectiveness and safety as second or third-line therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis: data from a real-world study: Antonio Tursi^1,2,*, Giammarco Mocci^3,*, Francesco Costa⁴, Linda Ceccarelli⁴, Edoardo Savarino⁵, Caterina De Barba⁵, Caterina Mucherino⁶, Elvira D’Antonio⁶, Laura Montesano⁶, Manuela Marzo⁷, Franco Scaldaferri^8,9, Daniele Napolitano⁸, Daniela Pugliese^8,9, Antonietta Gerarda Gravina¹⁰, Raffaele Pellegrino¹⁰, Rocco Spagnuolo¹¹, Francesco Luzza¹¹, Antonio Cuomo¹², Laura Donnarumma¹², Giovanni Maconi¹³, Giovanni Cataletti¹³, Lorenzo Bertani¹⁴, Giorgia Bodini¹⁵, Andrea Pasta¹⁵, Simona Piergallini¹⁶, Mariaelena Serio¹⁷, Antonella Scarcelli¹⁷, Pietro Capone¹⁸, Fabio Cortellini¹⁹, Stefano Rodino²⁰, Ladislava Sebkova²⁰, Giuliana Vespere²¹, Silvia Sedda²¹, Vittorio D’Onofrio²¹, Leonardo De Luca²¹, Federica Gaiani²², Stefano Kayali²², Cristiano Pagnini²³, Maria Giovanna Graziani²³, Maria Carla Di Paolo²³, Leonardo Allegretta²⁴, Alessia Immacolata Cazzato²⁴, Stefano Scorza²⁴, Antonio Ferronato²⁵, Davide Giuseppe Ribaldone²⁶, Giovanni Aragona²⁷, Patrizia Perazzo²⁷, Giacomo Forti²⁸, Michela Di Fonzo²⁹, Federico Iacopini²⁹, Roberta Pica³⁰, Claudio Cassieri³⁰, Francesca Maria Onidi³, Paolo Usai Satta³, Walter Elisei³¹, Marcello Picchio³², Alfredo Papa^8,9; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00067
Published online: September 29, 2025

¹Territorial Gastroenterology Service, ASL BAT, Andria, Italy

²Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Catholic University, School of Medicine, Rome, Italy

³Division of Gastroenterology, AORN “Brotzu” Hospital, Cagliari, Italy

⁴IBD Unit, Department of General Surgery and Gastroenterology, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy

⁵Gastroenterology Unit, Azienda Ospedale-Università di Padova (AOUP), Padua, Italy

⁶Division of Gastroenterology, Azienda Ospedaliera “S. Anna e S. Sebastiano”, Caserta, Italy

⁷Division of Gastroenterology, “Veris-Delli Ponti” Hospital, Scorrano (LE), Italy

⁸Digestive Diseases Centre (CEMAD), Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” Foundation, IRCCS, Rome, Italy

⁹Catholic University, School of Medicine, Rome, Italy

¹⁰Department of Precision Medicine, Hepatogastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy

¹¹Department of Health Science, University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy

¹²Division of Gastroenterology, “Umberto I” Hospital, Nocera Inferiore (SA), Italy

¹³Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, “L. Sacco” University Hospital, Milan, Italy

¹⁴Division of Gastroenterology, “Felice Lotti” Hospital, Azienda USL Toscana Nord Ovest, Pontedera (PI), Italy

¹⁵Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialities, Division of Gastroenterology, IRCCS “San Martino” Hospital, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy

¹⁶Division of Gastroenterology, IBD Unit, “A. Murri” Hospital, Fermo, Italy

¹⁷Division of Gastroenterology, “San Salvatore” Hospital, Pesaro, Italy

¹⁸Division of Gastroenterology, “T. Maresca” Hospital, Torre del Greco, Italy

¹⁹Division of Gastroenterology, “Infermi” Hospital, Rimini, Italy

²⁰Division of Gastroenterology, “Ciaccio-Pugliese” Hospital, Catanzaro, Italy

²¹Division of Gastroenterology, “Ospedale del Mare”, ASL Na1, Naples, Italy

²²Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy

²³Division of Gastroenterology, “S. Giovanni - Addolorata” Hospital, Rome, Italy

²⁴Division of Gastroenterology, “Santa Caterina Novella” Hospital, Galatina, Italy

²⁵Digestive Endoscopy Unit, ULSS7 Pedemontana, Santorso, Italy

²⁶Department of Medical Sciences, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Turin, IBD Unit, “A.O.U. Citta della Salute e della Scienza di Torino”, Turin, Italy

²⁷Division of Gastroenterology, “Guglielmo da Saliceto” Hospital, Piacenza, Italy

²⁸Division of Digestive Endoscopy, “S. Maria Goretti” Hospital, Latina, Italy

²⁹Division of Gastroenterology, “Ospedale dei Castelli”, Ariccia, Italy

³⁰Division of Gastroenterology, IBD Unit, “S. Pertini” Hospital, Rome, Italy

³¹Division of Gastroenterology, A.O. “S. Camillo-Folanini”, Rome, Italy

³²Division of General Surgery, “P. Colombo” Hospital, ASL Roma 6, Velletri, Italy

Correspondence to Antonio Tursi, Territorial Gastroenterology Service, ASL BAT, Via Torino, 49, Andria 76123, Italy. E-mail: antotursi@tiscali.it

*These authors contributed equally to this study as first authors.

• Received: April 29, 2025 • Revised: June 17, 2025 • Accepted: July 14, 2025

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.

1,809 Views
244 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
Real-world data on the use of filgotinib (FILGO) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) are limited. This study aims to provide consistent results on the effectiveness and safety of FILGO in treating UC.
Methods
A retrospective assessment of clinical and endoscopic activity was conducted in a cohort of patients with UC according to the full Mayo score. The primary co-endpoints of the study were the evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of FILGO.
Results
We enrolled 102 patients with a median follow-up of 24 weeks (interquartile range, 8–24 weeks). At 8 weeks and the end of follow-up, clinical remission was achieved by 38 (37.2%) and 47 (46.1%) patients, respectively. Clinical remission was achieved in 13 of 18 patients (72.2%) receiving first-line therapy, 7 of 19 patients (36.8%) receiving second-line therapy, and 27 of 65 patients (41.5%) receiving third-line therapy (P= 0.002). Clinical remission at 8 weeks predicted clinical remission at the end of follow-up (P= 0.021). Age > 40 years (P= 0.046) and being on second- or third-line of treatment (P= 0.005) were negative predictors for clinical remission. Seventy-one patients (69.6%) achieved a clinical response. At endoscopic evaluation, mucosal healing was observed in 18 out of 30 patients (60.0%). Steroid-free remission was present in 38 out of 46 patients (82.6%). Five patients (4.9%) needed colectomy. Adverse events were recorded in 6 patients (5.8%): 2 cases (2%) were severe, requiring discontinuation of FILGO.
Conclusions
Our real-world data confirms that FILGO is safe and effective for patients with UC. Its efficacy is significantly improved when used as a first-line treatment.
Keywords: Ulcerative colitis; Filgotinib; Real life; Remission; Safety

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic, relapsing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), resulting from a complex interaction between genetic and environmental factors without an apparent specific trigger [1,2].

Our evolving treatment paradigms recognize the need to treat symptoms and achieve biochemical and endoscopic remission whenever possible, improving quality of life and reducing the risk of long-term disease- and drug-related complications [3]. Anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) antibodies were the first drugs developed to achieve these endpoints [4,5]. However, up to 30% of patients experience primary non-response and up to 50% show secondary loss of response due to intolerance, immunogenicity or mechanistic failure with anti-TNF therapies. Therefore, new treatments have been developed in the last two decades [6,7].

Filgotinib (FILGO) is a potent and selective inhibitor of the Janus kinase family, a family of tyrosine kinases that mediate cytokine signaling through interactions with type I and II cytokine receptors [8]. Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have several advantages over biologics, including rapid onset of action, lack of immunogenicity, greater patient convenience, and no infusion requirement since they are administered orally [8]. Tofacitinib has been the first JAKi to be licensed for the treatment of UC, demonstrating significant efficacy and safety in both controlled [9], and real-world (RW) studies [10].

FILGO, a JAK1 inhibitor, was found to be effective in treating UC in a recent randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2b/3 study (SELECTION trial) [11]. Currently, the RW effectiveness of FILGO in treating UC patients is mainly based on data from a few studies, characterised by relatively small cohort sizes [12,13], and mainly from Japan [13-16].

Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the clinical and endoscopic efficacy and safety of FILGO in a RW experience of 30 Italian centers.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational, multicenter study including consecutive UC patients treated with FILGO in 30 Italian IBD centers (namely centers identified by the Italian National and Regional Health Systems as able to manage IBD patients). We assessed patients enrolled from 1 September, 2023 to 31 July, 2024 who completed at least the induction treatment.

Eligible patients were men and women over 18 years with an established UC diagnosis based on standard endoscopic, radiological, and histological criteria [1,17]. Moreover, according to drug indication, all the patients presented with mild-to-moderate active disease [18]. Demographic and clinical data were collected using a common shared database. Data collected at baseline were gender, age at diagnosis, smoking status, disease extension, disease duration, previous immunosuppressive and previous biologic therapies use (anti-TNF-α, anti-interleukin [IL]-12/23 or anti-integrin, JAKi), concomitant medications at baseline, C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin levels, Mayo score, and Mayo subscore for endoscopic assessment.

The study was conducted following clinical practice guidelines. All patients gave written informed consent before undergoing endoscopy and FILGO treatment. The present study follows the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethics committee approval was obtained by “Brotzu” Hospital (Cagliari, Italy, PROT. PG/2022/18006).

1. Study Treatment

Filgotinib (Jyseleca, Bologna, Italy) was approved in Italy for UC patients treatment after first-line anti-TNF-α failed except for patients with contraindications to other biologic drugs [18]. It was administered as induction therapy at 200 mg per day for 8 weeks via the oral route to obtain remission, and the same dosage was also used to maintain remission in case of clinical response.

2. Clinical Assessment

According to the Montreal classification, disease extension was assessed at baseline and during follow-up [19]. Severity was evaluated according to the full Mayo score [20]. All included patients had active disease despite concomitant treatment, defined as a Mayo score ≥ 3 points [20]. Patients were clinically assessed at entry, after 2, 4, and 6 months, and after that, every 6 months. Biochemical assessment was performed at every control visit or whenever the clinician considered it necessary. In addition, in a subgroup of 82 patients, the number of days required (during the first 8 weeks of treatment) to obtain the disappearance of rectal bleeding, abdominal pain and urgency was assessed using daily patients’ reported outcomes.

3. Endoscopy

All patients had to have an ileocolonoscopy before beginning FILGO treatment, as this is standard protocol in the participating centers. During the follow-up, at least 6 months after enrollment in the study, patients underwent ileocolonoscopy according to the clinician’s judgment. Endoscopic severity was assessed in these patients according to the Mayo subscore for endoscopy [20].

4. Primary Endpoints

The co-primary endpoints were: (1) to assess the effectiveness of FILGO in obtaining clinical remission, defined as a partial Mayo score ≤1 or as a full Mayo score ≤2 (with no single score’s item >1) [21], at follow-up, in UC patients refractory to previous treatment (including anti-TNF-α and anti-IL-12/23 and anti-integrin) at 8 weeks and at the median follow-up available after starting treatment. We defined FILGO use as first, second-line, or third-line when used as naive to biologic (first-line therapy, in patients with contraindication to be treated with anti-TNF-α) and resistant or dependent to steroids [1], or when used in patients who failed one or more anti-TNF-α treatment (second-line therapy), or when used in patients who failed anti-TNF-α and anti-integrin or anti-IL-12/23 treatment (third-line therapy); (2) to assess the safety of FILGO, recording the adverse events (AEs). The AEs were classified as early (occurring during the first 8 weeks of treatment) and late (occurring after this date), and graded as mild (not requiring the therapy to stop treatment) and severe (requiring to stop treatment). The occurrence of opportunistic infections was also regarded as an AE. This was defined as an infection caused by microorganisms with limited pathogenic capacity under normal circumstances. It can cause disease because of the predisposing effect of another disease or its treatment [22].

5. Secondary Endpoint

As secondary points, we assessed the following: (1) clinical response, defined as a decrease of at least 2 points in the Mayo score [21], at 8 weeks and at the median follow-up available after starting treatment; (2) mucosal healing, defined as a Mayo subscore for endoscopy of ≤1 [21]; (3) steroid-free remission during the study [21]; (4) rate of colectomy; (5) the number of days required to obtain the disappearance of diarrhea, abdominal pain and urgency; or (6) the impact of the treatment on cholesterol (total and low-density lipoprotein, assessed as mg/dL), triglycerides (assessed as mg/dL), and creatine phosphokinase (assessed as UI/L) levels.

6. Statistical Analysis

MedCalc Release 14.8.1 was used to analyze the data. The study group’s characteristics were examined as the median (interquartile range [IQR]) for continuous non-parametric variables and as a number (percentage) for categorical variables. The chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables, and the Mann-Whitney test was used for continuous variables. Clinical remission was considered the primary endpoint. Because of the varying length of follow-up, the predictive value of clinical parameters was assessed using time-to-event methods for censored observations. The duration of follow-up was calculated from the date of starting therapy to the date of the event or censorship. Time-to-event analysis was carried out using Kaplan-Meier estimates to draw the cumulative incidence curves, compared by log-rank tests, and by univariate and multivariate Cox’s proportional hazards models of prognostic variables. P-values of <0.05 were statistically significant.

RESULTS

The study group comprised 102 patients (50.9% male, with a median age of 47 years [IQR, 35–58 years]). The median follow-up length was 24 weeks (IQR, 8–24 weeks). The characteristics of the study group are reported in Table 1. Most patients suffered from pancolitis (59.8%) and were treated with FILGO after failure of anti-TNF-α plus anti-integrin or anti-IL-12/23 (63.7%). The patients naive to biologic therapies, namely patients taking FILGO as first-line after failure of steroids, suffered from pancolitis in 13 out of 18 (72.2%) of cases and from left-sided colitis in 5 (27.8%) of cases. No patients were used as a fourth-line therapy (namely failure to anti-TNF, anti-integrin, anti-IL-12/23, and JAKi).

1. Primary Outcomes

At 8-week follow-up, clinical remission was achieved in 38 patients (37.2%); at the end of median follow-up, clinical remission was achieved in 47 patients (46.1%). Clinical remission was obtained by 13 out of 18 (72.2%) of patients in first-line therapy, by 7 out of 19 (36.8%) of patients in second-line therapy, and by 27 out of 65 (41.5%) of patients in third-line therapy (P=0.002, log-rank test) (Fig. 1). At univariate analysis clinical remission at 8-week follow-up (odds ratio [OR], 6.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.59–17.30; P<0.001) significantly predicts final clinical remission (Fig. 2A), while age >40 years (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23–0.96; P=0.006) and being on second- and third-line treatment (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06–0.74; P=0.014), were negative factors for clinical remission (Fig. 2B and C). At multivariate analysis, clinical remission at 8-week follow-up (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.13–4.34; P=0.021) was the only factor predicting clinical remission, while both age >40 years (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22–0.99; P=0.046) and being on second/third line treatment (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14–0.69; P=0.005) were negative predictive factors for clinical remission (Table 2).

2. Secondary Outcomes

Clinical response was achieved in 71 patients (69.6%). Endoscopic assessment was performed in 30 patients after an average of 24 weeks: Mucosal healing was observed in 18 out of 30 patients (60.0%). Steroid-free remission was present in 35 out of 42 patients (83.3%). Surgery was necessary in 5 patients (4.9%). After the initiation of FILGO, the disappearance of UC-related symptoms was achieved as follows: diarrhea after a median of 9 days (IQR, 5–15 days), abdominal pain after 7 days (IQR, 5–14 days), and urgency after 7 days (IQR, 5–15 days). At baseline and during follow-up, serum creatine phosphokinase and triglyceride levels were similar (Fig. 3A and B). At the same time, total cholesterol was significantly higher without any relevant difference in low-density lipoprotein levels (Fig. 3C and D).

3. Adverse Events

The AE rate was low, they were recorded in only 6 patients (5.8% of the population): in 4 cases (3.92% of the population) they were mild and did not require the suspension of FILGO treatment; in 2 cases (1.96%) they were severe and required stopping FILGO administration (Table 3). Significantly, no instances of major adverse cardiovascular events and venous thromboembolic events were recorded. About the severe case of generalized infection, the patient was admitted to the Emergency Room with fever >39°C and therefore admitted to the Division of Infectious Diseases with a diagnosis of “generalized infection.” The FILGO treatment was stopped, but no further information was drawn because the patient was lost to follow-up after discharge.

DISCUSSION

Currently, the management of UC remains challenging due to low response rates, frequent primary and secondary failures, and intolerance. Data on the effectiveness of FILGO are scarce. We aimed to describe the efficacy of FILGO in RW clinical practice in a large cohort of UC patients from different IBD centers in Italy.

The first interesting result is that the remission rate of our cohort increased during treatment with FILGO, from 37.2% at 8 weeks to 46.1% at the end of the follow-up. Although these results cannot be entirely comparable with that of a placebo-controlled trial, as expected these results are better than those reported in the SELECTION study [11], and are close to the same remission rate reported in the current literature. In RW studies, the remission rate at 24 weeks ranged from 45.8% to 76.4% [12-16]; a recent large RW clinical study reports that the remission rate increased from 36% at week 10 to 51% at week 26 [23], even if not all studies report this increasing remission rate [24]. This probably means that it is essential to continue the treatment with FILGO until week 24 even in patients having response but not remission at week 8, as the remission rate may progressively increase. Therefore, FILGO appears to have the same behavior as vedolizumab, which may take up to 6 months to achieve remission [25]. Moreover, in our experience, the remission rate with FILGO seems to be similar to that of tofacitinib, with the latter having a clinical remission rate at 8 and 24 weeks of 36.7% and 45.2%, respectively [10]. This could mean that JAKi work similarly and that there are no differences in the use of tofacitinib or FILGO in these patients. On the other hand, this could be just a trend, and as observed with other drugs, we need to evaluate late responders by making long-term comparisons between tofacitinib and upadacitinib.

The same effectiveness of FILGO and tofacitinib seems to be confirmed by Akiyama et al. [16], who found no difference between FILGO and tofacitinib in treating mild-to-moderate UC. The situation may be different if we compare FILGO with upadacitinib, because Nogami et al. [15] and Akiyama et al. [16] found superiority of upadacitinib over FILGO in achieving clinical remission (65.7% vs. 46.9% and 72.8% vs. 50.6%, respectively). However, both these studies are from Japan, and no data are currently available from other countries. Furthermore, in the Akiyama study the baseline severity of patients treated with FILGO was lower than that of those treated with tofacitinib, finding that may be a bias when comparing these 2 drugs [16]. Further studies comparing the 3 currently available JAKi are needed before drawing any conclusions.

Another important point from this study is that the remission rate with FILGO was significantly higher in patients naive to biologic therapies than in patients already treated with anti-TNF-α and/or anti-integrin. We observed a remission rate of 72.2% in patients treated as first-line therapy, 36.8% as second-line therapy, and 41.5% as third-line therapy. Again, in the Italian population, this behavior seems to be the same as tofacitinib, which worked better in patients with bio-naive UC than in bio-experienced patients [24]. This result differs from that reported in the SELECTION trial [11], and some RW studies [14,23]. All these studies found no differences in achieving remission with FILGO when treating bio-naive or bio-experienced UC patients. Since disease characteristics (severity, extent, use of drugs, etc.) are similar in these studies, other causes must be searched. One hypothesis could be related to patients’ characteristics. We enrolled only Italian patients living in Italy: intrinsic population characteristics (e.g., diet or genetics) could explain a more significant response in naive patients. Another hypothesis is that a high expectation towards the therapy could justify a greater efficacy in naive patients (placebo effect). Conversely, patients who have already failed biotechnological treatment could have a more negative approach to a new therapy (nocebo effect). Whatever the explanation, in our population, FILGO is more effective in patients naive to biotechnological therapies.

Among the factors influencing the positive response to FILGO, we found that clinical remission at 8-week follow-up was a positive predictive factor, while age >40 years and being on second/third line treatment were negative predictos for clinical remission at maxiamal follow-up both at univariate and multivariate analysis. Regarding the lower effectiveness in patients older than 40, we can hypothesize that middle-aged patients may benefit less from FILGO treatment. We also know that elderly IBD patients may have a similar effectiveness rate to younger IBD patients, although with higher AEs [26]. Furthermore, these interesting results need further investigation. Another potential factor that may influence the FILGO remission rate is that it cannot be optimized because the dose for induction and maintenance is the same.

Regarding the other secondary endpoints, the most critical issue of interest is the time to symptom resolution. The original SELECTION trial [11], and the available RW studies did not investigate this aspect. This is surprising, since controlled [9,27], and RW studies [10,28] have shown that tofacitinib rapidly improves symptoms. A post-hoc analysis of the SELECTION trial found the drug effective in inducing a rapid resolution of symptoms [29]. The results of this study are consistent with these data: FILGO seems to induce the resolution of rectal bleeding, abdominal pain, and urgency in less than 10 days. The colectomy rate was 4.9%, in line with what was reported in the other studies [12-16,23].

Regarding safety, our study confirms the high safety profile of FILGO. Approximately 5% of AEs were recorded, and the drug was discontinued in only 2 cases (1.96%), although the short follow-up period (24 weeks) may have influenced this result. However, it aligns with current RW literature, which reports AEs rates ranging from 4.2% to 53.8% [12-16,23]. Significantly, these studies reported only 1 case of major adverse cardiovascular events or venous thromboembolic events [23], confirming the safety of FILGO also in this specific setting. The analysis of cholesterol levels also confirms the safety profile of FILGO. Although a significant increase in total cholesterol was recorded, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol remained substantially stable during the follow-up, which could partially explain the absence of vascular complications.

This study has strengths and limitations. Regarding the strengths, it is one of the first European studies to evaluate the role of FILGO in patients with UC. Another strength is the large population enrolled, which reinforces the results. Finally, the multicenter data collection allowed us to broadly represent the use of this drug in several Italian regions. On the other hand, the study’s retrospective nature and the short-term follow-up (24 weeks) may represent a limitation since some parameters (e.g., underestimating the AEs rate) may not have been recorded.

In conclusion, FILGO was effective and well-tolerated in this multicenter Italian cohort of patients with UC. The ideal positioning of FILGO in treatment algorithms is yet to be defined. However, our results support its role as early treatment for patients with UC who were not previously exposed to biotechnological therapies.

NOTES

Funding Source

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

Conflict of Interest

Tursi A served as speaker and/or consultant for AbbVie, Bayer, Fenix Pharma, Galápagos, Janssen, Nalkein, Omega Pharma, and SILA; Mocci G served as speaker and/or advisory board fees for AbbVie, Amgen, Aurora Biopharma, Biogen, Celltrion, Chiesi, Fenix Pharma, Ferring, Galápagos, Janssen, MSD, Omega Pharma, Sandoz, Takeda, and Vifor Pharma; Scaldaferri F has served as a lecturer for AbbVie, Celltrion, Ferring, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda; Pugliese D received speaker fees from AbbVie, MSD, Takeda, Janssen, and Pfizer; Savarino E has served as a speaker for AbbVie, AGPharma, Alfasigma, Dr Falk, EG Stada Group, Fresenius Kabi, Grifols, Janssen, Innovamedica, Malesci, Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, Sandoz, SILA, Sofar, Takeda, Unifarco; has served as consultant for Alfasigma, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Diadema Farmaceutici, Dr Falk, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Merck & Co, Reckitt Benckiser, Regeneron, Sanofi, Shire, SILA, Sofar, Synformulas GmbH, Takeda, and Unifarco; he received research support from Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, SILA, Sofar, and Unifarco; Maconi G has served as speaker and/or advisory board fees for Alfasigma, Arena, Janssen, Gilead, and Roche; Gravina AG has conducted training activities (e.g., ECM, preceptorship) for AbbVie, Fenix Pharma, Galápagos Biopharma, and Pfizer; Ferronato A has received advisory board fees from AbbVie, Celltrion, and Galápagos; Papa A received speaker fees from Janssen and Alfasigma; the remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Data Availability Statement

All data and related metadata underlying the findings reported in the manuscript are deposited in an appropriate public repository, unless already provided as part of the article.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Tursi A. Data curation: Tursi A, Mocci G, Savarino E, Elisei W, Picchio M, Papa A. Formal analysis: Elisei W, Picchio M. Investigation: Tursi A, Mocci G. Methodology: Picchio M, Papa A. Project administration: Tursi A. Resources: all authors. Software: Elisei W, Picchio M. Supervision: Tursi A. Writing - original draft: Tursi A. Writing - review & editing: all authors. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Fig. 1.

Estimated cumulative clinical remission probability during follow-up by indications for therapy (P=0.002, log-rank test).

Fig. 2.

Estimated cumulative clinical remission probability during follow-up. (A) By clinical remission at 8-week follow-up (P<0.001, logrank test). (B) By age (P=0.006, log-rank test). (C) By line of treatment (P=0.014, log-rank test).

Fig. 3.

Serum levels at baseline and during follow-up. (A) Creatine phosphokinase levels at baseline and during follow-up. All follow-up values, given as median (error bar, interquartile range), were similar during follow-up (P=0.943, Mann-Whitney test). (B) Triglycerides levels at baseline and during follow-up. All follow-up values, given as median (error bar, interquartile range), had not significantly varied during follow-up (P=0.995, Friedman test). (C) Cholesterol levels at baseline and during follow-up. All follow-up values, given as median (error bar, interquartile range), increased significantly during follow-up (P =0.003, Mann-Whitney test). (D) Low-density lipoprotein at baseline and during follow-up. All follow-up values, given as median (error bar, interquartile range), had not significantly varied during follow-up (P=0.214, Mann-Whitney test).

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Study Group

Characteristic	Value (n = 102)
Male sex	52 (50.9)
Age at diagnosis (yr), median (IQR)	47.1 (34.9-58.0)
Disease duration prior to filgotinib infusion (yr), median (IQR)	7 (3–16)
Current smokers	14 (13.7)
Presence of comorbidities	47 (46.1)
Mayo score, median (IQR)	6 (5–6)
Mayo endoscopic score, median (IQR)	3 (2–3)
Extent of disease
Proctitis	4 (3.9)
Left-sided colitis (distal colitis included)	37 (36.3)
Pancolitis	61 (59.8)
Indications for therapy with filgotinib
Patients naive to biologics (first line)	18 (17.6)
Failure to anti-TNFα treatment (second line)	19 (18.6)
Failure to anti-TNFα+anti-integrin or anti-IL-12/23 (third line)	65 (63.7)
Concomitant therapy
Mesalazine	99 (97.1)
Steroids	81 (79.4)
Thiopurine	3 (2.9)
Creatine phosphokinase level (UI/L), median (IQR)	73.5 (62.0–97.0)
Cholesterol level (mg/dL), median (IQR)	174.0 (150.0–187.2)
LDL level (mg/dL), median (IQR)	85.3 (58.0–109.0)
Triglycerides level (mg/dL), median (IQR)	100.0 (81.0–123.2)
CRP (mg/L), median (IQR)	7.0 (3.0-17.8)
Calprotectin (µg/g), median (IQR)	604 (347-1,150)

Values are presented as number (%) unless otherwise indicated.

IQR, interquartile range; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; IL, interleukin; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; CRP, C-reactive protein.

Table 2.

Association of Clinical Characteristics with Remission

Variable	Remission, No. (%)		Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
Variable	Yes	No	OR (95% CI)	P-value^a	HR (95% CI)	P-value^b
Sex
Male	18 (34.6)	34 (65.4)	Ref.		-
Female	29 (58.0)	21 (42.0)	2.65 (1.14–6.17)	0.024	1.45 (0.72–2.91)	0.295
Age
≤ 40 yr	19 (55.3)	16 (45.7)	Ref.		-
> 40 yr	31 (46.2)	36 (53.7)	0.63 (0.27–1.49)	0.006	0.46 (0.22–0.99)	0.046
Disease duration
≤ 7 yr	24 (45.3)	29 (54.7)	Ref.
> 7 yr	22 (44.9)	27 (55.1)	0.98 (0.43–2.24)	0.971	1.42 (0.71–2.86)	0.321
Smoking
No	42 (45.6)	50 (54.4)	Ref.		-
Yes	4 (40.0)	6 (60.0)	0.95 (0.24–3.78)	0.939	1.36 (0.43–4.32)	0.605
Comorbidities
No	26 (47.3)	29 (52.3)	Ref.		-
Yes	20 (42.5)	27 (57.5)	0.81 (0.36–1.85)	0.622	0.86 (0.43–1.69)	0.654
Extent of the disease
Proctitis/left side colitis	19 (46.3)	22 (53.7)	Ref.
Pancolitis	27 (44.3)	34 (55.7)	0.98 (0.42–2.26)	0.963	0.92 (0.46–1.83)	0.818
Line of treatment
First line	14 (77.8)	4 (22.2)	Ref.		-
Second/third line	32 (38.1)	52 (61.9)	0.22 (0.06–0.74)	0.014	0.31 (0.14–0.69)	0.005
Mayo score
≤6	30 (48.4)	32 (51.6)	Ref.		-
>6	16 (40.0)	24 (60.0)	0.77 (0.33–1.79)	0.539	0.77 (0.35–1.67)	0.506
Mayo endoscopic
≤2	24 (49.0)	25 (51.0)	Ref.		-
> 2	22 (41.5)	31 (58.5)	0.71 (0.31–1.63)	0.423	1.41 (0.65–3.06)	0.384
Clinical remission at 8 wk
No	18 (28.1)	46 (71.9)	Ref.		-
Yes	27 (71.1)	11 (28.9)	6.70 (2.59–17.30)	< 0.001	2.21 (1.13–4.34)	0.021

^a Log-rank test.

^b Cox proportional hazard ratio.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.

Table 3.

Adverse Events in the Study Group (102 Patients)

Adverse events	No. (%)
Mild-moderate	8 (7.84)
Bronchitis	1 (0.98)
Cough	1 (0.98)
Hypertension	1 (0.98)
Creatine phosphokinase elevation	1 (0.98)
Salmonella paratyphi infection	6 (5.88)
Severe	2 (1.96)
Pneumonia	1 (0.98)
Infection (not specified)	1 (0.98)

Values are presented as number (%).

REFERENCES

1. Magro F, Gionchetti P, Eliakim R, et al. Third European Evidence-based Consensus on diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis: part 1: definitions, diagnosis, extra-intestinal manifestations, pregnancy, cancer surveillance, surgery, and ileo-anal pouch disorders. J Crohns Colitis 2017;11:649–670.Article PubMed PDF
2. Raine T, Bonovas S, Burisch J, et al. ECCO guidelines on therapeutics in ulcerative colitis: medical treatment. J Crohns Colitis 2022;16:2–17.PubMed
3. Turner D, Ricciuto A, Lewis A, et al. STRIDE-II: an update on the Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE) Initiative of the International Organization for the Study of IBD (IOIBD): determining therapeutic goals for treat-to-target strategies in IBD. Gastroenterology 2021;160:1570–1583.Article PubMed
4. Roda G, Jharap B, Neeraj N, Colombel JF. Loss of response to anti-TNFs: definition, epidemiology, and management. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2016;7:e135.Article PubMed PMC PDF
5. Yanai H, Hanauer SB. Assessing response and loss of response to biological therapies in IBD. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:685–698.Article PubMed PDF
6. Tursi A, Mocci G, Lorenzetti R, et al. Long-term real-life efficacy and safety of infliximab and adalimumab in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases outpatients. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;33:670–679.Article PubMed
7. Teng MW, Bowman EP, McElwee JJ, et al. IL-12 and IL-23 cytokines: from discovery to targeted therapies for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Nat Med 2015;21:719–729.Article PubMed PDF
8. Mócsai A, Kovács L, Gergely P. What is the future of targeted therapy in rheumatology: biologics or small molecules? BMC Med 2014;12:43.PubMed PMC
9. 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.Article PubMed
10. Tursi A, Mocci G, Cingolani L, et al. Use of tofacitinib as first or second-line therapy is associated with better outcomes in patients with ulcerative colitis: data from a real-world study. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2023;24:1649–1656.Article PubMed
11. Feagan BG, Danese S, Loftus EV, 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.Article PubMed
12. Gros B, Goodall M, Plevris N, et al. Real-world cohort study on the effectiveness and safety of filgotinib use in ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis 2025;19–jjad187.Article PDF
13. Toba T, Karashima R, Fujii K, et al. Real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of filgotinib for ulcerative colitis in Japanese patients: a single-center experience. Cureus 2024;16:e61496.Article PubMed PMC
14. Akiyama S, Yokoyama K, Yagi S, et al. Efficacy and safety of filgotinib for ulcerative colitis: a real-world multicenter retrospective study in Japan. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2024;59:1413–1424.Article PubMed
15. Nogami A, Asonuma K, Okabayashi S, et al. Real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of filgotinib and upadacitinib for ulcerative colitis: a multicentre cohort study. United European Gastroenterol J 2024;12:1357–1366.Article PubMed PMC
16. Akiyama S, Shimizu H, Tamura A, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of three Janus kinase inhibitors in ulcerative colitis: a real-world multicentre study in Japan. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2025;61:524–537.Article PubMed
17. Lichtenstein GR, Loftus EV, Isaacs KL, Regueiro MD, Gerson LB, Sands BE. ACG clinical guideline: management of Crohn’s disease in adults. Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:481–517.Article PubMed
18. Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Regime di rimborsabilita’ e prezzo a seguito di nuove indicazioni terapeutiche e riclassificazione del medicinale per uso umano “Jyseleca” ai sensi dell’art. 8, comma 10, della legge 24 dicembre 1993, n. 537. (Determina n. 105/2023) [Internet]. c2023 [cited 2025 Jan 3]. https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/atto/serie_generale/caricaDettaglioAtto/originario?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=2023-03-09&atto.codiceRedazionale=23A01342&elenco30giorni=false.
19. Satsangi J, Silverberg MS, Vermeire S, Colombel JF. The Montreal classification of inflammatory bowel disease: controversies, consensus, and implications. Gut 2006;55:749–753.Article PubMed PMC
20. Schroeder KW, Tremaine WJ, Ilstrup DM. Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis: a randomized study. N Engl J Med 1987;317:1625–1629.Article PubMed
21. Kishi M, Hirai F, Takatsu N, et al. A review on the current status and definitions of activity indices in inflammatory bowel disease: how to use indices for precise evaluation. J Gastroenterol 2022;57:246–266.Article PubMed PMC PDF
22. Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Reinisch W, et al. Infliximab, azathioprine, or combination therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1383–1395.Article PubMed
23. Young D, Rahmany S, Taylor D, et al. Real-world assessment of effectiveness and safety of filgotinib in 286 patients with ulcerative colitis in 9 UK centres. Drugs Context 2025;14:2024-11-1.Article PubMed PMC
24. Yagi S, Fukui H, Ikenouchi M, et al. Continuous treatment with tofacitinib but not filgotinib is effective in non-responders with active ulcerative colitis: a propensity score-matching analysis. J Clin Med 2025;14:217.Article PubMed PMC
25. Mocci G, Tursi A, Maconi G, et al. Real-world efficacy and safety of vedolizumab in managing ulcerative colitis versus Crohn’s disease: results from an Italian multicenter study. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2023;23:293–304.PubMed
26. Angyal D, Gonczi L, Balogh F, et al. Inflammatory bowel diseases in the elderly population: epidemiology, long-term disease course, surgery rates, and biological use-data from the Veszprem county cohort between 1977 and 2020. J Crohns Colitis 2025;19–jjaf003.Article PDF
27. Sandborn WJ, Lawendy N, Danese S, et al. Safety and efficacy of tofacitinib for treatment of ulcerative colitis: final analysis of OCTAVE Open, an open-label, long-term extension study with up to 7.0 years of treatment. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2022;55:464–478.Article PubMed PMC PDF
28. Long MD, Afzali A, Fischer M, et al. Tofacitinib Response in Ulcerative Colitis (TOUR): early response after initiation of tofacitinib therapy in a real-world setting. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2023;29:570–578.Article PubMed PMC PDF
29. Danese S, Ferrante M, Feagan BG, et al. Rapid and sustained symptom relief in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with filgotinib: data from the phase 2b/3 SELECTION trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2023;118:138–147.Article PubMed PMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Upadacitinib’s Effectiveness and Safety as a Second- or Third-Line Therapy in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: Data from a Real-World Study
Giammarco Mocci, Antonio Tursi, Franco Scaldaferri, Daniele Napolitano, Daniela Pugliese, Giovanni Maconi, Giovanni Cataletti, Roberta Pica, Claudio Cassieri, Edoardo Vincenzo Savarino, Caterina De Barba, Francesco Costa, Linda Ceccarelli, Manuela Marzo,
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(21): 7801. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; 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
Citation and abstract for the content below

Filgotinib effectiveness and safety as second or third-line therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis: data from a real-world study

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00067

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Filgotinib effectiveness and safety as second or third-line therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis: data from a real-world study

Fig. 1. Estimated cumulative clinical remission probability during follow-up by indications for therapy (P=0.002, log-rank test).

Fig. 2. Estimated cumulative clinical remission probability during follow-up. (A) By clinical remission at 8-week follow-up (P<0.001, logrank test). (B) By age (P=0.006, log-rank test). (C) By line of treatment (P=0.014, log-rank test).

Fig. 3. Serum levels at baseline and during follow-up. (A) Creatine phosphokinase levels at baseline and during follow-up. All follow-up values, given as median (error bar, interquartile range), were similar during follow-up (P=0.943, Mann-Whitney test). (B) Triglycerides levels at baseline and during follow-up. All follow-up values, given as median (error bar, interquartile range), had not significantly varied during follow-up (P=0.995, Friedman test). (C) Cholesterol levels at baseline and during follow-up. All follow-up values, given as median (error bar, interquartile range), increased significantly during follow-up (P =0.003, Mann-Whitney test). (D) Low-density lipoprotein at baseline and during follow-up. All follow-up values, given as median (error bar, interquartile range), had not significantly varied during follow-up (P=0.214, Mann-Whitney test).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Filgotinib effectiveness and safety as second or third-line therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis: data from a real-world study

Characteristic	Value (n = 102)
Male sex	52 (50.9)
Age at diagnosis (yr), median (IQR)	47.1 (34.9-58.0)
Disease duration prior to filgotinib infusion (yr), median (IQR)	7 (3–16)
Current smokers	14 (13.7)
Presence of comorbidities	47 (46.1)
Mayo score, median (IQR)	6 (5–6)
Mayo endoscopic score, median (IQR)	3 (2–3)
Extent of disease
Proctitis	4 (3.9)
Left-sided colitis (distal colitis included)	37 (36.3)
Pancolitis	61 (59.8)
Indications for therapy with filgotinib
Patients naive to biologics (first line)	18 (17.6)
Failure to anti-TNFα treatment (second line)	19 (18.6)
Failure to anti-TNFα+anti-integrin or anti-IL-12/23 (third line)	65 (63.7)
Concomitant therapy
Mesalazine	99 (97.1)
Steroids	81 (79.4)
Thiopurine	3 (2.9)
Creatine phosphokinase level (UI/L), median (IQR)	73.5 (62.0–97.0)
Cholesterol level (mg/dL), median (IQR)	174.0 (150.0–187.2)
LDL level (mg/dL), median (IQR)	85.3 (58.0–109.0)
Triglycerides level (mg/dL), median (IQR)	100.0 (81.0–123.2)
CRP (mg/L), median (IQR)	7.0 (3.0-17.8)
Calprotectin (µg/g), median (IQR)	604 (347-1,150)

Variable	Remission, No. (%)		Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
Variable	Yes	No	OR (95% CI)	P-value^a	HR (95% CI)	P-value^b
Sex
Male	18 (34.6)	34 (65.4)	Ref.		-
Female	29 (58.0)	21 (42.0)	2.65 (1.14–6.17)	0.024	1.45 (0.72–2.91)	0.295
Age
≤ 40 yr	19 (55.3)	16 (45.7)	Ref.		-
> 40 yr	31 (46.2)	36 (53.7)	0.63 (0.27–1.49)	0.006	0.46 (0.22–0.99)	0.046
Disease duration
≤ 7 yr	24 (45.3)	29 (54.7)	Ref.
> 7 yr	22 (44.9)	27 (55.1)	0.98 (0.43–2.24)	0.971	1.42 (0.71–2.86)	0.321
Smoking
No	42 (45.6)	50 (54.4)	Ref.		-
Yes	4 (40.0)	6 (60.0)	0.95 (0.24–3.78)	0.939	1.36 (0.43–4.32)	0.605
Comorbidities
No	26 (47.3)	29 (52.3)	Ref.		-
Yes	20 (42.5)	27 (57.5)	0.81 (0.36–1.85)	0.622	0.86 (0.43–1.69)	0.654
Extent of the disease
Proctitis/left side colitis	19 (46.3)	22 (53.7)	Ref.
Pancolitis	27 (44.3)	34 (55.7)	0.98 (0.42–2.26)	0.963	0.92 (0.46–1.83)	0.818
Line of treatment
First line	14 (77.8)	4 (22.2)	Ref.		-
Second/third line	32 (38.1)	52 (61.9)	0.22 (0.06–0.74)	0.014	0.31 (0.14–0.69)	0.005
Mayo score
≤6	30 (48.4)	32 (51.6)	Ref.		-
>6	16 (40.0)	24 (60.0)	0.77 (0.33–1.79)	0.539	0.77 (0.35–1.67)	0.506
Mayo endoscopic
≤2	24 (49.0)	25 (51.0)	Ref.		-
> 2	22 (41.5)	31 (58.5)	0.71 (0.31–1.63)	0.423	1.41 (0.65–3.06)	0.384
Clinical remission at 8 wk
No	18 (28.1)	46 (71.9)	Ref.		-
Yes	27 (71.1)	11 (28.9)	6.70 (2.59–17.30)	< 0.001	2.21 (1.13–4.34)	0.021

Adverse events	No. (%)
Mild-moderate	8 (7.84)
Bronchitis	1 (0.98)
Cough	1 (0.98)
Hypertension	1 (0.98)
Creatine phosphokinase elevation	1 (0.98)
Salmonella paratyphi infection	6 (5.88)
Severe	2 (1.96)
Pneumonia	1 (0.98)
Infection (not specified)	1 (0.98)

Table 1. Characteristics of the Study Group

Values are presented as number (%) unless otherwise indicated.

IQR, interquartile range; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; IL, interleukin; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; CRP, C-reactive protein.

Table 2. Association of Clinical Characteristics with Remission

Log-rank test.

Cox proportional hazard ratio.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.

Table 3. Adverse Events in the Study Group (102 Patients)

Values are presented as number (%).