Three Janus kinase inhibitors in ulcerative colitis: is upadacitinib taking the lead?

Yoon Suk Jung

doi:10.5217/ir.2025.00166

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Intest Res > Volume 23(4); 2025 > Article

Editorial IBD Three Janus kinase inhibitors in ulcerative colitis: is upadacitinib taking the lead?: Yoon Suk Jung; Intestinal Research 2025;23(4):394-395.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00166
Published online: October 28, 2025

Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to Yoon Suk Jung, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 29 Saemunan-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03181, Korea. E-mail: ys810.jung@samsung.com

• Received: August 2, 2025 • Accepted: August 12, 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.

prev next

773 Views
28 Download

Full Article

Download PDF

NOTES
REFERENCES

See the article "Propensity score-matched real-world comparative treatment outcomes of Janus kinase inhibitors for ulcerative colitis in patients with and without prior exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor α antibody" on page 464.

The treatment paradigm for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) has evolved rapidly over the past two decades, transitioning from anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-focused therapy to a broader range of targeted therapies, including novel biologics such as anti-integrin α4β7 and anti-interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibodies and small molecules such as Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors [1-5]. Yet, in clinical practice, optimal positioning of these therapies remains elusive, particularly in patients with prior anti-TNF exposure [6-8].

In this issue of Intestinal Research, Ikenouchi et al. [9] present timely and clinically relevant results that compare the real-world effectiveness of 3 JAK inhibitors—tofacitinib (TFB), filgotinib (FIL), and upadacitinib (UPA)—in patients with UC, stratified by prior anti-TNF exposure. Although this study is retrospective in nature and includes a relatively small number of patients, the use of propensity score (PS) matching to minimize differences in patient background—such as disease activity, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), disease duration, and baseline corticosteroid use, which may affect outcomes—enhances the reliability of the results.

A key finding of the study is that UPA demonstrated a superior steroid-free clinical remission rate compared to TFB and FIL in patients with previous anti-TNF exposure. These results suggest that UPA may be a potentially preferred second-line treatment option among JAK inhibitors in this population. Notably, this superiority did not extend to anti-TNF naive patients, underscoring the need to tailor therapy selection based on treatment history. The FIL group showed significantly lower partial Mayo scores and CRP levels compared to the other 2 groups, indicating a lower disease activity. This appears to reflect a clinical trend in which FIL is preferentially prescribed to patients with milder disease activity. Although the authors did not present partial Mayo scores and CRP levels stratified by prior anti-TNF exposure, it is plausible that patients without prior anti-TNF exposure had lower disease activity than those previously exposed. Therefore, comparisons between the FIL group and the other 2 groups after PS matching among patients without prior anti-TNF exposure likely reflect comparisons between patients with relatively milder activity. This study suggests that the efficacy of FIL is not inferior to the other 2 JAK inhibitors in patients with relatively milder UC. When selecting a JAK inhibitor as a first-line therapy, UPA or TFB may be preferentially considered for patients with severe UC, while FIL may be more appropriate for those with moderate UC.

Beyond efficacy, safety issues should be given significant weight in drug selection. UPA had a slightly higher incidence of adverse effects (particularly infections) compared to other 2 JAK inhibitors. Among the 3 JAK inhibitors, FIL is the most selective JAK1 inhibitor and is therefore considered to have the most favorable safety profile [10]. UPA is theoretically expected to have fewer adverse events compared to TFB owing to its more selective JAK1 inhibition [10]. However, this study shows that UPA is not completely free from the adverse events associated with JAK inhibitors. TFB has been reported to be associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [1]. In this study, no patient developed VTE or MACE with either TFB or UPA, but the follow-up period of 8 weeks was too short to evaluate these adverse events. It is also noteworthy that pericarditis occurred in 1 of the 47 patients taking UPA.

As JAK inhibitors gain ground in the UC treatment algorithm, real-world data provided by Ikenouchi et al. [9] are valuable in complementing randomized clinical trial results and supporting personalized treatment strategies. In particular, in Asian populations where data on FIL and UPA remain limited, this study may help guide drug selection for patients with UC who have failed anti-TNF therapy. This study suggests that among the 3 JAK inhibitors, UPA may be the preferred option as a second-line treatment for patients with UC after failure of anti-TNF therapy. However, clinicians should remain vigilant in monitoring for adverse events and further long-term comparative studies are needed to determine the durability, safety, and cost-effectiveness of JAK inhibitors across diverse patient populations.

NOTES

Funding Source

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

Conflict of Interest

Jung YS is an editorial board member of the journal but was not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

Writing and approval of the final manuscript: Jung YS.

REFERENCES

1. Na SY, Choi CH, Song EM, et al. Korean clinical practice guidelines on biologics and small molecules for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Intest Res 2023;21:61–87.Article PubMed PMC PDF
2. Song EM, Na SY, Hong SN, Ng SC, Hisamatsu T, Ye BD. Treatment of inflammatory bowel disease-Asian perspectives: the results of a multinational web-based survey in the 8th Asian Organization for Crohn’s and Colitis meeting. Intest Res 2023;21:339–352.Article PubMed PMC PDF
3. Yen HH, Wu JF, Wang HY, et al. Management of ulcerative colitis in Taiwan: consensus guideline of the Taiwan Society of Inflammatory Bowel Disease updated in 2023. Intest Res 2024;22:213–249.Article PubMed PMC PDF
4. Shimizu H, Aonuma Y, Hibiya S, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with ulcerative colitis: 3-year results from a real-world study. Intest Res 2024;22:369–377.Article PubMed PMC PDF
5. Gilmore R, Fernandes R, Hartley I, et al. Upadacitinib induction is effective and safe in ulcerative colitis patients including those with prior exposure to tofacitinib: a multicenter real-world cohort study. Intest Res 2025;23:347–357.Article PubMed PMC PDF
6. Li Wai Suen CFD, Choy MC, De Cruz P. What to do when traditional rescue therapies fail in acute severe ulcerative colitis. Intest Res 2024;22:397–413.Article PubMed PMC PDF
7. Con D, De Cruz P. Defining management strategies for acute severe ulcerative colitis using predictive models: a simulation-modeling study. Intest Res 2024;22:439–452.Article PubMed PMC PDF
8. Kobayashi T, Dignass A, Roblin X, et al. Filgotinib induction-study baseline characteristics of patients with ulcerative colitis who achieve sustained corticosteroid-free remission: post hoc analysis of the phase 2b/3 SELECTION study. Intest Res 2025;23:65–75.Article PubMed PMC PDF
9. Ikenouchi M, Fukui H, Yagi S, et al. Propensity score-matched real-world comparative treatment outcomes of Janus kinase inhibitors for ulcerative colitis in patients with and without prior exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor α antibody. Intest Res 2025;23:464–474.Article PubMed PMC PDF
10. Traves PG, Murray B, Campigotto F, Galien R, Meng A, Di Paolo JA. JAK selectivity and the implications for clinical inhibition of pharmacodynamic cytokine signalling by filgotinib, upadacitinib, tofacitinib and baricitinib. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:865–875.Article PubMed PMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

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: