ArticleIntestinal research2026
Filgotinib effectiveness and safety as second or third-line therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis: data from a real-world study.
Article in Intestinal research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Tofacitinib, Filgotinib, and Upadacitinib in Ulcerative Colitis: A Multicenter Real-World Cohort Study.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Upadacitinib's Effectiveness and Safety as a Second- or Third-Line Therapy in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: Data from a Real-World Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
57 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsReal-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.
methodsA 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.
resultsWe 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.
conclusionsOur 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.