Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Intest Res : Intestinal Research

IMPACT FACTOR

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Intest Res > Ahead-of print articles > Article
Original Article Leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein is useful in predicting clinical relapse in patients with Crohn’s disease during biological remission
Naohiro Nakamuraorcid, Yusuke Honzawaorcid, Yuka Itoorcid, Yasuki Sanoorcid, Naoto Yagiorcid, Sanshiro Kobayashiorcid, Mamiko Aoiorcid, Takashi Tomiyamaorcid, Tomomitsu Taharaorcid, Norimasa Fukataorcid, Toshiro Fukuiorcid, Makoto Naganuma,orcid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2024.00042
Published online: August 19, 2024

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Third Department of Internal Medicine, Kansai Medical University, Hirakata, Japan

Correspondence to Makoto Naganuma, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Third Department of Internal Medicine, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1, Shinmachi, Hirakata 573-1010, Japan. Tel: +81-72-804-2521, Fax: +81-72-804-2524, E-mail: naganuma@hirakata.kmu.ac.jp
• Received: March 15, 2024   • Revised: May 29, 2024   • Accepted: June 11, 2024

© 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.

  • 871 Views
  • 55 Download
  • Background/Aims
    Serum leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein (LRG) is a potential biomarker of Crohn’s disease (CD). This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of LRG in predicting clinical relapse in patients in remission with CD.
  • Methods
    This retrospective observational study assessed the relationships among patient-reported outcome (PRO2), LRG, and other blood markers. The influence of LRG on clinical relapse was assessed in patients in remission with CD.
  • Results
    Data of 94 patients tested for LRG between January 2021 and May 2023 were collected. LRG level did not correlate with PRO2 score (ρ = 0.06); however, it strongly correlated with C-reactive protein (CRP) level (r=0.79) and serum albumin level (r=–0.70). Among 69 patients in clinical remission, relapse occurred in 22 patients (31.9%). In the context of predicting relapse, LRG showed the highest area under the curve, followed by CRP level, platelet count, and albumin level. Multivariate analysis revealed that only LRG (P=0.02) was an independent factor for predicting clinical remission. The cumulative non-relapse rate was significantly higher in patients with LRG < 13.8 μg/mL than in patients in remission with LRG ≥ 13.8 μg/mL and normal CRP level (P=0.002) or normal albumin level (P=0.001). Cumulative non-relapse rate was also higher in patients with LRG < 13.8 μg/mL compared to those with LRG ≥ 13.8 μg/mL in patients with L3 or B2+B3 of Montreal calcification.
  • Conclusions
    LRG is useful in predicting clinical relapse in patients with CD during biological remission. LRG is a useful biomarker for predicting prognosis, even in patients with intestinal stenosis, or previous/present fistulas.
Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal tract, the incidence of which has increased considerably in East Asian countries [1-3], including Japan. CD is characterized by periods of remission and relapse, which can lead to complications such as strictures and fistulas, resulting in significant reduction in the quality of life of patients. Although clinical improvement is one of the most critical treatment goal, endoscopic remission is also attracting attention because it has been associated with better outcomes in patients with CD [4,5]. A treat-to-target strategy has been proposed for treating patients with inflammatory bowel disease [6]. More recently, the Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE-II) statement indicated that therapy modification should be considered if endoscopic remission is not achieved [7]. Achieving clinical and mucosal remission is important to avoid surgical interventions [8].
Although endoscopy is useful for assessing the severity of mucosal damage, it is relatively invasive and burdensome for patients. Therefore, other diagnostic devices have been used for this purpose, such as capsule endoscopy [9], magnetic resonance enterography [10-12], and intestinal ultrasound [13,14]. Moreover, several noninvasive biomarkers have also been recently identified to assess the severity of mucosal damage. Fecal calprotectin (FCP), which leaks from the intestinal mucosa into the lumen, has been identified as a noninvasive biomarker [15]. FCP has been reported to correlate with endoscopy severity [16-19], clinical course of patients with CD [20], and predictive markers for clinical relapse [21-24]. Although FCP has been identified as a useful noninvasive marker, some patients find it difficult to collect stool samples. However, the usefulness of FCP in assessing the severity of disease in small bowel is limited because the diagnostic accuracy of FCP for small-intestinal lesions is reportedly lower than that for colonic lesions [25].
More recently, serum leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein (LRG) was identified as a potential biomarker of inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis [26]. LRG has been reported to correlate with endoscopy activity in patients with CD [27]. LRG has also been reported to be a sensitive biomarker for predicting intestinal ulcers in patients with CD using balloon-assisted enteroscopy [28]. In addition, LRG reportedly aids in small-bowel ulcer detection [29] and mucosal healing using capsule endoscopy [30]. Furthermore, LRG has been reported to act as a predictor of endoscopic remission treated with biologic agent in patients with CD [31]. In recent years, it has been indicated that simultaneous measurement of 2 biomarkers (FCP and fecal immunochemical test) in patients with ulcerative colitis makes it easier to identify individuals that are prone to relapse [32]. Similar to ulcerative colitis [32], a recent study indicated that the combination of LRG and FCP is a useful predictor of hospitalization, surgery, and relapse in patients with CD [33].
Collecting stool samples for testing is labor-intensive, and simultaneous measurement of both LRG and FCP is not allowed due to the regulations of the Japanese health insurance system. Therefore, markers that can be used adequately in clinical practice are required.
In addition, although numerous studies have reported an association between LRG and endoscopy severity, only a few have evaluated the relationship between LRG and long-term prognosis in patients in remission with CD. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of LRG compared to other biomarkers in predicting clinical relapse in patients in remission with CD.
1. Study Design and Participants
This single-center retrospective observational study analyzed the medical records of patients with CD who underwent laboratory investigations for determining LRG levels at the clinic of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kansai Medical University Hospital (Osaka, Japan), between January 2021 and May 2023. All patients with CD were diagnosed in accordance with the guidelines of the Research Committee on Inflammatory Bowel Disease of Japan. All procedures in this study were carried out in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations of Kansai Medical University and the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee (2022136) as a partial investigation of factors predicting the diagnosis and treatment efficacy of inflammatory bowel disease. Informed consent was obtained from the participants and/or their legal guardians, and the ethics committees approved that patients were also allowed an opt-out approach to refuse study participation via the institutional website, as the study posed no risk to the participants.
2. Study Procedures
Patient demographic data were collected. Additionally, information regarding disease characteristics, including sex, age, disease duration, blood biomarkers (hemoglobin, platelet count, serum albumin, C-reactive protein [CRP] level, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR]), patient-reported outcome (PRO2) score (abdominal pain and stool frequency), and medications at the time of commencement of the study were also recorded.
3. Definition of Remission and Relapse
Clinical remission was defined as PRO2 score of abdominal pain ≤ 1 and stool frequency ≤ 3 [7]. Clinical relapse was defined as the requirement for addition or modification of medications for clinical relapse. In our cohort, no alterations or additions of treatments were observed according to only LRG levels.
4. Assessment of LRG and Other Blood Markers
LRG levels were measured using Nanopia LRG® (Sekisui Medical, Tokyo, Japan). The first value of LRG measured during the period was adopted. The limit of detection for LRG, below 5 µg/mL, was defined as 5 µg/mL; for CRP, below 0.008 mg/dL, was defined as 0.008 mg/dL; and for ESR, below 0.2 mm/hr, was defined as 0.2 mm/hr.
5. Outcomes and Statistical Analysis
Categorical variables were presented as absolute numbers and relative frequencies using percentages, while continuous variables were described as medians and ranges. The primary endpoint was the assessment of the association between clinical characteristics, including LRG at baseline and clinical relapse in patients in remission with CD, using the Kaplan-Meier curve, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazard model. The main secondary endpoints were assessment of the correlations among LRG, PRO2 score, and serum CRP level, ESR, platelet count, and serum albumin level in patients with CD using the Pearson and Spearman correlation test. LRG levels of patients in the remission and active groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. To determine the cutoff value of LRG for predicting clinical relapse, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to predict the diagnostic ability of LRG, CRP, albumin, and platelet for clinical relapse. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. JMP Pro version 16.2.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used for all statistical analyses. As this study aimed to assess the usefulness of biomarkers for predicting long-term outcomes in a real-world clinical setting, we did not collect data regarding endoscopy severity because, in most cases, endoscopic procedures were not conducted simultaneously with assessment of LRG.
1. Characteristics of the Study Participants at the Baseline
The flowchart of this study is shown in Fig. 1. Among patients with CD who underwent LRG measurement during the study period, those with abdominal stomas were excluded from this study. Patients for whom PRO2s were not obtained from the medical charts were also excluded (Fig. 1). The clinical characteristics of the 94 patients with CD are summarized in Table 1. Among them, 69 (73.4%) were in clinical remission at the time of commencement of the study. The median CRP level, hemoglobin level, ESR, and platelet count of the study participants were normal. The median LRG level was 12.15 μg/mL. Upon entry into the study, 68.1% of the patients were treated with oral 5-aminosalicylic acid, 33.0% were administered thiopurines, and most patients (77.7%) received biologics (Table 1).
2. Correlation among LRG, Clinical Severity, and Other Blood Markers
Next, the correlation between clinical severity (PRO2) and blood markers, including LRG, was analyzed. LRG level did not correlate with PRO2 score (ρ=0.061) (Fig. 2A). In addition, LRG levels in active phase CD (18.3 ± 10.5 μg/mL) tended to be higher than that during clinical remission (14.1 ± 7.0 μg/mL); however, the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.186) (Fig. 2B). LRG strongly correlated with CRP level (r= 0.79), ESR (r=0.71) and albumin level (r= –0.70), and moderately with, platelet count (r= 0.40), and hemoglobin level (r= –0.49) (Table 2).
3. Analysis of Serum Markers as Predictive Factors for Relapse of Patients in Remission
In our study cohort, 69 patients were in clinical remission. During the observation period (median duration of observation was 791 days), clinical relapse occurred in 22 patients in remission (31.9%). To investigate the prognostic markers of remission, a Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed. Univariate analysis revealed that higher LRG content, CRP level, and platelet count along with lower albumin level were associated with clinical relapse (Table 3).
To assess the diagnostic ability of blood biomarkers in predicting clinical relapse, AUC of ROC curve was analyzed. The AUC for LRG, CRP, platelet, and albumin levels were 0.71, 0.70, 0.68, and 0.65, respectively. The cutoff value for each marker was calculated from the ROC curves. LRG showed a sensitivity of 68% and a specificity of 79% in predicting clinical relapse at a cutoff value of 13.8 μg/mL. We also set the cutoff value for CRP, albumin, and platelet levels as 0.076 mg/dL, 4.2 g/dL, and 30.8 × 104/μL, respectively, using the ROC curves. CRP showed higher sensitivity of 77% and lower specificity at a cutoff value of 0.076 mg/dL. On the other hand, platelet count showed a higher specificity (96%) and lower sensitivity (36%) at a cutoff value of 30.8 × 104/μL (Fig. 3A-D). The cumulative relapse rate was also higher in patients with LRG ≥ 13.8 μg/mL than in those with LRG < 13.8 μg/mL (P<0.001) (Fig. 3E). The cumulative non-relapse rate was higher in patients with CRP < 0.076 mg/dL compared to those with CRP ≥ 0.076 mg/dL (P=0.008) (Fig. 3F). The cumulative non-relapse rate was also higher in patients with platelet count < 30.8 × 104/μL compared to those with platelet count ≥ 30.8 × 104/μL (P<0.001) (Fig. 3H). However, there was no significant difference between patients with albumin level ≥ 4.2 g/dL and in those with albumin level < 4.2 g/dL (P=0.060) (Fig. 3G). Multivariate analysis revealed that only LRG (P=0.021) was an independent factor for predicting clinical remission (Table 3).
4. Usefulness of LRG in Predicting Clinical Relapse in Patients with Biological and Clinical Remission
To investigate whether LRG is useful in predicting clinical relapse in clinical setting, the cumulative non-relapse rate were compared between patients with higher LRG and those with lower LRG whose CRP or albumin level were normal as per our institutional regulations (CRP ≤ 0.3 mg/dL and albumin ≥ 3.8 g/dL). Among patients in remission with normal CRP level (≤ 0.3 mg/dL), the cumulative non-relapse rate was higher in patients with LRG < 13.8 μg/mL compared to those with LRG ≥ 13.8 μg/mL (P=0.002) (Fig. 4A). Similarly, among patients in remission with normal albumin level (≥ 3.8 g/dL), the cumulative non-relapse rate was higher in patients with LRG < 13.8 μg/mL compared to those with LRG ≥ 13.8 μg/mL (P=0.001) (Fig. 4B).
Next, we examined the usefulness of LRG in separately predicting relapse in small bowel and colonic lesions. Among patients in remission with L1, cumulative non-relapse rate tended to be higher in patients with LRG < 13.8 μg/mL than those with LRG ≥ 13.8 μg/mL; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.053) (Fig. 5A). Although among patients in remission with L2, the cumulative non-relapse rate was not significantly higher in patients with LRG < 13.8 μg/mL compared to those with LRG ≥ 13.8 μg/mL (P=0.131) (Fig. 5B) but was significantly higher in those with L3 (P=0.005) (Fig. 5C). Furthermore, we examined the usefulness of LRG in predicting relapse for disease behavior. Among patients in remission with B2 and B3, the cumulative non-relapse rate was higher in patients with LRG < 13.8 μg/mL compared to those with LRG ≥ 13.8 μg/mL (P=0.001) (Fig. 5D). Finally, we examined the usefulness of LRG for future harder outcomes such as hospitalization and surgical rates. The cumulative non-hospitalization and non-surgical rate was higher in patients with LRG < 13.8 μg/mL compared to those with LRG ≥ 13.8 μg/mL (P=0.003, P=0.008) (Fig. 6). Detailed data regarding medication at the time of relapse are shown in Table 4.
Clinical remission should be considered a mandatory intermediate target during devising treatment strategies for patients with CD [7]. However, not surprisingly, previous studies have indicated that two-thirds of patients with CD had endoscopic lesions even they were in remission [4], and that a factor of simple endoscopic score of ≤ 2 for CD was associated with sustained remission [5]. Therefore, the treatment of the target of endoscopic healing should be associated with improved long-term outcomes [34]. Although endoscopic assessment is important in managing patients with CD, blood and fecal markers are also widely used in clinical practice. While a recent study indicated that FCP generally outperforms other blood markers [7], LRG has been developed as a novel noninvasive marker to predict the severity of endoscopy findings. Several recent studies have reported that LRG is a useful biomarker for assessing the severity of endoscopy findings [27-29,35], mucosal healing [30,31], and disease activity in patients with CD receiving adalimumab [36]. However, only a few studies have investigated the usefulness of LRG as a biomarker to predict clinical relapse in patients in remission with CD. Furthermore, although several studies have assessed the correlation between LRG levels and endoscopic severity, the association between clinical severity and LRG remains unclear.
In the present study, we confirmed that clinical severity indicator, such as PRO2, was not associated with LRG levels in patients with CD. LRG is also a useful prognostic marker of relapse in patients in remission with CD. Univariate analysis of the Cox proportional hazard model revealed that LRG, CRP, albumin, and platelet levels were predictive markers of relapse, and thereafter the cutoff values for LRG, CRP, and platelet levels were set. Significant differences were observed in terms of cumulative non-relapse rate using the Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank test. Furthermore, in multivariate analysis of the Cox proportional hazard model, LRG was found to be the only predictive marker for relapse. The results of our study are consistent with those of other recent studies, indicating that high LRG levels are strongly associated with CD-related hospitalization, surgery, and clinical relapse compared with low LRG levels [37]. At present, there is little evidence to provide patients with optimized medical treatments based only on LRG values. Recently, the CALM study showed that timely escalation of medical treatments based on a combination of CRP and FCP levels in patients with CD resulted in better endoscopy outcomes [38]. Like FCP, LRG may be incorporated as a candidate in treat-to-target strategy in the future.
In this study, LRG was found to be a useful prognostic marker for relapse, even in patients with normal CRP and albumin levels. Furthermore, LRG independently predicted clinical relapse regardless of disease behavior (Fig. 5). These results indicate that LRG is a useful biomarker for predicting prognosis, even in patients with intestinal stenosis, or previous/present fistulas. Since it may be difficult to occasionally perform endoscopy in patients with B2 and B3 types, measuring LRG makes it possible to identify cases that are likely to experience clinical relapse. For patients with higher LRG, physicians can plan to use other diagnostic devices, such as computed tomography/magnetic resonance enterography or intestinal ultrasound, to assess the severity and extent of inflammation for complicated diseases.
This study had a few limitations that need consideration. First, sample sizes were not calculated to assess the predictors of relapse. Second, data regarding endoscopy severity were not collected. Third, high LRG levels are observed in patients with clinical remission in this study. LRG level is also elevated by infections and other inflammation. In this study, we confirmed that there were no major infections at the time of LRG measurement. Patients in clinical remission with high LRG values might have severe intestinal inflammation. However, this was not confirmed because endoscopy was not performed in all cases. Fourth, institutional bias might have existed because our hospital is a specialized institution for inflammatory bowel disease. This is one of the reasons why the proportion of patients with B3 seems to be high compared to the general population. Finally, we did not investigate the usefulness of FCP levels in predicting relapse. Although FCP is a useful biomarker for patients with CD, some patients may find it difficult to collect stool samples. Patients treated with thiopurines or biologics often have periodic blood samples collected to check for side effects. Therefore, it may be more efficient to measure LRG using regular blood tests.
In conclusion, LRG is a useful marker for predicting clinical outcomes in clinical patients in remission with normal CRP or albumin levels. LRG is also a useful biomarker for predicting prognosis, even in patients with complicated diseases who have difficulty performing conventional colonoscopy. If a high LRG level is confirmed, physicians should assess the severity and extent of inflammation, abscesses, and fistulas, and might consider the possibility of treatment escalation.

Funding Source

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

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Data Availability Statement

All authors shared raw data for this study. The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available because we did not receive permission to make the data currently accessible to researchers from outside the organization. However, it will be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request after permission is obtained from the Ethics Committee of Kansai Medical University.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Nakamura N, Naganuma M. Data curation: Nakamura N. Formal analysis: Nakamura N, Honzawa Y. Investigation: all authors. Project administration: Naganuma M. Supervision: Tomiyama T, Tahara T, Fukata N, Fukui T, Naganuma M. Writing – original draft: Nakamura N, Naganuma M. Writing – review & editing: Naganuma M. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Fig. 1.
Flowchart depicting the study design. CD, Crohn’s disease; LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein; PRO2, patient-reported outcome.
ir-2024-00042f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Analysis of LRG levels. (A) Analysis of LRG levels in patients with different PRO2 scores; PRO2 scores did not correlate with a gradual increase in LRG level (ρ=0.061, P=0.559, Spearman rank correlation coefficient). (B) Analysis of LRG levels in patients with active and remission phases (P=0.186, Mann-Whitney U test). LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein; PRO, patient-reported outcome.
ir-2024-00042f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
Analyses of patients in remission (n=74). ROC curves and AUC for prediction of diagnostic ability of LRG (A), CRP (B), albumin (C), and platelet count (D) in patients in remission. (E) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL and those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P<0.001, log-rank test). (F) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with CRP <0.076 mg/dL and those with CRP ≥0.076 mg/dL (P=0.008, log-rank test). (G) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with albumin ≥4.2 g/dL and those with CRP <4.2 g/dL (P=0.060, log-rank test). (H) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with platelet count <30.8×104/μL and those with platelet count ≥30.8×104/μL (P<0.001, log-rank test). AUC, area under the curve; LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein; CRP, C-reactive protein; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.
ir-2024-00042f3.jpg
Fig. 4.
Analysis of patients in remission with normal level of CRP and albumin. (A) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with normal level of CRP (≤0.3 mg/dL). Cumulative non-relapse rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.002, log-rank test). (B) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with normal level of albumin (≥3.8 g/dL). Cumulative non-relapse rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.001, log-rank test). LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein; CRP, C-reactive protein.
ir-2024-00042f4.jpg
Fig. 5.
Analysis of patients in remission with L1, L2, L3, and non-inflammatory type (B2/B3). (A) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with L1. Cumulative non-relapse rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was not higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.053, log-rank test). (B) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with L2. Cumulative non-relapse rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was not higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.131, log-rank test). (C) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with L3. Cumulative non-relapse rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.005, logrank test). (D) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with B2 and B3. Cumulative non-relapse rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.001, log-rank test). LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein.
ir-2024-00042f5.jpg
Fig. 6.
Analysis of hospitalization and surgical rates in patients in remission. (A) Cumulative non-hospitalization rate in patients. Cumulative non-hospitalization rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.003, log-rank test). (B) Cumulative non-surgical rate in patients. Cumulative non-surgical rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.008, log-rank test). LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein.
ir-2024-00042f6.jpg
Table 1.
Characteristics of the Study Participants at Baseline
Characteristics Value (n = 94)
Sex
 Male 69 (73.4)
 Female 25 (26.6)
Age (yr) 35.5 (15–83)
Clinical remission 69 (73.4)
Duration of disease (yr) 8 (0.1–35)
Previous intestinal resection 34 (36.2)
Location
 L1 23 (24.5)
 L2 18 (19.1)
 L3 53 (56.4)
Behavior
 B1: Inflammatory 13 (13.8)
 B2: Stricturing 40 (42.6)
 B3: Penetrating 41 (43.6)
 Active anal disease 13 (13.8)
Hemoglobin (g/dL) 14.1 (7.3–16.9)
CRP (mg/dL) 0.086 (0.008–6.889)
Albumin (g/dL) (n = 93) 4.3 (2.4–5.2)
Platelet count (× 104 μL) 24.5 (11.5–39.9)
ESR (mm/hr) (n = 71) 7.0 (0.2–62.2)
LRG (μg/mL) 12.2 (6.6–41.7)
Concomitant medication
 5-ASA 66 (70.2)
  Oral 64 (68.1)
  Enema 2 (2.1)
 Oral prednisolone 4 (4.3)
 Thiopurine 31 (33.0)
  AZA 28 (29.8)
   Range of daily dose 25–125
  6-MP 3 (3.2)
   Range of daily dose 15–30
 Biologics 73 (77.7)
  Anti-TNF agent 52 (55.3)
  Ustekinumab 21 (22.3)

Values are presented as number (%) or median (range).

CRP, C-reactive protein; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein; 5-ASA, 5-aminosalicylic acid; AZA, azathioprine; 6-MP, 6-mercaptopurine; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.

Table 2.
Correlation among Clinical Severity, LRG, and Other Blood Markers
LRG (n = 94) CRP (n = 94) ESR (n = 71) Albumin (n = 93) Platelet count (n = 94) Hemoglobin (n = 94)
LRG 0.79 0.71 –0.70 0.40 –0.49
 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85 0.58 to 0.81 –0.79 to –0.57 0.21 to 0.55 –0.63 to –0.32
P-value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
CRP 0.63 –0.50 0.23 –0.30
 95% CI 0.47 to 0.75 –0.64 to –0.33 0.033 to 0.42 –0.48 to –0.11
P-value < 0.001 < 0.001 0.023 0.003
ESR –0.61 0.42 –0.54
 95% CI –0.74 to –0.44 0.21 to 0.59 –0.69 to –0.35
P-value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Albumin –0.30 0.50
 95% CI –0.48 to –0.11 0.33 to 0.64
P-value 0.003 < 0.001
Platelet count –0.24
 95% CI –0.42 to –0.04
P-value 0.022

LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein; CRP, C-reactive protein; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CI, confidence interval.

Table 3.
Univariate and Multivariate Analyses for Predicting Clinical Relapse in Patients in Remission
Variable Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value
Sex 0.383
Age 0.097
Duration of disease 0.173
LRG 1.11 (1.05–1.17) < 0.001 1.16 (1.02–1.31) 0.021
CRP 2.03 (1.18–3.11) 0.003 0.86 (0.36–2.15) 0.730
ESR 0.269
Albumin 0.32 (0.13–0.81) 0.013 1.80 (0.44–8.60) 0.435
Platelet count 1.11 (1.04–1.18) 0.001 1.06 (0.98–1.13) 0.124
Hemoglobin 0.263

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein; CRP, C-reactive protein; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate.

Table 4.
Medical Treatment at Clinical Relapse in Patients in Remission
Additional or modification of medications No.
5-ASA increase dose 3
Steroids 5
Antibiotics 3
Biologics 8
 Anti-TNF agent, start 1
 Anti-TNF agent, increased dose 2
 Vedolizumab 1
 Ustekinumab 4
Endoscopic dilation 3
Seton, drainage 4

5-ASA, 5-aminosalicylic acid; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.

  • 1. Ng SC, Leung WK, Shi HY, et al. Epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease from 1981 to 2014: results from a territory-wide population-based registry in Hong Kong. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2016;22:1954–1960.PubMed
  • 2. Park SH, Kim YJ, Rhee KH, et al. A 30-year trend analysis in the epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease in the Songpa-Kangdong District of Seoul, Korea in 1986-2015. J Crohns Colitis 2019;13:1410–1417.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 3. Yen HH, Weng MT, Tung CC, et al. Epidemiological trend in inflammatory bowel disease in Taiwan from 2001 to 2015: a nationwide population-based study. Intest Res 2019;17:54–62.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 4. Frøslie KF, Jahnsen J, Moum BA, Vatn MH, IBSEN Group. Mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease: results from a Norwegian population-based cohort. Gastroenterology 2007;133:412–422.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Naganuma M, Hisamatsu T, Matsuoka K, et al. Endoscopic severity predicts long-term prognosis in Crohn’s disease patients with clinical remission. Digestion 2016;93:66–71.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 6. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Sandborn W, Sands BE, et al. Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE): determining therapeutic goals for treat-to-target. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:1324–1338.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 7. 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.ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Lichtenstein GR, Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ, Practice Parameters Committee of American College of Gastroenterology. Management of Crohn’s disease in adults. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:465–483.ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Le Berre C, Trang-Poisson C, Bourreille A. Small bowel capsule endoscopy and treat-to-target in Crohn’s disease: a systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 2019;25:4534–4554.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 10. Jones GR, Fascì-Spurio F, Kennedy NA, et al. Faecal calprotectin and magnetic resonance enterography in ileal Crohn’s disease: correlations between disease activity and long-term follow-up. J Crohns Colitis 2019;13:442–450.ArticlePubMed
  • 11. Sagami S, Kobayashi T, Kikkawa N, et al. Combination of colonoscopy and magnetic resonance enterography is more useful for clinical decision making than colonoscopy alone in patients with complicated Crohn’s disease. PLoS One 2019;14:e0212404.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 12. Takenaka K, Ohtsuka K, Kitazume Y, et al. Utility of magnetic resonance enterography for small bowel endoscopic healing in patients with Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:283–294.ArticlePubMed
  • 13. Bollegala N, Griller N, Bannerman H, Habal M, Nguyen GC. Ultrasound vs endoscopy, surgery, or pathology for the diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease and its complications. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2019;25:1313–1338.ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Sagami S, Kobayashi T, Kanazawa T, et al. Accuracy of Doppler transabdominal ultrasound in assessing disease severity and extent in IBD. Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis 2019;13(Suppl 1): S218.
  • 15. Røseth AG, Fagerhol MK, Aadland E, Schjønsby H. Assessment of the neutrophil dominating protein calprotectin in feces: a methodologic study. Scand J Gastroenterol 1992;27:793–798.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Arai T, Takeuchi K, Miyamura M, et al. Level of fecal calprotectin correlates with severity of small bowel Crohn’s disease, measured by balloon-assisted enteroscopy and computed tomography enterography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15:56–62.ArticlePubMed
  • 17. Kawashima K, Ishihara S, Yuki T, et al. Fecal calprotectin more accurately predicts endoscopic remission of Crohn’s disease than serological biomarkers evaluated using balloon-assisted enteroscopy. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2017;23:2027–2034.ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Schoepfer AM, Beglinger C, Straumann A, et al. Fecal calprotectin correlates more closely with the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease (SES-CD) than CRP, blood leukocytes, and the CDAI. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:162–169.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 19. Sipponen T, Savilahti E, Kolho KL, Nuutinen H, Turunen U, Färkkilä M. Crohn’s disease activity assessed by fecal calprotectin and lactoferrin: correlation with Crohn’s disease activity index and endoscopic findings. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2008;14:40–46.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Sipponen T, Savilahti E, Kärkkäinen P, et al. Fecal calprotectin, lactoferrin, and endoscopic disease activity in monitoring anti-TNF-alpha therapy for Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2008;14:1392–1398.ArticlePubMed
  • 21. Kallel L, Ayadi I, Matri S, et al. Fecal calprotectin is a predictive marker of relapse in Crohn’s disease involving the colon: a prospective study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;22:340–345.ArticlePubMed
  • 22. Lobatón T, López-García A, Rodríguez-Moranta F, Ruiz A, Rodríguez L, Guardiola J. A new rapid test for fecal calprotectin predicts endoscopic remission and postoperative recurrence in Crohn’s disease. J Crohns Colitis 2013;7:e641–e651.ArticlePubMed
  • 23. Wright EK, Kamm MA, De Cruz P, et al. Measurement of fecal calprotectin improves monitoring and detection of recurrence of Crohn’s disease after surgery. Gastroenterology 2015;148:938–947.PubMed
  • 24. Xiang B, Dong Z, Dai C. The diagnostic and predictive value of fecal calprotectin and capsule endoscopy for small-bowel Crohn’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2021;113:193–201.ArticlePubMed
  • 25. Simon EG, Wardle R, Thi AA, Eldridge J, Samuel S, Moran GW. Does fecal calprotectin equally and accurately measure disease activity in small bowel and large bowel Crohn’s disease? A systematic review. Intest Res 2019;17:160–170.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 26. Serada S, Fujimoto M, Ogata A, et al. iTRAQ-based proteomic identification of leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein as a novel inflammatory biomarker in autoimmune diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:770–774.PubMed
  • 27. Kawamura T, Yamamura T, Nakamura M, et al. Accuracy of serum leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein in evaluating endoscopic disease activity in Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2023;29:245–253.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 28. Kawamoto A, Takenaka K, Hibiya S, Ohtsuka K, Okamoto R, Watanabe M. Serum leucine-rich α2 glycoprotein: a novel biomarker for small bowel mucosal activity in Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;20:e1196–e1200.ArticlePubMed
  • 29. Omori T, Sasaki Y, Koroku M, et al. Serum leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein in quiescent Crohn’s disease as a potential surrogate marker for small-bowel ulceration detected by capsule endoscopy. J Clin Med 2022;11:2494.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 30. Hiraga H, Chinda D, Hasui K, et al. Evaluation of Crohn’s disease small-bowel mucosal healing using capsule endoscopy and usefulness of leucine-rich α2-glycoprotein. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023;13:626.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 31. Abe I, Shiga H, Chiba H, et al. Serum leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein as a predictive factor of endoscopic remission in Crohn’s disease. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;37:1741–1748.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 32. Naganuma M, Kobayashi T, Nasuno M, et al. Significance of conducting 2 types of fecal tests in patients with ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;18:1102–1111.ArticlePubMed
  • 33. Kawamoto A, Takenaka K, Hibiya S, et al. Combination of leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein and fecal markers detect Crohn’s disease activity confirmed by balloon-assisted enteroscopy. Intest Res 2024;22:65–74.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 34. Neurath MF, Travis SP. Mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel diseases: a systematic review. Gut 2012;61:1619–1635.ArticlePubMed
  • 35. Saiki T, Torisu T, Harada A, et al. Usefulness of serum leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein as a surrogate marker of small bowel mucosal injury in Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Intest Dis 2023;8:69–76.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 36. Shinzaki S, Matsuoka K, Tanaka H, et al. Leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein is a potential biomarker to monitor disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease receiving adalimumab: PLANET study. J Gastroenterol 2021;56:560–569.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 37. Takenaka K, Kitazume Y, Kawamoto A, et al. Serum leucine-rich α2 glycoprotein: a novel biomarker for transmural inflammation in Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2023;118:1028–1035.ArticlePubMed
  • 38. Colombel JF, Panaccione R, Bossuyt P, et al. Effect of tight control management on Crohn’s disease (CALM): a multicentre, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017;390:2779–2789.ArticlePubMed

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
        Leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein is useful in predicting clinical relapse in patients with Crohn’s disease during biological remission
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      • 2
      • 3
      • 4
      • 5
      Related articles
      Leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein is useful in predicting clinical relapse in patients with Crohn’s disease during biological remission
      Image Image Image Image Image Image
      Fig. 1. Flowchart depicting the study design. CD, Crohn’s disease; LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein; PRO2, patient-reported outcome.
      Fig. 2. Analysis of LRG levels. (A) Analysis of LRG levels in patients with different PRO2 scores; PRO2 scores did not correlate with a gradual increase in LRG level (ρ=0.061, P=0.559, Spearman rank correlation coefficient). (B) Analysis of LRG levels in patients with active and remission phases (P=0.186, Mann-Whitney U test). LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein; PRO, patient-reported outcome.
      Fig. 3. Analyses of patients in remission (n=74). ROC curves and AUC for prediction of diagnostic ability of LRG (A), CRP (B), albumin (C), and platelet count (D) in patients in remission. (E) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL and those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P<0.001, log-rank test). (F) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with CRP <0.076 mg/dL and those with CRP ≥0.076 mg/dL (P=0.008, log-rank test). (G) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with albumin ≥4.2 g/dL and those with CRP <4.2 g/dL (P=0.060, log-rank test). (H) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with platelet count <30.8×104/μL and those with platelet count ≥30.8×104/μL (P<0.001, log-rank test). AUC, area under the curve; LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein; CRP, C-reactive protein; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.
      Fig. 4. Analysis of patients in remission with normal level of CRP and albumin. (A) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with normal level of CRP (≤0.3 mg/dL). Cumulative non-relapse rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.002, log-rank test). (B) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with normal level of albumin (≥3.8 g/dL). Cumulative non-relapse rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.001, log-rank test). LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein; CRP, C-reactive protein.
      Fig. 5. Analysis of patients in remission with L1, L2, L3, and non-inflammatory type (B2/B3). (A) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with L1. Cumulative non-relapse rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was not higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.053, log-rank test). (B) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with L2. Cumulative non-relapse rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was not higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.131, log-rank test). (C) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with L3. Cumulative non-relapse rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.005, logrank test). (D) Cumulative non-relapse rate in patients with B2 and B3. Cumulative non-relapse rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.001, log-rank test). LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein.
      Fig. 6. Analysis of hospitalization and surgical rates in patients in remission. (A) Cumulative non-hospitalization rate in patients. Cumulative non-hospitalization rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.003, log-rank test). (B) Cumulative non-surgical rate in patients. Cumulative non-surgical rate of patients with LRG <13.8 μg/mL was higher compared to those with LRG ≥13.8 μg/mL (P=0.008, log-rank test). LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein.
      Leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein is useful in predicting clinical relapse in patients with Crohn’s disease during biological remission
      Characteristics Value (n = 94)
      Sex
       Male 69 (73.4)
       Female 25 (26.6)
      Age (yr) 35.5 (15–83)
      Clinical remission 69 (73.4)
      Duration of disease (yr) 8 (0.1–35)
      Previous intestinal resection 34 (36.2)
      Location
       L1 23 (24.5)
       L2 18 (19.1)
       L3 53 (56.4)
      Behavior
       B1: Inflammatory 13 (13.8)
       B2: Stricturing 40 (42.6)
       B3: Penetrating 41 (43.6)
       Active anal disease 13 (13.8)
      Hemoglobin (g/dL) 14.1 (7.3–16.9)
      CRP (mg/dL) 0.086 (0.008–6.889)
      Albumin (g/dL) (n = 93) 4.3 (2.4–5.2)
      Platelet count (× 104 μL) 24.5 (11.5–39.9)
      ESR (mm/hr) (n = 71) 7.0 (0.2–62.2)
      LRG (μg/mL) 12.2 (6.6–41.7)
      Concomitant medication
       5-ASA 66 (70.2)
        Oral 64 (68.1)
        Enema 2 (2.1)
       Oral prednisolone 4 (4.3)
       Thiopurine 31 (33.0)
        AZA 28 (29.8)
         Range of daily dose 25–125
        6-MP 3 (3.2)
         Range of daily dose 15–30
       Biologics 73 (77.7)
        Anti-TNF agent 52 (55.3)
        Ustekinumab 21 (22.3)
      LRG (n = 94) CRP (n = 94) ESR (n = 71) Albumin (n = 93) Platelet count (n = 94) Hemoglobin (n = 94)
      LRG 0.79 0.71 –0.70 0.40 –0.49
       95% CI 0.69 to 0.85 0.58 to 0.81 –0.79 to –0.57 0.21 to 0.55 –0.63 to –0.32
      P-value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
      CRP 0.63 –0.50 0.23 –0.30
       95% CI 0.47 to 0.75 –0.64 to –0.33 0.033 to 0.42 –0.48 to –0.11
      P-value < 0.001 < 0.001 0.023 0.003
      ESR –0.61 0.42 –0.54
       95% CI –0.74 to –0.44 0.21 to 0.59 –0.69 to –0.35
      P-value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
      Albumin –0.30 0.50
       95% CI –0.48 to –0.11 0.33 to 0.64
      P-value 0.003 < 0.001
      Platelet count –0.24
       95% CI –0.42 to –0.04
      P-value 0.022
      Variable Univariate analysis
      Multivariate analysis
      HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value
      Sex 0.383
      Age 0.097
      Duration of disease 0.173
      LRG 1.11 (1.05–1.17) < 0.001 1.16 (1.02–1.31) 0.021
      CRP 2.03 (1.18–3.11) 0.003 0.86 (0.36–2.15) 0.730
      ESR 0.269
      Albumin 0.32 (0.13–0.81) 0.013 1.80 (0.44–8.60) 0.435
      Platelet count 1.11 (1.04–1.18) 0.001 1.06 (0.98–1.13) 0.124
      Hemoglobin 0.263
      Additional or modification of medications No.
      5-ASA increase dose 3
      Steroids 5
      Antibiotics 3
      Biologics 8
       Anti-TNF agent, start 1
       Anti-TNF agent, increased dose 2
       Vedolizumab 1
       Ustekinumab 4
      Endoscopic dilation 3
      Seton, drainage 4
      Table 1. Characteristics of the Study Participants at Baseline

      Values are presented as number (%) or median (range).

      CRP, C-reactive protein; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein; 5-ASA, 5-aminosalicylic acid; AZA, azathioprine; 6-MP, 6-mercaptopurine; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.

      Table 2. Correlation among Clinical Severity, LRG, and Other Blood Markers

      LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein; CRP, C-reactive protein; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CI, confidence interval.

      Table 3. Univariate and Multivariate Analyses for Predicting Clinical Relapse in Patients in Remission

      HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; LRG, leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein; CRP, C-reactive protein; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate.

      Table 4. Medical Treatment at Clinical Relapse in Patients in Remission

      5-ASA, 5-aminosalicylic acid; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.


      Intest Res : Intestinal Research
      Close layer
      TOP