Jun Miyoshi; Annabelle Yoon; Minoru Matsuura; Tadakazu Hisamatsu

doi:10.5217/ir.2024.00082

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Intest Res > Volume 24(1); 2026 > Article

Original Article IBD Real-world use of biologics during the first year of treatment for newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease in Japan: a claims analysis from 2010 to 2021: Jun Miyoshi^1,*, Annabelle Yoon^2,*, Minoru Matsuura¹, Tadakazu Hisamatsu¹; Intestinal Research 2026;24(1):129-140.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2024.00082
Published online: January 23, 2025

¹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Mitaka, Japan

²Japan Medical Office, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Tokyo, Japan

Correspondence to Tadakazu Hisamatsu, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, 6-20-2 Shinkawa, Mitaka-shi, Tokyo, 181-8611, Japan. E-mail: thisamatsu@ks.kyorin-u.ac.jp

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

• Received: June 5, 2024 • Revised: September 30, 2024 • Accepted: October 5, 2024

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

5,928 Views
423 Download
2 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
Supplementary Material
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
Crohn’s disease (CD) leads to bowel damage and disability if suboptimally treated. We investigated firstyear treatment decisions and real-world use of biologics in patients with CD in Japan.
Methods
In this retrospective observational study (2010–2021) from the JMDC claims database, patients with a new diagnosis of CD (no CD claims record within 12 months before index) who received ≥ 1 pre-defined treatment were grouped by use of biologics and systemic corticosteroids (SCS) within the first year of diagnosis.
Results
Of 823 patients included, 470 (57.1%) were prescribed biologics and 353 (42.9%) were not; 77.6% were male, 75.7% had adult-onset CD, and median age was 24 years. Patients prescribed biologics were younger (median: 23 years vs. 28 years) and more had perianal lesions (43.0% vs. 22.9%) than those not prescribed biologics; 64.9% (95% confidence interval, 60.4%–69.2%) received a top-down treatment approach (no SCS before biologics). Factors significantly associated with a top-down treatment approach were male sex, perianal lesions, no use of immunomodulators, and use of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies. The proportion of patients receiving SCS before biologics (step-up approach) increased after 2018, with a shift from prednisolone to budesonide from 2016. Persistence with first biologics decreased over time, with no differences between biologic types.
Conclusions
Use of biologics for treatment of CD within the first year of diagnosis in Japan has remained stable over the past decade. However, there was a shift to a step-up treatment approach, with an increase in use of SCS before biologics over time.
Keywords: Biologic therapy; Claims data; Crohn disease

INTRODUCTION

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a lifelong inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract that requires medical treatment to prevent bowel damage and long-term disability [1-5]. The goals of treatment are to prevent disease progression by inducing and maintaining remission while minimizing treatment-related adverse effects. Over the past 10 years, there has been a shift from a conventional step-up approach, whereby treatment intensifies with disease progression, to a top-down approach, characterized by early, intensive intervention, particularly for patients at risk of severe disease [6-8]. Selection of the most appropriate treatment strategy is dependent on multiple factors that include local treatment guidelines; disease location, severity, and activity; the risk-benefit profile of the selected medication; patients’ previous responses to treatment; and the presence of any contraindications or comorbidities [1-4,9].

Several studies have been conducted to assess real-world treatment of patients with CD from Europe, the USA, and South Korea [10-12]. However, there is limited information on real-world medical treatments for CD or on how these treatments have changed over time in Japan [9,13]. The aims of this health insurance–based claims observational study were to investigate real-world treatment of patients with newly diagnosed CD in Japan, with a focus on the first year, and to evaluate trends in the real-world use of biologics over time.

METHODS

1. Study Design and Data Source

This retrospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study analyzed commercially available data from the JMDC Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) database of medical expense claims for company employees in Japan. The JMDC database includes health records of employees and their dependents from companies of any size in Japan (starting in 2005) and represents approximately 7% of the Japanese population. JMDC Inc. was responsible for collection of claims data and managing the database. Aggregated data were prepared and provided to the authors by JMDC Inc. in accordance with a research contract between JMDC Inc. and the study sponsor. The authors had no access to individual patient data.

The study was conducted in accordance with the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan [14]. The Japanese ethical guidelines do not require ethics review of studies that use de-identified data from databases comprising previously obtained secondary data. In accordance with the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects in Japan, informed consent was not required for this study. In addition, in accordance with the Kyorin University Ethics Review Committee, ethics review was not required because individual patient data were not collected; only secondary data that were already anonymized and aggregated by JMDC Inc. were analyzed in this study. The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study is not publicly available because it was used under contract from JMDC Inc., but is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

2. Study Population

Any patient with a new diagnosis of CD (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision [ICD-10] code: K50) in the JMDC database during the index identification period (January 2010–December 2020) and who met the criteria below was included [15]. Because CD is a chronic disease associated with cycles of remission and relapse, it is difficult to identify a “true” new diagnosis. Therefore, patients without a CD claims record for ≥ 1 year before index (the month of the first definitive diagnosis identifiable in the database based on CD claims) were considered to be newly diagnosed patients. In this study, patients were included if they did not have a CD claims record for ≥ 12 months directly before index, had data available for ≥ 12 months after index, and were treated with ≥ 1 of the following pre-defined CD treatments after diagnosis systemic corticosteroids (SCS), immunomodulators, biologic therapies, enteral nutrition, or granulocyte and monocyte adsorption apheresis. Patients with a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (ICD-10 code: K51) or Behçet’s disease (ICD-10 code: M352) were excluded from the analysis population.

3. Treatment Groups

Patients who met the inclusion criteria were classified into 4 groups based on their use of biologics and SCS within the first year of diagnosis. The no biologic group included patients with no prescriptions for biologics within the first year since diagnosis and comprised the SCS group (no prescriptions for biologics, ≥ 1 prescription for SCS) and the no bio/SCS group (no prescriptions for biologics nor SCS). The biologic group included patients with biologics prescribed within the first year since diagnosis and comprised the step-up group ( ≥ 1 SCS prescription before or within the same month of the first biologic prescription) and the top-down group (no prescription for SCS until the month of the first biologic prescription).

4. Outcomes

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in each treatment group, which describes treatment decisions within the first year since diagnosis. Secondary outcomes reported in this study were the trend of proportions of the biologic group versus the no biologic group from 2010 to 2020, which is the proportion of patients treated with biologics in the first year since diagnosis; demographics comparison between the no biologic and biologic groups; the trend of proportions for the top-down group versus the step-up group from 2010 to 2020, which is the proportion of patients treated with a top-down approach; and demographics comparisons between the top-down and step-up groups. Exploratory outcomes in this study were persistence with a first biologic in the biologic group and the trend for the type of SCS (prednisolone or budesonide).

5. Statistical Analysis

The proportions of patients in each group were calculated as percentages with 95% confidence interval (CI). Comparisons between treatment groups were assessed using chi-square tests, the Fisher exact test, or the t test, as appropriate. Persistence with biologics was investigated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Persistence with the first biologic (months) was defined as the duration until discontinuation, where discontinuation was defined as no prescription for a standard interval of each biologic plus 1 month (i.e., counting from the month after the last prescription). Patients who did not discontinue during the observation period were censored at the end of the observation period (November 2021). Multivariable analyses (logistic regression) were conducted to assess the factors associated with treatment decisions. Descriptive statistics were used for all other outcomes. Amazon Redshift version 1.0.40182 (Amazon Web Services, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA) was used as the data warehouse platform and statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

RESULTS

1. Treatment Decisions in the First Year of Diagnosis

Records for a total of 823 patients met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analyses (Fig. 1). Of the patients with newly diagnosed CD in the analysis population, 57.1% (470/823) were prescribed biologics within the first year after diagnosis and 42.9% (353/823) were not (Fig. 2). Of those who were prescribed biologics (biologic group), most received a top-down approach; specifically, 64.9% (305/470; 95% CI, 60.4%–69.2%) of the biologic group did not receive SCS before starting biologics (top-down group), and 35.1% (165/470; 95% CI, 30.8%–39.6%) of the biologic group received SCS before biologics (step-up group). Of those who were not prescribed biologics (no biologic group), 60.6% (214/353; 95% CI, 55.3%–65.8%) received SCS during the first year of diagnosis (SCS group), and 39.4% (139/353; 95% CI, 34.2%–44.7%) did not (no bio/SCS group).

2. Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

Overall, the median age of patients in the analysis population was 24 years, 77.6% were male, 75.7% had adult-onset CD, and 34.4% had perianal lesions at index (Table 1). Patients who were prescribed biologics within the first year of CD diagnosis were younger than those who were not (median: 23 years in the biologic group vs. 28 years in the no biologic group), and a higher proportion had perianal lesions at index (43.0% in the biologic group vs. 22.9% in the no biologic group) (Table 1). The proportion of patients with perianal lesions was highest in those who started biologics without a prior SCS (47.5% in the top-down group) compared with those who received SCS before biologics (34.5% in the step-up group) and the rest (22.9% in the no biologic group). A small increase in the proportion of patients with perianal lesions was seen by 12 months in each group (SCS: +2.4%; no bio/SCS: +5.8%; step-up: +4.9%; top-down: +3.3%).

3. Trends in First-Year Treatment from 2010 to 2020

The proportions of patients who were (biologic group) and were not (no biologic group) prescribed biologics within the first year of CD diagnosis remained stable for the duration of the study period (Table 2). On the other hand, of the patients who were prescribed biologics within the first year of diagnosis (the biologic group), there was an increase in the proportion of those in the step-up group (i.e., those receiving SCS before initiating biologics [a step-up approach]), particularly after 2018 (Table 3). In parallel, there was a shift in favor of budesonide over prednisolone as the initial SCS from 2016 onwards, particularly after 2018 (Supplementary Table 1). The proportions of patients who initiated budesonide were 0% in 2010–2015, 43.5% in 2016–2017, 55.7% in 2018–2019, and 61.2% in 2020.

4. Comparisons of First-Year Treatment between the Biologic and Non-Biologic Groups

In addition to the younger age and higher proportion of perianal lesions in the biologic group, higher proportions of patients in the biologic group (patients who were prescribed biologics in the first year since diagnosis) received 5-acetylsalicylic acids (ASAs; 90.6% vs. 69.7%; P< 0.001) and enteral nutrition (77.0% vs. 63.7%; P< 0.001), and lower proportions received SCS (41.5% vs. 60.6%; P< 0.001) compared with the no biologic group (Table 4). There was no difference in the use of immunomodulators between the biologic and no biologic groups (23.0% vs. 20.1%) (Table 4). Additionally, among the 283 patients who had perianal lesions at index, 202 (71.4%) patients were prescribed biologics (Table 1). The factors significantly associated with a prescription for biologics within the first year of diagnosis by multivariable analysis were younger age, perianal lesions, gastrointestinal examinations, 5-ASA prescriptions, and no SCS prescriptions (Table 5).

5. Comparisons of First-Year Treatment Between Top-down and Step-up Approaches

In patients who started biologics without prior SCS (top-down group), the proportions of patients who were male (83.3% [254/305] vs. 73.3% [121/165]; P= 0.010) and those who had perianal lesions (47.5% [145/305] vs. 34.5 [57/165]; P= 0.007) were higher compared with those who received SCS before biologics (step-up group) (Table 6). In addition, in the top-down group, more patients received anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies (85.2% [260/305] vs. 75.2% [124/165]; P= 0.007) and fewer patients received immunomodulators (18.7% [57/305] vs. 30.9% [51/165]; P= 0.003) compared with the step-up group. The factors significantly associated with a top-down treatment approach (no use of SCS before biologics) by multivariable analysis were male sex, perianal lesions, no immunomodulator prescriptions, and anti-TNF prescriptions (Table 7).

6. First Biologic-Related Findings

1) Persistence

Overall, 88.1%, 77.3%, 70.1%, 63.0%, 55.1%, and 45.5% of patients persisted with a first biologic at 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 120 months, respectively (Fig. 3A). In terms of having perianal lesions by the time of biologic initiation, persistence with the first biologic was lower after 36 months compared with patients without perianal lesions (Fig. 3B). There was no statistically significant difference in persistence rates between biologics nor between step-up and top-down approaches (Supplementary Fig. 1). Persistence rates with a TNF-α inhibitor or the interleukin (IL)-12/IL-23 antibody in the biologic group are shown in Supplementary Fig. 2.

2) Time to Initiation of Biologics

Time to initiation of biologics was analyzed in a modified biologic group (n = 420). These patients were those from the original biologic group (n = 490) who could be followed for ≥ 12 months from the first biologic (n = 429). Patients whose first biologic was vedolizumab (n = 9) were excluded because of the small number of patients in this group. The mean time to initiation of a first biologic was 1.8 months for infliximab, 2.5 months for adalimumab, and 3.6 months for ustekinumab in the biologic group (Table 8). The mean time to initiation of biologics in the top-down group was shorter compared with the step-up group. By definition in this study, the biologic group comprised patients who were given biologics within 12 months of diagnosis; therefore, patients who were given biologics > 12 months from diagnosis were not included in the analysis of the time to initiation of biologics.

DISCUSSION

This real-world analysis of CD treatments has shown that the proportion of patients prescribed biologics within the first year of diagnosis in Japan has remained stable over the past decade. Despite this, the use of SCS before biologics (i.e., using a step-up approach) has increased from 24% in 2010 to 49% in 2020. Patients who were most likely to be treated with biologics were those who were younger, had perianal lesions at diagnosis, gastrointestinal examinations within 12 months from diagnosis, a 5-ASA prescription, and no use of SCS. Patients who were most likely to be treated with biologics without a prior SCS were those who were male, had perianal lesions at diagnosis, no use of immunomodulators, and use of anti-TNFs. Overall, among 283 patients who had perianal lesions at index, 51.2% (145/283) were treated using a top-down approach. To break this down, 71.4% (202/283) were treated with biologics in the first year since diagnosis of CD, and of these 202 patients, 71.8% (145/202) were treated using a top-down approach.

Along with the increase in the use of a step-up approach with biologics from 2010 to 2020, which was most obvious after 2018, there was a quick turnover in prescriptions in favor of budesonide over prednisolone from 2016. These changes in treatment strategies were likely to be a result of (1) availability of budesonide in Japan, which was approved for induction of remission in mild-to-moderate CD in 2016, and (2) uptake of the Japanese guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease, as well as the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation guidelines [1,3], which recommend the use of a step-up approach for induction of remission in patients with moderate-to-severe CD [2]. In particular, budesonide is considered safe, with fewer adverse effects compared with prednisolone [16], which may have affected doctors’ willingness to prescribe SCS in patients with CD. Also, several studies have shown budesonide to be effective for the induction of remission (defined as a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index score ≤ 150 at week 8) in Japanese patients with mild-to-moderate active CD [17,18]. Based on these data, we consider that the use of budesonide contributed to an increase in the proportion of patients treated with the accelerated step-up approach.

The finding that younger patients were more likely to be prescribed biologics seems consistent with a recent finding from the Inception Cohort Registry Study of Patients with Crohn’s Disease, which showed that the prevalence of perianal lesions at CD diagnosis was higher in patients < 40 years of age [19]. In contrast, the lower likelihood of biologic prescription in older patients could be because older patients with inflammatory bowel disease are at greater risk of adverse events, irrespective of the treatment they receive (e.g., they have a greater risk of severe infection compared with younger patients when treated with anti-TNFs) [20]. It is also conceivable that older patients are less likely to have disease activity that requires treatment with a biologic [21]. Furthermore, gastroenterologists may intend to prevent future complications such as fistulas or stenosis by prescribing biologics early in patients with early-onset disease. The finding that the presence of perianal lesions at diagnosis was associated with an early use of biologics (i.e., top-down approach) is not surprising because perianal lesions indicate more severe disease activity, and management of these patients typically requires more intense treatment with agents such as anti-TNFs [2,22]. Compared with patients who were treated with SCS before biologics (step-up approach), patients who started biologics without prior SCS (top-down approach) were more likely to be male and have perianal lesions. Because males are more likely to have perianal lesions than females [23], it is possible that male sex was a confounding factor and that this result can be attributed to disease severity.

In this analysis, we also compared patient characteristics and treatments given in the first 12 months since a CD diagnosis between those who did (biologic group) and did not (no biologic group) receive biologics. Although differences in patient demographics and treatment history were observed between the groups, it is challenging to interpret the clinical significance of these differences because of the limited clinical information (e.g., disease activity and behavior) that is available in health insurance–based claims registries. Nevertheless, disease severity is expected to be less diverse in the biologic group because biologics are approved for treatment of moderate-to-severe CD. As expected, it was interesting to see that more anti-TNFs (85.2% vs. 75.2%) and fewer immunomodulators (18.7% vs. 30.9%) were prescribed in the top-down group compared with the step-up group. First, this is likely because immunomodulators are commonly added to SCS as part of a step-up approach (step-up group) and tend to be continued, even if anti-TNF therapy is initiated. Second, a higher proportion of perianal complications at index—which is considered a negative prognostic factor—in the top-down group (47.5% vs. 34.5%) would have resulted in a greater proportion of top-down use of biologics (mainly anti-TNFs). In addition, physicians’ concerns regarding adverse effects with concomitant use of immunomodulators when an anti-TNF is newly started may be the reason why immunomodulators were less likely to be combined with an anti-TNF in the top-down group. The tendency to avoid concomitant use of immunomodulators with anti-TNFs in Japan was even greater up until 2019. After 2019, the NUDT15 gene variant screening test, a pharmacogenetic biomarker for thiopurine-induced acute neutropenia and alopecia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [24], was covered by the Japanese national health insurance. Our findings could support previous observations that anti-TNF monotherapy is preferred by physicians in the real-world [25,26] and suggest that some physicians may avoid using immunomodulators in patients with perianal abscesses in clinical practice.

Overall, persistence with a first biologic (infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab) was 88%, 77%, and 70% at 12, 24, and 36 months, with no observable differences between biologics nor between the step-up and top-down groups. When we compared patients with and without a claims record for perianal lesions before the first biologic, there was no statistically significant difference between these groups. However, it was noticeable that, after 36 months, persistence was lower for patients with perianal lesions than those without. This may suggest that patients with perianal lesions are more likely to switch to a second biologic after some time, most likely because of loss of response.

A key strength of our study was the use of the JMDC database, Japan’s largest health claims database, consisting of employer-based health insurance schemes. As long as individuals remain with their employer, all insured treatments from any hospital received by the employee and their dependents are captured in the database. Despite using the employer-based database, the cost would not have affected prescriptions because out-of-pocket payments are the same in Japan across different types of insurance. Moreover, the JMDC database is limited to patients < 75 years of age, it is unlikely to have contributed to bias in our study because CD is often diagnosed in younger adults (20–40 years) [10], and in fact, the patient characteristics in this study were similar to those of patients in a nationwide registry study [27]. Furthermore, this study was focused on the first year of treatment after diagnosis. The major limitation of this study is the lack of clinical data due to the nature of claims data. Because of this, detailed clinical assessment or direct treatment outcomes could not be included. The pre-defined therapies that were selected for this study were assumed to be prescribed for CD, which may be a limitation of this study because it is possible that the pre-defined therapies may have been prescribed for other conditions. Ulcerative colitis and Behçet’s disease were excluded to reduce the impact of this limitation because the treatments used for these diseases overlap with those used for CD.

In conclusion, this real-world analysis of health claims data has shown how the real-world treatment of CD in Japan has evolved in the past 10 years. Although a proportion of biologic prescriptions in newly diagnosed patients remained stable for a decade, there has been a shift to a step-up approach from a top-down approach after 2018, presumably because of the availability of budesonide and the uptake of revised treatment guidelines.

NOTES

Funding Source

This work was supported by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited was involved in the study design, data collection, data analysis, and preparation of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

Miyoshi J has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie GK, Janssen Asia Pacific, Janssen Pharmaceuticals K.K., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Ltd., Miyarisan Co., Ltd., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Yoon A is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Matsuura M has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie GK, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceuticals K.K., JIMRO Co., Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Ltd., Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co. Ltd., Pfizer Japan Inc., Sandoz AG, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Viatris Inc., and ZERIA Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. In addition, Matsuura M has a leadership or fiduciary role as a member of the Clinical Epidemiology Committee of the Japanese Society for Inflammatory Bowel Disease, a member of the Committee on Public Information of the Japanese Society for Mucosal Immunology, and a Council member of the Japan Small Intestine Society. Hisamatsu T has received grants or contracts from Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., EA Pharma Co., Ltd., JIMRO Co., Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Ltd., Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nichi-Iko Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, and ZERIA Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; consulting fees from AbbVie GK, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals K.K., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited; and has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie GK, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals K.K., JIMRO Co., Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Ltd., Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study is not publicly available because it was used under contract from JMDC Inc., but is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Yoon A, Hisamatsu T. Formal analysis: all authors. Investigation: all authors. Writing - original draft: Miyoshi J. Writing - review & editing: all authors. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Additional Contributions

The authors thank Yuji Honma (JMDC Inc.) for his contributions to project management of this study, Michinori Arimitsu (JMDC Inc.) for statistical support, and Serina Stretton (Envision Pharma Group) for editorial and medical writing support.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials are available at the Intestinal Research website (https://www.irjournal.org).

Supplementary Table 1.

Trend Analysis for the Type of SCS Prescribed before a Biologic Prescription within the First Year of Newly Diagnosed CD (Step-up Group)

ir-2024-00082-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 1.

Persistence of a first-line biologic in newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease (biologic group). Step-up group (patients receiving an SCS prescription before a biologic) and top-down group (patients receiving a biologic without a prior SCS prescription) for all biologics (A); and by TNF-α inhibitors and other (B, C). SCS, systemic corticosteroid; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; IFX, infliximab; ADA, adalimumab; CI, confidence interval.

ir-2024-00082-Supplementary-Fig-1.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 2.

Persistence of a first-line biologic in patients with newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease (biologic group) for TNF-α inhibitors (IFX, ADA) and interleukin (IL)-12/IL-23 antibody (UST). TNF, tumor necrosis factor; IFX, infliximab; ADA, adalimumab; UST, ustekinumab; CI, confidence interval.

ir-2024-00082-Supplementary-Fig-2.pdf

Fig. 1.

Patient flow diagram. CD, Crohn’s disease.

Fig. 2.

Study groups. No biologic group: no biologic prescription (SCS: with an SCS prescription; No bio/SCS: without an SCS prescription) and biologic group: biologic prescription (step-up: SCS prescription before biologic; top-down: no SCS prescription before biologic). SCS, systemic corticosteroid.

Fig. 3.

Persistence with first-line biologics in patients with newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease (CD). (A) Overall, (B) with and without perianal lesions. CI, confidence interval.

Table 1.

Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

Variable	All patients	No biologics			Biologics
Variable	All patients	All (n = 353)	SCS: with SCS (n = 214)	No bio/SCS: without SCS (n = 139)	All (n = 470)	Step-up: SCS before biologics (n = 165)	Top-down: no SCS before biologics (n = 305)
Male sex	639 (77.6)	264 (74.8)	157 (73.4)	107 (77.0)	375 (79.8)	121 (73.3)	254 (83.3)
Age (yr)
Mean ± SD	28.5 ± 13.6	31.7 ± 15.2	32.2 ± 15.9	30.8 ± 14.0	26.0 ± 11.7	24.6 ± 11.4	26.8 ± 11.8
Median (range)	24 (2–74)	28 (4–73)	29 (4–73)	28 (5–63)	23 (2–74)	21 (2–74)	24 (4–68)
Age of onset
Very early (< 6 yr)	5 (0.6)	2 (0.6)	1 (0.5)	1 (0.7)	3 (0.6)	2 (1.2)	1 (0.3)
Pediatric (< 18 yr)	173 (21.0)	65 (18.4)	41 (19.2)	24 (17.3)	108 (23.0)	44 (26.7)	64 (21.0)
Adult (≥ 18 to < 60 yr)	623 (75.7)	270 (76.5)	160 (74.8)	110 (79.1)	353 (75.1)	117 (70.9)	236 (77.4)
Elderly (≥ 60 yr)	22 (2.7)	16 (4.5)	12 (5.6)	4 (2.9)	6 (1.3)	2 (1.2)	4 (1.3)
Montreal classification
≤ 16 yr	148 (18.0)	55 (15.6)	35 (16.4)	20 (14.4)	93 (19.8)	37 (22.4)	56 (18.4)
17–40 yr	513 (62.3)	198 (56.1)	114 (53.3)	84 (60.4)	315 (67.0)	110 (66.7)	205 (67.2)
> 40 yr	162 (19.7)	100 (28.3)	65 (30.4)	35 (25.2)	62 (13.2)	18 (10.9)	44 (14.4)
Perianal lesions at index
No	540 (65.6)	272 (77.1)	169 (79.0)	103 (74.1)	268 (57.0)	108 (65.5)	160 (52.5)
Yes	283 (34.4)	81 (22.9)	45 (21.0)	36 (25.9)	202 (43.0)	57 (34.5)	145 (47.5)
Perianal lesions at 12 mo
No	509 (61.8)	259 (73.4)	164 (76.6)	95 (68.3)	250 (53.2)	100 (60.6)	150 (49.2)
Yes	314 (38.2)	94 (26.6)	50 (23.4)	44 (31.7)	220 (46.8)	65 (39.4)	155 (50.8)
CD location at 12 mo
Small intestine	94 (11.4)	42 (11.9)	15 (7.0)	27 (19.4)	52 (11.1)	19 (11.5)	33 (10.8)
Large intestine	51 (6.2)	20 (5.7)	12 (5.6)	8 (5.8)	31 (6.6)	17 (10.3)	14 (4.6)
Small and large intestine	176 (21.4)	51 (14.4)	28 (13.1)	23 (16.5)	125 (26.6)	50 (30.3)	75 (24.6)
Unspecified	502 (61.0)	240 (68.0)	159 (74.3)	81 (58.3)	262 (55.7)	79 (47.9)	183 (60.0)

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

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; SD, standard deviation; CD, Crohn’s disease.

Table 2.

Treatment Decisions within the First Year of Newly Diagnosed Crohn’s Disease

Trend analysis period	All patients (n=823)	Treatment decision
	All patients (n=823)	No biologics (n = 353)		Biologics (n = 470)
	No. (%)	No. (%)	95% CI	No. (%)	95% CI
2010–2011	31 (100)	10 (32.3)	16.7–51.4	21 (67.7)	48.6–83.3
2012–2013	46 (100)	20 (43.5)	28.9–58.9	26 (56.5)	41.1–71.1
2014–2015	100 (100)	44 (44.0)	34.1–54.3	56 (56.0)	45.7–65.9
2016–2017	181 (100)	82 (45.3)	37.9–52.9	99 (54.7)	47.1–62.1
2018–2019	292 (100)	125 (42.8)	37.1–48.7	167 (57.2)	51.3–62.9
2020	173 (100)	72 (41.6)	34.2–49.3	101 (58.4)	50.7–65.8

CI, confidence interval.

Table 3.

Treatment Decisions for Patients Prescribed Biologics within the First Year of Newly Diagnosed Crohn’s Disease

Trend analysis period	All patients (n=470)	Treatment decision
	All patients (n=470)	Step-up: SCS before biologics (n = 165)		Top-down: no SCS before biologics (n = 305)
	No. (%)	No. (%)	95% CI	No. (%)	95% CI
2010–2011	21 (100)	5 (23.8)	8.2–47.2	16 (76.2)	52.8–91.8
2012–2013	26 (100)	4 (15.4)	4.4–34.9	22 (84.6)	65.1–95.6
2014–2015	56 (100)	14 (25.0)	14.4–38.4	42 (75.0)	61.6–85.6
2016–2017	99 (100)	23 (23.2)	15.3–32.8	76 (76.8)	67.2–84.7
2018–2019	167 (100)	70 (41.9)	34.3–49.8	97 (58.1)	50.2–65.7
2020	101 (100)	49 (48.5)	38.4–58.7	52 (51.5)	41.3–61.6

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; CI, confidence interval.

Table 4.

Clinical Characteristics in Patients with and without a Biologic Prescription within 1 Year from Diagnosis

Variable	All patients (n = 823)	No biologics (n = 353)	Biologics (n = 470)	P-value^a
Treatment during 12 mo from index
5-ASA				< 0.001
No	151 (18.3)	107 (30.3)	44 (9.4)
Yes	672 (81.7)	246 (69.7)	426 (90.6)
SCS				< 0.001
No	414 (50.3)	139 (39.4)	275 (58.5)
Yes	409 (49.7)	214 (60.6)	195 (41.5)
Immunomodulator				0.324
No	644 (78.3)	282 (79.9)	362 (77.0)
Yes	179 (21.7)	71 (20.1)	108 (23.0)
Enteral nutrition				< 0.001
No	236 (28.7)	128 (36.3)	108 (23.0)
Yes	587 (71.3)	225 (63.7)	362 (77.0)
Montreal classification				< 0.001
≤ 16 yr	148 (18.0)	55 (15.6)	93 (19.8)
17–40 yr	513 (62.3)	198 (56.1)	315 (67.0)
> 40 yr	162 (19.7)	100 (28.3)	62 (13.2)
Sex				0.088
Male	639 (77.6)	264 (74.8)	375 (79.8)
Female	184 (22.4)	89 (25.2)	95 (20.2)
Endoscopy/colonoscopy/MRE within 12 mo from index				< 0.001
No	146 (17.7)	101 (28.6)	45 (9.6)
Yes	677 (82.3)	252 (71.4)	425 (90.4)
Perianal lesions within 12 mo from index				< 0.001
No	509 (61.8)	259 (73.4)	250 (53.2)
Yes	314 (38.2)	94 (26.6)	220 (46.8)

Values are presented as number (%).

^a Chi-square test.

5-ASA, 5-acetylsalicylic acid; SCS, systemic corticosteroid; MRE, magnetic resonance enterography.

Table 5.

Factors Associated with a Biologic Prescription within 1 Year from Diagnosis of Crohn’s Disease (All Groups)^a

Variable	Reference	Label	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Treatment during 12 mo from index
5-ASA	No	Yes	2.58 (1.64–4.06)	< 0.001
SCS	No	Yes	0.52 (0.38–0.70)	< 0.001
Immunomodulator	No	Yes	1.15 (0.80–1.65)	0.443
Enteral nutrition	No	Yes	0.88 (0.61–1.28)	0.495
Montreal classification	17–40 yr	≤ 16 yr	1.12 (0.75–1.68)	0.579
		> 40 yr	0.50 (0.33–0.75)	< 0.001
Sex	Female	Male	0.92 (0.63–1.33)	0.637
Endoscopy/colonoscopy/MRE within 12 mo from index	No	Yes	2.10 (1.35–3.28)	0.001
Perianal lesions within 12 mo from index	No	Yes	1.53 (1.10–2.13)	0.011

^a Logistic regression.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; 5-ASA, 5-acetylsalicylic acid; SCS, systemic corticosteroid; MRE, magnetic resonance enterography.

Table 6.

Clinical Characteristics in Patients with and without a SCS Prescription before Initiation of a Biologic

Variable	Biologics (n = 470)	Step-up: SCS prescription before biologics (n = 165)	Top-down: no SCSprescription before biologics (n = 305)	P-value^a
Treatment during 12 mo from index
5-ASA				0.417
No	44 (9.4)	13 (7.9)	31 (10.2)
Yes	426 (90.6)	152 (92.1)	274 (89.8)
Immunomodulator				0.003
No	362 (77.0)	114 (69.1)	248 (81.3)
Yes	108 (23.0)	51 (30.9)	57 (18.7)
Enteral nutrition				0.369
No	108 (23.0)	34 (20.6)	74 (24.3)
Yes	362 (77.0)	131 (79.4)	231 (75.7)
First biologic since index
Anti-TNF				0.007
No	86 (18.3)	41 (24.8)	45 (14.8)
Yes	384 (81.7)	124 (75.2)	260 (85.2)
Montreal classification				0.386
≤ 16 yr	93 (19.8)	37 (22.4)	56 (18.4)
17–40 yr	315 (67.0)	110 (66.7)	205 (67.2)
> 40 yr	62 (13.2)	18 (10.9)	44 (14.4)
Sex				0.010
Male	375 (79.8)	121 (73.3)	254 (83.3)
Female	95 (20.2)	44 (26.7)	51 (16.7)
Perianal lesions at index				0.007
No	268 (57.0)	108 (65.5)	160 (52.5)
Yes	202 (43.0)	57 (34.5)	145 (47.5)

Values are presented as number (%).

^a Chi-square test.

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; 5-ASA, 5-acetylsalicylic acid; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.

Table 7.

Factors Associated with a SCS Prescription before Initiation of a Biologic (Biologic Group)^a

Variable	Reference	Label	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Treatment during 12 mo from index
5-ASA	No	Yes	1.37 (0.67–2.81)	0.387
Immunomodulator	No	Yes	2.24 (1.41–3.56)	< 0.001
Enteral nutrition	No	Yes	1.09 (0.67–1.78)	0.725
Type of biologic
Anti-TNF	No	Yes	0.46 (0.28–0.76)	0.003
Montreal classification	17–40 yr	≤ 16 yr	1.32 (0.79–2.18)	0.288
		> 40 yr	0.53 (0.28–1.01)	0.054
Sex	Female	Male	0.60 (0.37–0.99)	0.045
Perianal lesions within 12 mo from index	No	Yes	0.60 (0.40–0.90)	0.014

^a Logistic regression.

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; 5-ASA, 5-acetylsalicylic acid; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.

Table 8.

Time to Initiation of a First-Line Biologic in the Modified Biologic Group^a

Group	Time (mo), mean ± SD	95% CI
Modified biologic group (n = 420)
Infliximab (n = 185)	1.8 ± 2.3	1.5–2.1
Adalimumab (n = 170)	2.5 ± 2.4	2.2–2.9
Ustekinumab (n = 65)	3.6 ± 3.0	2.8–4.3
Modified step-up group (n = 138)
Infliximab (n = 56)	2.0 ± 2.5	1.3–2.7
Adalimumab (n = 53)	3.0 ± 2.4	2.4–3.7
Ustekinumab (n = 29)	3.7 ± 3.1	2.5–4.9
Modified top-down group (n = 282)
Infliximab (n = 129)	1.7 ± 2.2	1.3–2.1
Adalimumab (n = 117)	2.3 ± 2.4	1.8–2.7
Ustekinumab (n = 36)	3.4 ± 3.0	2.4–4.5

^a From the original biologic group (n=490), patients who could be followed for 12 months or longer from initiation of the first-line biologic were selected, excluding those whose first biologic was vedolizumab (n=9) because of the small number of patients in this group.

SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval.

REFERENCES

1. Dignass A, Van Assche G, Lindsay JO, et al. The second European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease: Current management. J Crohns Colitis 2010;4:28–62.Article PubMed
2. Nakase H, Uchino M, Shinzaki S, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease 2020. J Gastroenterol 2021;56:489–526.Article PubMed PMC PDF
3. Torres J, Bonovas S, Doherty G, et al. ECCO guidelines on therapeutics in Crohn’s disease: medical treatment. J Crohns Colitis 2020;14:4–22.PubMed
4. Van Assche G, Dignass A, Reinisch W, et al. The second European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease: special situations. J Crohns Colitis 2010;4:63–101.PubMed
5. Torres J, Mehandru S, Colombel JF, Peyrin-Biroulet L. Crohn’s disease. Lancet 2017;389:1741–1755.Article PubMed
6. Lin MV, Blonski W, Lichtenstein GR. What is the optimal therapy for Crohn’s disease: step-up or top-down? Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;4:167–180.Article PubMed
7. Tsui JJ, Huynh HQ. Is top-down therapy a more effective alternative to conventional step-up therapy for Crohn’s disease? Ann Gastroenterol 2018;31:413–424.PubMed PMC
8. Hirschmann S, Neurath MF. Top-down approach to biological therapy of Crohn’s disease. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2017;17:285–293.Article PubMed
9. Hida N, Nakamura S, Hahm KB, et al. A questionnaire-based survey on the diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel disease in East Asian countries in 2012. Digestion 2014;89:88–103.Article PubMed PDF
10. Alulis S, Vadstrup K, Borsi A, et al. Treatment patterns for biologics in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease: a Danish Nationwide Register Study from 2003 to 2015. Scand J Gastroenterol 2020;55:265–271.Article PubMed
11. Dulai PS, Osterman MT, Lasch K, Cao C, Riaz F, Sandborn WJ. Market access analysis of biologics and small-molecule inhibitors for inflammatory bowel disease among US health insurance policies. Dig Dis Sci 2019;64:2478–2488.Article PubMed PMC PDF
12. Jung YS, Han M, Park S, Cheon JH. Biologic use patterns and predictors for non-persistence and switching of biologics in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a nationwide population-based study. Dig Dis Sci 2020;65:1436–1444.Article PubMed PDF
13. Mahlich J, Matsuoka K, Sruamsiri R. Biologic treatment of Japanese patients with inflammatory bowel disease. BMC Gastroenterol 2018;18:160.Article PubMed PMC PDF
14. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Ethical guidelines for medical and health research involving human subjects [Internet]. c2015 [cited 2022 Mar 24]. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-10600000-Daijinkanboukouseikagakuka/0000080278.pdf.
15. Morikubo H, Kobayashi T, Fukuda T, Nagahama T, Hisamatsu T, Hibi T. Development of algorithms for identifying patients with Crohn’s disease in the Japanese health insurance claims database. PLoS One 2021;16:e0258537.Article PubMed PMC
16. Bonovas S, Nikolopoulos GK, Lytras T, Fiorino G, Peyrin-Biroulet L, Danese S. Comparative safety of systemic and low-bioavailability steroids in inflammatory bowel disease: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2018;84:239–251.Article PubMed PMC PDF
17. Suzuki Y, Motoya S, Takazoe M, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of oral budesonide in Japanese patients with active Crohn’s disease: a multicentre, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group phase II study. J Crohns Colitis 2013;7:239–247.Article PubMed
18. Yokoyama T, Ohta A, Motoya S, et al. Efficacy and safety of oral budesonide in patients with active Crohn’s disease in Japan: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group phase 3 study. Inflamm Intest Dis 2018;2:154–162.Article PubMed PMC PDF
19. Yamamoto T, Nakase H, Watanabe K, et al. Diagnosis and clinical features of perianal lesions in newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease: subgroup analysis from inception cohort registry study of patients with Crohn’s disease (iCREST-CD). J Crohns Colitis 2023;17:1193–1206.Article PubMed PMC PDF
20. Sturm A, Maaser C, Mendall M, et al. European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation topical review on IBD in the elderly. J Crohns Colitis 2017;11:263–273.PubMed
21. Nørgård BM, Zegers FD, Knudsen T, et al. Patients with elderly onset inflammatory bowel disease have a decreased chance of initiation of all types of medications and increased risk of surgeries: a nationwide cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2023;58:48–59.Article PubMed
22. Gecse KB, Bemelman W, Kamm MA, et al. A global consensus on the classification, diagnosis and multidisciplinary treatment of perianal fistulising Crohn’s disease. Gut 2014;63:1381–1392.Article PubMed
23. Mak WY, Mak OS, Lee CK, et al. Significant medical and surgical morbidity in perianal Crohn’s disease: results from a territory-wide study. J Crohns Colitis 2018;12:1392–1398.Article PubMed
24. Kakuta Y, Kawai Y, Okamoto D, et al. NUDT15 codon 139 is the best pharmacogenetic marker for predicting thiopurine-induced severe adverse events in Japanese patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a multicenter study. J Gastroenterol 2018;53:1065–1078.Article PubMed PMC PDF
25. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Salleron J, Filippi J, et al. Anti-TNF monotherapy for Crohn’s disease: a 13-year multicentre experience. J Crohns Colitis 2016;10:516–524.Article PubMed PMC
26. Tanaka H, Kamata N, Yamada A, et al. Long-term retention of adalimumab treatment and associated prognostic factors for 1189 patients with Crohn’s disease. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;33:1031–1038.Article PubMed PDF
27. Matsuoka K, Fujii T, Okamoto R, et al. Characteristics of adult patients newly diagnosed with Crohn’s disease: interim analysis of the nation-wide inception cohort registry study of patients with Crohn’s disease in Japan (iCREST-CD). J Gastroenterol 2022;57:867–878.Article PubMed PDF

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Towards an Asian paradigm of inflammatory bowel disease management: A comparative review of China and Japan
Qi Sun, Zhixian Jiang, Lichao Yang, Hao Liu, Peipei Song, Lianwen Yuan
Intractable & Rare Diseases Research.2025; 14(3): 192. 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

Real-world use of biologics during the first year of treatment for newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease in Japan: a claims analysis from 2010 to 2021

Intest Res. 2026;24(1):129-140. Published online January 23, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2024.00082

XML Download

Figure

Real-world use of biologics during the first year of treatment for newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease in Japan: a claims analysis from 2010 to 2021

Fig. 1. Patient flow diagram. CD, Crohn’s disease.

Fig. 2. Study groups. No biologic group: no biologic prescription (SCS: with an SCS prescription; No bio/SCS: without an SCS prescription) and biologic group: biologic prescription (step-up: SCS prescription before biologic; top-down: no SCS prescription before biologic). SCS, systemic corticosteroid.

Fig. 3. Persistence with first-line biologics in patients with newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease (CD). (A) Overall, (B) with and without perianal lesions. CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Real-world use of biologics during the first year of treatment for newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease in Japan: a claims analysis from 2010 to 2021

Variable	All patients	No biologics			Biologics
Variable	All patients	All (n = 353)	SCS: with SCS (n = 214)	No bio/SCS: without SCS (n = 139)	All (n = 470)	Step-up: SCS before biologics (n = 165)	Top-down: no SCS before biologics (n = 305)
Male sex	639 (77.6)	264 (74.8)	157 (73.4)	107 (77.0)	375 (79.8)	121 (73.3)	254 (83.3)
Age (yr)
Mean ± SD	28.5 ± 13.6	31.7 ± 15.2	32.2 ± 15.9	30.8 ± 14.0	26.0 ± 11.7	24.6 ± 11.4	26.8 ± 11.8
Median (range)	24 (2–74)	28 (4–73)	29 (4–73)	28 (5–63)	23 (2–74)	21 (2–74)	24 (4–68)
Age of onset
Very early (< 6 yr)	5 (0.6)	2 (0.6)	1 (0.5)	1 (0.7)	3 (0.6)	2 (1.2)	1 (0.3)
Pediatric (< 18 yr)	173 (21.0)	65 (18.4)	41 (19.2)	24 (17.3)	108 (23.0)	44 (26.7)	64 (21.0)
Adult (≥ 18 to < 60 yr)	623 (75.7)	270 (76.5)	160 (74.8)	110 (79.1)	353 (75.1)	117 (70.9)	236 (77.4)
Elderly (≥ 60 yr)	22 (2.7)	16 (4.5)	12 (5.6)	4 (2.9)	6 (1.3)	2 (1.2)	4 (1.3)
Montreal classification
≤ 16 yr	148 (18.0)	55 (15.6)	35 (16.4)	20 (14.4)	93 (19.8)	37 (22.4)	56 (18.4)
17–40 yr	513 (62.3)	198 (56.1)	114 (53.3)	84 (60.4)	315 (67.0)	110 (66.7)	205 (67.2)
> 40 yr	162 (19.7)	100 (28.3)	65 (30.4)	35 (25.2)	62 (13.2)	18 (10.9)	44 (14.4)
Perianal lesions at index
No	540 (65.6)	272 (77.1)	169 (79.0)	103 (74.1)	268 (57.0)	108 (65.5)	160 (52.5)
Yes	283 (34.4)	81 (22.9)	45 (21.0)	36 (25.9)	202 (43.0)	57 (34.5)	145 (47.5)
Perianal lesions at 12 mo
No	509 (61.8)	259 (73.4)	164 (76.6)	95 (68.3)	250 (53.2)	100 (60.6)	150 (49.2)
Yes	314 (38.2)	94 (26.6)	50 (23.4)	44 (31.7)	220 (46.8)	65 (39.4)	155 (50.8)
CD location at 12 mo
Small intestine	94 (11.4)	42 (11.9)	15 (7.0)	27 (19.4)	52 (11.1)	19 (11.5)	33 (10.8)
Large intestine	51 (6.2)	20 (5.7)	12 (5.6)	8 (5.8)	31 (6.6)	17 (10.3)	14 (4.6)
Small and large intestine	176 (21.4)	51 (14.4)	28 (13.1)	23 (16.5)	125 (26.6)	50 (30.3)	75 (24.6)
Unspecified	502 (61.0)	240 (68.0)	159 (74.3)	81 (58.3)	262 (55.7)	79 (47.9)	183 (60.0)

Trend analysis period	All patients (n=823)	Treatment decision
	All patients (n=823)	No biologics (n = 353)		Biologics (n = 470)
	No. (%)	No. (%)	95% CI	No. (%)	95% CI
2010–2011	31 (100)	10 (32.3)	16.7–51.4	21 (67.7)	48.6–83.3
2012–2013	46 (100)	20 (43.5)	28.9–58.9	26 (56.5)	41.1–71.1
2014–2015	100 (100)	44 (44.0)	34.1–54.3	56 (56.0)	45.7–65.9
2016–2017	181 (100)	82 (45.3)	37.9–52.9	99 (54.7)	47.1–62.1
2018–2019	292 (100)	125 (42.8)	37.1–48.7	167 (57.2)	51.3–62.9
2020	173 (100)	72 (41.6)	34.2–49.3	101 (58.4)	50.7–65.8

Trend analysis period	All patients (n=470)	Treatment decision
	All patients (n=470)	Step-up: SCS before biologics (n = 165)		Top-down: no SCS before biologics (n = 305)
	No. (%)	No. (%)	95% CI	No. (%)	95% CI
2010–2011	21 (100)	5 (23.8)	8.2–47.2	16 (76.2)	52.8–91.8
2012–2013	26 (100)	4 (15.4)	4.4–34.9	22 (84.6)	65.1–95.6
2014–2015	56 (100)	14 (25.0)	14.4–38.4	42 (75.0)	61.6–85.6
2016–2017	99 (100)	23 (23.2)	15.3–32.8	76 (76.8)	67.2–84.7
2018–2019	167 (100)	70 (41.9)	34.3–49.8	97 (58.1)	50.2–65.7
2020	101 (100)	49 (48.5)	38.4–58.7	52 (51.5)	41.3–61.6

Variable	All patients (n = 823)	No biologics (n = 353)	Biologics (n = 470)	P-value^a
Treatment during 12 mo from index
5-ASA				< 0.001
No	151 (18.3)	107 (30.3)	44 (9.4)
Yes	672 (81.7)	246 (69.7)	426 (90.6)
SCS				< 0.001
No	414 (50.3)	139 (39.4)	275 (58.5)
Yes	409 (49.7)	214 (60.6)	195 (41.5)
Immunomodulator				0.324
No	644 (78.3)	282 (79.9)	362 (77.0)
Yes	179 (21.7)	71 (20.1)	108 (23.0)
Enteral nutrition				< 0.001
No	236 (28.7)	128 (36.3)	108 (23.0)
Yes	587 (71.3)	225 (63.7)	362 (77.0)
Montreal classification				< 0.001
≤ 16 yr	148 (18.0)	55 (15.6)	93 (19.8)
17–40 yr	513 (62.3)	198 (56.1)	315 (67.0)
> 40 yr	162 (19.7)	100 (28.3)	62 (13.2)
Sex				0.088
Male	639 (77.6)	264 (74.8)	375 (79.8)
Female	184 (22.4)	89 (25.2)	95 (20.2)
Endoscopy/colonoscopy/MRE within 12 mo from index				< 0.001
No	146 (17.7)	101 (28.6)	45 (9.6)
Yes	677 (82.3)	252 (71.4)	425 (90.4)
Perianal lesions within 12 mo from index				< 0.001
No	509 (61.8)	259 (73.4)	250 (53.2)
Yes	314 (38.2)	94 (26.6)	220 (46.8)

Variable	Reference	Label	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Treatment during 12 mo from index
5-ASA	No	Yes	2.58 (1.64–4.06)	< 0.001
SCS	No	Yes	0.52 (0.38–0.70)	< 0.001
Immunomodulator	No	Yes	1.15 (0.80–1.65)	0.443
Enteral nutrition	No	Yes	0.88 (0.61–1.28)	0.495
Montreal classification	17–40 yr	≤ 16 yr	1.12 (0.75–1.68)	0.579
		> 40 yr	0.50 (0.33–0.75)	< 0.001
Sex	Female	Male	0.92 (0.63–1.33)	0.637
Endoscopy/colonoscopy/MRE within 12 mo from index	No	Yes	2.10 (1.35–3.28)	0.001
Perianal lesions within 12 mo from index	No	Yes	1.53 (1.10–2.13)	0.011

Variable	Biologics (n = 470)	Step-up: SCS prescription before biologics (n = 165)	Top-down: no SCSprescription before biologics (n = 305)	P-value^a
Treatment during 12 mo from index
5-ASA				0.417
No	44 (9.4)	13 (7.9)	31 (10.2)
Yes	426 (90.6)	152 (92.1)	274 (89.8)
Immunomodulator				0.003
No	362 (77.0)	114 (69.1)	248 (81.3)
Yes	108 (23.0)	51 (30.9)	57 (18.7)
Enteral nutrition				0.369
No	108 (23.0)	34 (20.6)	74 (24.3)
Yes	362 (77.0)	131 (79.4)	231 (75.7)
First biologic since index
Anti-TNF				0.007
No	86 (18.3)	41 (24.8)	45 (14.8)
Yes	384 (81.7)	124 (75.2)	260 (85.2)
Montreal classification				0.386
≤ 16 yr	93 (19.8)	37 (22.4)	56 (18.4)
17–40 yr	315 (67.0)	110 (66.7)	205 (67.2)
> 40 yr	62 (13.2)	18 (10.9)	44 (14.4)
Sex				0.010
Male	375 (79.8)	121 (73.3)	254 (83.3)
Female	95 (20.2)	44 (26.7)	51 (16.7)
Perianal lesions at index				0.007
No	268 (57.0)	108 (65.5)	160 (52.5)
Yes	202 (43.0)	57 (34.5)	145 (47.5)

Variable	Reference	Label	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Treatment during 12 mo from index
5-ASA	No	Yes	1.37 (0.67–2.81)	0.387
Immunomodulator	No	Yes	2.24 (1.41–3.56)	< 0.001
Enteral nutrition	No	Yes	1.09 (0.67–1.78)	0.725
Type of biologic
Anti-TNF	No	Yes	0.46 (0.28–0.76)	0.003
Montreal classification	17–40 yr	≤ 16 yr	1.32 (0.79–2.18)	0.288
		> 40 yr	0.53 (0.28–1.01)	0.054
Sex	Female	Male	0.60 (0.37–0.99)	0.045
Perianal lesions within 12 mo from index	No	Yes	0.60 (0.40–0.90)	0.014

Group	Time (mo), mean ± SD	95% CI
Modified biologic group (n = 420)
Infliximab (n = 185)	1.8 ± 2.3	1.5–2.1
Adalimumab (n = 170)	2.5 ± 2.4	2.2–2.9
Ustekinumab (n = 65)	3.6 ± 3.0	2.8–4.3
Modified step-up group (n = 138)
Infliximab (n = 56)	2.0 ± 2.5	1.3–2.7
Adalimumab (n = 53)	3.0 ± 2.4	2.4–3.7
Ustekinumab (n = 29)	3.7 ± 3.1	2.5–4.9
Modified top-down group (n = 282)
Infliximab (n = 129)	1.7 ± 2.2	1.3–2.1
Adalimumab (n = 117)	2.3 ± 2.4	1.8–2.7
Ustekinumab (n = 36)	3.4 ± 3.0	2.4–4.5

Table 1. Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

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

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; SD, standard deviation; CD, Crohn’s disease.

Table 2. Treatment Decisions within the First Year of Newly Diagnosed Crohn’s Disease

CI, confidence interval.

Table 3. Treatment Decisions for Patients Prescribed Biologics within the First Year of Newly Diagnosed Crohn’s Disease

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; CI, confidence interval.

Table 4. Clinical Characteristics in Patients with and without a Biologic Prescription within 1 Year from Diagnosis

Values are presented as number (%).

Chi-square test.

5-ASA, 5-acetylsalicylic acid; SCS, systemic corticosteroid; MRE, magnetic resonance enterography.

Table 5. Factors Associated with a Biologic Prescription within 1 Year from Diagnosis of Crohn’s Disease (All Groups)a

Logistic regression.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; 5-ASA, 5-acetylsalicylic acid; SCS, systemic corticosteroid; MRE, magnetic resonance enterography.

Table 6. Clinical Characteristics in Patients with and without a SCS Prescription before Initiation of a Biologic

Values are presented as number (%).

Chi-square test.

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; 5-ASA, 5-acetylsalicylic acid; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.

Table 7. Factors Associated with a SCS Prescription before Initiation of a Biologic (Biologic Group)a

Logistic regression.

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; 5-ASA, 5-acetylsalicylic acid; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.

Table 8. Time to Initiation of a First-Line Biologic in the Modified Biologic Groupa

From the original biologic group (n=490), patients who could be followed for 12 months or longer from initiation of the first-line biologic were selected, excluding those whose first biologic was vedolizumab (n=9) because of the small number of patients in this group.