Comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab versus infliximab in the management of perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease: a retrospective study in China

Mengqi Chen; Zihan Chen; Jianming Lin; Linxin Liu; Tong Tu; Xiaoling Li; Baili Chen; Yao He; Minhu Chen; Zhirong Zeng; Xiaojun Zhuang

doi:10.5217/ir.2024.00168

Articles

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

Original Article Comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab versus infliximab in the management of perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease: a retrospective study in China: Mengqi Chen^1,*, Zihan Chen^1,*, Jianming Lin^1,*, Linxin Liu^1,2, Tong Tu¹, Xiaoling Li¹, Baili Chen¹, Yao He¹, Minhu Chen¹, Zhirong Zeng^1,, Xiaojun Zhuang^1,; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2024.00168
Published online: June 11, 2025

¹Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China

²Boji Pharmaceutical Research Center, Boji Medical Biotechnological Co. Ltd., Guangzhou, China

Correspondence to Xiaojun Zhuang, Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, No. 58 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou 510080, China. E-mail: zhuangxj9@mail.sysu.edu.cn

Correspondence to Zhirong Zeng, Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, No. 58 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou 510080, China. E-mail: zengzhirong@mail.sysu.edu.cn

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

• Received: October 16, 2024 • Revised: March 30, 2025 • Accepted: April 23, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

560 Views
70 Download

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
Ustekinumab (UST) and infliximab (IFX) are both effective in the treatment of perianal fistulizing Crohn’s disease (CD), but limited research has focused on comparing the efficacy of UST versus IFX in this field. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of UST or IFX in treating perianal fistula of CD patients naive to biological agents in a real-world setting.
Methods
A retrospective cohort study included patients with perianal fistulizing CD treated with UST or IFX was conducted to evaluate the rates of luminal and perianal fistula response and remission at 6 months after treatment.
Results
Ninety-seven patients (49 UST and 48 IFX) were enrolled. Compared to IFX, UST exhibited significantly higher rates of treatment success (89.8% vs. 50.0%, P< 0.001) and intestinal clinical response (85.7% vs. 68.8%, P= 0.048), but no significant differences in fistula remission, fistula response, fistula closure, intestinal clinical remission, endoscopic remission and endoscopic response was observed. Furthermore, multivariate analyses demonstrated complexity of fistula was conversely associated with fistula remission between the UST and IFX groups. Finally, the rates of disease relapse and operation in the IFX group were higher as compared to the UST group during follow-up.
Conclusions
UST may serve as a promising alternative to IFX for the treatment of perianal fistulizing CD.
Keywords: Crohn disease; Rectal fistula; Ustekinumab; Infliximab

INTRODUCTION

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting the gastrointestinal tract, characterized by transmural inflammation that can destroy the integrity of the intestinal mucosa favoring the development of abscesses and fistulas [1]. The formation of fistulas might make abnormal tracks between intestines or between the intestine and other organs such as the bladder, vagina or adjacent tissue [2,3]. An abnormal cross-talk between the rectum or anal canal and the external perianal or ischioanal skin indicates a perianal fistula has formed. Perianal fistula is one of the most common and difficult complications in CD, with an estimated incidence up to 28% within the first two decades after diagnosis [4]. Perianal fistulizing CD might be caused by a complex interplay of genetic predisposition, immune dysregulation, gut dysbiosis, and various unknown physiological and mechanical factors [2]. Most notably, patients with perianal CD are inclined to have significantly higher rates of hospitalizations, surgeries, healthcare costs and overall mortality, and a significantly decreased health-related quality of life [5,6]. Furthermore, the presence of perianal fistula might be a predictor of poor long-term prognosis in CD [3]. A complete assessment of fistula characteristics is the basis for optimal management and must include the anatomical description and classification of perianal fistula. Clinically, endoscopy helps to assess the presence of proctitis, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to determine the anatomy of fistula tracts and presence of abscesses [7].

Although medical treatment for CD is mainly focused on the control of bowel inflammation, a range of medical and surgical treatment options are available for different types of perianal fistulas [8-10]. For simple perianal fistulas, antibiotics and immunomodulators are appropriate measures. For complex perianal fistula, the efficacy of biological agents is being evaluated, and anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) treatment remains the most accepted therapy with concomitant use of antibiotics or immunomodulators [11]. In addition, stem cell-based therapies have become an attractive approach for patients with CD who develop perianal fistulae [10]. Mesenchymal stem cells and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells have been used to treat complex perianal fistulas with promising outcomes from several studies [12-15]. Furthermore, hyperbaric oxygen therapy and exclusive enteral nutrition have also been investigated as adjunct therapies in this field [16-18]. Despite the expansion of the medical armamentarium, a large proportion of the patients require surgical interventions to achieve fistula closure, and intersphincteric fistula tract ligation, mucosal advancement flap surgery or fistula laser closure are the most common surgical approaches [19,20].

Currently, the types of biologics for CD in China include anti- TNF agents, anti-interleukin 12/23 agents, and anti-α4β7 integrin agents. Anti-TNF therapies have demonstrated efficacy in several clinical trials, and infliximab (IFX) was recommended in the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation guidelines as a first-line medical therapy following adequate drainage of complex perianal fistulas [21]. Accumulating evidence has found that higher IFX trough levels are associated with fistula healing and closure, but up to 60% of patients treated with maintenance IFX lose response within 1 year due to subtherapeutic anti-TNF trough levels [22]. Data with other biological therapies for complex perianal fistula is scarce, and the evidence is limited to retrospective studies and post hoc analyses of clinical trials for luminal CD [23-25]. Ustekinumab (UST) presents a promising medication for the treatment of perianal fistulizing disease with an excellent safety profile in a recent post hoc analysis from a pooled study of CERTIFI, UNITI-1 and UNITI-2, but no definite conclusions can be drawn from studies not designed primarily to assess fistula response/remission [8,26]. Further prospective studies with a larger patient population and long-term follow-up are needed to further establish the efficacy of UST in the treatment of perianal fistula of CD.

The aim of the current study was to compare the efficacy and safety of UST and IFX in the treatment of patients with perianal fistulizing CD, and identify potential predictors of treatment success.

METHODS

1. Study Design and Population

This is a retrospective monocentric cohort study of enrolled patients with perianal fistula at the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) from June 2014 to June 2024. The current study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Sun Yat-sen University (No. [2024]699) and adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The requirement for informed consent was waived by the Institutional Ethics Committee.

To avoid selection bias, all patients who met inclusion criteria and did not meet any exclusion criteria were included. The inclusion criteria were included: (1) patients were diagnosed with CD based on clinical, endoscopic, radiological and histopathological criteria; (2) active perianal fistula was confirmed by clinical symptoms and MRI at baseline; (3) the age of included patients was older than 18 years of age; or (4) clinical, endoscopic and radiological results were assessed at 6 months after UST or IFX therapy initiation. Patients were excluded if they (1) were diagnosed without perianal fistulae, (2) received any other biologic use prior to UST or IFX treatment, (3) were lost to follow-up or had insufficient follow-up time, and (4) had incomplete medical records including missing medication exposures or surgical history.

UST induction therapy consisted in an intravenous dose according to patient weight (260 mg for those weighing <55 kg, 520 mg for those weighing >85 kg, and 390 mg for those weighing between 55 and 85 kg) followed by subcutaneous administration of 90 mg every 8 or 12 weeks. Patients received standard IFX induction dosing (5 mg/kg intravenously at weeks 0, 2, and 6) followed by maintenance therapy. Patients with dose escalation (including dose escalation, and/or dose interval shortening) were also included. If needed, perianal surgery was performed before starting the UST or IFX therapy.

2. Data Collection

Baseline data related to demographics and CD characteristics (both luminal and perianal) were derived from medical records, including age, sex, smoking status, disease course, Montreal classification, extraintestinal manifestations, number of fistula openings, fistula-related procedures and surgeries, and medical history. Data regarding patient-reported symptoms and clinician physical examination were extracted from the standardized template of inflammatory bowel disease visits. Laboratory values (C-reactive protein [CRP], erythrocyte sedimentation rate, albumin) were also recorded. Furthermore, colonoscopy reports and images (MRI) were reviewed prior to induction and at intervals of 6 months after induction to assess luminal and anal fistula lesions. The missing data were replaced by the data from the prior month to the following month for processing.

3. Definitions

Fistula type based on Park’s classification and American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) classification was determined using MRI.2 According to the connection between fistulae and external sphincter muscle, 5 groups of fistulae are recognized: (1) superficial, without crossing any sphincter or muscular structure; (2) intersphincteric, between the internal sphincter and external sphincter, coursing through the intersphincteric space to the perianal skin; (3) transsphincteric, crossing the external sphincter; (4) supra-sphincteric, penetrating the intersphincterie space and spreading over the top of the puborectalis and crossing the levator muscle before reaching the skin; (5) extra-sphincteric, outside the external sphincter and penetrating the levator muscle. Perianal fistulas can also be categorized as simple or complex. A simple fistula is low (superficial, intersphincteric or transsphincteric) with a single external opening and no abscesses, rectovaginal involvement, or anorectal stricture. All other fistulas are classified as complex fistulas.

4. Study Outcomes

The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who achieved fistula remission, defined as closure of all draining fistulas present at baseline and no fluid collections of >1 cm in at least 2 dimensions on pelvic MRI. Secondary endpoint was fistula response, defined as a reduction from baseline of 50% or more in the number of draining tracts after UST or IFX therapy and no fluid collections of >1 cm in at least 2 dimensions on pelvic MRI. Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) was evaluated, and intestinal clinical remission was defined as a CDAI <150, with intestinal clinical response defined as a >70 reduction in CDAI and/or CDAI <150. Rutgeerts score and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) were used to evaluate endoscopic response or remission [27,28]. Endoscopic response was defined as a reduction of one grade from baseline in Rutgeerts score or a reduction of >50% in SES-CD, and endoscopic remission was defined as a Rutgeerts score ≤ i1 or SES-CD ≤2. Treatment success was defined as: (1) clinical success assessed at 6 months of treatment based on the physicians’ judgment, and (2) no need for specialized therapy (antibiotics and/or surgery) for perianal lesions [29]. CRP normalization was defined as a CRP level of <5 mg/L according to the center’s inspection standards. Clinical, endoscopic, and radiological evaluations were collected at 6 months after biological agent initialization. Clinical relapse of perianal fistulizing CD was defined as the appearance of drainage through fistulas that were previously in remission and/or increasing luminal activity (both a CDAI ≥ 150 and an increase in the CDAI ≥ 70) [30]. The onset of concomitant therapy or adjustment of adjuvant therapy to maintain perianal fistulizing CD remission or surgical treatment for perianal lesions was also considered relapse. Biologic persistence was defined as the absence of clinical relapse (including intestinal and perianal fistula activity, treatment escalation, and surgery) and unplanned surgical treatment.

5. Statistical Analysis

Continuous data were expressed as mean ±standard deviation or median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical data were presented as frequencies and percentages. Student t test or Wilcoxon test were used to compare the indexes before and after treatment. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the factors that predicted treatment success, expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Prior selection variables included age at diagnosis of CD, sex, smoking status, duration of CD before initiation of biologic therapy, perianal abscess, complexity of fistula, history of intestinal surgery caused by CD, history of anal fistula surgery, history of medication, and concomitant therapy with steroid or immunosuppressants. The relapse-free and surgery-free survival of patients with perianal fistulizing CD were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows, ver. 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and R version 4.2.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). A two-sided P-value of <0.05 was used as the level of statistical significance.

RESULTS

1. Patient Characteristics

A total of 97 patients with perianal fistula CD, who met the inclusion criteria, were included in this study. Among them, 49 patients received UST treatment (UST group) and 48 patients received IFX treatment (IFX group) as first-line biologic after diagnosis, respectively (Fig. 1). The demographic and clinical characteristics between these 2 groups are shown in Table 1, and there were no significant differences in demographic and clinical variables between the 2 groups. The mean age at biologics initiation in UST-treated patients was 29.8 years and 31.5 years in IFX-treated patients (P=0.456). Most of the included patients were current non-smokers (96.9%), and no significant difference was observed between both cohorts. The disease behavior of most patients was stricturing or penetrating (65.3% in UST group and 54.2% in IFX group) and most fistulas were defined as complex (69.4% in UST group and 68.8% in IFX group) according to the AGA classification. Compared with the IFX group, the proportion of patients with a previous history of intestinal surgery in the UST group was higher (10.2% vs. 27.1%, P=0.033), but previous history of perianal surgery showed no statistical difference (28.6% vs. 35.4%, P=0.470). In terms of medication history, the rate of concomitant therapy with immunomodulators (thiopurines, methotrexate, or thalidomide) was significantly lower in UST group (2.0% vs. 33.3%, P<0.001) as compared to the IFX group. In addition, no statistical differences were observed in fistula type, anatomic complexity of fistula, fistula openings, fistula tract and serological biomarkers between these 2 groups.

2. Efficacy Outcomes between UST and IFX Groups

At 6 months, the proportion of participants treated with UST achieving the primary endpoint (fistula remission) was 16.3% (8/49), and the proportion was 22.9% (11/48) in the IFX group (P=0.419) (Table 2). In addition, rates of intestinal clinical response (85.7% vs. 68.8%, P=0.048) and treatment success (89.8% vs. 50.0%, P< 0.001) in the UST group were significantly higher than those in the IFX group. However, there were no significant differences in fistula response (P=0.920), intestinal clinical remission (P= 0.624), endoscopic remission (P= 0.890) and response (P=0.495), and CRP normalization (P=0.313) between the 2 groups.

3. Biologic Persistence between UST and IFX Groups

During a median follow-up of 10.1 months (IQR, 6.3–14.0 months) in UST group, 3 out of 49 patients (6.1%) required replacement of another biologics, 1 out of 49 patient (2.0%) was given the additional immunomodulators, and 4 out of 49 patients (8.2%) underwent optimized treatment (including dose escalation, re-induction and/or dose interval shortening) (Table 3). In addition, 10 out of 49 patients (20.4%) had a clinical relapse of perianal fistulas and 4 out of 49 patients (8.2%) received surgery after UST treatment initiation. Of the 48 patients from the IFX group, after a median follow-up time of 31.0 months (IQR, 16.3–41.3 months). Sixteen of 48 patients (33.3%) received treatment escalation of another biologics, 8 out of 48 patient (16.7%) required the addition of immunomodulators or seton use in combination and 3 out of 48 patients (6.3%) had optimized treatment. Besides, 28 out of 48 patients (58.3%) underwent disease relapse and 6 out of 48 patients (12.5%) received surgery after IFX therapy initiation. Furthermore, biologic persistence (disease relapse-free survival [log-rank P=0.153] and surgery-free survival [log-rank P=0.779]) showed no significant difference in the UST group compared to the IFX group (Fig. 2). It is noteworthy that the cumulative survival rate of disease relapse-free in the UST group was higher than that in the IFX group at 12 months after treatment, but this superiority was reversed over time.

4. Predictors Associated with Fistula Remission between UST and IFX Groups

Baseline factors associated with fistula remission in UST and IFX groups were further identified. According to the multivariate analysis, factors associated with 6-month fistula remission included complex perianal fistula (OR, 7.319; 95% CI, 1.177–45.515; P=0.033), older than age 35 (OR, 0.139; 95% CI, 0.022–0.904; P=0.039) (Table 4). However, univariate analysis only demonstrated a significant difference in complex perianal fistulas (OR, 5.167; 95% CI, 1.04–25.565; P=0.044) in UST group, indicating complex perianal fistulas affecting the 6-month fistula remission. In the IFX group, complex perianal fistula was conversely associated with 6-month fistula remission in univariate analysis (OR, 0.158; 95% CI, 0.037–0.676; P=0.013) and in the multivariable analysis (OR, 0.218; 95% CI, 0.048–0.989; P=0.048). No other factors, including sex, smoking status, disease behavior, concomitant medication and previous history of perianal surgery predicted 6-month fistula remission in patients with CD treated with UST or IFX.

5. Safety between UST and IFX Groups

For the enrolled patients during follow-up, 10.2% of patients (n =5) treated with UST and 10.4% of patients (n =5) treated with IFX were reported adverse events, respectively (Table 5). Infection was the most common adverse event in both groups, but there was no statistical difference. Additionally, UST-related adverse events also included 1 neurologic event, and IFX-related adverse events included 1 neurologic event, 1 dermatologic event, and 1 allergy.

DISCUSSION

There is limited data on the role of newer biological agents such as UST in perianal fistulizing CD, especially the efficacy superiority of anti-TNF agents versus novel biological agents remained unknown. Our study is currently the first real-world study to compare the efficacy of UST versus IFX as a first-line biologic for the treatment of perianal fistulizing CD. Although UST and IFX groups presented equal efficacy outcomes in fistula remission and fistula response, UST had higher rates of improvement in intestinal clinical remission and treatment success compared to IFX noted on clinician assessment and physical examination. In addition, we identified complex perianal fistulas in patients with CD might be positively associated with higher rates of 6-month fistula remission in the UST group, but opposite correlation existed in the IFX group.

UST, an antagonist of the p40 subunit of interleukin-12 and interleukin-23 in the inflammatory pathway, had been approved for the treatment of moderate to severe CD in 2016 [31,32]. Current published trials showed a statistically significant difference over placebo in induction and maintenance of remission for luminal CD with an excellent safety profile, but the efficacy of UST in perianal fistula healing is still lacking [33]. A real-world experience and systematic review with meta-analysis conducted in 2021 found that 48.1% of patients (13/27) achieved fistula response with none achieving fistula remission in their cohort at 6 months after UST treatment, which was in concordance with the results from our study that 49% of patients achieved fistula response [34]. Remission rates for perianal fistula CD are well known to be exceedingly low, and this is further supported by our data that approximately 16% of patients achieved fistula remission after initiating UST therapy. Interestingly, there was a drastic increase in the rate of fistula remission in both UST and IFX groups when comparing the 6-month remission rate (9.5%) reported by other studies [34,35]. The most likely explanation for this difference is that our study was specifically using first-line biologics after diagnosis of perianal fistula CD (second- line agents are known to be less efficacious).

There is increasing evidence supporting that certain factors (particularly higher drug levels and combination therapy) are associated with fistula healing in CD [36-38]. In our study, the presence of complex perianal fistulas predicted 6-month fistula remission in the UST group, but complex perianal fistulas might be a risk factor for those treated with IFX. This result might be influenced by the sample size or the shorter disease duration in the UST group, indicating that these patients might have received treatment at a more recent time, and their willingness to seek medical care and living environment have improved compared to before. Furthermore, presence or absence of previous perianal surgery was not statistically significant in predicting fistula response or remission in both UST and IFX groups. Other clinical features also failed to predict fistula remission at 6 months after UST or IFX initiation in the current study. These findings may suggest that patients with complex perianal fistulas were specifically using UST as first-line biologics after diagnosis of CD, and they might have higher fistula response and remission rates compared to those received who IFX therapy.

We used biologic persistence over time, characterized by Kaplan-Meier methods, as a surrogate marker for sustained efficacy outcomes, with the assumption that patients typically remain on therapy that is efficacious without significant adverse events. During extended follow-up, most patients who initially received UST or IFX continued therapy without serious adverse effects. The higher recurrence rate in the IFX group within 1 year suggests that UST may have better short-term treatment persistence compared to IFX. In addition, the rate of treatment escalation in IFX group is much higher than that in UST group, further indicating that UST induction and maintenance therapy are associated with higher treatment persistence compared to IFX. While clinicians may choose IFX or UST for those with severe luminal disease, we found that UST had higher rates compared to IFX in perianal fistula healing and persistence in CD, which suggests our study may underestimate the impact of UST for patients with perianal disease, especially among those with complex perianal fistulas. However, the follow-up period for the UST group was relatively short, which might have failed to capture the potential long-term recurrence risk. In contrast, the long-term follow-up period for the IFX group might more accurately reflect the long-term efficacy of the treatment, but it might also increase the cumulative risk of recurrence due to the extended time. Future studies should try to balance the follow-up time of the 2 groups as much as possible to ensure the reliability and comparability of the results. Therefore, additional prospective studies are needed to compare the efficacy between anti-TNF agents and UST for perianal fistula healing over time using more objective measures and therapeutic drug monitoring protocols. Therefore, our study supports that UST may be more effective than IFX on perianal fistula healing over time, suggesting that UST may be considered first line among providers over IFX for treatment of perianal fistula CD.

Our cohort study has several strengths. This is the first study to compare the efficacy of UST to IFX as the first-line biologic used in the treatment of perianal fistulizing CD. Besides, patients were excluded from the study if they had received prior biologics following their initial fistula diagnosis, and all included patients were bio-naïve. Furthermore, treatment outcomes observed in this study were based on clinical, endoscopic and radiologic reports, which contributed to determine the efficacy of UST for the treatment of perianal fistulae. There are several limitations to this study. Firstly, it was a single-center study with a relatively small sample size, and the evidence from this retrospective study should be further validated in a larger sample size at multiple inflammatory bowel disease centers. In addition, we only evaluated the short-term efficacy of UST and IFX in the treatment of perianal fistula CD. The long-term outcomes of UST in the treatment of perianal fistula also need to be addressed. Furthermore, we regretfully discovered that there were no clear medical records of patients treated at our center regarding the use of setons. Therefore, we cannot precisely confirm whether each patient received seton treatment as part of their treatment plan. Finally, more potential biomarkers for UST efficacy prediction should be explored to ensure precise and individualized treatment in perianal fistula CD.

In conclusion, our results are encouraging and suggest UST may be a promising option to anti-TNFs for perianal fistulizing disease and with an excellent safety profile, but remission rates remain low. Further prospective studies with a larger patient population and long-term follow-up are needed to further establish the efficacy of UST as a first-line treatment for perianal fistula CD.

NOTES

Funding Source

This work was supported by the grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (82100576).

Conflict of Interest

Linxin Liu is affiliated with Boji Medical Biotechnological. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available upon reasonable request to corresponding author.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Zhuang X, Zeng Z. Methodology: Zhuang X, Zeng Z, Chen MQ (1st author), Chen Z, Lin J, Chen B, He Y, Chen M (9th author). Software: Chen M (1st), Chen Z, Lin J. Validation: Zhuang X, Chen M (1st). Investigation: Chen M (1st). Formal analysis: Chen M (1st). Data curation: all authors. Visualization: Liu L, Tu T, Li X. Writing-original draft: Zhuang X, Chen M (1st), Lin J. Writing-review & editing: all authors. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Fig. 1.

Study flowchart. CD, Crohn’s disease; UST, ustekinumab; IFX, infliximab.

Fig. 2.

Kaplan-Meier curve for clinical outcomes during the follow-up period according to the time of initiation of UST or IFX therapy. (A) Survival of disease relapse-free in UST and IFX groups. (B) Survival of operation-free in UST and IFX groups. UST, ustekinumab; IFX, infliximab.

Table 1.

Demographics and Clinical Characteristic of Patients with Crohn’s Disease

Variable	UST group (n = 49)	IFX group (n = 48)	P-value
Male sex	38 (77.5)	32 (66.7)	0.232
Age (yr)	29.8 ± 9.6	31.5 ± 11.9	0.456
BMI (kg/m²)	18.7 ± 3.5	18.6 ± 2.7	0.873
Course of disease (mo)	38.6 ± 53.6	51.1 ± 48.0	0.231
Time interval (mo)^a	31.3 ± 50.8	42.2 ± 44.8	0.075
Active smokers	2 (4.1)	1 (2.1)	1.000
Montreal classification-disease location^b			0.236
L1—ileal	9 (18.4)	9 (18.7)
L2—colonic	4 (8.2)	0
L3—ileocolonic	36 (73.5)	39 (81.3)
L4—upper GI tract	11 (22.4)	9 (18.8)
Montreal classification-disease behavior			0.290
B1—non-stricturing, non-penetrating	17 (34.7)	22 (45.8)
B2—stricturing	17 (34.7)	10 (20.8)
B3—penetrating	15 (30.6)	16 (33.3)
Active intestinal fistula	12 (24.5)	7 (14.6)	0.219
Perianal abscess	19 (38.8)	14 (29.2)	0.318
Fistula type			0.400
High intersphincteric	10 (20.4)	16 (33.3)
High transsphincteric	2 (4.1)	4 (8.3)
Extra-sphincteric	1 (2.0)	0
Supra-sphincteric	2 (4.1)	3 (6.3)
Low intersphincteric	31 (63.3)	24 (50.0)
Low transsphincteric	3 (6.1)	1 (2.1)
Anatomic complexity of fistula			0.946
Simple	15 (30.6)	15 (31.3)
Complex	34 (69.4)	33 (68.8)
No. of internal openings			0.995
0	11 (22.4)	11 (22.9)
1	25 (51.0)	24 (50.0)
≥2	13 (26.5)	13 (27.1)
No. of external openings			0.296
0	13 (26.5)	18 (37.5)
1	22 (44.9)	22 (45.8)
≥2	14 (28.6)	8 (16.7)
Tract of fistula			0.188
Single-tract fistula	20 (40.8)	26 (54.2)
Multiple-tract fistula	29 (59.2)	22 (45.8)
Previous therapy^c
Intestinal resection	5 (10.2)	13 (27.1)	0.033
Perianal surgery	14 (28.6)	17 (35.4)	0.470
Steroid	10 (20.4)	17 (35.4)	0.099
Immunomodulators	13 (26.5)	21 (43.8)	0.076
Concomitant therapy^c
Steroids	6 (12.2)	1 (2.1)	0.123
Immunomodulators^d	1 (2.0)	16 (33.3)	< 0.001
Antibiotics	28 (57.1)	23 (47.9)	0.363
Surgery	1 (2.0)	1 (2.1)	1.000
CDAI score	297.7 ± 86.4	288.4 ± 65.0	0.548
ESR (mm/hr)	34.4 ± 24.9	44.7 ± 26.5	0.050
CRP (mg/L)	20.4 ± 25.2	28.3 ± 34.2	0.201
ALB (g/L)	35.6 ± 5.3	34.4 ± 5.9	0.298

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

^a Time interval is from the start of treatment to the first use of biologics;

^b An upper GI tract location (L4) could be associated with an ileal (L1), colonic (L2) or ileocolonic (L3) location.

^c The items listed below have overlapping elements.

^d Concomitant immunomodulators include thiopurines, methotrexate, and thalidomide.

UST, ustekinumab; IFX, infliximab; BMI, body mass index; GI, gastrointestinal; CDAI, Crohn’s Disease Activity Index; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP, C-reactive protein; ALB, albumin.

Table 2.

Treatment Outcomes between UST and IFX Groups

Variable	UST group	IFX group	P-value
Fistula remission	8/49 (16.3)	11/48 (22.9)	0.419
Fistula response	24/49 (49.0)	23/48 (47.9)	0.920
Intestinal clinical remission	18/49 (36.7)	20/48 (41.7)	0.624
Intestinal clinical response	42/49 (85.7)	33/48 (68.8)	0.048
Endoscopic remission	16/44 (36.4)	15/43 (34.9)	0.890
Endoscopic response	24/44 (54.5)	26/42 (61.9)	0.495
Treatment success^a	44/49 (89.8)	24/48 (50.0)	< 0.001
CRP normalization	31/49 (63.3)	35/48 (72.9)	0.313

Values are presented as number (%).

^a Treatment success is defined as: (1) clinical success assessed at 6 months after biological agent treatments based on the physicians’ judgment, and (2) no need for specialized therapy (antibiotics and/or surgery) for perianal lesions.

UST, ustekinumab; IFX, infliximab; CRP, C-reactive protein.

Table 3.

Follow-up Outcomes between UST and IFX Groups

Variable	UST group (n = 49)	IFX group (n = 48)	P-value
Follow-up (mo)	10.1 (6.3–14.0)	31.0 (16.3–41.3)	< 0.001
Medication replacement^a	3 (6.1)	16 (33.3)	< 0.001
Combination treatment^b	1 (2.0)	8 (16.7)	0.014
Dose escalation^c	4 (8.2)	3 (6.3)	0.723
Relapse^d	10 (20.4)	28 (58.3)	< 0.001
Surgery^e	4 (8.2)	6 (12.5)	0.489

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

^a Medication replacement is defined as changing to another biological agent.

^b Combination treatment is defined as the addition of immunomodulators or seton use in combination.

^c Dose escalation is defined as dose escalation, and/or dose interval shortening.

^d Relapse is defined as the appearance of drainage through fistulas that were previously in remission and/or increasing luminal activity (both a CDAI ≥150 and an increase in the CDAI ≥70) and the onset of concomitant therapy or adjustment of adjuvant therapy.

^e Surgery is defined as no need for unplanned surgical treatment.

UST, ustekinumab; IFX, infliximab; CDAI, Crohn’s Disease Activity Index.

Table 4.

Univariate and Multivariate Analyses of Factors Associated with Fistula Remission between UST and IFX Groups

Characteristics	UST group				IFX group
	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis		Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Sex (male)	0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.993			0.740 (0.180–3.052)	0.677
Age (> 35 yr)	0.206 (0.041–1.027)	0.054	0.139 (0.022–0.904)	0.039	0.311 (0.035–2.775)	0.296
BMI (kg/m²)
< 20	Reference				Reference
20–25	4.250 (0.753–23.980)	0.101			0.349 (0.066–1.859)	0.218
> 25	8.500 (0.441–163.882)	0.156			0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995
Course of disease	1.002 (0.987–1.017)	0.827			0.995 (0.980–1.010)	0.481
Active smokers	0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995			0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995
Montreal classification-disease location
L1—ileal	Reference				Reference
L2—colonic	0.125 (0.007–2.176)	0.154			-	-
L3—ileocolonic	0.775 (0.079–7.602)	0.827			1.050 (0.184–5.977)	0.956
L4—upper GI tract	0.333 (0.028–3.926)	0.383			1.000 (0.108–9.229)	1.000
Montreal classification-disease behavior
B1—non-stricturing, non-penetrating	Reference				Reference
B2—stricturing	2.308 (0.362–14.717)	0.376			0.952 (0.167–5.421)	0.406
B3—penetrating	2.000 (0.310–12.891)	0.466			1.545 (0.361–6.610)	0.557
Active fistula	2.567 (0.283–23.309)	0.402			0.517 (0.055–4.823)	0.562
Perianal abscess	2.125 (0.382–11.827)	0.389			0.185 (0.021–1.607)	0.126
Anatomic complexity of fistula
Simple	Reference		Reference		Reference		Reference
Complex	5.167 (1.044–25.565)	0.044	7.319 (1.177–45.515)	0.033	0.158 (0.037–0.676)	0.013	0.218 (0.048–0.989)	0.048
Previous therapy
Intestinal resection	3.021 (0.729–12.519)	0.127			3.021 (0.729–12.519)	0.127	0.200 (0.021–1.858)	0.157
Perianal surgery	0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995			0.131 (0.015–1.134)	0.065
Steroid	0.727 (0.123–4.300)	0.725			2.836 (0.713–11.279)	0.139
Immunomodulators	0.538 (0.109–2.660)	0.447			1.760 (0.453–6.831)	0.414
Concomitant therapy
Steroids (yes)	0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995			0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995
Immunomodulators (yes)	0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995			1.970 (0.495–7.832)	0.336
Antibiotics (yes)	1.304 (0.274–6.198)	0.738			0.541 (0.135–2.168)	0.386
Surgery (yes)	0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995			0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995
Optimize treatment (yes)	0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995			0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995

UST, ustekinumab; IFX, infliximab; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index; Inf, infinity.

Table 5.

Adverse Events between UST and IFX Groups

Adverse events	UST group (n=49)	IFX group (n=48)	P-value
Infections	4 (8.2)	2 (4.2)	0.421
Neurologic events	1 (2.0)	1 (2.1)	1.000
Dermatologic events	0	1 (2.1)	-^a
Allergy	0	1 (2.1)	-^a

Values are presented as number (%).

^a Due to the insufficient number of events, no statistical test was conducted.

UST, ustekinumab; IFX, infliximab.

REFERENCES

1. Dolinger M, Torres J, Vermeire S. Crohn’s disease. Lancet 2024;403:1177–1191.Article PubMed
2. Panés J, Rimola J. Perianal fistulizing Crohn’s disease: pathogenesis, diagnosis and therapy. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;14:652–664.Article PubMed PDF
3. Brochard C, Rabilloud ML, Hamonic S, et al. Natural history of perianal Crohn’s disease: long-term follow-up of a populationbased cohort. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;20:e102–e110.Article PubMed
4. Eglinton TW, Barclay ML, Gearry RB, Frizelle FA. The spectrum of perianal Crohn’s disease in a population-based cohort. Dis Colon Rectum 2012;55:773–777.Article PubMed
5. Panes J, Reinisch W, Rupniewska E, et al. Burden and outcomes for complex perianal fistulas in Crohn’s disease: systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 2018;24:4821–4834.Article PubMed PMC
6. 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
7. Sheedy SP, Bruining DH, Dozois EJ, Faubion WA, Fletcher JG. MR imaging of perianal Crohn disease. Radiology 2017;282:628–645.Article PubMed
8. Lee MJ, Parker CE, Taylor SR, et al. Efficacy of medical therapies for fistulizing Crohn’s disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;16:1879–1892.Article PubMed
9. Parian AM, Obi M, Fleshner P, Schwartz DA. Management of perianal Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2023;118:1323–1331.Article PubMed
10. Kotze PG, Shen B, Lightner A, et al. Modern management of perianal fistulas in Crohn’s disease: future directions. Gut 2018;67:1181–1194.Article PubMed
11. Singh S, Proctor D, Scott FI, Falck-Ytter Y, Feuerstein JD. AGA technical review on the medical management of moderate to severe luminal and perianal fistulizing Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2021;160:2512–2556.Article PubMed PMC
12. Panés J, García-Olmo D, Van Assche G, et al. Expanded allogeneic adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (Cx601) for complex perianal fistulas in Crohn’s disease: a phase 3 randomised, double-blind controlled trial. Lancet 2016;388:1281–1290.PubMed
13. Wang H, Jiang HY, Zhang YX, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells transplantation for perianal fistulas: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Stem Cell Res Ther 2023;14:103.Article PubMed PMC PDF
14. Wei J, Zhang Y, Chen C, et al. Efficacy and safety of allogeneic umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of complex perianal fistula in Crohn’s disease: a pilot study. Stem Cell Res Ther 2023;14:311.Article PubMed PMC PDF
15. Garcia-Olmo D, Gilaberte I, Binek M, et al. Follow-up study to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of darvadstrocel (mesenchymal stem cell treatment) in patients with perianal fistulizing Crohn’s disease: ADMIRE-CD phase 3 randomized controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2022;65:713–720.Article PubMed PMC
16. Lansdorp CA, Gecse KB, Buskens CJ, et al. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment of perianal fistulas in 20 patients with Crohn’s disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2021;53:587–597.Article PubMed PMC PDF
17. Lansdorp CA, Buskens CJ, Gecse KB, et al. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment of perianal fistulas in 20 patients with Crohn’s disease: results of the HOT-TOPIC trial after 1-year follow-up. United European Gastroenterol J 2022;10:160–168.Article PubMed PMC PDF
18. Singh A, Midha V, Kochhar GS, Shen B, Sood A. Management of perianal fistulizing Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2024;30:1579–1603.Article PubMed PDF
19. Meima-van Praag EM, Becker MA, van Rijn KL, et al. Short-term anti-TNF therapy with surgical closure versus anti-TNF therapy alone for Crohn’s perianal fistulas (PISA-II): long-term outcomes of an international, multicentre patient preference, randomized controlled trial. EClinicalMedicine 2023;61:102045.Article PubMed PMC
20. Wasmann KA, de Groof EJ, Stellingwerf ME, et al. Treatment of perianal fistulas in Crohn’s disease, Seton versus anti-TNF versus surgical closure following anti-TNF [PISA]: a randomised controlled trial. J Crohns Colitis 2020;14:1049–1056.Article PubMed PMC PDF
21. 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
22. Kennedy NA, Heap GA, Green HD, et al. Predictors of anti-TNF treatment failure in anti-TNF-naive patients with active luminal Crohn’s disease: a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;4:341–353.PubMed
23. Feagan BG, Sandborn WJ, Gasink C, et al. Ustekinumab as induction and maintenance therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1946–1960.Article PubMed
24. Wils P, Bouhnik Y, Michetti P, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in 122 refractory Crohn’s disease patients: a multicentre experience. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2018;47:588–595.Article PubMed PDF
25. Reinisch W, Colombel JF, D’Haens GR, et al. Efficacy and safety of filgotinib for the treatment of perianal fistulising Crohn’s disease [DIVERGENCE 2]: a phase 2, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. J Crohns Colitis 2024;18:864–874.Article PubMed PMC PDF
26. Sandborn WJ, Rebuck R, Wang Y, et al. Five-year efficacy and safety of ustekinumab treatment in Crohn’s disease: the IMUNITI trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;20:578–590.e4.Article PubMed PMC
27. Rutgeerts P, Geboes K, Vantrappen G, et al. Predictability of the postoperative course of Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 1990;99:956–963.Article PubMed
28. Daperno M, D’Haens G, Van Assche G, et al. Development and validation of a new, simplified endoscopic activity score for Crohn’s disease: the SES-CD. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:505–512.Article PubMed
29. Chapuis-Biron C, Kirchgesner J, Pariente B, et al. Ustekinumab for perianal Crohn’s disease: the BioLAP multicenter study from the GETAID. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:1812–1820.Article PubMed
30. Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Hanauer SB, et al. A review of activity indices and efficacy endpoints for clinical trials of medical therapy in adults with Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2002;122:512–530.Article PubMed
31. García MJ, Rivero M, Fernández-Clotet A, et al. Comparative study of the effectiveness of vedolizumab versus ustekinumab after anti-TNF failure in Crohn’s disease (versus-CD): data from the ENEIDA Registry. J Crohns Colitis 2024;18:65–74.PubMed
32. Khorrami S, Ginard D, Marín-Jiménez I, et al. Ustekinumab for the treatment of refractory Crohn’s disease: the Spanish experience in a large multicentre open-label cohort. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2016;22:1662–1669.PubMed
33. Biemans VB, van der Meulen-de Jong AE, van der Woude CJ, et al. Ustekinumab for Crohn’s disease: results of the ICC Registry, a nationwide prospective observational cohort study. J Crohns Colitis 2020;14:33–45.Article PubMed PMC PDF
34. Godoy Brewer GM, Salem G, Afzal MA, et al. Ustekinumab is effective for perianal fistulising Crohn’s disease: a real-world experience and systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 2021;8:e000702.Article PubMed PMC
35. Sands BE, Anderson FH, Bernstein CN, et al. Infliximab maintenance therapy for fistulizing Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2004;350:876–885.Article PubMed
36. Dupont-Lucas C, Dabadie A, Alberti C, Ruemmele FM, GETAID (Group d’Etude Thérapeutique des Affections Inflammatoires du Tube Digestif) Pédiatrique. Predictors of response to infliximab in paediatric perianal Crohn’s disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014;40:917–929.Article PubMed
37. Gu B, Venkatesh K, Williams AJ, et al. Higher infliximab and adalimumab trough levels are associated with fistula healing in patients with fistulising perianal Crohn’s disease. World J Gastroenterol 2022;28:2597–2608.Article PubMed PMC
38. McCurdy JD, Munir J, Parlow S, et al. Development of an MRI-based prediction model for anti-TNF treatment failure in perianal Crohn’s disease: a multicenter study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;22:1058–1066.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

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

Comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab versus infliximab in the management of perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease: a retrospective study in China

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2024.00168

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab versus infliximab in the management of perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease: a retrospective study in China

Fig. 1. Study flowchart. CD, Crohn’s disease; UST, ustekinumab; IFX, infliximab.

Fig. 2. Kaplan-Meier curve for clinical outcomes during the follow-up period according to the time of initiation of UST or IFX therapy. (A) Survival of disease relapse-free in UST and IFX groups. (B) Survival of operation-free in UST and IFX groups. UST, ustekinumab; IFX, infliximab.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab versus infliximab in the management of perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease: a retrospective study in China

Variable	UST group (n = 49)	IFX group (n = 48)	P-value
Male sex	38 (77.5)	32 (66.7)	0.232
Age (yr)	29.8 ± 9.6	31.5 ± 11.9	0.456
BMI (kg/m²)	18.7 ± 3.5	18.6 ± 2.7	0.873
Course of disease (mo)	38.6 ± 53.6	51.1 ± 48.0	0.231
Time interval (mo)^a	31.3 ± 50.8	42.2 ± 44.8	0.075
Active smokers	2 (4.1)	1 (2.1)	1.000
Montreal classification-disease location^b			0.236
L1—ileal	9 (18.4)	9 (18.7)
L2—colonic	4 (8.2)	0
L3—ileocolonic	36 (73.5)	39 (81.3)
L4—upper GI tract	11 (22.4)	9 (18.8)
Montreal classification-disease behavior			0.290
B1—non-stricturing, non-penetrating	17 (34.7)	22 (45.8)
B2—stricturing	17 (34.7)	10 (20.8)
B3—penetrating	15 (30.6)	16 (33.3)
Active intestinal fistula	12 (24.5)	7 (14.6)	0.219
Perianal abscess	19 (38.8)	14 (29.2)	0.318
Fistula type			0.400
High intersphincteric	10 (20.4)	16 (33.3)
High transsphincteric	2 (4.1)	4 (8.3)
Extra-sphincteric	1 (2.0)	0
Supra-sphincteric	2 (4.1)	3 (6.3)
Low intersphincteric	31 (63.3)	24 (50.0)
Low transsphincteric	3 (6.1)	1 (2.1)
Anatomic complexity of fistula			0.946
Simple	15 (30.6)	15 (31.3)
Complex	34 (69.4)	33 (68.8)
No. of internal openings			0.995
0	11 (22.4)	11 (22.9)
1	25 (51.0)	24 (50.0)
≥2	13 (26.5)	13 (27.1)
No. of external openings			0.296
0	13 (26.5)	18 (37.5)
1	22 (44.9)	22 (45.8)
≥2	14 (28.6)	8 (16.7)
Tract of fistula			0.188
Single-tract fistula	20 (40.8)	26 (54.2)
Multiple-tract fistula	29 (59.2)	22 (45.8)
Previous therapy^c
Intestinal resection	5 (10.2)	13 (27.1)	0.033
Perianal surgery	14 (28.6)	17 (35.4)	0.470
Steroid	10 (20.4)	17 (35.4)	0.099
Immunomodulators	13 (26.5)	21 (43.8)	0.076
Concomitant therapy^c
Steroids	6 (12.2)	1 (2.1)	0.123
Immunomodulators^d	1 (2.0)	16 (33.3)	< 0.001
Antibiotics	28 (57.1)	23 (47.9)	0.363
Surgery	1 (2.0)	1 (2.1)	1.000
CDAI score	297.7 ± 86.4	288.4 ± 65.0	0.548
ESR (mm/hr)	34.4 ± 24.9	44.7 ± 26.5	0.050
CRP (mg/L)	20.4 ± 25.2	28.3 ± 34.2	0.201
ALB (g/L)	35.6 ± 5.3	34.4 ± 5.9	0.298

Variable	UST group	IFX group	P-value
Fistula remission	8/49 (16.3)	11/48 (22.9)	0.419
Fistula response	24/49 (49.0)	23/48 (47.9)	0.920
Intestinal clinical remission	18/49 (36.7)	20/48 (41.7)	0.624
Intestinal clinical response	42/49 (85.7)	33/48 (68.8)	0.048
Endoscopic remission	16/44 (36.4)	15/43 (34.9)	0.890
Endoscopic response	24/44 (54.5)	26/42 (61.9)	0.495
Treatment success^a	44/49 (89.8)	24/48 (50.0)	< 0.001
CRP normalization	31/49 (63.3)	35/48 (72.9)	0.313

Variable	UST group (n = 49)	IFX group (n = 48)	P-value
Follow-up (mo)	10.1 (6.3–14.0)	31.0 (16.3–41.3)	< 0.001
Medication replacement^a	3 (6.1)	16 (33.3)	< 0.001
Combination treatment^b	1 (2.0)	8 (16.7)	0.014
Dose escalation^c	4 (8.2)	3 (6.3)	0.723
Relapse^d	10 (20.4)	28 (58.3)	< 0.001
Surgery^e	4 (8.2)	6 (12.5)	0.489

Characteristics	UST group				IFX group
	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis		Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Sex (male)	0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.993			0.740 (0.180–3.052)	0.677
Age (> 35 yr)	0.206 (0.041–1.027)	0.054	0.139 (0.022–0.904)	0.039	0.311 (0.035–2.775)	0.296
BMI (kg/m²)
< 20	Reference				Reference
20–25	4.250 (0.753–23.980)	0.101			0.349 (0.066–1.859)	0.218
> 25	8.500 (0.441–163.882)	0.156			0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995
Course of disease	1.002 (0.987–1.017)	0.827			0.995 (0.980–1.010)	0.481
Active smokers	0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995			0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995
Montreal classification-disease location
L1—ileal	Reference				Reference
L2—colonic	0.125 (0.007–2.176)	0.154			-	-
L3—ileocolonic	0.775 (0.079–7.602)	0.827			1.050 (0.184–5.977)	0.956
L4—upper GI tract	0.333 (0.028–3.926)	0.383			1.000 (0.108–9.229)	1.000
Montreal classification-disease behavior
B1—non-stricturing, non-penetrating	Reference				Reference
B2—stricturing	2.308 (0.362–14.717)	0.376			0.952 (0.167–5.421)	0.406
B3—penetrating	2.000 (0.310–12.891)	0.466			1.545 (0.361–6.610)	0.557
Active fistula	2.567 (0.283–23.309)	0.402			0.517 (0.055–4.823)	0.562
Perianal abscess	2.125 (0.382–11.827)	0.389			0.185 (0.021–1.607)	0.126
Anatomic complexity of fistula
Simple	Reference		Reference		Reference		Reference
Complex	5.167 (1.044–25.565)	0.044	7.319 (1.177–45.515)	0.033	0.158 (0.037–0.676)	0.013	0.218 (0.048–0.989)	0.048
Previous therapy
Intestinal resection	3.021 (0.729–12.519)	0.127			3.021 (0.729–12.519)	0.127	0.200 (0.021–1.858)	0.157
Perianal surgery	0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995			0.131 (0.015–1.134)	0.065
Steroid	0.727 (0.123–4.300)	0.725			2.836 (0.713–11.279)	0.139
Immunomodulators	0.538 (0.109–2.660)	0.447			1.760 (0.453–6.831)	0.414
Concomitant therapy
Steroids (yes)	0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995			0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995
Immunomodulators (yes)	0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995			1.970 (0.495–7.832)	0.336
Antibiotics (yes)	1.304 (0.274–6.198)	0.738			0.541 (0.135–2.168)	0.386
Surgery (yes)	0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995			0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995
Optimize treatment (yes)	0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995			0.000 (0.000–Inf)	0.995

Adverse events	UST group (n=49)	IFX group (n=48)	P-value
Infections	4 (8.2)	2 (4.2)	0.421
Neurologic events	1 (2.0)	1 (2.1)	1.000
Dermatologic events	0	1 (2.1)	-^a
Allergy	0	1 (2.1)	-^a

Table 1. Demographics and Clinical Characteristic of Patients with Crohn’s Disease

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

Time interval is from the start of treatment to the first use of biologics;

An upper GI tract location (L4) could be associated with an ileal (L1), colonic (L2) or ileocolonic (L3) location.

The items listed below have overlapping elements.

Concomitant immunomodulators include thiopurines, methotrexate, and thalidomide.

UST, ustekinumab; IFX, infliximab; BMI, body mass index; GI, gastrointestinal; CDAI, Crohn’s Disease Activity Index; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP, C-reactive protein; ALB, albumin.

Table 2. Treatment Outcomes between UST and IFX Groups

Values are presented as number (%).

Treatment success is defined as: (1) clinical success assessed at 6 months after biological agent treatments based on the physicians’ judgment, and (2) no need for specialized therapy (antibiotics and/or surgery) for perianal lesions.

UST, ustekinumab; IFX, infliximab; CRP, C-reactive protein.

Table 3. Follow-up Outcomes between UST and IFX Groups

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

Medication replacement is defined as changing to another biological agent.

Combination treatment is defined as the addition of immunomodulators or seton use in combination.

Dose escalation is defined as dose escalation, and/or dose interval shortening.

Relapse is defined as the appearance of drainage through fistulas that were previously in remission and/or increasing luminal activity (both a CDAI ≥150 and an increase in the CDAI ≥70) and the onset of concomitant therapy or adjustment of adjuvant therapy.

Surgery is defined as no need for unplanned surgical treatment.

UST, ustekinumab; IFX, infliximab; CDAI, Crohn’s Disease Activity Index.

Table 4. Univariate and Multivariate Analyses of Factors Associated with Fistula Remission between UST and IFX Groups

UST, ustekinumab; IFX, infliximab; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index; Inf, infinity.

Table 5. Adverse Events between UST and IFX Groups

Values are presented as number (%).

Due to the insufficient number of events, no statistical test was conducted.

UST, ustekinumab; IFX, infliximab.