Minoru Matsuura; Annabelle Yoon; Jun Miyoshi; Tadakazu Hisamatsu

doi:10.5217/ir.2025.00059

Articles

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

Original Article Escalation to biologics after corticosteroids in patients with newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease in Japan: a claims analysis from 2010 to 2021: Minoru Matsuura^1,*, Annabelle Yoon^2,*, Jun Miyoshi¹, Tadakazu Hisamatsu¹; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00059
Published online: November 25, 2025

¹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, 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: April 17, 2025 • Revised: August 8, 2025 • Accepted: August 18, 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.

746 Views
116 Download

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
A previous health insurance claims study of Japanese patients with newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease (CD) reported an increase in “step-up” approach from 2010 to 2020, with biologic use in the first year remaining stable. This study examined systemic corticosteroid (SCS) use for newly diagnosed CD in Japan and compared patients who were escalated (“step-up”) and were not escalated to biologics.
Methods
This retrospective longitudinal cohort study used health insurance claims data (JMDC database). Patients diagnosed with CD from 2010 to 2020 who had no CD-related claims for ≥ 1 year before index, were traceable for ≥ 1 year after index, and treated with ≥ 1 pre-defined treatment were included. Patients classified by SCS and/or biologic use within 1 year after diagnosis were compared.
Results
Of 823 patients, 379 (46.1%) received SCS in the first year; of these, 43.5% escalated to biologics (step-up group) and 56.5% did not (SCS group). The proportion of patients receiving SCS increased from 25.8% in 2010–2011 to 55.5% in 2020; proportion escalated to biologics increased from 33.8% in 2016–2017 to 51.0% in 2020. The step-up group was significantly younger, more likely to have perianal lesions, and received more intensive treatments than the SCS group. In terms of SCS use, the step-up group was more likely to have shorter time-to-SCS initiation, and a higher initial SCS dose, than the SCS group.
Conclusions
Escalation from SCS to biologics in Japanese patients with newly diagnosed CD increased between 2016 and 2020, particularly in patients with younger onset CD or perianal complications.
Keywords: Administrative claims, healthcare; Corticosteroids; Crohn disease; Step-up approach; Treatment strategy

INTRODUCTION

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic relapsing-remitting inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal tract, which, if left untreated, can progressively damage the bowel and cause disability [1]. Treatment strategies for CD typically aim to induce and maintain remission, prevent complications that require surgery, and halt disease progression, while minimizing treatment-related adverse effects [1,2]. These goals were traditionally achieved by starting patients on the least toxic agents, such as 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), and “stepping-up” to more intensive treatments, such as systemic corticosteroids (SCS; e.g., prednisolone or budesonide) followed by biologic agents, in the absence of adequate response [3]. However, in more severe cases, and to account for individual differences in disease course, a risk-stratified paradigm may be more appropriate, where intensive treatment with biologics is provided early to patients. Many treatment guidelines around the world today recommend making individualized treatment decisions based on a patient’s condition and characteristics, disease severity, disease location, and prognostic risk factors, although detailed therapeutic strategies need to be established further [2,4].

In Japan, inflammatory bowel disease, including CD, is one of the most prevalent intractable diseases [5], and the number of cases has continued to rise since 1950 [2]. Our previous study examined real-world treatment trends in Japanese patients with newly diagnosed CD by analyzing health insurance claims data on prescriptions obtained in the first year after diagnosis and found that prescriptions for biologics remained stable over the decade from 2010 to 2020 [6]. Interestingly, however, the use of SCS prior to biologics almost doubled during that period, especially after 2018, suggesting a rise in the step-up approach and a decrease in the top-down approach in Japan, and the authors speculated that approval of budesonide in 2016 was one of the reasons for the increase. In the recent multicenter open-label randomized controlled PROFILE study conducted in the United Kingdom, better clinical outcomes were reported in patients receiving top-down treatment than in those receiving step-up treatment [7]. However, all patients, including those in the top-down group, received an 8-week course of SCS treatment before randomization. Therefore, these treatment approaches may be defined differently depending on the study, and thus caution is needed when interpreting or comparing the results.

To better understand the increasing preference for the step-up approach in Japan observed previously [6], this secondary analysis focused on patients who received SCS in the first year after CD diagnosis. We examined the real-world use of SCS and compared the characteristics and use of SCS between patients who were and were not escalated to biologic therapy.

METHODS

1. Study Design and Patient Population

We conducted a retrospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study of claims data from the JMDC database, consisting of health insurance claims of inpatient, outpatient, dispensing, and medical examination data obtained from employees of various-sized companies and their dependents in Japan. The data are collected and managed by JMDC Inc. (Tokyo, Japan), who provides it to interested parties including pharmaceutical companies and universities for research purposes.

Details of the study design are described elsewhere [6]. Briefly, claims data in the JMDC database from 2009 to 2021 were screened, and patients who were diagnosed with and treated for CD (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision [ICD-10] code: K50) were identified. Patients with a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (ICD-10 code: K51) or Behçet’s disease (ICD-10 code: M352) were excluded. For each patient diagnosed with CD, the index month was defined as the month of the earliest definitive diagnosis of CD recorded in the database from 2010 to 2020. If there was no CD-related claims record for ≥ 12 months prior to index, we defined the patient as having newly diagnosed CD; these patients were further narrowed down to patients who were traceable for ≥12 months after index. Patients also had to have been treated with ≥ 1 of the following pre-defined CD treatments within 12 months after diagnosis: SCS, immunomodulators, biologic therapy, nutritional therapy, or granulocyte and monocyte adsorption apheresis.

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 [8], which waived the need for informed consent for this type of study. The Kyorin University Ethics Review Committee waived the need for ethics review due to the use of secondary anonymized data.

2. Treatment Groups

Patients were classified into 4 groups according to treatment with SCS and/or biologics in the first year after diagnosis: (1) “no biologic group” comprised patients who did not receive biologics, which was further divided into the (1-1) “SCS group,” where patients received SCS without subsequent escalation to biologics, and the (1-2) “no biologic/SCS group,” where patients received neither SCS nor biologics; (2) “biologic group” comprised patients who received a prescription for biologics, which was further divided into the (2-1) “step-up group,” who received ≥1 SCS prescription before escalation to biologics, and the (2-2) “top-down group,” who received no SCS prior to the first prescription for biologics. This manuscript focuses on patients who were escalated to biologics from SCS (2-1 step-up group) and those who were not (1-1 SCS group).

3. Outcomes

The primary outcome was the proportion of SCS use alone versus SCS use that was escalated to biologics (SCS group vs. step-up group) in the first year after diagnosis, analyzed for every 2 calendar years from 2010 to 2019, and for 2020. The secondary outcomes were comparison of SCS use between patients on SCS who were and were not escalated to biologics (step-up group vs. SCS group); patient characteristics of patients who were escalated to biologics (step-up group); factors associated with the escalation to biologics; and the trend in the type of SCS used (prednisolone vs. budesonide).

4. Statistical Analysis

Demographic and clinical characteristics are reported as mean (standard deviation) or median (minimum, maximum) for continuous variables and number (%) for categorical variables. In trend analyses for the primary outcome, patients in each group are reported as number (%). Treatment groups were compared using chi-square tests (or Fisher exact test when appropriate) for categorical variables and Student t tests for continuous variables. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify the factors associated with the step-up to biologics among patients who received SCS. 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. Baseline Demographics

A total of 823 patients met the eligibility criteria and were included for further analyses (Fig. 1). Of these, 77.6% were male, the mean age was 28.5 years, and 75.7% had adult-onset CD (Table 1) [6]. Almost half (42.9%; 353/823) received conventional therapy, namely, 5-ASA, SCS, or nutritional therapy, without biologics (no biologic group), whereas 57.1% (470/823) were prescribed biologics (biologic group) within the first year after diagnosis of CD. In all, 46.1% (379/823) of patients received SCS as a first-line treatment in the first year after diagnosis of CD (SCS group + step-up group); of these, 43.5% (165/379) were escalated to biologics after SCS (step-up group), while 56.5% (214/379) did not receive a subsequent prescription for biologics (SCS group).

2. Trends in First-Year Treatment Decisions among Patients Receiving SCS

The proportion of patients who received SCS (SCS group + step-up group) increased over the analysis period from 25.8% in 2010–2011 to 55.5% in 2020, especially spiking from 2018 (Table 2). Among those who received SCS, the proportion of patients who were escalated to biologics (step-up group) in the first year after diagnosis was the lowest in 2016–2017; this started to increase after 2016–2017 and exceeded 50% in 2020.

3. Comparison of Patients Who Were and Were Not Escalated to Biologics

Patients who were escalated to biologics (step-up group) differed in several clinical features from those who remained on SCS in the first year after diagnosis (SCS group) (Table 3). Patients who received the step-up approach were significantly younger at index (median: 21 years vs. 29 years; P<0.001) and a higher proportion had a Montreal classification age at diagnosis ≤40 years (89.1% vs. 69.6%; P<0.001). A significantly greater proportion of these patients (step-up group) also had perianal lesions (P<0.001), underwent imaging tests (P<0.001), and received 5-ASA (P<0.001), immunomodulators (P=0.016), or nutritional therapy (P<0.001) compared with those who remained on SCS. Multivariable regression analysis also revealed that patients who were escalated to biologics (step-up group) were significantly more likely to have received 5-ASA (odds ratio [OR], 3.279; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.581–6.804; P=0.001) and nutritional therapy (OR, 2.609; 95% CI, 1.535–4.436; P<0.001), and less likely to have a Montreal classification age at diagnosis >40 years (OR, 0.444; 95% CI, 0.225–0.875; P=0.019) (Table 4).

4. Use of SCS

Analysis of how SCS were used by patients who were and were not escalated to biologics revealed distinct differences in time to first SCS prescription, SCS type, and initial SCS dose (Table 5). Those who were escalated to biologics (step-up group) had a shorter time-to-SCS initiation (mean: 1.0 vs. 1.7 months; P=0.008) and received a higher initial dose of SCS (mean dose: 36.5 mg/day vs. 30.4 mg/day; P<0.001) than patients who remained on SCS (SCS group) in the first year after diagnosis. A greater proportion of patients who received treatment with the step-up approach used budesonide compared with patients who remained on SCS (47.9% vs. 33.6%; P=0.005). Duration of SCS use, however, was not different. In terms of SCS type, trend analysis showed that the use of budesonide increased more quickly in the step-up group compared with the SCS group after its approval in 2016, such that 61.2% of patients in the former group and 44.7% in the latter group were using budesonide in 2020 (Fig. 2).

DISCUSSION

This real-world analysis of claims data in Japanese patients with CD revealed that the proportion of patients who were escalated to biologics after receiving SCS (step-up group) in the first year after diagnosis increased from 33.8% in 2016–2017 to 51.0% in 2020. This implies that a treatment strategy of achieving deep remission from an early stage with advanced therapies in necessary cases [9], as suggested in guidelines and expert consensus statements [2,10], is gradually being accepted. After the approval of budesonide in Japan in 2016, its uptake occurred rapidly, such that it was used in 30.9% of the SCS-treated patients in the following year. This quick growth was more obvious in the step-up group than in the SCS group (43.5% in 2016–2017 and 61.2% in 2020 vs. 24.4% in 2016–2017 and 44.7% in 2020). The greater growth in budesonide prescriptions in the step-up group than in the SCS group supports the theory posed in the previous study that budesonide contributed to an increase in the proportion of patients treated with the step-up approach [6]. This trend may be influenced by changes in physicians’ perception of the safety of newer steroids, particularly budesonide [11]. Consistent with the previous findings [6], we further speculate that these factors (use of biologics at an early stage and the availability of a safer steroid) are likely to have contributed to the wider adoption of the step-up approach in Japan.

The PROFILE study reported that top-down treatment demonstrated significantly better outcomes (sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remissions) than step-up treatment [7]. The authors concluded that top-down treatment should be considered as the standard of care for newly diagnosed CD [7]. Conversely, our study showed an increase in the step-up approach from 2016 to 2020, appearing to conflict with the results observed in the PROFILE study. However, all patients in the PROFILE study, including those in the top-down group, received an 8-week course of oral corticosteroids before randomization, unlike in our study, where a stricter definition was applied, with the top-down group including only patients with no record of SCS prescription before biologic prescription. Therefore, the top-down group in the PROFILE study would have been classified as part of the step-up group in the current study. Moreover, given that the Japanese clinical guideline recommends biologics for CD in patients with insufficient response to conventional treatments, including SCS [2], the findings from our study align with the current local recommendations. In our previous report [6], mean time to initiation of biologics was 1.8 to 3.6 months, depending on the biologic, with no indication of a delay in biologics initiation in the step-up group (2.0–3.7 months) versus the top-down group (1.7–3.4 months). Together, these results indicate the importance of a timely escalation to biologics where appropriate.

Although the top-down approach remained the dominant strategy overall (64.9%; 305/470) in the original analysis of Japanese patients who received prescriptions for biologics in the first year after CD diagnosis (biologic group) [6], we reported an increase in the adoption of the step-up approach between 2010 and 2020 (from 23.8% to 48.5%). These results suggested that SCS use may be playing a role in the increasing preference for the step-up approach. In the current analysis, we performed a closer examination on patients who received SCS, and, likewise, we discovered an increasing proportion of patients being escalated to biologics between 2016 and 2020. Interestingly, while the step-up group was associated with shorter time-to-initiate SCS and higher dose of initial SCS, it was not associated with duration of SCS use. These may be an indicator that the use of SCS has become more appropriate in recent years with the development of advanced therapies. In addition, patient characteristics that were found to be associated with the step-up group in this study indicate that physicians are making treatment decisions based on patient background, considering negative prognostic factors such as younger age or the presence of perianal lesions [12-14].

The strengths of the present study include the use of the JMDC database, Japan’s largest health claims database of employer-based health insurance schemes, which captures all insured treatments of patients <75 years and their dependents. This is one of a few real-world studies in CD treatment trends in Japan, which, along with Korea and China, and in contrast to plateauing cases in Western countries, continues to experience increasing numbers of patients with CD [5,15-17]. However, because this study was based on health insurance claims, clinical data and treatment outcome data (e.g., treatment persistence with SCS, hospitalization and surgery rates) were not available, which limits the interpretation of the results. Finally, although we performed trend analyses over a decade, the total population in the JMDC database was smaller in the earlier years. Therefore, there were fewer patients with CD during 2010–2013, although this number gradually increased over time.

The present real-world analysis of claims data on CD treatment in newly diagnosed Japanese patients revealed that the proportion of patients who were escalated to biologics after receiving SCS in the first year after diagnosis increased between 2016 and 2020. Patients who were stepped up to a biologic were younger and had more perianal complications compared with those who did not. Moreover, the step-up group also had a shorter time-to-initiate SCS and a higher dose of initial SCS, and the use of budesonide increased more quickly in the step-up group than in the SCS group.

Our findings suggest that the use of SCS is going through optimization in Japan; treatments are carefully considered accounting for various factors such as patient’s condition, prognosis, and future treatment plans. Further studies are needed to understand clinical challenges in real-world settings, and to improve treatment strategy for CD with further elaboration in the use of biologics and SCS.

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

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. Yoon A was an employee of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. 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., Pfizer Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Hisamatsu T has received grants or contracts from EA Pharma Co., Ltd., JIMRO Co., Ltd., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Ltd., Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, and ZERIA Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; consulting fees from AbbVie GK, Abivax, Bristol Myers Squibb, 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. Investigation: all authors. Methodology: Matsuura M, Miyoshi J, Hisamatsu T. Project administration: Yoon A. Supervision: Hisamatsu T. Validation: Matsuura M, Miyoshi J. Writing - original draft: Matsuura M. 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 Hana Nomura and Rebecca Lew (ProScribe K.K. – Envision Pharma Group) for editorial and medical writing support.

Fig. 1.

Patient flow diagram. ^aIncludes patients diagnosed with both ulcerative colitis and Behçet’s disease. CD, Crohn’s disease; SCS, systemic corticosteroids.

Fig. 2.

Trend in prescription of prednisolone and budesonide in the first year after diagnosis from 2010 to 2020 for (A) all patients who received systemic corticosteroids (SCS group + step-up group), (B) patients who received systemic corticosteroids and were not escalated to biologics (SCS group), and (C) patients who received systemic corticosteroids and were escalated to biologics (step-up group). Trends in SCS prescription (prednisolone vs. budesonide) in the first year after diagnosis were categorized into analysis periods based on the year of their CD diagnosis; as patients with CD diagnosis up to 2020 were included in the study, the analysis period was divided into 2-calendar year intervals from 2010 to 2019 and a single year of 2020 for the final analysis period. SCS, systemic corticosteroids; CD, Crohn’s disease.

Table 1.

Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

Variable	All patients (n = 823)	No biologics			Biologics
Variable	All patients (n = 823)	All (n = 353)	SCS (n = 214)	No bio/SCS (n = 139)	All (n = 470)	Step-up (n = 165)	Top-down (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 at 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 (6–17 yr)	173 (21.0)	65 (18.4)	41 (19.2)	24 (17.3)	108 (23.0)	44 (26.7)	64 (21.0)
Adult (18–59 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 age at diagnosis
A1: ≤ 16 yr	148 (18.0)	55 (15.6)	35 (16.4)	20 (14.4)	93 (19.8)	37 (22.4)	56 (18.4)
A2: 17–40 yr	513 (62.3)	198 (56.1)	114 (53.3)	84 (60.4)	315 (67.0)	110 (66.7)	205 (67.2)
A3: > 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)

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

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; SD, standard deviation.

Adapted from Miyoshi J, et al. Intest Res 2025 Jan 23 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2024.00082. [6]

Table 2.

Treatment Decisions among Patients Who Received SCSs as Initial Treatment

Trend analysis period	All patients (n = 823)	Treatment decision
	All patients (n = 823)	SCS + Step-up: initial treatment with SCS (n=379)		SCS: no biologics after SCS (n=214)		Step-up: SCS before biologics (n=165)
	n	n	%^a	n	%^b	n	%^b
2010–2011	31	8	25.8	3	37.5	5	62.5
2012–2013	46	7	15.2	3	42.9	4	57.1
2014–2015	100	40	40.0	26	65.0	14	35.0
2016–2017	181	68	37.6	45	66.2	23	33.8
2018–2019	292	160	54.8	90	56.3	70	43.8
2020	173	96	55.5	47	49.0	49	51.0
Noted	823	379	46.1	214	56.5	165	43.5

Patients classified according to their treatment in the first year after diagnosis were categorized into analysis periods based on the year of their CD diagnosis; as patients with CD diagnosis up to 2020 were included in the study, the analysis period was divided into 2-calendar year intervals from 2010 to 2019 and a single year of 2020 for the final analysis period.

^a Denominator is the number of all patients from that time period.

^b Denominator is the number of patients who received initial treatment with SCS (SCS group + step-up group) in that time period.

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; CD, Crohn’s disease.

Table 3.

Clinical Characteristics of Patients Who Received SCSs Who Were and Were Not Escalated to a Biologic Within 1 Year of Diagnosis

Variable	SCS + Step-up: initial treatment with SCS (n=379)	SCS: no biologics after SCS (n=214)	Step-up: SCS before biologics (n=165)	P-value
Treatment during 12 mo from index
5-ASA	281 (74.1)	129 (60.3)	152 (92.1)	< 0.001^a
SCS
Prednisolone	228 (60.2)	142 (66.4)	86 (52.1)	0.005^a
Budesonide	151 (39.8)	72 (33.6)	79 (47.9)	0.005^a
Total duration of SCS (mo)
Mean ± SD	4.2 ± 3.1	4.2 ± 3.3	4.3 ± 2.8	0.912^b
Median (range)	3 (1–12)	3 (1–12)	3 (1–12)
Immunomodulator	94 (24.8)	43 (20.1)	51 (30.9)	0.016^a
Nutritional therapy	223 (58.8)	92 (43.0)	131 (79.4)	< 0.001^a
GCAP	3 (0.8)	1 (0.5)	2 (1.2)	0.582^c
First-line biologic
TNF inhibitor	-	-	124 (75.2)
Infliximab	-	-	61 (49.2)
Adalimumab	-	-	63 (50.8)
Ustekinumab	-	-	37 (22.4)
Vedolizumab	-	-	4 (2.4)
Time to biologic (mo)
Mean ± SD	-	-	3.2 ± 3.0
Median (range)	-	-	2 (0–11)
Age at index (yr)
Mean ± SD	28.9 ± 14.6	32.2 ± 15.9	24.6 ± 11.4	< 0.001^b
Median (range)	24 (2–74)	29 (4–73)	21 (2–74)
Montreal classification age at diagnosis
A1: ≤ 16 yr	72 (19.0)	35 (16.4)	37 (22.4)	< 0.001^a
A2: 17–40 yr	224 (59.1)	114 (53.3)	110 (66.7)
A3: > 40 yr	83 (21.9)	65 (30.4)	18 (10.9)
Sex
Male	278 (73.4)	157 (73.4)	121 (73.3)	0.995^a
Female	101 (26.6)	57 (26.6)	44 (26.7)
Endoscopy/colonoscopy/MRE within 12 mo from index	290 (76.5)	140 (65.4)	150 (90.9)	< 0.001^a
Perianal lesions within 12 mo from index	115 (30.3)	50 (23.4)	65 (39.4)	< 0.001^a

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

^a Chi-square test.

^b Student t test.

^c Fisher exact test.

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; 5-ASA, 5-acetylsalicylic acid; SD, standard deviation; GCAP, granulocyte/monocyte apheresis; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; MRE, magnetic resonance enterography.

Table 4.

Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis^a Comparing Patients Who Were Escalated to Biologics^b with Patients Who Remained on Systemic Corticosteroids

Variable	Reference	Label	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Treatment during 12 mo from index
5-ASA	No	Yes	3.279 (1.581–6.804)	0.001
Immunomodulator	No	Yes	1.150 (0.684–1.934)	0.599
Nutritional therapy	No	Yes	2.609 (1.535–4.436)	< 0.001
Montreal classification age at diagnosis	A2: 17–40 yr	A1: ≤ 16 yr	0.991 (0.548–1.791)	0.975
		A3: > 40 yr	0.444 (0.225–0.875)	0.019
Sex	Female	Male	0.655 (0.378–1.135)	0.132
Endoscopy/colonoscopy/MRE within 12 mo from index	No	Yes	1.821 (0.875–3.790)	0.109
Perianal lesions within 12 mo from index	No	Yes	1.254 (0.756–2.078)	0.380

^a Dependent variable: prescription of biologics (ref=No).

^b Patients who received biologics switched from treatment with systemic corticosteroids.

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

Table 5.

Systemic Corticosteroid Use in Patients Who Were and Were Not Escalated to Biologics

Variable	SCS: no biologics after SCS (n=214)	Step-up: SCS before biologics (n=165)	P-value
Time to first SCS prescription (mo)			0.008^a
Mean ± SD	1.7 ± 2.9	1.0 ± 1.7
Median (range)	0 (0–11)	0 (0–9)
Initial SCS			0.005^b
Prednisolone	142 (66.4)	86 (52.1)
Budesonide	72 (33.6)	79 (47.9)
Initial SCS dose (mg/day)^c			< 0.001^a
Mean ± SD	30.4 ± 19.3	36.5 ± 14.7^d
Median (range)	30.0 (1.0–150.0)	40.0 (1.0–105.0)
Initial SCS dose (mg/day) category
≤ 20	75 (35.0)	29 (17.7)	0.002^b
> 20 to ≤ 40	122 (57.0)	119 (72.6)
> 40 to ≤ 60	12 (5.6)	9 (5.5)
> 60	5 (2.3)	7 (4.3)
Total duration of SCS (mo)			0.912^a
Mean ± SD	4.2 ± 3.3	4.3 ± 2.8
Median (range)	3 (1–12)	3 (1–12)

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

^a Student t test.

^b Chi-square test.

^c Prednisolone equivalent (budesonide 9 mg=prednisolone 40 mg).

^d (n=164).

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; SD, standard deviation.

REFERENCES

1. Torres J, Mehandru S, Colombel JF, Peyrin-Biroulet L. Crohn’s disease. Lancet 2017;389:1741–1755.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. Panaccione R, Rutgeerts P, Sandborn WJ, Feagan B, Schreiber S, Ghosh S. Review article: treatment algorithms to maximize remission and minimize corticosteroid dependence in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008;28:674–688.Article PubMed
4. 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
5. Okabayashi S, Kobayashi T, Hibi T. Inflammatory bowel disease in Japan: is it similar to or different from Westerns? J Anus Rectum Colon 2020;4:1–13.Article PubMed PMC
6. Miyoshi J, Yoon A, Matsuura M, Hisamatsu T. 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 2025;Jan 23 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2024.00082.Article
7. Noor NM, Lee JC, Bond S, et al. A biomarker-stratified comparison of top-down versus accelerated step-up treatment strategies for patients with newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease (PROFILE): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;9:415–427.PubMed PMC
8. 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.
9. Ungaro RC, Yzet C, Bossuyt P, et al. Deep remission at 1 year prevents progression of early Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2020;159:139–147.Article PubMed PMC
10. Gordon H, Minozzi S, Kopylov U, et al. ECCO guidelines on therapeutics in Crohn’s disease: medical treatment. J Crohns Colitis 2024;18:1531–1555.PubMed
11. 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
12. Beaugerie L, Seksik P, Nion-Larmurier I, Gendre JP, Cosnes J. Predictors of Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2006;130:650–656.Article PubMed
13. Ordás I, Feagan BG, Sandborn WJ. Early use of immunosuppressives or TNF antagonists for the treatment of Crohn’s disease: time for a change. Gut 2011;60:1754–1763.Article PubMed
14. Thia KT, Luman W, Jin OC. Crohn’s disease runs a more aggressive course in young Asian patients. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2006;12:57–61.Article PubMed
15. Park SH, Kim YJ, Rhee KH, et al. A 30-year trend analysis in the epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease in the Songpa-Kangdong district of Seoul, Korea in 1986-2015. J Crohns Colitis 2019;13:1410–1417.Article PubMed PDF
16. Li Y, Chen B, Gao X, et al. Current diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease in China: results from a multicenter prospective disease registry. BMC Gastroenterol 2019;19:145.Article PubMed PMC PDF
17. Ng SC, Shi HY, Hamidi N, et al. Worldwide incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in the 21st century: a systematic review of population-based studies. Lancet 2017;390:2769–2778.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

Escalation to biologics after corticosteroids in patients with newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease in Japan: a claims analysis from 2010 to 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00059

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

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

Escalation to biologics after corticosteroids in patients with newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease in Japan: a claims analysis from 2010 to 2021

Fig. 1. Patient flow diagram. aIncludes patients diagnosed with both ulcerative colitis and Behçet’s disease. CD, Crohn’s disease; SCS, systemic corticosteroids.

Fig. 2. Trend in prescription of prednisolone and budesonide in the first year after diagnosis from 2010 to 2020 for (A) all patients who received systemic corticosteroids (SCS group + step-up group), (B) patients who received systemic corticosteroids and were not escalated to biologics (SCS group), and (C) patients who received systemic corticosteroids and were escalated to biologics (step-up group). Trends in SCS prescription (prednisolone vs. budesonide) in the first year after diagnosis were categorized into analysis periods based on the year of their CD diagnosis; as patients with CD diagnosis up to 2020 were included in the study, the analysis period was divided into 2-calendar year intervals from 2010 to 2019 and a single year of 2020 for the final analysis period. SCS, systemic corticosteroids; CD, Crohn’s disease.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Escalation to biologics after corticosteroids in patients with newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease in Japan: a claims analysis from 2010 to 2021

Variable	All patients (n = 823)	No biologics			Biologics
Variable	All patients (n = 823)	All (n = 353)	SCS (n = 214)	No bio/SCS (n = 139)	All (n = 470)	Step-up (n = 165)	Top-down (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 at 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 (6–17 yr)	173 (21.0)	65 (18.4)	41 (19.2)	24 (17.3)	108 (23.0)	44 (26.7)	64 (21.0)
Adult (18–59 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 age at diagnosis
A1: ≤ 16 yr	148 (18.0)	55 (15.6)	35 (16.4)	20 (14.4)	93 (19.8)	37 (22.4)	56 (18.4)
A2: 17–40 yr	513 (62.3)	198 (56.1)	114 (53.3)	84 (60.4)	315 (67.0)	110 (66.7)	205 (67.2)
A3: > 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)

Trend analysis period	All patients (n = 823)	Treatment decision
	All patients (n = 823)	SCS + Step-up: initial treatment with SCS (n=379)		SCS: no biologics after SCS (n=214)		Step-up: SCS before biologics (n=165)
	n	n	%^a	n	%^b	n	%^b
2010–2011	31	8	25.8	3	37.5	5	62.5
2012–2013	46	7	15.2	3	42.9	4	57.1
2014–2015	100	40	40.0	26	65.0	14	35.0
2016–2017	181	68	37.6	45	66.2	23	33.8
2018–2019	292	160	54.8	90	56.3	70	43.8
2020	173	96	55.5	47	49.0	49	51.0
Noted	823	379	46.1	214	56.5	165	43.5

Variable	SCS + Step-up: initial treatment with SCS (n=379)	SCS: no biologics after SCS (n=214)	Step-up: SCS before biologics (n=165)	P-value
Treatment during 12 mo from index
5-ASA	281 (74.1)	129 (60.3)	152 (92.1)	< 0.001^a
SCS
Prednisolone	228 (60.2)	142 (66.4)	86 (52.1)	0.005^a
Budesonide	151 (39.8)	72 (33.6)	79 (47.9)	0.005^a
Total duration of SCS (mo)
Mean ± SD	4.2 ± 3.1	4.2 ± 3.3	4.3 ± 2.8	0.912^b
Median (range)	3 (1–12)	3 (1–12)	3 (1–12)
Immunomodulator	94 (24.8)	43 (20.1)	51 (30.9)	0.016^a
Nutritional therapy	223 (58.8)	92 (43.0)	131 (79.4)	< 0.001^a
GCAP	3 (0.8)	1 (0.5)	2 (1.2)	0.582^c
First-line biologic
TNF inhibitor	-	-	124 (75.2)
Infliximab	-	-	61 (49.2)
Adalimumab	-	-	63 (50.8)
Ustekinumab	-	-	37 (22.4)
Vedolizumab	-	-	4 (2.4)
Time to biologic (mo)
Mean ± SD	-	-	3.2 ± 3.0
Median (range)	-	-	2 (0–11)
Age at index (yr)
Mean ± SD	28.9 ± 14.6	32.2 ± 15.9	24.6 ± 11.4	< 0.001^b
Median (range)	24 (2–74)	29 (4–73)	21 (2–74)
Montreal classification age at diagnosis
A1: ≤ 16 yr	72 (19.0)	35 (16.4)	37 (22.4)	< 0.001^a
A2: 17–40 yr	224 (59.1)	114 (53.3)	110 (66.7)
A3: > 40 yr	83 (21.9)	65 (30.4)	18 (10.9)
Sex
Male	278 (73.4)	157 (73.4)	121 (73.3)	0.995^a
Female	101 (26.6)	57 (26.6)	44 (26.7)
Endoscopy/colonoscopy/MRE within 12 mo from index	290 (76.5)	140 (65.4)	150 (90.9)	< 0.001^a
Perianal lesions within 12 mo from index	115 (30.3)	50 (23.4)	65 (39.4)	< 0.001^a

Variable	Reference	Label	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Treatment during 12 mo from index
5-ASA	No	Yes	3.279 (1.581–6.804)	0.001
Immunomodulator	No	Yes	1.150 (0.684–1.934)	0.599
Nutritional therapy	No	Yes	2.609 (1.535–4.436)	< 0.001
Montreal classification age at diagnosis	A2: 17–40 yr	A1: ≤ 16 yr	0.991 (0.548–1.791)	0.975
		A3: > 40 yr	0.444 (0.225–0.875)	0.019
Sex	Female	Male	0.655 (0.378–1.135)	0.132
Endoscopy/colonoscopy/MRE within 12 mo from index	No	Yes	1.821 (0.875–3.790)	0.109
Perianal lesions within 12 mo from index	No	Yes	1.254 (0.756–2.078)	0.380

Variable	SCS: no biologics after SCS (n=214)	Step-up: SCS before biologics (n=165)	P-value
Time to first SCS prescription (mo)			0.008^a
Mean ± SD	1.7 ± 2.9	1.0 ± 1.7
Median (range)	0 (0–11)	0 (0–9)
Initial SCS			0.005^b
Prednisolone	142 (66.4)	86 (52.1)
Budesonide	72 (33.6)	79 (47.9)
Initial SCS dose (mg/day)^c			< 0.001^a
Mean ± SD	30.4 ± 19.3	36.5 ± 14.7^d
Median (range)	30.0 (1.0–150.0)	40.0 (1.0–105.0)
Initial SCS dose (mg/day) category
≤ 20	75 (35.0)	29 (17.7)	0.002^b
> 20 to ≤ 40	122 (57.0)	119 (72.6)
> 40 to ≤ 60	12 (5.6)	9 (5.5)
> 60	5 (2.3)	7 (4.3)
Total duration of SCS (mo)			0.912^a
Mean ± SD	4.2 ± 3.3	4.3 ± 2.8
Median (range)	3 (1–12)	3 (1–12)

Table 1. Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

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

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; SD, standard deviation.

Adapted from Miyoshi J, et al. Intest Res 2025 Jan 23 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2024.00082. [6]

Table 2. Treatment Decisions among Patients Who Received SCSs as Initial Treatment

Denominator is the number of all patients from that time period.

Denominator is the number of patients who received initial treatment with SCS (SCS group + step-up group) in that time period.

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; CD, Crohn’s disease.

Table 3. Clinical Characteristics of Patients Who Received SCSs Who Were and Were Not Escalated to a Biologic Within 1 Year of Diagnosis

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

Chi-square test.

Student t test.

Fisher exact test.

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; 5-ASA, 5-acetylsalicylic acid; SD, standard deviation; GCAP, granulocyte/monocyte apheresis; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; MRE, magnetic resonance enterography.

Table 4. Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysisa Comparing Patients Who Were Escalated to Biologicsb with Patients Who Remained on Systemic Corticosteroids

Dependent variable: prescription of biologics (ref=No).

Patients who received biologics switched from treatment with systemic corticosteroids.

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

Table 5. Systemic Corticosteroid Use in Patients Who Were and Were Not Escalated to Biologics

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

Student t test.

Chi-square test.

Prednisolone equivalent (budesonide 9 mg=prednisolone 40 mg).

(n=164).

SCS, systemic corticosteroid; SD, standard deviation.