Clinical outcomes and predictors of response for adalimumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a KASID prospective multicenter cohort study

Seung Yong Shin; Soo Jung Park; Young Kim; Jong Pil Im; Hyo Jong Kim; Kang-Moon Lee; Ji Won Kim; Sung-Ae Jung; Jun Lee; Sang-Bum Kang; Sung Jae Shin; Eun Sun Kim; You Sun Kim; Tae Oh Kim; Hyun-Soo Kim; Dong Il Park; Hyung Kil Kim; Eun Soo Kim; Young-Ho Kim; Do Hyun Kim; Dennis Teng; Jong-Hwa Kim; Wonyong Kim; Chang Hwan Choi

doi:10.5217/ir.2021.00049

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Intest Res > Volume 20(3); 2022 > Article

Original Article Clinical outcomes and predictors of response for adalimumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a KASID prospective multicenter cohort study: Seung Yong Shin^1,*, Soo Jung Park^2,*, Young Kim¹, Jong Pil Im³, Hyo Jong Kim⁴, Kang-Moon Lee⁵, Ji Won Kim^3,6, Sung-Ae Jung⁷, Jun Lee⁸, Sang-Bum Kang⁹, Sung Jae Shin¹⁰, Eun Sun Kim¹¹, You Sun Kim¹², Tae Oh Kim¹³, Hyun-Soo Kim¹⁴, Dong Il Park¹⁵, Hyung Kil Kim¹⁶, Eun Soo Kim¹⁷, Young-Ho Kim¹⁸, Do Hyun Kim¹⁹, Dennis Teng²⁰, Jong-Hwa Kim²¹, Wonyong Kim²¹, Chang Hwan Choi^1,; Intestinal Research 2022;20(3):350-360.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2021.00049
Published online: July 23, 2021

¹Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Internal Medicine and Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁴Department of Gastroenterology, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

⁵Department of Gastroenterology, The Catholic University of Korea St. Vincent’s Hospital, Suwon, Korea

⁶Department of Gastroenterology, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

⁷Department of Gastroenterology, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁸Department of Internal Medicine, Chosun University College of Medicine, Gwangju, Korea

⁹Department of Internal Medicine, Daejeon St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea

¹⁰Department of Gastroenterology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea

¹¹Department of Gastroenterology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Korea

¹²Department of Gastroenterology, Inje University Seoul Paik Hospital, Seoul, Korea

¹³Department of Gastroenterology, Inje University Haeundae Paik Hospital, Busan, Korea

¹⁴Department of Gastroenterology, Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, Korea

¹⁵Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

¹⁶Department of Gastroenterology, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Korea

¹⁷Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

¹⁸Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

¹⁹AbbVie Ltd., Seoul, Korea

²⁰AbbVie Pte. Ltd., Singapore

²¹Department of Microbiology, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to Chang Hwan Choi, Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 102 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 06973, Korea. Tel: +82-2-6299-1418, Fax: +82-2-6299-2017, E-mail: gicch@cau.ac.kr

*These authors contributed equally to this work.

• Received: March 25, 2021 • Revised: June 8, 2021 • Accepted: June 9, 2021

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

prev next

7,864 Views
657 Download
17 Web of Science
15 Crossref
16 Scopus

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
Supplementary Material
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
This study assessed the efficacy and safety of adalimumab (ADA) and explored predictors of response in Korean patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).
Methods
A prospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted over 56 weeks in adult patients with moderately to severely active UC who received ADA. Clinical response, remission, and mucosal healing were assessed using the Mayo score.
Results
A total of 146 patients were enrolled from 17 academic hospitals. Clinical response rates were 52.1% and 37.7% and clinical remission rates were 24.0% and 22.0% at weeks 8 and 56, respectively. Mucosal healing rates were 39.0% and 30.1% at weeks 8 and 56, respectively. Prior use of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) did not affect clinical and endoscopic responses. The ADA drug level was significantly higher in patients with better outcomes at week 8 (P<0.05). In patients with lower endoscopic activity, higher body mass index, and higher serum albumin levels at baseline, the clinical response rate was higher at week 8. In patients with lower Mayo scores and C-reactive protein levels, clinical responses, and mucosal healing at week 8, the clinical response rate was higher at week 56. Serious adverse drug reactions were identified in 2.8% of patients.
Conclusions
ADA is effective and safe for induction and maintenance in Korean patients with UC, regardless of prior anti-TNF-α therapy. The ADA drug level is associated with the efficacy of induction therapy. Patients with better short-term outcomes were predictive of those with an improved long-term response.
Keywords: Inflammatory bowel disease; Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors; Treatment outcome

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic, idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) characterized by relapsing abdominal pain and bloody diarrhea with or without mucus [1]. The incidence and prevalence of UC have been reported as high in Northern Europe and North America and low in Asian countries [2-5]. However, researchers recently observed an increased number of UC patients in Asian countries including Korea, Japan, China, and Taiwan [6-8]. The incidence of UC in Asia has been rising in relation to rapid urbanization and a westernized lifestyle [9,10]. A population-based study performed in Korea showed that the incidence and prevalence of UC have been gradually increasing [10,11]. Furthermore, the genetic and clinical characteristics of IBD patients from Asia and Western countries are slightly different [12,13].

Adalimumab (ADA) is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody directed against tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) that inhibits the activity of the cytokine by blocking the interaction of TNF-α with its p55 and p75 cell surface receptors [14]. In Korea, ADA has been administered to patients with UC since 2013, and a nationwide population-based study showed that 27.6% were treated using ADA among patients who received anti-TNF-α therapy [10].

Till date, little information regarding the clinical outcomes of the use of ADA in the Korean population is available. Most published studies of clinical outcomes in IBD have been conducted on Western patients. Investigating the clinical outcomes of biologic agents in Korean IBD patients will enable a better understanding and optimal management of this condition. Therefore, we conducted a prospective, observational, multicenter study to evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of ADA and predictors of response in Korean patients with UC.

METHODS

1. Patients

This prospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted at 17 academic hospitals in Korea from June 2015 to September 2018. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at each center (IRB No. C2015020) and registered at clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier: NCT02499263). All patients provided written informed consent. All work was carried out in compliance with the Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects outlined in the Helsinki Declaration in 1975 (revised in 2000). All authors had access to the study data and reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Eligible patients were aged > 18 years and had moderately to severely active UC defined as a Mayo score [15] between 6 to 12, with an endoscopic subscore of at least 2, despite concurrent therapy with 5-aminosalicylic acid, corticosteroids, and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine. Previous use of anti-TNF-α agents other than ADA was permitted if the patient had discontinued its use owing to primary nonresponse, loss of response, or intolerance to the agent. Exclusion criteria were contraindications for using ADA including malignancy; severe infection such as active tuberculosis, invasive fungal infection, and opportunistic infection; being enrolled in other clinical trials; and pregnancy or breastfeeding. Patients were excluded if they chose to withdraw from the study or if the investigator discontinued ADA because of ethical or practical conflicts. Baseline assessment performed before administration of ADA, and details can be found in supplementary section.

2. Study Design

Patients received subcutaneous injections of ADA: 160 mg at week 0, 80 mg at week 2, and 40 mg every alternate week from week 4. Patients were evaluated at weeks 0 (baseline), 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and 56 in accordance with clinical practice. The window period was permitted as ± 1 week for every visit. All participants underwent safety evaluations ≤ 30 days after the last administration of ADA.

Analysis of Mayo scores, including endoscopic subscore, and fecal calprotectin (FC) levels and laboratory tests, were performed at weeks 8 and 56. ADA trough level was evaluated at week 8 and at loss of response, even if ADA dose escalated to weekly injection. Patients with inadequate response to ADA (40 mg every 2 weeks) were permitted to escalate the dosage to 40 mg every week. Patients with inadequate response to dose escalation discontinued the drug based on their physician’s judgement. Inadequate response was defined in supplementary section.

3. Outcomes

The primary outcomes were clinical response rates at weeks 8 and 56. Clinical response was defined as a decrease in Mayo score from baseline by ≥ 3 points and ≥ 30% with an accompanying decrease in rectal bleeding subscore of ≥ 1 point or an absolute rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients with clinical remission, steroid-free remission, and mucosal healing at weeks 8 and 56. Clinical remission was defined as a Mayo score ≤ 2 with no individual subscore exceeding 1 point. Steroid-free remission was defined as a clinical remission status with no use of systemic corticosteroids for 12 weeks before the date of investigation. Mucosal healing was defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1. Endoscopic remission was defined as an endoscopic subscore of 0. Predictors of response at weeks 8 and 56 were evaluated based on clinical characteristics at baseline and week 8. Safety evaluation was performed according to the recent version of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities version 20.0. Physical examination, investigation of vital signs, and laboratory tests were performed from baseline to week 56 and after 30 days from the last administration.

4. Statistical Methods

Analyses were performed with the intent-to-treat set. Missing or incomplete data were handled using the nonresponder imputation method, i.e., patients with missing or incomplete data were assumed to have not achieved the endpoint. Continuous variables are described with the number of subjects, arithmetic mean, and standard deviation. For categorical variables, the frequency and proportion are presented. For all the statistical tests, two-sided tests were conducted at the 0.05 significance level using the independent or paired t-test and the chi-square test. To identify factors associated with clinical response at weeks 8 and 56, variables that were significant in univariate analysis were subsequently tested in multivariate logistic regression analysis and expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate the drug persistence rate. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

RESULTS

1. Primary Endpoint

A total of 146 patients from 17 academic hospitals in Korea were enrolled and included in the analysis. Table 1 summarizes the baseline clinical characteristics of the participants.

Clinical response was achieved in 52.1% (76/146) of the patients at week 8 and 37.7% (55/146) of the patients at week 56 (Fig. 1A). Clinical response rate at week 56 in week 8 responders was 54.0% (41/76). Clinical response rate was not significantly different between patients who received anti-TNF-α and those who did not (Fig. 1B and C). The combination therapy with azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine in baseline was not associated with clinical response rate at both weeks 8 and 56 (Fig. 1D).

2. Secondary Endpoints

At week 8, 24.0% (35/146) of patients were in clinical remission, and 22.0% (32/146) of patients achieved clinical remission at week 56. Steroid-free clinical remission was achieved in 12.3% (18/146) of patients at week 8 and 21.2% (31/146) of patients at week 56. Mucosal healing was achieved in 39.0% (57/146) of patients at week 8 and 30.1% (44/146) at week 56 (Fig. 1A). Rates of clinical remission and mucosal healing were not significantly different between patients who received anti-TNF-α and those who did not (Fig. 1B and C). Twenty-five patients (17.1%) experienced dose escalation, and 40% and 20% of these achieved clinical response and remission at week 56, respectively.

3. Comparison of Clinical Characteristics between Clinical Responders and Nonresponders

A comparison of clinical characteristics between clinical responders and nonresponders can be found in Tables 2 and 3. Higher body mass index (BMI) (P=0.034) and serum albumin level (P=0.019), and less severe endoscopic findings (P=0.002) at baseline were associated with clinical response at week 8. Higher baseline BMI (P=0.017), and clinical response (P<0.001) and mucosal healing (P=0.008) at week 8 were associated with clinical response at week 56. Mayo score (P=0.026) and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level (P=0.035) at week 8 were significantly lower in clinical responders than in nonresponders at week 56. In the multivariate analysis, baseline non-severe endoscopic finding (OR, 2.951; 95% CI, 1.365–6.382; P=0.006) and clinical response (OR, 10.456; 95% CI, 1.903–57.458; P=0.007) at week 8 were independent predictive factors for clinical responses at week 8 and week 56, respectively (Table 4).

4. Exploratory Outcomes

Treatment persistence rate and causes of discontinuation can be found in Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 1. Clinical response rates according to the partial Mayo score can be found in Supplementary Fig. 2.

Mean serum ADA concentration (trough level, μg/mL) was significantly higher in patients who achieved clinical response (10.8 vs. 8.0, P=0.004), remission (11.7 vs. 8.3, P=0.007), and mucosal healing (11.0 vs. 8.5, P=0.010) than in those with no clinical response at week 8. Mean serum ADA level was 7.5 ± 6.4 μg/mL (range, 0.1–17.7 μg/mL) in patients who stopped ADA administration because of inadequate response (Fig. 2). FC and CRP levels associated with the clinical and endoscopic outcomes can be found in Fig. 3.

A total of 246 FC levels were collected at the 3 points, and the correlation with endoscopic findings was investigated by integrating them (Fig. 4). The FC level to predict mucosal healing was 274.7 mg/kg, with a sensitivity of 72.2% and specificity of 71.3% on the receiver operating curve (area under the curve, 0.771). The predictive level for endoscopic remission (Mayo subscore 0) was 87.9 mg/kg, with a sensitivity of 73.6% and specificity of 73.5% on the receiver operating curve (area under the curve, 0.774).

5. Safety

During the study period, 6.2% (9/146) of patients experienced adverse drug reactions. Serious adverse drug reactions that induced hospital admission were identified in 2.8% (4/146) of patients as follows: pneumonia, pulmonary tuberculosis, renal failure, and abdominal pain (Supplementary Table 2).

DISCUSSION

In this prospective multicenter study, we evaluated the real-world clinical effectiveness of ADA treatment and factors associated with the clinical response in Korean patients with moderately to severely active UC. Our study showed similar or slightly higher rates of clinical response and remission than 2 previous pivotal studies conducted in Western countries: ULTRA-1 and ULTRA-2 (response rates, 50.4%–54.6%; remission rates, 16.5%–18.5% at week 8 and 30.2%–17.3% at week 52) [14,16]. Several studies investigating the real-world efficacy of ADA have been reported worldwide. Although it is difficult to directly compare these results, because each study defined clinical response and remission differently, they show similar trends in outcomes [17-19]. A Japanese real-world study that applied the same definition for clinical response and remission as this study, reported similar outcomes [17]. The mucosal healing rate in our study tended to be lower than that reported in previous Western studies [18,19], but similar to that reported in a Japanese study [17]. Collectively, ADA was similarly effective for induction and maintenance treatments in Korean patients with active UC who were unresponsive to corticosteroids and/or azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine.

Previous experience with anti-TNF-α therapy was not found to impact the short- or long-term outcomes in our study. Prior anti-TNF-α therapy has been reported to have controversial effects on clinical outcomes of ADA in patients with UC. The ULTRA-2 and ULTRA-3 studies reported better outcomes in patients not treated with anti-TNF-α [14,20]. A retrospective multicenter study in Spain investigated the influence of previous anti-TNF-α use on the outcomes of ADA maintenance treatment in patients with UC; patients not previously treated with anti-TNF-α had a numerically higher rate of clinical response at week 56 without statistical significance [21]. They had significantly lower probabilities of avoiding colectomy and dose escalation. However, in a previous Hungarian prospective study, response to ADA and need for dose escalation were not associated with previous infliximab (IFX) therapy [19]. A retrospective study performed in Ireland showed a trend towards better outcomes in patients previously received anti-TNF-α compared with those who were not [22]. It is difficult to explain this inconsistency. Relatively small portion of patients with antiTNF-α (n=36, 24.7%), and higher rate of dose escalation in patient with anti-TNF exposure (41.9%) compared with anti-TNF naïve patients (9.0%) (data not shown) in our study may affect the results. Although a note of caution is due, ADA can be suggested as a beneficial option for Korean patients with moderately to severely active UC treated previously with anti-TNF-α therapy. In addition, the combination therapy with azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine did not affect clinical response rate. This finding is consistent with that of previous studies showing no efficacy-related benefits following immunomodulator/ADA combination therapy [20,23,24].

In this study, baseline BMI, endoscopic findings, and serum albumin level were associated with clinical response at week 8. At week 56, baseline BMI and clinical response, mucosal healing, CRP level, and Mayo score at week 8 were associated with clinical response. In the multivariate analysis, baseline non-severe endoscopic finding and clinical response at week 8 were independent factors for predicting response at weeks 8 and 52, respectively. Although it was a significant factor only in the univariate analysis, BMI was associated with both short- and long-term response. Previous studies have shown that obese patients tended to have higher risk of nonresponse to biologic agents because of their direct effect on inflammation and modification of pharmacokinetics [14,25,26]. However, average BMI of both responder and nonresponder groups were within the normal range in our study. Relatively higher BMI within the normal range might reflect less severe disease status. CRP level has been suggested as a predictor of poor outcome in UC patients [27] and considered a biomarker of response to IFX induction therapy [28,29]. Endoscopic finding is also one of the major factors determining the severity and prognosis of UC. In this study, the baseline CRP levels were lower in responders than in nonresponders, though without statistical significance. The less severe endoscopic activity was associated with better response to induction therapy of ADA. The findings from this study suggest that ADA therapy may be more effective in moderately active UC than in severely active UC.

Parameters associated with early response such as mucosal healing, clinical response, and CRP level were associated with long-term response. Mucosal healing has been reported to be associated with long-term clinical outcomes [18,30] and suggested as a predictive factor of long-term outcome in Korean UC patients treated with IFX [31]. Early clinical response has also been demonstrated as a predictive factor of better long-term clinical outcomes in several real-world studies [17,32,33]. In Korean patients with moderately to severely active UC, early response is also a positive predictor for long-term clinical response.

During the study period, 25 patients (17.1%) required dose escalation, and 40% and 20% of these regained clinical response and remission, respectively, at week 56. Compared to previous Western studies, the proportion of patients who experienced dose escalation in our study was relatively small; however, the clinical outcomes are similar to those of these studies [21,34,35].

Consistent with previous studies on mucosal healing-associated FC levels [36-38], in this study, FC levels were well correlated with not only patients’ clinical outcomes, but also endoscopic activities. The predictive level was 274.8 mg/kg for mucosal healing and 98 mg/kg for endoscopic remission. These novel findings can be used to predict endoscopic activities in UC patients.

Serum ADA concentrations (trough level) at week 8 were associated significantly with clinical outcomes of induction therapy. The mean ADA concentrations in patients without clinical response, remission, and mucosal healing were relatively higher compared with those in previous studies [39-41]. It can be assumed that different mechanisms other than signaling pathway via TNF may be involved in the development of UC in these patients. In addition, most previous studies included both patients with UC and Crohn’s disease, and few studies have been conducted to investigate ADA concentration in patients with UC only. A Belgian study including IFX responders and nonresponders showed similar ADA concentrations as those in this study with respect to short-term mucosal healing [42]. The researchers reported that the average ADA concentration of patients with mucosal healing at week 4 was 10.6 μg/mL, which was significantly higher than the concentration in those without mucosal healing (7.4 μg/mL, P=0.014). More real-world data may be needed to establish optimal level for treatment target, but our finding suggests that the higher the drug concentration at week 8 after ADA induction therapy, the better was the expected clinical effect.

No new safety signals were observed in the present study, and the incidence rate was similar to that described in other studies [18,43]. Any different tendency in safety from the approved label of ADA was not observed. Patients with severe adverse drug reactions including abdominal pain and pulmonary tuberculosis were treated properly, and no deaths were reported.

This was an observational study in routine clinical practice, having certain inherent limitations such as the lack of randomization, leading to potential bias. Moreover, the proportion of subjects who completed the evaluation without any major protocol deviation among the intent-to-treat set was relatively small. Therefore, with a small sample size, these data must be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, anti-ADA antibodies were not evaluated in this study, although it is used in clinical practice in Western countries. However, this study was the first multicenter prospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ADA in Korean UC patients in the real-life clinical setting and explore clinical predictors of response to ADA, including FC and ADA drug levels.

In conclusion, this study showed that ADA is effective and safe for Korean patients with moderately to severely active UC regardless of prior anti-TNF-α therapy. ADA drug level is associated with the efficacy of induction therapy. A good response to induction therapy suggests positive long-term outcomes in Korean patients with moderately to severely active UC.

NOTES

Funding Source

This work was funded by AbbVie Ltd., North Chicago, IL, USA and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) (Grant/Award No. NRF-2020R1F1A1075489). AbbVie was responsible for the study design, interpretation of data, reviewing and approving of the publication.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest to disclose, except for Teng D: employees of AbbVie, Inc. and may hold stock or stock options. Kim DH is a former employee of AbbVie, Inc.

Kim JW, Park DI, Kim YS are editorial board members of the journal but were not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Author Contribution

Designed the study: Choi CH, Park SJ, Im JP, Kim HJ, Jung SA, Kim HK, Kim JW, Lee KM, Lee J, Kang SB, Shin SJ, Kim YS, Kim TO, Kim HS, Park DI, Kim Eun Sun, Kim Eun Soo, Kim YH, Kim DH, Teng D. Data curation: Shin SY, Kim Y, Choi CH. Formal analysis: Shin SY, Kim Y, Kim JH, Kim W. Visualization: Shin SY, Kim Y, Choi CH. Writing – original draft: Shin SY, Park SJ. Writing – review & editing: Choi CH, Im JP, Kim HJ, Jung SA, Kim JW, Lee KM, Lee J, Kang SB, Shin SJ, Kim YS, Kim TO, Kim HS, Park DI, Kim HK, Kim Eun Sun, Kim Eun Soo, Kim YH. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Supplementary Material

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

Supplementary Table 1. Patients Who Discontinued Adalimumab and Related Reasons

ir-2021-00049-suppl1.pdf

Supplementary Table 2. Adverse Drug Reactions with Adalimumab

ir-2021-00049-suppl2.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 1. Proportion of patients remaining on adalimumab during the follow-up period.

ir-2021-00049-suppl3.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 2. Proportion of patients with clinical response and remission according to partial Mayo Clinic score.

ir-2021-00049-suppl4.pdf

Fig. 1.

Clinical response, remission, steroid-free remission, and mucosal healing rates according to the Mayo score at week 8 and 56 (A). Clinical outcomes according to prior anti-TNF-α therapy at week 8 (B) and at week 56 (C). Clinical response rates according to the use of immunomodulator at baseline (D). Clinical outcomes did not differ whether the patients had experienced anti-TNF therapy or not, and concomitant use of immunomodulator did not affect clinical response rate. TNF, tumor necrosis factor; AZA, azathioprine; 6-MP, 6-mercaptopurine.

Fig. 2.

Serum adalimumab concentration (μg/mL) according to clinical outcomes at week 8. Mean serum adalimumab levels were significantly higher in patients who achieved clinical response, remission, and mucosal healing than in those without clinical response, remission, and mucosal healing, respectively, at week 8.

Fig. 3.

Changes in mean fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein levels from baseline in clinical responders and nonresponders at week 8 (A, B) and in patients with and without mucosal healing at week 8 (C, D). Fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein levels significantly improved in patients achieving clinical response and mucosal healing compared with patients without clinical response and mucosal healing, respectively, at week 8. ^aP<0.05.

Fig. 4.

Fecal calprotectin (FC) levels according to endoscopic subscore (A), FC level to predict mucosal healing (B) and endoscopic remission (C) on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. FC levels were well correlated with patients’ endoscopic activities. The predictive level was 274.8 mg/kg for mucosal healing and 98 mg/kg for endoscopic remission, respectively. AUC, area under the ROC curve.

Table 1.

Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Participants

Characteristics	Participants (n = 146)
Age (yr)	44.9 ± 14.9
Male sex	50 (34.5)
Body weight (kg)	63.2 ± 12.2
BMI (kg/m²)^a	22.5 ± 3.6
Age at diagnosis (yr)	39.4 ± 15.5
Duration of disease (mo)^b	52.8 ± 49.6
Mayo score	8.7 ± 1.4
Endoscopic subscore	2.5 ± 0.5
Disease location
Proctitis	26 (17.8)
Left-sided colitis	65 (44.5)
Extensive colitis	50 (34.3)
Others	5 (3.4)
Fecal calprotectin (mg/kg)
Mean ± SD	894.6 ± 630.4
Median	906.0
C-reactive protein (mg/dL)
Mean ± SD	4.7 ± 11.4
Median	0.9
Albumin (g/dL)
Mean ± SD	3.8 ± 0.6
Median	3.9
Concomitant medication (overlapped)
5-Aminosalicylates	133 (94.3)
Methotrexate	3 (2.1)
Azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine	79 (56.0)
Cyclosporine/tacrolimus	0
Systemic corticosteroid	59 (41.8)
20 mg and above (daily dose)	43 (72.9)
Less than 20 mg (daily dose)	33 (55.9)
Prior anti-TNF therapy	36 (24.7)
One medication	34 (94.4)
Two medications and above	2 (5.6)

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

^a Data on BMI were available for 144 patients.

^b Data on duration of disease were available for 80 patients.

BMI, body mass index; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.

Table 2.

Comparison of Baseline Clinical Characteristics between Clinical Responders and Nonresponders at Week 8 Following Adalimumab Administration

Baseline clinical characteristics	Responder (n = 76)	Non-responder (n = 70)	P-value
Age (yr)	44.1 ± 14.9	45.9 ± 15.0	0.459
Male sex	46 (60.5)	50 (71.4)	0.165
Body mass index (kg/m²)	23.1 ± 3.9	21.8 ± 3.2	0.034
Mayo Clinic score	8.7 ± 1.4	8.8 ± 1.4	0.582
Partial Mayo score	6.2 ± 1.2	6.1 ± 1.3	0.558
Endoscopic finding			0.002
Moderate	44 (57.9)	23 (32.9)
Severe	32 (42.1)	47 (67.1)
Disease location			0.903
Proctitis	14 (18.4)	12 (17.1)
Left-sided colitis	33 (43.4)	33 (47.1)
Extensive colitis	29 (38.2)	25 (35.7)
Fecal calprotectin (mg/kg)	853.7 ± 620.9	950.2 ± 645.3	0.414
C-reactive protein (mg/dL)	3.3 ± 6.7	6.5 ± 15.0	0.109
Albumin (g/dL)	3.9 ± 0.6	3.7 ± 0.6	0.019
Concomitant medication (overlap)
5-Aminosalicylates	68 (89.5)	54 (77.1)	0.072
Azathioprine/6-MP	35 (46.1)	35 (50.0)	0.633
Systemic corticosteroid	25 (32.9)	19 (27.1)	0.449

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

6-MP, 6-mercaptopurine.

Table 3.

Comparison of Clinical Characteristics between Clinical Responders and Nonresponders at Week 56 Following Adalimumab Administration

Clinical characteristics	Responder (n = 55)	Non-responder (n = 91)	P-value
Baseline characteristics
Age (yr)	43.8 ± 14.9	45.7 ± 14.9	0.460
Male sex	33 (60.0)	63 (69.2)	0.255
Body mass index (kg/m²)	23.4 ± 3.9	22.0 ± 3.3	0.017
Mayo Clinic score	9.0 ± 1.3	8.6 ± 1.4	0.096
Partial Mayo score	6.4 ± 1.1	6.0 ± 1.3	0.094
Endoscopic finding			0.671
Moderate	24 (43.6)	43 (47.3)
Severe	31 (56.4)	48 (52.7)
Disease location			0.304
Proctitis	7 (12.7)	19 (20.9)
Left-sided colitis	24 (43.6)	42 (46.2)
Extensive colitis	24 (43.6)	30 (33.0)
Fecal calprotectin (mg/kg)	850.4 ± 617.1	920.8 ± 640.9	0.559
C-reactive protein (mg/dL)	3.1 ± 5.9	5.9 ± 15.0	0.109
Albumin (g/dL)	3.8 ± 0.6	3.8 ± 0.6	0.546
Concomitant medication (overlap)
5-Aminosalicylates	49 (89.1)	73 (80.2)	0.161
Azathioprine/6-MP	30 (54.5)	40 (44.0)	0.215
Systemic corticosteroid	17 (30.9)	27(29.7)	0.874
Characteristics at week 8
Clinical response	41 (74.5)	35 (38.5)	< 0.001
Mucosal healing	29 (52.7)	28 (30.8)	0.008
Mayo score	3.2 ± 2.3	4.4 ± 3.1	0.026
Partial Mayo score	1.9 ± 1.6	3.0 ± 2.3	0.001
C-reactive protein (mg/dL)	0.9 ± 1.3	2.2 ± 4.9	0.035
Fecal calprotectin (mg/kg)	422.5 ± 505.7	317.7 ± 435.8	0.187
Albumin (g/dL)	4.2 ± 0.5	4.0 ± 0.5	0.139
Adalimumab trough level (μg/mL)	9.3 ± 5.0	9.9 ± 5.4	0.550
Concomitant use of azathioprine/6-MP	27 (49.1)	31 (34.1)	0.072

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

6-MP, 6-mercaptopurine.

Table 4.

Multivariate Analysis for Predictive Factors of Clinical Response to Adalimumab at Weeks 8 and 56

Predictive factor	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Clinical response at week
8 Baseline
BMI ≥ 23 kg/m²	1.218 (0.578–2.567)	0.604
Non-severe endoscopic finding	2.951 (1.365–6.382)	0.006
Albumin ≥ 4.0 g/dL	1.497 (0.697–3.214)	0.301
Clinical response at week 56
Week 8
Clinical response	10.456 (1.903–57.458)	0.007
Mucosal healing	0.777 (0.185–3.260)	0.731
Mayo score ≤ 3	2.046 (0.268–15.641)	0.490
Partial Mayo score ≤ 2	0.296 (0.040–2.189)	0.233
C-reactive protein ≤ 1 mg/dL	1.748 (0.479–6.375)	0.398

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index.

REFERENCES

1. Danese S, Fiocchi C. Ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1713–1725.Article PubMed
2. Cosnes J, Gower-Rousseau C, Seksik P, Cortot A. Epidemiology and natural history of inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterology 2011;140:1785–1794.Article PubMed
3. Molodecky NA, Soon IS, Rabi DM, et al. Increasing incidence and prevalence of the inflammatory bowel diseases with time, based on systematic review. Gastroenterology 2012;142:46–54.Article PubMed
4. Loftus CG, Loftus EV Jr, Harmsen WS, et al. Update on the incidence and prevalence of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1940-2000. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2007;13:254–261.Article PubMed
5. Yang SK, Loftus EV Jr, Sandborn WJ. Epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease in Asia. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2001;7:260–270.Article PubMed
6. Lakatos PL. Recent trends in the epidemiology of inflammatory bowel diseases: up or down? World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:6102–6108.Article PubMed PMC
7. Ng WK, Wong SH, Ng SC. Changing epidemiological trends of inflammatory bowel disease in Asia. Intest Res 2016;14:111–119.Article PubMed PMC
8. Yen HH, Weng MT, Tung CC, et al. Epidemiological trend in inflammatory bowel disease in Taiwan from 2001 to 2015: a nationwide populationbased study. Intest Res 2019;17:54–62.Article PubMed PMC
9. Prideaux L, Kamm MA, De Cruz PP, Chan FK, Ng SC. Inflammatory bowel disease in Asia: a systematic review. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;27:1266–1280.Article PubMed
10. Jung YS, Han M, Kim WH, Park S, Cheon JH. Incidence and clinical outcomes of inflammatory bowel disease in South Korea, 2011-2014: a nationwide population-based study. Dig Dis Sci 2017;62:2102–2112.Article PubMed
11. 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
12. Lee JH, Cheon JH, Kim ES, et al. The prevalence and clinical significance of perinuclear anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody in Korean patients with ulcerative colitis. Dig Dis Sci 2010;55:1406–1412.Article PubMed
13. Park SH, Kim YM, Yang SK, et al. Clinical features and natural history of ulcerative colitis in Korea. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2007;13:278–283.Article PubMed
14. Sandborn WJ, van Assche G, Reinisch W, et al. Adalimumab induces and maintains clinical remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2012;142:257–265.Article PubMed
15. Schroeder KW, Tremaine WJ, Ilstrup DM. Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis: a randomized study. N Engl J Med 1987;317:1625–1629.Article PubMed
16. Reinisch W, Sandborn WJ, Hommes DW, et al. Adalimumab for induction of clinical remission in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: results of a randomised controlled trial. Gut 2011;60:780–787.Article PubMed
17. Suzuki Y, Motoya S, Hanai H, et al. Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in Japanese patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. J Gastroenterol 2014;49:283–294.Article PubMed PMC
18. Muñoz-Villafranca C, Ortiz de Zarate J, Arreba P, et al. Adalimumab treatment of anti-TNF-naïve patients with ulcerative colitis: deep remission and response factors. Dig Liver Dis 2018;50:812–819.Article PubMed
19. Bálint A, Farkas K, Palatka K, et al. Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in ulcerative colitis refractory to conventional therapy in routine clinical practice. J Crohns Colitis 2016;10:26–30.Article PubMed
20. Dulai PS, Siegel CA, Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Peyrin-Biroulet L. Systematic review: monotherapy with antitumour necrosis factor α agents versus combination therapy with an immunosuppressive for IBD. Gut 2014;63:1843–1853.Article PubMed
21. Taxonera C, Iglesias E, Muñoz F, et al. Adalimumab maintenance treatment in ulcerative colitis: outcomes by prior antiTNF use and efficacy of dose escalation. Dig Dis Sci 2017;62:481–490.Article PubMed
22. Hussey M, Mc Garrigle R, Kennedy U, et al. Long-term assessment of clinical response to adalimumab therapy in refractory ulcerative colitis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;28:217–221.Article PubMed
23. Colombel JF, Jharap B, Sandborn WJ, et al. Effects of concomitant immunomodulators on the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who had failed conventional therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2017;45:50–62.Article PubMed PMC
24. Matsumoto T, Motoya S, Watanabe K, et al. Adalimumab monotherapy and a combination with azathioprine for Crohn’s disease: a prospective, randomized trial. J Crohns Colitis 2016;10:1259–1266.Article PubMed
25. Harper JW, Sinanan MN, Zisman TL. Increased body mass index is associated with earlier time to loss of response to infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013;19:2118–2124.Article PubMed
26. Dahiya DS, Kichloo A, Wani F, Singh J, Solanki D, Shaka H. A nationwide analysis on the influence of obesity in inflammatory bowel disease hospitalizations. Intest Res 2022;20:342–349.Article
27. Henriksen M, Jahnsen J, Lygren I, et al. C-reactive protein: a predictive factor and marker of inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease: results from a prospective population-based study. Gut 2008;57:1518–1523.Article PubMed
28. Iwasa R, Yamada A, Sono K, Furukawa R, Takeuchi K, Suzuki Y. C-reactive protein level at 2 weeks following initiation of infliximab induction therapy predicts outcomes in patients with ulcerative colitis: a 3 year follow-up study. BMC Gastroenterol 2015;15:103.Article PubMed PMC
29. Con D, Andrew B, Nicolaides S, van Langenberg DR, Vasudevan A. Biomarker dynamics during infliximab salvage for acute severe ulcerative colitis: C-reactive protein (CRP)-lymphocyte ratio and CRP-albumin ratio are useful in predicting colectomy. Intest Res 2022;20:101–113.Article
30. Ardizzone S, Cassinotti A, Duca P, et al. Mucosal healing predicts late outcomes after the first course of corticosteroids for newly diagnosed ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:483–489.Article PubMed
31. Lee KM, Jeen YT, Cho JY, et al. Efficacy, safety, and predictors of response to infliximab therapy for ulcerative colitis: a Korean multicenter retrospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;28:1829–1833.Article PubMed
32. Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease; Armuzzi A, Biancone L, et al. Adalimumab in active ulcerative colitis: a “real-life” observational study. Dig Liver Dis 2013;45:738–743.Article PubMed
33. Taxonera C, Estellés J, Fernández-Blanco I, et al. Adalimumab induction and maintenance therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis previously treated with infliximab. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;33:340–348.Article PubMed
34. Van de Vondel S, Baert F, Reenaers C, et al. Incidence and predictors of success of adalimumab dose escalation and de-escalation in ulcerative colitis: a real-world Belgian cohort study. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018;24:1099–1105.Article PubMed
35. Wolf D, D’Haens G, Sandborn WJ, et al. Escalation to weekly dosing recaptures response in adalimumab-treated patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014;40:486–497.Article PubMed
36. Lin WC, Wong JM, Tung CC, et al. Fecal calprotectin correlated with endoscopic remission for Asian inflammatory bowel disease patients. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:13566–13573.Article PubMed PMC
37. Lee SH, Kim MJ, Chang K, et al. Fecal calprotectin predicts complete mucosal healing and better correlates with the ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity than with the Mayo endoscopic subscore in patients with ulcerative colitis. BMC Gastroenterol 2017;17:110.Article PubMed PMC PDF
38. Kristensen V, Røseth A, Ahmad T, Skar V, Moum B. Fecal calprotectin: a reliable predictor of mucosal healing after treatment for active ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2017;2017:2098293.Article PubMed PMC
39. Yarur AJ, Jain A, Hauenstein SI, et al. Higher adalimumab levels are associated with histologic and endoscopic remission in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2016;22:409–415.Article PubMed
40. Bodini G, Giannini EG, Savarino V, et al. Adalimumab trough serum levels and anti-adalimumab antibodies in the long-term clinical outcome of patients with Crohn’s disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 2016;51:1081–1086.Article PubMed
41. Paul S, Moreau AC, Del Tedesco E, et al. Pharmacokinetics of adalimumab in inflammatory bowel diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2014;20:1288–1295.PubMed
42. Papamichael K, Baert F, Tops S, et al. Post-induction adalimumab concentration is associated with short-term mucosal healing in patients with ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis 2017;11:53–59.Article PubMed
43. Ogata H, Hagiwara T, Kawaberi T, Kobayashi M, Hibi T. Safety and effectiveness of adalimumab in the treatment of ulcerative colitis: results from a large-scale, prospective, multicenter, observational study. Intest Res 2021;19:419–429.Article

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Prospective Observational Evaluation of the Time-Dependency of Adalimumab Immunogenicity and Drug Concentration in Ulcerative Colitis Patients: the POETIC II Study
Sivan Harnik, Chaya M Abitbol, Ola Haj Natour, Miri Yavzori, Ella Fudim, Orit Picard, Timna Naftali, Efrat Broide, Ayal Hirsch, Limor Selinger, Eyal Shachar, Doron Yablecovitch, Ahmad Albshesh, Daniel Coscas, Uri Kopylov, Rami Eliakim, Shomron Ben-Horin,
Journal of Crohn's and Colitis.2024; 18(3): 341. CrossRef
Rapidly achieving clinical remission in ulcerative colitis indicates better endoscopic and histological outcomes
Rirong Chen, Yizhe Tie, Yongle Huang, Xi Zhang, Zhirong Zeng, Minhu Chen, Li Li, Shenghong Zhang
United European Gastroenterology Journal.2024; 12(4): 459. CrossRef
Effectiveness of adalimumab in severe ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and a meta‐analysis
Saleh Azadbakht, Masomeh Seighali, Salehe Azadbakht, Morteza Azadbakht
Health Science Reports.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Dynamic changes in the gut microbiota composition during adalimumab therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis: implications for treatment response prediction and therapeutic targets
Han Na Oh, Seung Yong Shin, Jong-Hwa Kim, Jihye Baek, Hyo Jong Kim, Kang-Moon Lee, Soo Jung Park, Seok-Young Kim, Hyung-Kyoon Choi, Wonyong Kim, Woo Jun Sul, Chang Hwan Choi
Gut Pathogens.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Real-world effectiveness and safety of advanced therapies for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: Evidence from a systematic literature review
Peter M. Irving, Peter Hur, Raju Gautam, Xiang Guo, Severine Vermeire
Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy.2024; 30(9): 1026. CrossRef
Korean clinical practice guidelines on biologics and small molecules for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis
Soo-Young Na, Chang Hwan Choi, Eun Mi Song, Ki Bae Bang, Sang Hyoung Park, Eun Soo Kim, Jae Jun Park, Bora Keum, Chang Kyun Lee, Bo-In Lee, Seung-Bum Ryoo, Seong-Joon Koh, Miyoung Choi, Joo Sung Kim
Intestinal Research.2023; 21(1): 61. CrossRef
Changes in fecal metabolic and lipidomic features by anti-TNF treatment and prediction of clinical remission in patients with ulcerative colitis
Seok-Young Kim, Seung Yong Shin, Soo Jung Park, Jong Pil Im, Hyo Jong Kim, Kang-Moon Lee, Ji Won Kim, Sung-Ae Jung, Jun Lee, Sang-Bum Kang, Sung Jae Shin, Eun Sun Kim, You Sun Kim, Tae Oh Kim, Hyun-Soo Kim, Dong Il Park, Hyung Kil Kim, Eun Soo Kim, Young-
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Reviewing not Homer’s Iliad, but “Kai Bao Ben Cao”: indigo dye—the past, present, and future
Yusuke Yoshimatsu, Tomohisa Sujino, Takanori Kanai
Intestinal Research.2023; 21(2): 174. CrossRef
Precision medicine and drug optimization in adult inflammatory bowel disease patients
Sophie Vieujean, Edouard Louis
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Real-world effectiveness and safety of adalimumab in Korean patients with intestinal Behcet’s disease: a Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID) multicenter study
Seung Bum Lee, Hee Seung Hong, Chang Kyun Lee, Bo-In Lee, Sol Kim, Seong-Joon Koh, Hosun Yu, Jung-Bin Park, Sung Wook Hwang, Byong Duk Ye, Suk-Kyun Yang, Sang Hyoung Park
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine.2023; 38(5): 661. CrossRef
Advancements in the Management of Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis: A Revised 2023 Korean Treatment Guidelines
Soo-Young Na
The Korean Journal of Medicine.2023; 98(5): 223. CrossRef
Prediction of Clinical Remission with Adalimumab Therapy in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis by Fourier Transform–Infrared Spectroscopy Coupled with Machine Learning Algorithms
Seok-Young Kim, Seung Yong Shin, Maham Saeed, Ji Eun Ryu, Jung-Seop Kim, Junyoung Ahn, Youngmi Jung, Jung Min Moon, Chang Hwan Choi, Hyung-Kyoon Choi
Metabolites.2023; 14(1): 2. CrossRef
Association of C-reactive Protein and Partial Mayo Score With Response to Tofacitinib Induction Therapy: Results From the Ulcerative Colitis Clinical Program
Marla C Dubinsky, Fernando Magro, Flavio Steinwurz, David P Hudesman, Jami A Kinnucan, Ryan C Ungaro, Markus F Neurath, Nicole Kulisek, Jerome Paulissen, Chinyu Su, Dario Ponce de Leon, Miguel Regueiro
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Effectiveness and Safety of Golimumab in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: A Multicenter, Prospective, Postmarketing Surveillance Study
Jongwook Yu, Soo Jung Park, Hyung Wook Kim, Yun Jeong Lim, Jihye Park, Jae Myung Cha, Byong Duk Ye, Tae Oh Kim, Hyun-Soo Kim, Hyun Seok Lee, Su Young Jung, Youngdoe Kim, Chang Hwan Choi
Gut and Liver.2022; 16(5): 764. CrossRef
Pharmacogenetics-based personalized treatment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A review
Ji Young Chang, Jae Hee Cheon
Precision and Future Medicine.2021; 5(4): 151. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

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

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Clinical outcomes and predictors of response for adalimumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a KASID prospective multicenter cohort study

Intest Res. 2022;20(3):350-360. Published online July 23, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2021.00049

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Clinical outcomes and predictors of response for adalimumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a KASID prospective multicenter cohort study

Fig. 1. Clinical response, remission, steroid-free remission, and mucosal healing rates according to the Mayo score at week 8 and 56 (A). Clinical outcomes according to prior anti-TNF-α therapy at week 8 (B) and at week 56 (C). Clinical response rates according to the use of immunomodulator at baseline (D). Clinical outcomes did not differ whether the patients had experienced anti-TNF therapy or not, and concomitant use of immunomodulator did not affect clinical response rate. TNF, tumor necrosis factor; AZA, azathioprine; 6-MP, 6-mercaptopurine.

Fig. 2. Serum adalimumab concentration (μg/mL) according to clinical outcomes at week 8. Mean serum adalimumab levels were significantly higher in patients who achieved clinical response, remission, and mucosal healing than in those without clinical response, remission, and mucosal healing, respectively, at week 8.

Fig. 3. Changes in mean fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein levels from baseline in clinical responders and nonresponders at week 8 (A, B) and in patients with and without mucosal healing at week 8 (C, D). Fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein levels significantly improved in patients achieving clinical response and mucosal healing compared with patients without clinical response and mucosal healing, respectively, at week 8. aP<0.05.

Fig. 4. Fecal calprotectin (FC) levels according to endoscopic subscore (A), FC level to predict mucosal healing (B) and endoscopic remission (C) on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. FC levels were well correlated with patients’ endoscopic activities. The predictive level was 274.8 mg/kg for mucosal healing and 98 mg/kg for endoscopic remission, respectively. AUC, area under the ROC curve.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Clinical outcomes and predictors of response for adalimumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a KASID prospective multicenter cohort study

Characteristics	Participants (n = 146)
Age (yr)	44.9 ± 14.9
Male sex	50 (34.5)
Body weight (kg)	63.2 ± 12.2
BMI (kg/m²)^a	22.5 ± 3.6
Age at diagnosis (yr)	39.4 ± 15.5
Duration of disease (mo)^b	52.8 ± 49.6
Mayo score	8.7 ± 1.4
Endoscopic subscore	2.5 ± 0.5
Disease location
Proctitis	26 (17.8)
Left-sided colitis	65 (44.5)
Extensive colitis	50 (34.3)
Others	5 (3.4)
Fecal calprotectin (mg/kg)
Mean ± SD	894.6 ± 630.4
Median	906.0
C-reactive protein (mg/dL)
Mean ± SD	4.7 ± 11.4
Median	0.9
Albumin (g/dL)
Mean ± SD	3.8 ± 0.6
Median	3.9
Concomitant medication (overlapped)
5-Aminosalicylates	133 (94.3)
Methotrexate	3 (2.1)
Azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine	79 (56.0)
Cyclosporine/tacrolimus	0
Systemic corticosteroid	59 (41.8)
20 mg and above (daily dose)	43 (72.9)
Less than 20 mg (daily dose)	33 (55.9)
Prior anti-TNF therapy	36 (24.7)
One medication	34 (94.4)
Two medications and above	2 (5.6)

Baseline clinical characteristics	Responder (n = 76)	Non-responder (n = 70)	P-value
Age (yr)	44.1 ± 14.9	45.9 ± 15.0	0.459
Male sex	46 (60.5)	50 (71.4)	0.165
Body mass index (kg/m²)	23.1 ± 3.9	21.8 ± 3.2	0.034
Mayo Clinic score	8.7 ± 1.4	8.8 ± 1.4	0.582
Partial Mayo score	6.2 ± 1.2	6.1 ± 1.3	0.558
Endoscopic finding			0.002
Moderate	44 (57.9)	23 (32.9)
Severe	32 (42.1)	47 (67.1)
Disease location			0.903
Proctitis	14 (18.4)	12 (17.1)
Left-sided colitis	33 (43.4)	33 (47.1)
Extensive colitis	29 (38.2)	25 (35.7)
Fecal calprotectin (mg/kg)	853.7 ± 620.9	950.2 ± 645.3	0.414
C-reactive protein (mg/dL)	3.3 ± 6.7	6.5 ± 15.0	0.109
Albumin (g/dL)	3.9 ± 0.6	3.7 ± 0.6	0.019
Concomitant medication (overlap)
5-Aminosalicylates	68 (89.5)	54 (77.1)	0.072
Azathioprine/6-MP	35 (46.1)	35 (50.0)	0.633
Systemic corticosteroid	25 (32.9)	19 (27.1)	0.449

Clinical characteristics	Responder (n = 55)	Non-responder (n = 91)	P-value
Baseline characteristics
Age (yr)	43.8 ± 14.9	45.7 ± 14.9	0.460
Male sex	33 (60.0)	63 (69.2)	0.255
Body mass index (kg/m²)	23.4 ± 3.9	22.0 ± 3.3	0.017
Mayo Clinic score	9.0 ± 1.3	8.6 ± 1.4	0.096
Partial Mayo score	6.4 ± 1.1	6.0 ± 1.3	0.094
Endoscopic finding			0.671
Moderate	24 (43.6)	43 (47.3)
Severe	31 (56.4)	48 (52.7)
Disease location			0.304
Proctitis	7 (12.7)	19 (20.9)
Left-sided colitis	24 (43.6)	42 (46.2)
Extensive colitis	24 (43.6)	30 (33.0)
Fecal calprotectin (mg/kg)	850.4 ± 617.1	920.8 ± 640.9	0.559
C-reactive protein (mg/dL)	3.1 ± 5.9	5.9 ± 15.0	0.109
Albumin (g/dL)	3.8 ± 0.6	3.8 ± 0.6	0.546
Concomitant medication (overlap)
5-Aminosalicylates	49 (89.1)	73 (80.2)	0.161
Azathioprine/6-MP	30 (54.5)	40 (44.0)	0.215
Systemic corticosteroid	17 (30.9)	27(29.7)	0.874
Characteristics at week 8
Clinical response	41 (74.5)	35 (38.5)	< 0.001
Mucosal healing	29 (52.7)	28 (30.8)	0.008
Mayo score	3.2 ± 2.3	4.4 ± 3.1	0.026
Partial Mayo score	1.9 ± 1.6	3.0 ± 2.3	0.001
C-reactive protein (mg/dL)	0.9 ± 1.3	2.2 ± 4.9	0.035
Fecal calprotectin (mg/kg)	422.5 ± 505.7	317.7 ± 435.8	0.187
Albumin (g/dL)	4.2 ± 0.5	4.0 ± 0.5	0.139
Adalimumab trough level (μg/mL)	9.3 ± 5.0	9.9 ± 5.4	0.550
Concomitant use of azathioprine/6-MP	27 (49.1)	31 (34.1)	0.072

Predictive factor	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Clinical response at week
8 Baseline
BMI ≥ 23 kg/m²	1.218 (0.578–2.567)	0.604
Non-severe endoscopic finding	2.951 (1.365–6.382)	0.006
Albumin ≥ 4.0 g/dL	1.497 (0.697–3.214)	0.301
Clinical response at week 56
Week 8
Clinical response	10.456 (1.903–57.458)	0.007
Mucosal healing	0.777 (0.185–3.260)	0.731
Mayo score ≤ 3	2.046 (0.268–15.641)	0.490
Partial Mayo score ≤ 2	0.296 (0.040–2.189)	0.233
C-reactive protein ≤ 1 mg/dL	1.748 (0.479–6.375)	0.398

Table 1. Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Participants

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

Data on BMI were available for 144 patients.

Data on duration of disease were available for 80 patients.

BMI, body mass index; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.

Table 2. Comparison of Baseline Clinical Characteristics between Clinical Responders and Nonresponders at Week 8 Following Adalimumab Administration

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

6-MP, 6-mercaptopurine.

Table 3. Comparison of Clinical Characteristics between Clinical Responders and Nonresponders at Week 56 Following Adalimumab Administration

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

6-MP, 6-mercaptopurine.

Table 4. Multivariate Analysis for Predictive Factors of Clinical Response to Adalimumab at Weeks 8 and 56