Week 2 remission with vedolizumab as a predictor of long-term remission in patients with ulcerative colitis: a multicenter, retrospective, observational study

Taku Kobayashi; Tadakazu Hisamatsu; Satoshi Motoya; Toshimitsu Fujii; Reiko Kunisaki; Tomoyoshi Shibuya; Minoru Matsuura; Ken Takeuchi; Sakiko Hiraoka; Hiroshi Yasuda; Kaoru Yokoyama; Noritaka Takatsu; Atsuo Maemoto; Toshiyuki Tahara; Keiichi Tominaga; Masaaki Shimada; Nobuaki Kuno; Mary Cavaliere; Kaori Ishiguro; Jovelle L Fernandez; Toshifumi Hibi

doi:10.5217/ir.2025.00047

Articles

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

Original Article Week 2 remission with vedolizumab as a predictor of long-term remission in patients with ulcerative colitis: a multicenter, retrospective, observational study: Taku Kobayashi¹, Tadakazu Hisamatsu², Satoshi Motoya³, Toshimitsu Fujii⁴, Reiko Kunisaki⁵, Tomoyoshi Shibuya⁶, Minoru Matsuura², Ken Takeuchi⁷, Sakiko Hiraoka⁸, Hiroshi Yasuda⁹, Kaoru Yokoyama¹⁰, Noritaka Takatsu¹¹, Atsuo Maemoto¹², Toshiyuki Tahara¹³, Keiichi Tominaga¹⁴, Masaaki Shimada¹⁵, Nobuaki Kuno¹⁶, Mary Cavaliere¹⁷, Kaori Ishiguro¹⁷, Jovelle L Fernandez¹⁷, Toshifumi Hibi¹; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00047
Published online: July 14, 2025

¹Center for Advanced IBD Research and Treatment, Kitasato University Kitasato Institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

²Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

³Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Sapporo-Kosei General Hospital, Sapporo, Japan

⁴Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Institute of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

⁵Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Japan

⁶Department of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

⁷Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, IBD Center, Tsujinaka Hospital Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Japan

⁸Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan

⁹Department of Gastroenterology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan

¹⁰Department of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Sagamihara, Japan

¹¹Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Fukuoka University Chikushi Hospital, Chikushino, Japan

¹²Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Sapporo Higashi Tokushukai Hospital, Sapporo, Japan

¹³Department of Gastroenterology, Saiseikai Utsunomiya Hospital, Utsunomiya, Japan

¹⁴Department of Gastroenterology, Dokkyo Medical University, Mibu, Japan

¹⁵Department of Gastroenterology, NHO Nagoya Medical Center, Nagoya, Japan

¹⁶Department of Gastroenterology and Medicine, Fukuoka University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan

¹⁷Japan Medical Office, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Tokyo, Japan

Correspondence to Toshifumi Hibi, Center for Advanced IBD Research and Treatment, Kitasato University Kitasato Institute Hospital, 5-9-1, Shirokane, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8642, Japan. E-mail: thibi@insti.kitasato-u.ac.jp

• Received: April 9, 2024 • Revised: March 25, 2025 • Accepted: April 6, 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.

4,775 Views
583 Download
1 Crossref

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
Supplementary Material
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
Vedolizumab (VDZ), a gut-selective monoclonal antibody for ulcerative colitis (UC) treatment, has no established biomarkers or clinical features that predict long-term remission. Week 2 remission, a potential predictor of long-term remission, could inform maintenance treatment strategy.
Methods
This retrospective, observational chart review included patients with UC in Japan who initiated VDZ between December 2018 and February 2020. Outcome measures included 14- and 54-week remission rates in patients with week 2 and non-week 2 remission (remission by week 14), 54-week remission rates in patients with week 14 remission and primary nonresponse, and predictive factors of week 2 and week 54 remission (logistic regression).
Results
Overall, 332 patients with UC (176 biologic-naïve and 156 biologic-non-naïve) were included. Significantly more biologic-naïve than biologic-non-naïve patients achieved week 2 remission (36.9% vs. 28.2%; odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–1.94; P=0.0224). Week 54 remission rates were significantly different between week 14 remission and primary nonresponse (both groups: P<0.0001), and between week 2 and non-week 2 remission (all patients: OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.30–4.48; P=0.0052; biologic-naïve patients: OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.10–5.24; P=0.0280). Week 2 remission predictors were male sex, no anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha exposure, and normal/mild endoscopic findings. Week 54 remission was significantly associated with week 2 remission and no tacrolimus use.
Conclusions
Week 2 remission with VDZ is a predictor of week 54 remission in patients with UC. Week 2 may be used as an evaluation point for UC treatment decisions. (Japanese Registry of Clinical Trials: jRCT-1080225363)
Keywords: Colitis, ulcerative; Inflammatory bowel diseases; Japan; Vedolizumab

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC), a chronic inflammatory disease of the colon, has a major impact on disease burden worldwide [1] and is estimated to affect approximately 900,000 people in the United States [2] and more than 220,000 people in Japan [3]. Treatment targets entail both rapid relief of symptoms and endoscopic and histological healing, which are associated with longer-term outcomes, including improvements in quality of life [1,4,5]. Pharmacological treatment of moderately to severely active UC typically includes use of 5-aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, and immunomodulators followed by a step-up to biologic therapies such as tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (anti-TNFα), ustekinumab, and vedolizumab (VDZ), or a Janus kinase inhibitor [5]. Remarkable progress has been made in the treatment of UC, with the approval of various therapeutic agents with different mechanisms. However, to date, biomarkers and clinical features that can predict long-term prognosis and clinical remission have not been established. Identification of early predictors of long-term remission would help inform patient selection and timely treatment escalation, and contribute to a more personalized approach to treatment. In addition, it is also important to identify clinical features that predict rapid improvement (e.g., remission at week 2) in clinical symptoms, which can be used to determine the appropriateness of continuing maintenance therapy and may also contribute to a more individualized treatment.

VDZ, a gut-selective monoclonal antibody, reduces inflammation by binding to α₄β₇ integrin, which is expressed on the surface of lymphocytes, and blocking the binding of the α₄β₇ integrin to its ligand, MAdCAM-1, thereby preventing T lymphocytes from entering gut tissue [6,7]. Approval of VDZ for treatment of patients with moderately to severely active UC was based on the findings from the global phase 3 GEMINI 1 trial [8], which showed that VDZ was more effective than placebo as induction therapy and as maintenance therapy in patients who responded to VDZ in the induction phase. Several studies have also been conducted to identify predictors of response to VDZ, with most being focused on long-term prognosis and remission [9-11]. However, studies focusing on week 2 remission and its effect as a predictor of long-term remission at week 54 are limited.

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective chart review of patients with UC to evaluate factors that contribute to responsiveness to treatment with VDZ. The objective of the current analysis of this chart review was to examine week 2 remission as a predictor of long-term remission at week 54, and the rate and predictors of week 2 remission.

METHODS

1. Study Design

This was a retrospective, observational chart review using data from hospital medical records, including case notes, prescribing records, and laboratory and investigation reports (Japanese Registry of Clinical Trials: jRCT-1080225363). Patients with UC from 16 tertiary hospitals in Japan were eligible if they received at least one dose of intravenous VDZ between December 1, 2018, and February 29, 2020. The index date was the date a patient received their first dose of VDZ, and the observation period was 54 weeks. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the Ethical Guideline for Clinical Research (the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, December 22, 2014), and all applicable laws and regulations, including, without limitation, data privacy laws and conflict of interest guidelines. The study protocol and the participant information sheet/opt-out form were submitted to the relevant independent ethics committees (IECs) and/or institutional review boards (IRBs) according to local requirements, and were approved by each participating study site (Supplementary Table 1). Informed consent was not required as personal identifiable data were not collected; however, informed consent was obtained if requested by an IEC/IRB, and all study sites were required to provide patients with the right to refuse collection of their data. Patients could also use an IEC-approved form to opt out at any time, from study site approval to the end of data collection at that site, in which case their data had to be deleted.

2. Study Population

1) Inclusion Criteria

Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of UC were included if they were aged ≥ 20 years at VDZ initiation and initiated VDZ in Japan during the eligibility period. Patients were also required to have medical information available from the date of their UC diagnosis. As this was an observational study, disease severity was determined by the attending physician. It was assumed that VDZ was used at the physician’s discretion in accordance with the package insert for VDZ in Japan; VDZ was administered at a dose of 300 mg via intravenous drip at weeks 0, 2, and 6, and every 8 weeks thereafter.

2) Exclusion Criteria

Patients were excluded from the study if they received VDZ as part of a clinical trial or interventional clinical study at another institution, initiated VDZ in combination with another biologic, or were enrolled in another clinical trial or interventional clinical study for inflammatory bowel disease when they initiated VDZ. Patients with missing partial Mayo scores at baseline and patients who opted out were also excluded.

3. Outcome Measures

Clinical remission was defined as a partial Mayo score ≤2 points, with no individual subscore >1, or a complete Mayo score ≤ 2 points, with no individual subscore >1. Response to VDZ was classified into the following 3 categories: week 2 remission, defined as clinical remission at the second administration of VDZ (week 2 ±1 week allowance); non-week 2 remission, defined as no clinical remission at the second administration of VDZ, but clinical remission by week 14 (±4 weeks allowance); and primary nonresponse, defined as no clinical remission by week 14. All patients were classified into only one of the 3 response categories. Outcome measures included the percentage of patients with week 2 remission, non-week 2 remission, and primary nonresponse among biologic-naïve and biologic-non-naïve patients; rates of clinical remission at week 14 (±4 weeks’ allowance) and week 54 (±4 weeks’ allowance) in patients with week 2 remission and in patients with non-week 2 remission; and rates of clinical remission at week 54 (±4 weeks’ allowance) in patients with week 14 remission (all patients in clinical remission by week 14 [i.e., all patients with week 2 and non-week 2 remission]) and in patients with primary nonresponse.

4. Statistical Analysis

Approximately 400 patients were planned for inclusion, which were anticipated to comprise 35% to 50% biologic-naïve patients and 50% to 65% biologic-non-naïve patients. Analyses were conducted on the full analysis set (FAS), which comprised all patients who received at least one dose of VDZ during the eligibility period and met all eligibility criteria. To verify that patients with week 2 remission had achieved remission at week 2 with VDZ administration, any patients who were in remission at baseline were further excluded from the FAS before analyses were performed. Rates of week 2 remission, non-week 2 remission, and primary nonresponse were compared between biologic-naïve and biologic-non-naïve patients. Clinical remission rates were compared between patients with week 2 remission and non-week 2 remission, and between patients with week 14 remission and primary nonresponse. Logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each group. The models included clinical remission (as proportion) as objective variable, and groups (biologic-naïve vs. biologic-non-naïve, or week 2 remission vs. non-week 2 remission) and covariates (partial Mayo score and hemoglobin) as explanatory variables. Factors influencing week 2 remission were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression in cases with at least one confirmed clinical remission, selected through propensity score matching with a caliper width of 0.2 times the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score. Similarly, factors affecting clinical remission at week 54 were examined using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. Predictors were reported using ORs and 95% CIs, with P-value calculated using chi-square test. Variables in the univariate analysis included sex, age at first VDZ administration, disease duration, prior use of anti-TNFα therapy, concomitant use of tacrolimus, corticosteroids or immunomodulators, partial Mayo score, endoscopic findings, and serum levels of hemoglobin, albumin, or C-reactive protein; week 2 remission was also included in the analysis of predictors of week 54 remission. Those variables that were statistically significant in the univariate analyses were further explored in the multivariate analyses. Missing values were handled by multiple imputation for baseline variables used in the multivariate analyses (handled as sensitivity analysis for non-imputed results). Descriptive statistics included the number of observations (n), mean and standard deviation for continuous variables, and frequency (n and percent) for categorical variables. Categorical variables were evaluated using the Student t-test, and continuous variables were evaluated by Fisher exact test; significance was set at 5% using a two-tailed test. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

RESULTS

1. Demographic and Baseline Clinical Characteristics

A total of 374 patients with UC were identified for inclusion. Of these, 332 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the FAS: 176 in the biologic-naïve group and 156 in the biologic-non-naïve group. Excluded patients received VDZ outside the study period (n=2), had familial Mediterranean fever that could not be ruled out (n=1), had a missing partial Mayo score at VDZ initiation (n=1), or were in clinical remission at baseline (n=38).

Most patient demographics were similar between the biologic-naïve and biologic-non-naïve groups (Table 1). However, patients in the biologic-naïve group were older at UC diagnosis (mean age 40.5 years vs. 35.7 years, P=0.0067) and when they received their first dose of VDZ (mean age 49.1 years vs. 45.4 years, P=0.0417). In both groups, disease duration was approximately 9–10 years and most patients had pancolitis. Disease severity at baseline was the same in the biologic-naïve and biologic-non-naïve groups based on mean partial and complete Mayo scores (5.0 vs. 5.0 and 7.1 vs. 7.1, respectively). However, the incidence of bloody stool and mean modified Charlson Comorbidity Index scores at baseline were higher in the biologic-naïve group than in the biologic-non-naïve group (73.9% vs. 59.0%, P=0.0050, and 0.6 vs. 0.3, P=0.0461, respectively). Although the use of immunomodulators was similar between the 2 groups (25.6% vs. 32.1%, respectively), the use of oral corticosteroids was higher (58.0% vs. 44.9%, P=0.0208) and steroid resistance was lower (16.5% vs. 26.9%, grouped P=0.0251) in the biologic-naïve group than in the biologic-non-naïve group.

2. Clinical Remission and VDZ Response

In the biologic-naïve group, 36.9% (n=65), 41.5% (n=73), and 21.6% (n=38) of patients had week 2 remission, non-week 2 remission, and primary nonresponse, respectively (Fig. 1). In the biologic-non-naïve group, 28.2% (n=44), 39.7% (n=62), and 32.1% (n=50) of patients had week 2 remission, non-week 2 remission, and primary nonresponse, respectively. Overall, there was a significantly greater proportion of patients with week 2 remission (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.05–1.94; P=0.0224) and a significantly smaller proportion of patients with primary nonresponse (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45–0.83; P=0.0015) in the biologic-naïve group than in the biologic-non-naïve group (Fig. 1). The difference in the percentage of patients with non-week 2 remission between the biologic-naïve and biologic-non-naïve groups was not statistically significant.

In general, numerically higher percentages of patients with week 2 remission than with non-week 2 remission went on to achieve clinical remission at week 14 and week 54 (Fig. 2). However, the rates of clinical remission at week 54 were only statistically different between the week 2 and non-week 2 remission groups for all patients (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.30–4.48; P=0.0052) and for biologic-naïve patients (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.10–5.24; P=0.0280).

As is to be expected, rates of clinical remission at week 54 were significantly different between the week 14 remission and primary nonresponse groups for all patients (OR, 9.32; 95% CI, 5.12–16.95; P<0.0001), for biologic-naïve patients (OR, 8.34; 95% CI, 3.54–19.65; P<0.0001), and for biologic-non-naïve patients (OR, 12.77; 95% CI, 5.17–31.57; P<0.0001) (Fig. 2).

3. Predictive Factors for Week 2 Remission with VDZ

The factors significantly associated with week 2 remission in the univariate analysis were male sex, no prior anti-TNFα exposure, and normal or mild endoscopic findings (Table 2). Similarly, the multivariate analysis further revealed that male sex (OR, 2.5220; 95% CI, 1.1548–5.5082; P=0.0203), no prior exposure to anti-TNFα agents (OR for prior exposure vs. no prior exposure, 0.3468; 95% CI, 0.1562–0.7701; P=0.0093), and normal or mild endoscopic findings (OR for moderate vs. normal or mild, 0.2196; 95% CI, 0.0640–0.7534; and severe vs. normal or mild: OR, 0.4231; 95% CI, 0.1153–1.5523; grouped P=0.0368) were significantly associated with week 2 remission.

4. Predictive Factors for Week 54 Remission with VDZ

The factors significantly associated with week 54 remission in the univariate analysis were clinical remission at week 2, no concomitant use of tacrolimus, and albumin ≥3.0 g/dL (Table 3). Similarly, multivariate analysis revealed that clinical remission at week 2 (OR, 4.3767; 95% CI, 2.6278–7.2898; P<0.0001) and no concomitant use of tacrolimus (OR for use vs. no use, 0.3292; 95% CI, 0.1216–0.8915; P=0.0288) were significantly associated with week 54 remission.

DISCUSSION

This retrospective observational study is the first to examine the effect of week 2 remission during VDZ treatment as a predictor for long-term remission, and to identify predictive factors for achieving week 2 remission, in patients with UC. These results contribute to a better understanding of the outcomes of week 2 remission with VDZ. It has been suggested that VDZ has not only short-term effects in inducing remission, but also long-term effects in maintaining remission [12]. Prediction of the subsequent course of therapy at a very early stage after treatment initiation is an important factor in determining whether treatment should be changed or continued. However, in current medical practice, biomarkers that can predict long-term prognosis and long-term clinical remission have not been established.

In this study, clinical remission was reported as early as week 2, which predicted long-term remission at week 54 in all patients and in biologic-naïve patients. These findings were similar to the results from a post hoc analysis of a VDZ clinical study, which showed that improvement in patient-reported symptoms can occur as early as week 2 in anti-TNFα-naïve patients, and suggested that a symptom response to VDZ at week 2 can predict response to treatment at week 10 [13]. Remission at week 2 did not influence the likelihood of remission at week 14, but its impact on long-term remission at week 54 was evident. Conversely, the absence of remission by week 14 (i.e., primary nonresponse) was strongly associated with a minimal chance of achieving long-term remission at week 54. Predicting long-term treatment outcomes in UC can be challenging. However, the results from this study suggest that patients who achieve week 2 remission with VDZ are more likely than patients with non-week 2 remission to have successful treatment outcomes up to week 54. Early identification of such patients may help avoid unnecessary treatment changes or treatment intensification, reduce healthcare costs, and provide long-term treatment stability for the chronic disease of UC. Importantly, the results of this study should not be considered as evidence that VDZ treatment should stop if remission is not achieved by week 2. Instead, the results suggest that patients who achieve week 2 remission are less likely to relapse, allowing for less intensive monitoring and greater patient reassurance. For patients who do not achieve remission by week 2 but improve by week 14, careful monitoring is still crucial for managing relapse risk. Overall, analyzing patient progress during treatment helps improve remission predictions and management of UC in the long term.

Several other studies have examined the effects of early clinical remission in response to VDZ, particularly at week 6, on long-term remission [11,14,15]. In a single-center, retrospective observational study, clinical response to VDZ at week 6 was significantly associated with endoscopic remission at week 24 [14]. Moreover, a post hoc analysis of the VARSITY study reported that patients with UC who achieved early remission (at 4–6 weeks) with VDZ had a higher probability of remission at week 52 compared with those with delayed remission (at week 14) [15]. These findings indicated that patients who achieve early clinical remission with VDZ are more likely to achieve clinical remission in the long term, and suggested that week 6 of VDZ treatment may be considered as a possible evaluation point for treatment decisions [14]. In contrast to these findings, results of the current study suggest that the evaluation point for predicting long-term remission at week 54 could be moved to as early as week 2, especially in biologic-naïve patients. Nonetheless, given that approximately half of patients with non-week 2 remission achieved remission at week 54, with similar results observed among biologic-naïve (49.2%) and biologic-non-naïve patients (57.8%), predicting long-term remission based solely on week 2 remission may be premature, and careful monitoring is essential for patients who do not achieve remission by week 2.

In the GEMINI 1 trial, the clinical response rate at week 6 increased with increasing trough concentrations of VDZ [8], and findings from a prospective cohort study also showed that higher trough concentrations of VDZ may be related to efficacy [16]. However, in addition to differences in pharmacokinetics, the disease course and the response to treatment vary considerably among individual patients, even with the same apparent clinical phenotype, possibly because of differences in underlying immune pathways and gene expression [17-23]. Because of this complexity, it is currently still not possible in clinical practice to predict VDZ response, especially prior to initiation of therapy.

VDZ suppresses intestinal lymphocyte infiltration without directly inhibiting cytokine activity; it blocks the α₄β₇ integrin from binding to the MAdCAM-1 but does not inhibit the adhesion of α₄β₁ to the vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, expressed on systemic vascular endothelial cells [6,7]. Owing to this mechanism of action, VDZ is known to have a favorable safety profile, but a slow onset of action, compared with anti-TNFα therapies [7]. In a study by Buisson et al. [24], corticosteroid-free remission rates increased from 32.4% at week 2 to 41.6% at week 6 and 52.2% at week 14, and 35.5% of patients who did not achieve remission at week 6 did achieve remission at week 16, which indicated that the onset of action of VDZ may be slow. Therefore, the observation that patients treated with VDZ can achieve week 2 remission could challenge this conventional concept. In this study, 36.9% and 28.2% of biologic-naïve and biologic-non-naïve patients, respectively, achieved remission by week 2. This was higher than expected and could potentially refute the established notion that VDZ has a slow onset of therapeutic effects. Additionally, the rate of week 2 remission was higher in the biologic-naïve patients than in the biologic-non-naïve patients, supporting the potential use of VDZ as a first-line biologic with rapid effectiveness in many patients. VDZ may show symptomatic improvement before showing efficacy in objective measures of disease activity [25]. Therefore, objective measures, such as endoscopic mucosal remission and biomarker remission, will be investigated in the future among patients with week 2 remission.

In this study, male sex, absence of anti-TNFα exposure, and milder endoscopic findings were significantly associated with week 2 remission. The finding that male sex may influence week 2 remission was unexpected given that previous research has shown that women are more likely to experience endoscopic remission at week 6 [26], whereas other studies report no significant sex differences in endoscopic improvement in inflammatory bowel disease [27]. Further large-scale analyses are needed to better understand the relationship between sex and early remission. Concomitant use of immunomodulators, steroids, or tacrolimus was not associated with week 2 remission; this finding was consistent with results from a meta-analysis, which concluded that there is no clinical benefit of combination therapy of VDZ with immunomodulators during either induction or maintenance [28]. However, the effectiveness of combination therapy of VDZ with corticosteroids during maintenance therapy needs to be examined separately.

To better understand the relationship between week 2 remission and week 54 remission, we included week 2 remission as a variable and analyzed its role as a predictor of week 54 remission. The results demonstrated that achieving remission at week 2 was a significant predictor of remission at week 54 in the multivariate analysis, further supporting the finding of a significantly higher week 54 remission rate in the week 2 remission group than in the non-week 2 remission group. Conversely, the concomitant use of tacrolimus was associated with a negative impact on week 54 remission. We speculate that this may reflect the inclusion of patients with initially severe UC requiring tacrolimus, who represent a population more prone to relapse.

Baseline characteristics in this study may have reflected the real-world selection of therapy. For example, it cannot be ruled out that the older age of the biologic-naïve patients was driven by the fact that VDZ may have been preferred by these patients, who were more concerned about safety of treatment. The use of oral corticosteroids was higher in biologic-naïve patients than in biologic-non-naïve patients. This was not surprising, as many biologic-naïve patients would have used corticosteroids prior to the initiation of VDZ treatment. In addition, steroid resistance was higher in biologic-non-naïve than in biologic-naïve patients, suggesting that the lower corticosteroid use in biologic-non-naïve patients may also have been due to patients developing resistance during previous use of corticosteroids. Despite these observed differences between biologic-naïve and biologic-non-naïve patients, the overall disease severity was similar between the 2 cohorts. Therefore, these differences would not have affected the rate of week 2 remission or long-term remission at week 54. However, a comparative study in a propensity score–matched population may be required to further identify patients who are suitable for VDZ treatment during the induction phase.

There are a few limitations of this study. Clinical remission was defined as a partial or complete Mayo score of ≤ 2 with no subscore >1. However, because this was a multicenter, retrospective chart review, the possibility of inter-institutional or inter-observer bias cannot be ruled out. Moreover, data on endoscopic findings were limited, and endoscopic remission could not be assessed. Therefore, mucosal evaluation should be considered in the future.

In conclusion, this study showed that week 2 remission with VDZ is predictive of long-term clinical remission at week 54 in patients with UC. Furthermore, male sex, absence of anti-TNFα exposure, and normal or mild endoscopic findings were identified as predictors of week 2 remission. Predictors of week 54 remission were week 2 remission and no concomitant use of tacrolimus. From these results it can be inferred that physicians may use week 2 of VDZ treatment as an evaluation point for treatment decisions in UC.

NOTES

Funding Source

This study was funded by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, manufacturer/licensee of vedolizumab. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited was involved in the study design, data collection, data analysis, and preparation of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

Kobayashi T reports grants/contracts from AbbVie GK, Activaid, Alfresa Pharma Corporation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., JIMRO Co., Ltd., JMDC Inc., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., Otsuka Holdings, Pfizer Japan Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Zeria Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; payments/honoraria from AbbVie GK, Activaid, Alfresa Pharma Corporation, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., JIMRO Co., Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., Pfizer Japan Inc., Thermo Fisher Diagnostics K.K., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Zeria Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; and payment for expert testimony from AbbVie GK, Activaid, Alfresa Pharma Corporation, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Galapagos, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., Pfizer Japan Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Hisamatsu T reports grants/contracts from AbbVie GK, Daiichi Sankyo, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., JIMRO Co., Ltd., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Zeria Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; advisory fees from AbbVie GK, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Nichi-lko Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; and payments/honoraria from AbbVie GK, Daiichi Sankyo, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K, JIMRO Co., Ltd., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Zeria Pharmaceutical Co,. Ltd. Motoya S reports grants/contracts from Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; and payments/honoraria from AbbVie GK, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, and Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Fujii T reports grants/contracts from AbbVie GK, Alfresa Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Celltrion Healthcare, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Mebix Inc, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd; and payment for lectures/presentations and speaker bureaus from AbbVie GK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kissei Pharmaceutical, Kyorin Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mochida Pharma, Nichi-lko Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku, Pfizer, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Zeria Pharma. Kunisaki R reports support from Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd for the present manuscript; grants/ contracts from AbbVie and Janssen Pharmaceutical; consulting fees from Nippon Kayaku; payments/honoraria from AbbVie, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Pfizer, and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Shibuya T reports support from Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. for the present manuscript. Matsuura M reports consulting fees from AbbVie GK, Pfizer Japan Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd; and payments/honoraria from AbbVie GK, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., JIMRO Co., Ltd., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., Pfizer Japan Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Viatris Inc. and Zeria Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Takeuchi K reports grants/contracts from AbbVie GK, Amgen K.K., AstraZeneca K.K., Bristol-Myers Squibb K.K., EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Ferring Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., IQVIA Inc, Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited; consulting fees from Thermo Fisher Diagnostics K.K.; payments/honoraria from AbbVie GK, Ayumi Pharmaceutical Corporation, Celltrion Healthcare, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Gilead Sciences, Inc, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., JIMRO Co., Ltd., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Otsuka Holdings Co., Ltd., Pfizer Japan Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Viatris Inc. and Zeria Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Hiraoka S reports payments/honoraria (lecture fees) from AbbVie GK, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Yasuda H reports grants/contracts from Nippon Kayaku and support from Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. for the present manuscript. Yokoyama K reports payments/honoraria from AbbVie GK, EA Pharma Co Ltd., Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co Ltd., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Maemoto A reports support from Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. for the present manuscript; grants/contracts from AbbVie GK, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Gil ead Sciences Inc, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Kaken Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co Ltd., Pfizer R&D Japan K.K. and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and payments/ honoraria from AbbVie GK, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., JIMRO Co., Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Cavaliere M was an employee of Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. at the time of the study. Ishiguro K was an employee of Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd at the time of the study. Fernandez JL was an employee of Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. at the time of the study and reports stock or share ownership in Cococell Nanotech, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Immunorock Co., Ltd., Mirai Biotech Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited; and other financial interests in Jovelle Fernandez LLC. Hibi T reports grants/contracts from AbbVie GK, Activaid, Alfresa Pharma Corp., Celltrion, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., JMDC Inc., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Nichi-Iko Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Zeria Pharmaceutical; payments/honoraria from AbbVie, EA Pharma, JIMRO, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Pfizer, Sandoz K.K., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Zeria Pharmaceutical; and payment for expert testimony from AbbVie, Celltrion, EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. He is an editorial board member of the journal but was not involved in the selection of peer reviewers, evaluation, or decision process for this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets, including the redacted study protocol, redacted statistical analysis plan, and individual participants data supporting the results reported in this article, will be made available within 3 months from initial request, to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal. The data will be provided after its de-identification, in compliance with applicable privacy laws, data protection and requirements for consent and anonymization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Kobayashi T, Hisamatsu T, Motoya S, Fujii T, Kunisaki R, Shibuya T, Matsuura M, Takeuchi K, Hiraoka S, Yasuda H, Yokoyama K, Takatsu N, Maemoto A, Tahara T, Tominaga K, Shimada M, Kuno N, Cavaliere M, Fernandez JL, Hibi T. Data curation: Kobayashi T, Hisamatsu T, Motoya S, Fujii T, Kunisaki R, Shibuya T, Matsuura M, Takeuchi K, Hiraoka S, Yasuda H, Yokoyama K, Takatsu N, Maemoto A, Tahara T, Tominaga K, Shimada M, Kuno N, Hibi T. Investigation: Ishiguro K. Supervision: Fernandez JL, Hibi T. Writing – original draft: Kobayashi T, Hisamatsu T, Ishiguro K. Writing – review & editing: all authors. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Additional Contributions

The authors would like to thank all study participants. Medical writing assistance was provided by Serina Stretton, PhD, CMPP, of ProScribe–Envision Pharma Group, and was funded by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. ProScribe’s services complied with international guidelines for Good Publication Practice.

Supplementary Material

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

Supplementary Table 1.

Institutional Review Board Approval Numbers

ir-2025-00047-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf

Fig. 1.

Percentage of patients achieving week 2 remission, non-week 2 remission, and primary nonresponse among biologic-naïve and biologic-non-naïve patients receiving vedolizumab therapy for ulcerative colitis. ORs were calculated using logistic regression model with clinical remission (as proportion) as the objective variable and the groups (biologic-naïve vs. biologic-non-naïve) and covariates as explanatory variables. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 2.

Rates of clinical remission at week 14 and week 54 among patients with week 2 remission and patients with non-week 2 remission, and rates of clinical remission at week 54 among patients with week 14 remission and patients with primary nonresponse. ORs were calculated using logistic regression model with clinical remission (as proportion) as the objective variable and the groups (week 2 remission vs. non-week 2 remission) and covariates (confounding factors) as explanatory variables. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; CR, clinical remission.

Table 1.

Patient Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics

Variable	All patients (n = 332)	Biologic-naïve patients (n = 176)	Biologic-non-naïve patients (n = 156)	P-value
Sex				0.9118
Male	187 (56.3)	100 (56.8)	87 (55.8)
Female	145 (43.7)	76 (43.2)	69 (44.2)
Age (yr)
At UC diagnosis	38.2 ± 16.3	40.5 ± 16.6	35.7 ± 15.6	0.0067
At first dose of VDZ	47.4 ± 16.5	49.1 ± 16.9	45.4 ± 15.9	0.0417
Duration of UC (yr)	9.25 ± 8.33	8.67 ± 8.85	9.91 ± 7.68	0.1734
BMI (kg/m²)	21.68 ± 4.00	21.65 ± 4.09	21.73 ± 3.92	0.8685
Symptoms
Bloody stool	222 (66.9)	130 (73.9)	92 (59.0)	0.0050
Abdominal pain	138 (41.6)	70 (39.8)	68 (43.6)	0.5045
Proctalgia	8 (2.4)	4 (2.3)	4 (2.6)	1.000
Diarrhea	199 (59.9)	108 (61.4)	91 (58.3)	0.5772
UC intestinal location				0.1121
Pancolitis	240 (72.3)	128 (72.7)	112 (71.8)
Left-sided colitis	81 (24.4)	40 (22.7)	41 (26.3)
Proctitis	8 (2.4)	7 (4.0)	1 (0.6)
Right-sided or segmental colitis	1 (0.3)	0	1 (0.6)
Unknown	2 (0.6)	1 (0.6)	1 (0.6)
Modified Charlson Comorbidity Index	0.5 ± 1.1	0.6 ± 1.3	0.3 ± 0.9	0.0461
Partial Mayo score	5.0 ± 1.8	5.0 ± 1.9	5.0 ± 1.8	0.8964
Complete Mayo score^a	7.1 ± 2.0	7.1 ± 2.0	7.1 ± 2.0	0.8942
Extraintestinal manifestations	47 (14.2)	23 (13.1)	24 (15.4)	0.6365
Concomitant medications^b
5-Aminosalicyclic acid	235 (70.8)	125 (71.0)	110 (70.5)	1.0000
Corticosteroids	172 (51.8)	102 (58.0)	70 (44.9)	0.0208
Immunomodulators (azathioprine and mercaptopurine)	95 (28.6)	45 (25.6)	50 (32.1)	0.2239
Corticosteroid use status				0.0251
Not used	12 (3.6)	10 (5.7)	2 (1.3)
Dependent	214 (64.5)	114 (64.8)	100 (64.1)
Resistant	71 (21.4)	29 (16.5)	42 (26.9)
Non-refractory	27 (8.1)	18 (10.2)	9 (5.8)
Other	8 (2.4)	5 (2.8)	3 (1.9)

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

^a Available for 279 patients (153 biologic-naïve and 126 biologic-non-naïve).

^b At the first dose of VDZ.

UC, ulcerative colitis; VDZ, vedolizumab; BMI, body mass index.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Analysis of Predictive Factors for Week 2 Remission with VDZ Treatment in Patients with UC (FAS with Propensity Score Matching) (n=158)

Variable	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
Variable	OR	95% CI	P-value	OR	95% CI	P-value
Male (ref. female)	2.5997	1.3602–4.9688	0.0035	2.5220	1.1548–5.5082	0.0203
Age at first dose of VDZ (ref. 20–44 yr)			0.2326
45–69 yr	0.7535	0.3806–1.4916
≥ 70 yr	1.7333	0.6516–4.6106
Disease duration ≥ 7.95 yr (ref. < 7.95 yr)	1.0000	0.5338–1.8735	1.0000
UC intestinal location (ref. pancolitis)			0.8239
Left-sided colitis	0.8160	0.3966–1.6788
Proctitis	1.2000	0.2319–6.2093
Prior use of anti-TNFα^a	0.5067	0.2678–0.9586	0.0357	0.3468	0.1562–0.7701	0.0093
Concomitant use of tacrolimus^a	0.2941	0.0604–1.4320	0.1099
Concomitant use of corticosteroid^a	0.7600	0.4046–1.4276	0.3931
Concomitant use of immunomodulator^a	1.0220	0.5145–2.0301	0.9505
Partial Mayo score ≥ 5 (ref. ≤ 4)	0.6109	0.3245–1.1502	0.1259
Endoscopic findings (ref. normal or mild)			0.0172			0.0368
Moderate	0.2209	0.0710–0.6873		0.2196	0.0640–0.7534
Severe	0.4038	0.1217–1.3401		0.4231	0.1153–1.5523
Hemoglobin < 10.0 g/dL (ref. ≥ 10.0 g/dL)	1.2769	0.3545–4.5990	0.7079
Albumin < 3.0 g/dL (ref. ≥ 3.0 g/dL)	0.8283	0.2244–3.0575	0.7771
CRP ≥ 0.216 mg/dL (ref. < 0.216 mg/dL)	1.3613	0.7252–2.5553	0.3366

^a Yes (ref. no).

VDZ, vedolizumab; UC, ulcerative colitis; FAS, full analysis set; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; CRP, C-reactive protein; ref., reference.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Analysis of Predictive Factors for Week 54 Remission with VDZ Treatment in Patients with UC (n=332)

Variable	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
Variable	OR	95% CI	P-value	OR	95% CI	P-value
Male (ref. female)	0.9291	0.6010–1.4364	0.7408
Age at first dose of VDZ ≥ 47.0 yr (ref. < 47.0 yr)	1.1942	0.7746–1.8411	0.4214
Disease duration ≥ 7.36 yr (ref. < 7.36 yr)	1.2942	0.8385–1.9976	0.2438
UC intestinal location (ref. pancolitis)			0.3609
Left-sided colitis	1.2958	0.7823–2.1462
Proctitis	0.4214	0.0834–2.1303
Prior use of anti-TNFα^a	0.9721	0.6302–1.4996	0.8982
Concomitant use of tacrolimus^a	0.3575	0.1390–0.9195	0.0269	0.3292	0.1216–0.8915	0.0288
Concomitant use of corticosteroid^a	0.6863	0.4445–1.0595	0.0888
Concomitant use of immunomodulator^a	1.1314	0.7020–1.8237	0.6121
Partial Mayo score ≥ 5 (ref. ≤ 4)	0.9771	0.6290–1.5179	0.9180
Endoscopic findings (ref. normal or mild)			0.2898
Moderate	0.5900	0.2737–1.2721
Severe	0.5278	0.2346–1.1874
Hemoglobin < 10.0 g/dL (ref. ≥ 10.0 g/dL)	0.5991	0.2872–1.2495	0.1684
Albumin < 3.0 g/dL (ref. ≥ 3.0 g/dL)	0.4167	0.1871–0.9279	0.0281	0.4878	0.2115–1.1252	0.0923
CRP ≥ 0.216 mg/dL (ref. < 0.216 mg/dL)	0.9275	0.5978–1.4389	0.7368
Clinical remission at wk 2^a	4.6356	2.8269–7.6017	< 0.0001	4.3767	2.6278–7.2898	< 0.0001

^a Yes (ref. no).

VDZ, vedolizumab; UC, ulcerative colitis; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; CRP, C-reactive protein; ref., reference.

REFERENCES

1. Armuzzi A, Liguori G. Quality of life in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis and the impact of treatment: a narrative review. Dig Liver Dis 2021;53:803–808.Article PubMed
2. Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America. The facts about inflammatory bowel diseases [Internet]. 2014;[cited 2023 Nov 29]. https://www.crohnscolitisfoundation.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/pdfs/ibdfactbook.pdf.
3. Research Group for Intractable Inflammatory Bowel Disorder (Suzuki Group). Basic knowledge necessary for treatment of ulcerative colitis, 4th edition [Internet]. 2020;[cited 2021 Dec 3]. http://www.ibdjapan.org/patient/pdf/01.pdf.
4. Kobayashi T, Siegmund B, Le Berre C, et al. Ulcerative colitis. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2020;6:74.Article PubMed PDF
5. Raine T, Bonovas S, Burisch J, et al. ECCO guidelines on therapeutics in ulcerative colitis: medical treatment. J Crohns Colitis 2022;16:2–17.PubMed
6. Soler D, Chapman T, Yang LL, et al. The binding specificity and selective antagonism of vedolizumab, an anti-alpha4beta7 integrin therapeutic antibody in development for inflammatory bowel diseases. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2009;330:864–875.PubMed
7. Debnath P, Rathi PM. Vedolizumab in inflammatory bowel disease: West versus East. Inflamm Intest Dis 2021;6:1–17.Article PubMed PMC PDF
8. Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Sands BE, et al. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 2013;369:699–710.Article PubMed
9. Dulai PS, Singh S, Vande Casteele N, et al. Development and validation of clinical scoring tool to predict outcomes of treatment with vedolizumab in patients with ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;18:2952–2961.e8.Article PubMed PMC
10. Allegretti JR, Barnes EL, Stevens B, et al. Predictors of clinical response and remission at 1 year among a multicenter cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with vedolizumab. Dig Dis Sci 2017;62:1590–1596.Article PubMed PMC PDF
11. Haga K, Shibuya T, Osada T, et al. Early clinical remission is a predictor of long-term remission with the use of vedolizumab for ulcerative colitis. Biomedicines 2022;10:2526.Article PubMed PMC
12. Motoya S, Watanabe K, Ogata H, et al. Vedolizumab in Japanese patients with ulcerative colitis: a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. PLoS One 2019;14:e0212989.Article PubMed PMC
13. Nagahori M, Watanabe K, Motoya S, et al. Week 2 symptomatic response with vedolizumab as a predictive factor in Japanese anti-TNFα-naive patients with ulcerative colitis: a post hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Digestion 2021;102:742–752.Article PubMed PDF
14. Saito D, Matsuura M, Ozaki R, et al. Clinical response of vedolizumab at week 6 predicted endoscopic remission at week 24 in ulcerative colitis. JGH Open 2021;5:1056–1062.Article PubMed PMC PDF
15. Narula N, Wong ECL, Marshall JK, et al. Long-term outcomes of early vs delayed responders to vedolizumab and adalimumab: a post hoc analysis of the VARSITY study. Am J Gastroenterol 2023;118:121–128.Article PubMed
16. Schulze H, Esters P, Hartmann F, et al. A prospective cohort study to assess the relevance of vedolizumab drug level monitoring in IBD patients. Scand J Gastroenterol 2018;53:670–676.Article PubMed
17. Allner C, Melde M, Becker E, et al. Baseline levels of dynamic CD4+ T cell adhesion to MAdCAM-1 correlate with clinical response to vedolizumab treatment in ulcerative colitis: a cohort study. BMC Gastroenterol 2020;20:103.Article PubMed PMC PDF
18. Gazouli M, Dovrolis N, Bourdakou MM, et al. Response to anti-α4β7 blockade in patients with ulcerative colitis is associated with distinct mucosal gene expression profiles at baseline. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2022;28:87–95.Article PubMed PDF
19. Rath T, Billmeier U, Ferrazzi F, et al. Effects of anti-integrin treatment with vedolizumab on immune pathways and cytokines in inflammatory bowel diseases. Front Immunol 2018;9:1700.Article PubMed PMC
20. Arijs I, De Hertogh G, Lemmens B, et al. Effect of vedolizumab (anti-α4β7-integrin) therapy on histological healing and mucosal gene expression in patients with UC. Gut 2018;67:43–52.Article PubMed
21. Verstockt B, Verstockt S, Veny M, et al. Expression levels of 4 genes in colon tissue might be used to predict which patients will enter endoscopic remission after vedolizumab therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;18:1142–1151.e10.Article PubMed PMC
22. Gonzalez-Vivo M, Lund Tiirikainen MK, Andreu M, et al. Memory T cell subpopulations as early predictors of remission to vedolizumab in ulcerative colitis. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022;9:837294.Article PubMed PMC
23. De Galan C, Gonzales GB, Van Welden S, et al. Role of integrin expression in the prediction of response to vedolizumab: a prospective real-life multicentre cohort study. Clin Transl Med 2022;12:e769.PubMed PMC
24. Buisson A, Nachury M, Guilmoteau T, et al. Real-world comparison of effectiveness between tofacitinib and vedolizumab in patients with ulcerative colitis exposed to at least one anti-TNF agent. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2023;57:676–688.Article PubMed PDF
25. Feagan BG, Lasch K, Lissoos T, et al. Rapid response to vedolizumab therapy in biologic-naive patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17:130–138.e7.Article PubMed
26. Chhibba T, Wong ECL, Reinisch W, Targownik L, Narula N. Comparing the efficacy of vedolizumab between males and females: a post-hoc analysis of GEMINI-1 and VARSITY. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;36:704–711.Article PubMed
27. Lie MRKL, Paulides E, van der Woude CJ. Patient sex does not affect endoscopic outcomes of biologicals in inflammatory bowel disease but is associated with adverse events. Int J Colorectal Dis 2020;35:1489–1500.Article PubMed PMC PDF
28. Yzet C, Diouf M, Singh S, et al. No benefit of concomitant immunomodulator therapy on efficacy of biologics that are not tumor necrosis factor antagonists in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;19:668–679.e8.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Interpreting vedolizumab persistence: lessons from real-world trajectories in ulcerative colitis
Jung Min Moon
Intestinal Research.2026; 24(1): 3. 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

Week 2 remission with vedolizumab as a predictor of long-term remission in patients with ulcerative colitis: a multicenter, retrospective, observational study

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00047

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Week 2 remission with vedolizumab as a predictor of long-term remission in patients with ulcerative colitis: a multicenter, retrospective, observational study

Fig. 1. Percentage of patients achieving week 2 remission, non-week 2 remission, and primary nonresponse among biologic-naïve and biologic-non-naïve patients receiving vedolizumab therapy for ulcerative colitis. ORs were calculated using logistic regression model with clinical remission (as proportion) as the objective variable and the groups (biologic-naïve vs. biologic-non-naïve) and covariates as explanatory variables. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 2. Rates of clinical remission at week 14 and week 54 among patients with week 2 remission and patients with non-week 2 remission, and rates of clinical remission at week 54 among patients with week 14 remission and patients with primary nonresponse. ORs were calculated using logistic regression model with clinical remission (as proportion) as the objective variable and the groups (week 2 remission vs. non-week 2 remission) and covariates (confounding factors) as explanatory variables. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; CR, clinical remission.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Week 2 remission with vedolizumab as a predictor of long-term remission in patients with ulcerative colitis: a multicenter, retrospective, observational study

Variable	All patients (n = 332)	Biologic-naïve patients (n = 176)	Biologic-non-naïve patients (n = 156)	P-value
Sex				0.9118
Male	187 (56.3)	100 (56.8)	87 (55.8)
Female	145 (43.7)	76 (43.2)	69 (44.2)
Age (yr)
At UC diagnosis	38.2 ± 16.3	40.5 ± 16.6	35.7 ± 15.6	0.0067
At first dose of VDZ	47.4 ± 16.5	49.1 ± 16.9	45.4 ± 15.9	0.0417
Duration of UC (yr)	9.25 ± 8.33	8.67 ± 8.85	9.91 ± 7.68	0.1734
BMI (kg/m²)	21.68 ± 4.00	21.65 ± 4.09	21.73 ± 3.92	0.8685
Symptoms
Bloody stool	222 (66.9)	130 (73.9)	92 (59.0)	0.0050
Abdominal pain	138 (41.6)	70 (39.8)	68 (43.6)	0.5045
Proctalgia	8 (2.4)	4 (2.3)	4 (2.6)	1.000
Diarrhea	199 (59.9)	108 (61.4)	91 (58.3)	0.5772
UC intestinal location				0.1121
Pancolitis	240 (72.3)	128 (72.7)	112 (71.8)
Left-sided colitis	81 (24.4)	40 (22.7)	41 (26.3)
Proctitis	8 (2.4)	7 (4.0)	1 (0.6)
Right-sided or segmental colitis	1 (0.3)	0	1 (0.6)
Unknown	2 (0.6)	1 (0.6)	1 (0.6)
Modified Charlson Comorbidity Index	0.5 ± 1.1	0.6 ± 1.3	0.3 ± 0.9	0.0461
Partial Mayo score	5.0 ± 1.8	5.0 ± 1.9	5.0 ± 1.8	0.8964
Complete Mayo score^a	7.1 ± 2.0	7.1 ± 2.0	7.1 ± 2.0	0.8942
Extraintestinal manifestations	47 (14.2)	23 (13.1)	24 (15.4)	0.6365
Concomitant medications^b
5-Aminosalicyclic acid	235 (70.8)	125 (71.0)	110 (70.5)	1.0000
Corticosteroids	172 (51.8)	102 (58.0)	70 (44.9)	0.0208
Immunomodulators (azathioprine and mercaptopurine)	95 (28.6)	45 (25.6)	50 (32.1)	0.2239
Corticosteroid use status				0.0251
Not used	12 (3.6)	10 (5.7)	2 (1.3)
Dependent	214 (64.5)	114 (64.8)	100 (64.1)
Resistant	71 (21.4)	29 (16.5)	42 (26.9)
Non-refractory	27 (8.1)	18 (10.2)	9 (5.8)
Other	8 (2.4)	5 (2.8)	3 (1.9)

Variable	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
Variable	OR	95% CI	P-value	OR	95% CI	P-value
Male (ref. female)	2.5997	1.3602–4.9688	0.0035	2.5220	1.1548–5.5082	0.0203
Age at first dose of VDZ (ref. 20–44 yr)			0.2326
45–69 yr	0.7535	0.3806–1.4916
≥ 70 yr	1.7333	0.6516–4.6106
Disease duration ≥ 7.95 yr (ref. < 7.95 yr)	1.0000	0.5338–1.8735	1.0000
UC intestinal location (ref. pancolitis)			0.8239
Left-sided colitis	0.8160	0.3966–1.6788
Proctitis	1.2000	0.2319–6.2093
Prior use of anti-TNFα^a	0.5067	0.2678–0.9586	0.0357	0.3468	0.1562–0.7701	0.0093
Concomitant use of tacrolimus^a	0.2941	0.0604–1.4320	0.1099
Concomitant use of corticosteroid^a	0.7600	0.4046–1.4276	0.3931
Concomitant use of immunomodulator^a	1.0220	0.5145–2.0301	0.9505
Partial Mayo score ≥ 5 (ref. ≤ 4)	0.6109	0.3245–1.1502	0.1259
Endoscopic findings (ref. normal or mild)			0.0172			0.0368
Moderate	0.2209	0.0710–0.6873		0.2196	0.0640–0.7534
Severe	0.4038	0.1217–1.3401		0.4231	0.1153–1.5523
Hemoglobin < 10.0 g/dL (ref. ≥ 10.0 g/dL)	1.2769	0.3545–4.5990	0.7079
Albumin < 3.0 g/dL (ref. ≥ 3.0 g/dL)	0.8283	0.2244–3.0575	0.7771
CRP ≥ 0.216 mg/dL (ref. < 0.216 mg/dL)	1.3613	0.7252–2.5553	0.3366

Variable	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
Variable	OR	95% CI	P-value	OR	95% CI	P-value
Male (ref. female)	0.9291	0.6010–1.4364	0.7408
Age at first dose of VDZ ≥ 47.0 yr (ref. < 47.0 yr)	1.1942	0.7746–1.8411	0.4214
Disease duration ≥ 7.36 yr (ref. < 7.36 yr)	1.2942	0.8385–1.9976	0.2438
UC intestinal location (ref. pancolitis)			0.3609
Left-sided colitis	1.2958	0.7823–2.1462
Proctitis	0.4214	0.0834–2.1303
Prior use of anti-TNFα^a	0.9721	0.6302–1.4996	0.8982
Concomitant use of tacrolimus^a	0.3575	0.1390–0.9195	0.0269	0.3292	0.1216–0.8915	0.0288
Concomitant use of corticosteroid^a	0.6863	0.4445–1.0595	0.0888
Concomitant use of immunomodulator^a	1.1314	0.7020–1.8237	0.6121
Partial Mayo score ≥ 5 (ref. ≤ 4)	0.9771	0.6290–1.5179	0.9180
Endoscopic findings (ref. normal or mild)			0.2898
Moderate	0.5900	0.2737–1.2721
Severe	0.5278	0.2346–1.1874
Hemoglobin < 10.0 g/dL (ref. ≥ 10.0 g/dL)	0.5991	0.2872–1.2495	0.1684
Albumin < 3.0 g/dL (ref. ≥ 3.0 g/dL)	0.4167	0.1871–0.9279	0.0281	0.4878	0.2115–1.1252	0.0923
CRP ≥ 0.216 mg/dL (ref. < 0.216 mg/dL)	0.9275	0.5978–1.4389	0.7368
Clinical remission at wk 2^a	4.6356	2.8269–7.6017	< 0.0001	4.3767	2.6278–7.2898	< 0.0001

Table 1. Patient Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics

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

Available for 279 patients (153 biologic-naïve and 126 biologic-non-naïve).

At the first dose of VDZ.

UC, ulcerative colitis; VDZ, vedolizumab; BMI, body mass index.

Table 2. Logistic Regression Analysis of Predictive Factors for Week 2 Remission with VDZ Treatment in Patients with UC (FAS with Propensity Score Matching) (n=158)

Yes (ref. no).

VDZ, vedolizumab; UC, ulcerative colitis; FAS, full analysis set; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; CRP, C-reactive protein; ref., reference.

Table 3. Logistic Regression Analysis of Predictive Factors for Week 54 Remission with VDZ Treatment in Patients with UC (n=332)

Yes (ref. no).

VDZ, vedolizumab; UC, ulcerative colitis; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; CRP, C-reactive protein; ref., reference.