Ji Eun Baek; Min Kyu Kim; Eun Soo Kim; Kyeong Ok Kim; Hyeong Ho Jo; Sung Wook Hwang; Sang Hyoung Park; Byung Ik Jang; Eun Young Kim; Sung Kook Kim; Suk-Kyun Yang; Byong Duk Ye

doi:10.5217/ir.2025.00258

Articles

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

Original Article One-year effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab treatment in patients with ulcerative colitis: an Asan-Crohn’s and Colitis Association in Daegu-Gyeongbuk (CCAiD) multicenter real-world cohort study: Ji Eun Baek^1,2, Min Kyu Kim¹, Eun Soo Kim³, Kyeong Ok Kim⁴, Hyeong Ho Jo⁵, Sung Wook Hwang^1,6, Sang Hyoung Park^1,6, Byung Ik Jang⁴, Eun Young Kim⁵, Sung Kook Kim³, Suk-Kyun Yang^1,6, Byong Duk Ye^1,6; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00258
Published online: April 20, 2026

¹Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Internal Medicine, St. Vincent’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, Korea

³Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

⁴Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea

⁵Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea

⁶Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to Byong Duk Ye, Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea. E-mail: bdye@amc.seoul.kr

Provisional data were presented as an oral presentation (FP07-01) at the 7th Korea Digestive Disease Week in 2023.

• Received: October 12, 2025 • Revised: December 23, 2025 • Accepted: December 30, 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.

2,134 Views
61 Download

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
Graphical abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
Supplementary Material
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
This study aimed to evaluate the 1-year effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab (UST) in Korean patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).
Methods
We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of UC patients who received UST between January 2021 and October 2023. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week (W) 8. Secondary endpoints included clinical remission at W16–20 and W52–56; corticosteroid-free clinical remission at W8, W16–20, and W52–56; clinical response at the same time points; endoscopic remission at W16–20 and W52–56; UST interval shortening and persistence through W52–56; and adverse events (AEs).
Results
Sixty patients were included. After excluding one patient in clinical remission at baseline, 49.2% (29/59) achieved clinical remission at W8. Clinical remission rates were 59.3% (35/59) at W16–20 and 55.9% (33/59) at W52–56. Endoscopic remission was achieved in 15.3% (9/59) at W16–20 and 11.9% (7/59) at W52–56. The 12-month UST persistence rate was 84.9%. Multivariable analysis identified factors associated with clinical remission at W52–56: higher body mass index at baseline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–1.57; P<0.05), concomitant immunomodulator use (aOR, 4.69; 95% CI, 1.04–21.06; P=0.04), and endoscopic improvement at W16–20 (aOR, 13.47; 95% CI, 2.87–63.30; P<0.01), while prior exposure to advanced therapies was associated with lower remission (aOR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04–0.98; P<0.05). AEs occurred in 24 patients (40.0%), with 1 serious AE (1.7%).
Conclusions
UST showed favorable 1-year effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Korean patients with UC.
Keywords: Ulcerative colitis; Ustekinumab; Korea

Graphical abstract

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic idiopathic inflammatory disorder of the colon which is characterized by bloody diarrhea, fecal urgency, abdominal pain, and diffuse mucosal inflammation [1]. Patients with UC require life-long treatments and the choice of treatment depends on multiple factors, including disease activity, extent of disease, prognosis, comorbidities, patients’ preferences, etc [2,3]. In the past, pharmacologic management of UC mainly relied on 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs), thiopurines, and corticosteroids, but clinicians now have a wider range of biologics and small molecule drugs, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, anti-integrin agents, anti-interleukin agents, Janus kinase inhibitors, and sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators which enable better disease control by improving mucosal healing rates, deep remission rates, and quality of life [3-5].

Ustekinumab (UST) is a monoclonal antibody to the p40 subunit of interleukin-12/23 and has been approved for the treatment of Crohn’s disease and more recently for the treatment of UC. In the UNIFI trial and long-term extension study, UST demonstrated a long-term efficacy and safety in patients with UC who were either biologic-naive or had failed to conventional or biologic therapy [6,7]. The clinical remission rate at week (W) 8 among patients who received intravenous (IV) UST at a dose of 6 mg/kg was 15.5% and clinical remission rates at W44 of maintenance therapy in patients who received 90 mg of subcutaneous (SC) UST every 12 weeks and 8 weeks were 38.4% and 43.8%, respectively [6]. A subpopulation analysis of the UNIFI trial focused on East Asian patients with UC demonstrated efficacy and safety results that were generally consistent with those observed in the overall study population [8].

To overcome the strict trial designs, which have limitations in reflecting real-life clinical practice, several real-world studies from Western countries have assessed the real-life effectiveness and safety of UST in patients with UC [9-24].

However, the real-world data on UST for Asian patients with UC are still lacking. Given the differences in the epidemiology and natural history of UC between Eastern and Western populations, it is worthwhile to compare therapeutic outcomes of biologic therapies between Eastern and Western patients with UC [25-27]. Therefore, we performed a real-world multicenter study on the 1-year therapeutic effectiveness and safety of UST treatment for Korean patients with UC.

METHODS

1. Study Design and Population

This retrospective, multicenter observational cohort study was conducted by members of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center of Asan Medical Center and the Crohn’s and Colitis Association in Daegu-Gyeongbuk (CCAiD). Patients with UC from 4 academic centers in Korea who received UST between January 2021 and October 2023 were included. Exclusion criteria were: (1) age <18 years; (2) initiation of UST for indications other than UC; (3) uncertain UC diagnosis; or (4) insufficient clinical records. IV UST induction dosing was weight based (260 mg for <55 kg, 390 mg for 55–85 kg, and 520 mg for >85 kg), followed by a first SC UST dose (90 mg) at week (W) 8. After assessing clinical response at W16–20, maintenance SC UST (90 mg) was administered every 8 or 12 weeks at the treating physician’s discretion.

2. Variables

Demographic and clinical data were collected retrospectively, including age, sex, body weight, smoking history, disease duration, prior exposure to biologics and/or small molecules (advanced therapies), disease extent (Montreal classification) [28], UC activity indices (Mayo or partial Mayo scores) [29], Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES), Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) [30], concomitant medications, and laboratory values (white blood cell count [WBC], hemoglobin [Hb], serum albumin, C-reactive protein [CRP], erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR], perinuclear anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody, and fecal calprotectin [FC]).

3. Outcomes and Definitions

Clinical and endoscopic outcomes were evaluated at W8, W16–20, and W52–56 after UST initiation. All participating centers used MES and UCEIS to measure endoscopic outcomes. The endoscopic images were evaluated by board-certified, experienced inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-expert endoscopists at each center. The primary outcome was clinical remission at W8, defined as a partial Mayo score ≤2 with no rectal bleeding or stool frequency subscore >1 [6,31]. Secondary outcomes included clinical remission at W16–20 and W52–56; corticosteroid-free clinical remission and clinical response at W8, W16–20, and W52–56; endoscopic improvement and endoscopic remission at W16–20 and W52–56; interval shortening and persistence of UST through W52–56; and safety outcomes. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission was defined as clinical remission without concomitant systemic corticosteroids. Clinical response was defined as a ≥3-point and ≥30% reduction in the partial Mayo score from baseline plus a decrease in the rectal bleeding subscore ≥1 or an absolute subscore ≤ 1 [31,32]. Endoscopic improvement was defined as MES 0–1, and endoscopic remission as MES 0 [6,33]. Interval shortening was defined as switching maintenance dosing from every 12 to every 8 weeks. Persistence was defined as continued UST at evaluation. Safety outcomes were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of UST. Patients who discontinued UST before assessment were considered as not achieving outcomes at that time point.

4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 29.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Categorical variables were summarized as counts and percentages, and continuous variables as means ± standard deviation (SD) or medians with interquartile range (IQR). Longitudinal trends in laboratory parameters, endoscopic scores, and disease activity indices at baseline and follow-up time points were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression was applied to identify independent factors of clinical remission at W8, W16–20, and W52–56, endoscopic improvement at W52–56, and interval shortening, including variables with P<0.1 on univariable analysis. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variables and Fisher exact test for categorical variables to assess factors associated with UST discontinuation. Two-sided P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Missing data in serum albumin, ESR, and FC were imputed by the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method [34].

5. Ethics Statement

This study was approved by the institutional review boards of all participating centers, including Asan Medical Center (IRB No. 2023-0591). The requirement for informed consent was waived by the institutional review boards due to the retrospective nature of the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [35].

RESULTS

1. Patient Characteristics

A total of 60 patients with UC were included; one patient who had initiated UST due to infliximab-related adverse events (AEs) and was already in clinical remission at baseline was excluded from the effectiveness analysis (Supplementary Fig. 1). Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age at UC diagnosis was 36.5 years (IQR, 21.0–53.0 years), and the median age at UST initiation was 44.5 years (IQR, 30.1–61.8 years). The median disease duration at UST initiation was 6.5 years (IQR, 3.7–10.6 years). Forty-two patients (70.0%) had prior exposure to advanced therapies, with a mean number of previous agents of 1.3 (SD, 1.1). Extensive colitis was present in 39 patients (65.0%). At baseline, median Mayo and partial Mayo scores were 8.0 (IQR, 7.0–9.0) and 5.0 (IQR, 5.0–6.0), respectively; median MES was 3.0 (IQR, 2.0–3.0), and UCEIS was 5.5 (IQR, 4.0–6.0). Concomitant medications included oral 5-ASAs in 55 patients (91.7%), 5-ASA suppositories in 29 (48.3%), systemic corticosteroids in 28 (46.7%), and immunomodulators (thiopurines) in 24 (40.0%). Median baseline laboratory values were: WBC, 7,865/mm³ (IQR, 5,950–9,500/mm³); Hb, 13.1 g/dL (IQR, 10.7–14.3 g/dL); serum albumin, 3.7 g/dL (IQR, 3.4–4.1 g/dL); ESR, 30.5 mm/hr (IQR, 16.0–50.3 mm/hr); CRP, 0.5 mg/dL (IQR, 0.1–1.3 mg/dL); and FC, 2,206 mg/kg (IQR, 866–4,138 mg/kg).

2. Clinical and Endoscopic Outcomes

Clinical outcomes after UST are shown in Fig. 1A. Among 59 evaluable patients, clinical remission was achieved in 29 (49.2%) at W8, 35 (59.3%) at W16–20, and 33 (55.9%) at W52–56. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission was achieved in 24 (40.7%), 33 (55.9%), and 31 (52.5%) at the same time points, respectively. Clinical response was observed in 40 (67.8%), 41 (69.5%), and 39 (66.1%). Endoscopic outcomes are presented in Fig. 1B. Endoscopic data were available for 53 of 59 patients at W16–20 (89.8%) and for 35 of 59 patients at W52–56 (59.3%); missing endoscopic outcomes were imputed as not achieving outcomes. At W16–20 and W52–56, endoscopic improvement was achieved in 33 (55.9%) and 22 (37.3%) patients, and endoscopic remission in 9 (15.3%) and 7 (11.9%), respectively.

3. Changes in Disease Activity Indices, Endoscopic Scores and Laboratory Values

Trends in disease activity indices, endoscopic scores, and laboratory markers during UST therapy are shown in Fig. 2. CRP and FC levels were log-transformed to approximate normality. Global P-values were calculated using linear mixed-effects models to assess changes over time. Least-squares means Mayo and partial Mayo scores, MES, and UCEIS significantly decreased (global P<0.001) (Fig. 2A and B). WBC (P=0.013), ESR, log-transformed CRP, and log-transformed FC also decreased significantly (global P<0.001) (Fig. 2C). Hb (P=0.277) and albumin (P=0.773) did not change significantly.

4. Factors Associated with Clinical Remission and Endoscopic Improvement

We evaluated the independent factors associated with clinical remission at each time point and reported the results in Table 2, Supplementary Table 1, and Supplementary Table 2. Prior exposure to advanced therapies was negatively associated with clinical remission at W8 (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.65; P=0.01), whereas concomitant immunomodulator use was positively associated (OR, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.17–12.74; P=0.03) (Table 2). At W16–20, past smoking (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05–0.76; P=0.02) and prior advanced therapy exposure (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06–0.93; P=0.04) were negatively associated factors (Supplementary Table 1). At W52–56, higher body mass index (BMI) at baseline (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.00–1.57; P<0.05), concomitant immunomodulator use (OR, 4.69; 95% CI, 1.04–21.06; P=0.04), and endoscopic improvement at W16–20 (OR, 13.47; 95% CI, 2.87–63.30; P<0.01) were positively, whereas prior advanced therapy exposure remained negatively (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04–0.98; P<0.05) associated factors (Supplementary Table 2). Concomitant immunomodulator use was also the sole factor associated with endoscopic improvement at W52–56 (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.01–10.29; P<0.05) (Table 3).

5. Interval Shortening of UST

Of the 60 patients, 34 (56.7%) started UST every 8 weeks, and 26 (43.3%) every 12 weeks. Nine (34.6%) of those on 12-week dosing required interval shortening to every 8 weeks by W52–56; median time to shortening was 20.0 weeks (IQR, 20.0–32.0 weeks). Two (7.7%) of these patients subsequently discontinued UST due to inadequate response and swapped to tofacitinib. Baseline characteristics of interval shortening versus non-shortening groups are shown in Supplementary Table 3.

6. Persistence of UST

UST was discontinued in 9 (15%) patients by W52–56. Patients who discontinued UST had higher baseline Mayo (median: 9 vs. 8; P=0.02) and partial Mayo scores (6 vs. 5; P=0.02) and lower albumin (3.4 g/dL vs. 3.7 g/dL; P=0.02) (Supplementary Table 4). Main reasons for discontinuation were secondary loss of response (n=5, 8.3%) and primary non-response (n=4, 6.7%). No patient discontinued UST due to intolerance. Kaplan–Meier persistence rates of UST were 95.0% at 2 months, 90.0% at 6 months, and 84.9% at 12 months; median UST exposure was 72.6 weeks (IQR, 54.7–104.7 weeks) (Fig. 3).

7. Adverse Events

Twenty-four patients (40.0%) experienced ≥1 AEs, most commonly infections (n=8, 13.3%): upper respiratory infections (n=5, 8.3%), herpes zoster (n=1, 1.7%), and cytomegalovirus colitis (n=1, 1.7%). One patient (1.7%) experienced a serious AE (SAE) and underwent colectomy for UC-associated colorectal cancer after 1.7 years on UST. Additional AE details are presented in Table 4.

DISCUSSION

In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, UST demonstrated favorable effectiveness as both induction and maintenance therapy for Korean patients with UC, with more than half of the patients achieving clinical remission at W52–56. Approximately 40% also achieved endoscopic improvement at W52–56, accompanied by favorable trends in biochemical markers over time. UST exhibited a reassuring safety profile, with only 1 patient (1.7%) experiencing a SAE and no new safety concerns identified.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to confirm the real-world effectiveness and safety of UST in Korean patients with UC. Notably, the clinical remission (49.2%) and response (67.8%) rates at W8 in our study appear higher than those reported in the pivotal UNIFI trial (clinical remission 15.5%; clinical response 61.8%) and its East Asian subgroup (clinical remission 11.1%; clinical response 60.0%) following a single IV UST dose (6 mg/kg) [6,8]. However, direct comparison is limited, as UNIFI used the total Mayo score, whereas our study used the partial Mayo score [6]. Additionally, W8 endoscopic data and total Mayo scores could not be collected because Korean reimbursement policy requires endoscopic assessment at W16–20. Controlled trials may also apply stricter eligibility and outcome measures, as shown in a Spanish analysis where only 12.7% of biologic-treated UC patients would have met pivotal trial criteria [36].

Our findings align with real-world data from Western cohorts reporting clinical remission and response rates of 17.0%–61.0% and 44.2%–77.0% after UST induction (W12–16) [9-24]. Japanese studies have reported comparable remission rates (29.0%–70.0%) and response rates (50.0%–82.3%) at W8, and a multicenter Japanese study showed 53.7% clinical remission and 71.1% clinical response rates at W16 [37-40]. These similarities likely reflect comparable baseline characteristics, including ethnic factors. Moreover, the proportions of patients previously exposed to advanced therapies (64.0%–83.3%) and treated with concomitant immunomodulators (25.8%–40.0%) paralleled with those in our study population and these also might have resulted in similar results [37-40].

In the Delphi-like process in the STRIDE-II consensus, endoscopic response was ranked as important as clinical response as a short-term treatment goal in UC [41]. Unlike most previous studies, including both Western and Eastern ones, which reported endoscopic outcomes at 6–12 months [10,12-15,18,20,24,39], our study additionally demonstrated favorable short-term endoscopic improvement rate at W16–20 (55.9%). In addition, our result coincides with the data from small-sized studies, which showed endoscopic improvement (MES of 0–1) rates of 18.4%–52% at W12–16 [9,42]. Considering the importance of endoscopic outcomes as a short-term treatment goal in UC, further studies with short-term endoscopic evaluation are warranted.

We uniquely report temporal trends in disease activity indices, endoscopic scores, and inflammatory markers, demonstrating significant reductions in WBC, ESR, CRP, and FC during UST therapy, extending beyond the CRP/FC focus of UNIFI long-term extension and most prior real-world studies [7,10,17,20,21]. In contrast, Hb and serum albumin levels showed no significant improvement, differing from a U.K. cohort study demonstrating marginal but significant improvements in Hb, platelet count, serum albumin, and CRP levels at W8, as well as improvements in platelet count and serum albumin at W16 [18]. Given the potential prognostic value of early albumin recovery in UC therapy, larger studies are needed to clarify its role in patients treated with UST [43,44].

Our multivariable analysis confirmed that prior exposure to advanced therapies predicted lower clinical remission across induction and maintenance, consistent with UNIFI and other real-world studies [6,9,12,40,45]. Concomitant immunomodulator use was positively associated with clinical remission at W8 and W52–56 and with endoscopic improvement at W52–56, although previous evidence suggests combination therapy does not uniformly improve outcomes with non-infliximab biologics [37,46,47]. Interestingly, our study demonstrated that higher baseline BMI was associated with an increased probability of clinical remission at W52–56. Although higher body weight could theoretically lead to lower drug concentrations during fixed-dose SC administration of UST, this concern is less applicable to our study, as BMI was assessed only at baseline and the initial IV UST dosing was weight-based. Alternatively, higher baseline BMI may reflect a surrogate marker of lower disease severity at baseline that was not fully captured by conventional clinical or endoscopic indices. Patients with relatively preserved nutritional status and less systemic inflammation might have higher BMI at baseline and, in turn, might have demonstrated more favorable long-term treatment responses to UST. This hypothesis warrants further investigation in larger studies incorporating longitudinal BMI assessment and therapeutic drug monitoring.

According to a recent meta-analysis, 28.4% of patients with UC needed dose escalation (decreasing the dose intervals of 90 mg UST SC from 12 to 8 weeks, or from 8 to every 6 or even 4 weeks) due to suboptimal response or loss of response [48]. In addition, several long-term real-world studies proved that interval shortening of UST SC every 4 or 6 weeks were effective and safe in UC patients who lost response to SC dosing every 8 weeks [12,19]. In our study, 9 patients (34.6%) have reduced SC injection interval time from every 12 to 8 weeks, but 2 patients (7.7%) swapped to tofacitinib therapy due to loss of response even after interval shortening of UST. However, no patients in our study received dosing shorter than 8 weeks, as this is not yet approved in Korea. Moreover, our sample size was too small and the follow-up period was not long enough to evaluate the clinical outcomes after interval shortening from every 12 to 8 weeks. Larger and longer-term studies are necessary to define optimal interval shortening strategies.

UST persistence was high, approaching 85% at 1 year, with discontinuations mainly due to secondary loss of response or primary non-response, similar to Western data [49,50]. Persistence of an advanced therapy is important in clinical practice because it reflects not only the drug’s effectiveness but also its tolerability and the preferences of both patients and clinicians. In this regard, our study reinforces UST’s practical value in UC management.

Our study reported tolerable AEs (40.0%) and SAEs (1.7%) after UST treatment. Infections were the most common AEs (13.3%), with upper respiratory infections being the most frequent, occurring in 8.3% of patients. In a real-world induction study of UST for Korean patients with Crohn’s disease, AEs and SAEs have been reported in 41.5% and 4.6% of patients, respectively [51]. We believe that the findings of this study reinforce the safety profile of UST for Asian patients with IBD. With regard to one case of an SAE, colectomy performed for UC-associated colorectal cancer was considered unrelated to UST treatment, as the malignancy was attributed to long-standing colitis-related dysplasia. The interval from the diagnosis of UC to the diagnosis of colorectal cancer was approximately 7 years, during which the disease remained active, not responding to thiopurines, infliximab, and adalimumab before introduction of UST. Importantly, colorectal cancer was diagnosed 1.7 years after the initiation of UST, a timeframe generally regarded as too short to support de novo tumorigenesis attributable to immunosuppressive biologic therapy.

Taken together, our findings offer meaningful clinical implications for the management of UC in Korea. For patients initiating their first advanced therapy, UST may represent an attractive treatment option given its favorable long-term effectiveness and safety profile. Furthermore, combination therapy with UST and an immunomodulator may be considered during the first year of therapy to potentially improve outcomes.

This study has limitations, primarily related to its retrospective design and potential heterogeneity in practices between participating centers. However, strict regulation of IBD advanced treatments by a single universal reimbursement criterion by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service of Korea likely minimized center-to-center variation [51]. Nevertheless, due to the absence of a pre-defined protocol like controlled trials, some of outcome data, such as endoscopic scores, were missing at each time point. For conservative interpretation, missing endoscopic outcomes were imputed as not achieving endoscopic outcomes, which might have led to an underestimation of the true endoscopic effectiveness. Although a centralized image-reading process, as in controlled trials, was not performed, the use of standardized scoring systems and regular IBD-endoscopy training programs within these academic centers is expected to reduce inter-observer variability. Second, data were from tertiary hospitals, potentially skewing toward more severe cases, but advanced therapies in Korea are largely prescribed in such centers. Finally, histologic outcomes, which is getting more attention as another endpoint of UC treatment, could not be assessed, as it is not yet an established therapeutic target in Korea [52]. In conclusion, UST was effective and well tolerated as induction and maintenance therapy for up to 1 year in Korean patients with UC, supporting its use in real-world clinical practice.

NOTES

Funding Source

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant (2021R1A2C2095096), funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT to Ye BD.

Conflict of Interest

Ye BD reports consulting fees from AbbVie Korea, BMS Pharmaceutical Korea Ltd., Celltrion, Chong Kun Dang Pharm, CJ Red BIO, Curacle, Daewoong Pharm, Dong-A ST, Ferring Korea, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Imscout, IQVIA, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Korea, Jeil Pharmaceutical Co., Kangstem Biotech, Korea Otsuka Pharm, Korea United Pharm, Lilly Korea, Medtronic Korea, NanoEntek, ORGANOIDSCIENCES Ltd., Pfizer Korea, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda, Takeda Korea and Yuhan; speaker fees from AbbVie Korea, BMS Pharmaceutical Korea Ltd., Celltrion, Cornerstones Health, Curacle, Daewoong Pharm, Eisai Korea, Ferring Korea, IQVIA, Johnson & Johnson Korea, Pfizer Korea, Samsung Bioepis, and Takeda Korea; and research support from Celltrion and Pfizer Korea. All of these are not relevant to this article.

Kim ES and Kim KO 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

All data, analysis methods, and study materials relevant to the study are included in the article or are available upon request from the corresponding author, Ye BD.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Baek JE, Ye BD. Data curation: Baek JE, Kim MK, Kim ES, Kim KO, Jo HH. Formal analysis: Baek JE, Ye BD. Funding acquisition: Ye BD. Investigation: Baek JE, Kim MK, Kim ES, Kim KO, Jo HH. Methodology: Baek JE, Ye BD. Supervision: Hwang SW, Park SH, Jang BI, Kim EY, Kim SK, Yang SK. Writing–original draft: Baek JE, Ye BD. Writing–review & editing: Baek JE, Kim MK, Kim ES, Kim KO, Jo HH, Hwang SW, Park SH, Jang BI, Kim EY, Kim SK, Yang SK, Ye BD. Approval of f inal manuscript: all authors.

Additional Contributions

English editing of this manuscript was assisted by ChatGPT (GPT-5, OpenAI).

Supplementary Material

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

Supplementary Table 1.

Univariable and Multivariable Analyses of Factors Associated with Clinical Remission^a at Week 16–20

ir-2025-00258-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf

Supplementary Table 2.

Univariable and Multivariable Analyses of Factors Associated with Clinical Remission^a at Week 52–56

ir-2025-00258-Supplementary-Table-2.pdf

Supplementary Table 3.

Patient Characteristics According to Interval Shortening of Ustekinumab

ir-2025-00258-Supplementary-Table-3.pdf

Supplementary Table 4.

Patient Characteristics According to Ustekinumab Discontinuation

ir-2025-00258-Supplementary-Table-4.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 1.

Flowchart of patient enrollment.

ir-2025-00258-Supplementary-Fig-1.pdf

Fig. 1.

Outcomes of ustekinumab therapy in ulcerative colitis. (A) Clinical outcomes after ustekinumab induction and maintenance therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis. (B) Endoscopic outcomes after ustekinumab induction and maintenance therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis.

Fig. 2.

Changes in clinical, endoscopic, and laboratory parameters. (A) Changes in Mayo score and partial Mayo score, expressed as least-squares means±SEMs. (B) Changes in MES and UCEIS, expressed as least-squares means±SEMs. (C) Changes in laboratory values, expressed as least-squares means±SEMs. MES, Mayo endoscopic subscore; UCEIS, Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity; WBC, white blood cell count; Hb, hemoglobin; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP, C-reactive protein; FC, fecal calprotectin; SEMs, standard error of the means.

Fig. 3.

Persistence of ustekinumab in patients with ulcerative colitis.

Table 1.

Patient Characteristics

Characteristics	Value (n=60)
Age at diagnosis of UC (yr), median (IQR)	36.5 (21.0–53.0)
Age at initiating UST (yr), median (IQR)	44.5 (30.1–61.8)
Disease duration (yr), median (IQR)	6.5 (3.7–10.6)
Male sex, No. (%)	38 (63.3)
Body mass index (kg/m²), median (IQR)	22.1 (19.2–24.1)
Smoking, No. (%)
Current	7 (11.7)
Past	16 (26.7)
Non-smoker	31 (51.7)
Missing	6 (10.0)
p-ANCA, No. (%)
Positive	21 (35.0)
Negative	25 (41.7)
Missing	14 (23.3)
Previous exposure to advanced therapies, No. (%)	42 (70.0)
TNF inhibitors	35 (58.3)
Vedolizumab	22 (36.7)
Tofacitinib	8 (13.3)
Mirikizumab	1 (1.7)
Ravagalimab	1 (1.7)
Upadacitinib	1 (1.7)
Number of previous advanced therapies, mean±SD	1.3±1.1
Disease extent by Montreal classification, No. (%)
Proctitis (E1)	2 (3.3)
Left-sided colitis (E2)	19 (31.7)
Extensive colitis (E3)	39 (65.0)
Mayo score, median (IQR)	8.0 (7.0–9.0)
Partial Mayo score, median (IQR)	5.0 (5.0–6.0)
MES, median (IQR)	3.0 (2.0–3.0)
UCEIS, median (IQR)	5.5 (4.0–6.0)
Concomitant use of 5-ASAs, No. (%)
Oral	55 (91.7)
Topical (suppository)	29 (48.3)
Concomitant use of systemic corticosteroids, No. (%)	28 (46.7)
Concomitant use of immunomodulators, No. (%)	24 (40.0)
Baseline laboratory values, median (IQR)
WBC (mm³)	7,865 (5,950–9,500)
Hemoglobin (g/dL)	13.1 (10.7–14.3)
Serum albumin (g/dL)^a	3.7 (3.4–4.1)
ESR (mm/hr)^a	30.5 (16.0–50.3)
Serum CRP (mg/dL)	0.5 (0.1–1.3)
FC (mg/kg)^a	2,206 (866–4,138)

Patients may have been exposed to one or more advanced therapeutic agents.

^a The missing values (serum albumin, ESR, and FC) were filled via multiple imputation using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method.

UC, ulcerative colitis; IQR, interquartile range; UST, ustekinumab; p-ANCA, perinuclear anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; SD, standard deviation; MES, Mayo endoscopic subscore; UCEIS, Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity; 5-ASAs, 5-aminosalicylates; WBC, white blood cell count; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP, C-reactive protein; FC, fecal calprotectin.

Table 2.

Univariable and Multivariable Analyses of Factors Associated with Clinical Remission^a at Week 8

Factor	Univariable analysis		Multivariable analysis
Factor	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Age at diagnosis of UC	0.99 (0.96–1.02)	0.63
Age at starting UST	1.00 (0.97–1.03)	0.83
Disease duration	1.05 (0.95–1.16)	0.34
Male	0.82 (0.28–2.38)	0.71
Body mass index	1.04 (0.88–1.22)	0.65
Smoking
Never	Reference	0.65
Current	2.35 (0.38–14.47)	0.36
Past	1.18 (0.36–3.81)	0.79
p-ANCA	0.57 (0.19–1.71)	0.32
Previous exposure to advanced therapies	0.17 (0.05–0.59)	0.01^b	0.17 (0.05–0.65)	0.01^c
Concomitant use of systemic corticosteroids	0.62 (0.22–1.73)	0.36
Concomitant use of immunomodulators	4.04 (1.32–12.38)	0.01^b	3.85 (1.17–12.74)	0.03^c
Disease extent by Montreal classification
Proctitis (E1) or left-sided colitis (E2)
Extensive colitis (E3)	0.52 (0.17–1.54)	0.24
Baseline Mayo score	0.77 (0.55–1.08)	0.13
Baseline partial Mayo score	0.79 (0.54–1.14)	0.20
Baseline MES	0.66 (0.25–1.74)	0.40
Baseline UCEIS	0.99 (0.69–1.42)	0.95
Baseline WBC	1.03 (0.94–1.14)	0.51
Baseline hemoglobin	1.14 (0.92–1.41)	0.22
Baseline serum albumin	1.33 (0.49–3.56)	0.58
Baseline CRP	1.07 (0.85–1.35)	0.56
Baseline ESR	0.98 (0.97–1.01)	0.24
Baseline FC	1.00 (1.00–1.00)	0.48

The missing values (serum albumin, ESR, and FC) were filled via multiple imputation using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method.

^a Clinical remission was defined as partial Mayo score of ≤2 and no subscore >1.

^b P-value < 0.10.

^c P-value < 0.05.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; UC, ulcerative colitis; UST, ustekinumab; p-ANCA, perinuclear anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; MES, Mayo endoscopic subscore; UCEIS, Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity; WBC, white blood cell count; CRP, C-reactive protein; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; FC, fecal calprotectin.

Table 3.

Univariable and Multivariable Analyses of Factors Associated with Endoscopic Improvement^a at Week 52–56

Factor	Univariable analysis		Multivariable analysis
Factor	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Age at diagnosis of UC	1.01 (0.98–1.05)	0.45
Age at starting UST	1.00 (0.97–1.04)	0.84
Disease duration	0.92 (0.82–1.03)	0.14
Male	0.69 (0.23–2.07)	0.51
Body mass index	1.01 (0.85–1.19)	0.93
Smoking
Never	Reference	0.98
Current	0.82 (0.13–5.08)	0.83
Past	0.99 (0.29–3.31)	0.98
p-ANCA	1.64 (0.54–4.94)	0.38
Previous exposure to advanced therapies	0.46 (0.15–1.44)	0.19
Concomitant use of systemic corticosteroids	0.66 (0.23–1.91)	0.44
Concomitant use of immunomodulators	2.84 (0.95–8.49)	0.06^b	3.23 (1.01–10.29)	<0.05^c
Disease extent by Montreal classification
Proctitis (E1) or left-sided colitis (E2)	Reference
Extensive colitis (E3)	2.25 (0.74–6.82)	0.15
Baseline Mayo score	1.06 (0.76–1.47)	0.75
Baseline partial Mayo score	1.02 (0.71–1.46)	0.93
Baseline MES	1.73 (0.62–4.86)	0.30
Baseline UCEIS	1.29 (0.86–1.93)	0.22
Baseline WBC	1.14 (0.94–1.39)	0.20
Baseline hemoglobin	1.12 (0.90–1.39)	0.32
Baseline serum albumin	1.35 (0.48–3.80)	0.58
Baseline CRP	0.97 (0.77–1.23)	0.82
Baseline ESR	0.98 (0.95–1.00)	0.06^b	0.97 (0.95–1.00)	0.05
Baseline FC	1.00 (1.00–1.00)	0.39

The missing values (serum albumin, ESR, and FC) were filled via multiple imputation using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method.

^a Endoscopic improvement was defined as Mayo endoscopic score of ≤1.

^b P-value < 0.10.

^c P-value < 0.05.

Table 4.

Adverse Events During Ustekinumab Treatment (n=60)

Adverse events	No. (%)
Serious adverse events	1 (1.7)
Colectomy due to colorectal cancer	1 (1.7)
Adverse events	24 (40.0)
Infections	8 (13.3)
Upper respiratory tract infection	5 (8.3)
Cytomegalovirus colitis	1 (1.7)
Herpes zoster	1 (1.7)
Liver abscess	1 (1.7)
Nausea/vomiting	5 (8.3)
Anemia	4 (6.7)
Anorexia	4 (6.7)
Arthralgia	4 (6.7)
Pyrexia	3 (5.0)
Urticaria	3 (5.0)
Headache	2 (3.3)
Acne	1 (1.7)
Atopic dermatitis	1 (1.7)
Depression	1 (1.7)
Panic attack	1 (1.7)
Peripheral edema	1 (1.7)
Stomatitis	1 (1.7)

REFERENCES

1. Gros B, Kaplan GG. Ulcerative colitis in adults: a review. JAMA 2023;330:951–965.Article PubMed
2. Raine T, Bonovas S, Burisch J, et al. ECCO guidelines on therapeutics in ulcerative colitis: medical treatment. J Crohns Colitis 2022;16:2–17.Article PubMed PDF
3. Rubin DT, Ananthakrishnan AN, Siegel CA, Barnes EL, Long MD. ACG clinical guideline update: ulcerative colitis in adults. Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120:1187–1224.Article PubMed
4. Na SY, Choi CH, Song EM, et al. Korean clinical practice guidelines on biologics and small molecules for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Intest Res 2023;21:61–87.Article PubMed PDF
5. Yen HH, Wu JF, Wang HY, et al. Management of ulcerative colitis in Taiwan: consensus guideline of the Taiwan Society of Inflammatory Bowel Disease updated in 2023. Intest Res 2024;22:213–249.Article PubMed PMC PDF
6. Sands BE, Sandborn WJ, Panaccione R, et al. Ustekinumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1201–1214.Article PubMed
7. Afif W, Arasaradnam RP, Abreu MT, et al. Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab for ulcerative colitis through 4 years: final results of the UNIFI long-term maintenance study. Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119:910–921.Article PubMed
8. Hisamatsu T, Kim HJ, Motoya S, et al. Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in East Asian patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a subpopulation analysis of global phase 3 induction and maintenance studies (UNIFI). Intest Res 2021;19:386–397.Article PubMed PDF
9. Amiot A, Filippi J, Abitbol V, et al. Effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab induction therapy for 103 patients with ulcerative colitis: a GETAID multicentre real-world cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2020;51:1039–1046.Article PubMed PDF
10. Ochsenkühn T, Tillack C, Szokodi D, Janelidze S, Schnitzler F. Clinical outcomes with ustekinumab as rescue treatment in therapy-refractory or therapy-intolerant ulcerative colitis. United European Gastroenterol J 2020;8:91–98.Article PubMed PDF
11. Chaparro M, Garre A, Iborra M, et al. Effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in ulcerative colitis: real-world evidence from the ENEIDA Registry. J Crohns Colitis 2021;15:1846–1851.PubMed PMC
12. Hong SJ, Krugliak Cleveland N, Akiyama S, et al. Real-world effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab for ulcerative colitis from 2 tertiary IBD centers in the United States. Crohns Colitis 360 2021;3:otab002.Article PubMed PMC PDF
13. Chiappetta MF, Viola A, Mastronardi M, et al. One-year effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in ulcerative colitis: a multicenter real-world study from Italy. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2021;21:1483–1489.Article PubMed
14. Fumery M, Filippi J, Abitbol V, et al. Effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab maintenance therapy in 103 patients with ulcerative colitis: a GETAID cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2021;54:944–951.Article PubMed PDF
15. Parakkal D, Johnson A, Fenster M, et al. P325 Real-world effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in patients with ulcerative colitis: a multi-centre study. J Crohns 2021;15:S349–S350.Article PDF
16. Ecker D, Fuchssteiner H, Gregus M, Piringer F, Wewalka R, Schöfl M. Ustekinumab for ulcerative colitis a real-world experience: retrospective data analysis of the IBD cohort Ordensklinikum Linz. United European Gastroenterol J 2021;9(Suppl 8): 490.
17. Thunberg J, Björkqvist O, Hedin CR, et al. Ustekinumab treatment in ulcerative colitis: real-world data from the Swedish inflammatory bowel disease quality register. United European Gastroenterol J 2022;10:631–639.Article PubMed PMC PDF
18. Honap S, Al-Hillawi L, Baillie S, et al. Ustekinumab for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: a multicentre UK cohort study. Frontline Gastroenterol 2022;13:517–523.Article PubMed PMC
19. Dalal RS, Esckilsen S, Barnes EL, Pruce JC, Marcus J, Allegretti JR. Predictors and outcomes of ustekinumab dose intensification in ulcerative colitis: a multicenter cohort study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;20:2399–2401.Article PubMed
20. Iborra M, Soutullo C, Gimeno M, et al. P383 Ustekinumab as an opportunity for refractory ulcerative colitis patients. J Crohns 2022;16:i383–i384.Article PDF
21. Iborra M, Ferreiro-Iglesias R, Maria Dolores MA, et al. Real-world long-term effectiveness of ustekinumab in ulcerative colitis: results from a Spanish open-label cohort. Scand J Gastroenterol 2024;59:260–268.Article PubMed
22. Holvoet T, Truyens M, Reenaers C, et al. Ustekinumab in ulcerative colitis: a real-life effectiveness study across multiple Belgian centers (SULTAN). J Clin Med 2025;14:6506.Article PubMed PMC
23. Molander P, Af Björkesten CG, Henricson H, et al. Ustekinumab for ulcerative colitis: a nationwide real-life observational cohort study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2025;37:446–453.Article PubMed PMC
24. Solitano V, Narula N, Ma C, et al. Effectiveness of ustekinumab for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a multicenter real-world Canadian study. Am J Gastroenterol 2024;120:1576–1584.Article PubMed
25. Park SH. Update on the epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease in Asia: where are we now? Intest Res 2022;20:159–164.Article PubMed PMC PDF
26. Song EM, Yang SK. Natural history of inflammatory bowel disease: a comparison between the East and the West. Intest Res 2022;20:418–430.Article PubMed PDF
27. Park J. How have treatment patterns for patients with inflammatory bowel disease changed in Asian countries? Intest Res 2023;21:275–276.Article PubMed PMC PDF
28. Satsangi J, Silverberg MS, Vermeire S, Colombel JF. The Montreal classification of inflammatory bowel disease: controversies, consensus, and implications. Gut 2006;55:749–753.Article PubMed
29. 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
30. Travis SP, Schnell D, Krzeski P, et al. Developing an instrument to assess the endoscopic severity of ulcerative colitis: the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS). Gut 2012;61:535–542.Article PubMed
31. D’Haens G, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. A review of activity indices and efficacy end points for clinical trials of medical therapy in adults with ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2007;132:763–786.Article PubMed
32. Lewis JD, Chuai S, Nessel L, Lichtenstein GR, Aberra FN, Ellenberg JH. Use of the noninvasive components of the Mayo score to assess clinical response in ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2008;14:1660–1666.Article PubMed PMC
33. Yoon H, Jangi S, Dulai PS, et al. Incremental benefit of achieving endoscopic and histologic remission in patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2020;159:1262–1275.Article PubMed PMC
34. van Ravenzwaaij D, Cassey P, Brown SD. A simple introduction to Markov Chain Monte-Carlo sampling. Psychon Bull Rev 2018;25:143–154.Article PubMed PMC PDF
35. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg 2014;12:1495–1499.Article PubMed
36. Casas Deza D, Larrubia Domínguez C, Pascual Oliver A, et al. Patients included in clinical trials of biological drugs for inflammatory bowel disease do not represent the real-world population. Am J Gastroenterol 2025;Jul 30 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000003670.Article
37. Aoki Y, Sujino T, Kawaguchi T, et al. Effectiveness and durability of ustekinumab therapy with or without immunomodulators for ulcerative colitis patients in Japan. Crohns Colitis 360 2022;4:otac010.Article PubMed PMC PDF
38. Komeda Y, Tribonias G, Kono M, et al. Real-world data on short-term and long-term treatment results of ustekinumab in patients with steroid-resistant/dependent ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Intest Dis 2023;8:161–166.Article PubMed PMC PDF
39. Uchida G, Nakamura M, Yamamura T, et al. Real-world effectiveness and risk factors for discontinuation of ustekinumab in ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Intest Dis 2023;8:60–68.Article PubMed PMC PDF
40. Ando K, Fujiya M, Ueno N, et al. Effectiveness and persistency of ustekinumab treatment for ulcerative colitis: a phoenix retrospective cohort study. Crohns Colitis 360 2024;6:otae024.Article PubMed PMC PDF
41. Turner D, Ricciuto A, Lewis A, et al. STRIDE-II: An update on the Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE) Initiative of the International Organization for the Study of IBD (IOIBD): determining therapeutic goals for treat-to-target strategies in IBD. Gastroenterology 2021;160:1570–1583.Article PubMed
42. Alsoud D, De Hertogh G, Compernolle G, et al. Real-world endoscopic and histological outcomes are correlated with ustekinumab exposure in patients with ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis 2022;16:1562–1570.Article PubMed PDF
43. Hanauer S, Sandborn WJ, Colombel JF, et al. Rapid changes in laboratory parameters and early response to adalimumab: a pooled analysis from patients with ulcerative colitis in two clinical trials. J Crohns Colitis 2019;13:1227–1233.Article PubMed PMC
44. Lee SH, Walshe M, Oh EH, et al. Early changes in serum albumin predict clinical and endoscopic outcomes in patients with ulcerative colitis starting anti-TNF treatment. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2021;27:1452–1461.Article PubMed PDF
45. Abreu MT, Rowbotham DS, Danese S, et al. Efficacy and safety of maintenance ustekinumab for ulcerative colitis through 3 years: UNIFI long-term extension. J Crohns Colitis 2022;16:1222–1234.Article PubMed PMC PDF
46. Dai C, Huang YH, Jiang M. Combination therapy in inflammatory bowel disease: current evidence and perspectives. Int Immunopharmacol 2023;114:109545.Article PubMed
47. Jeffrey AW, Picardo S, Menon S, So K, Venugopal K. Combination therapy is not associated with improved rates of clinical or endoscopic remission in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with ustekinumab or vedolizumab: a retrospective study. Ann Gastroenterol 2023;36:430–436.Article PubMed PMC
48. Taxonera C, Olivares D, López-García ON, Alba C. Meta-analysis: real-world effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in patients with ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2023;57:610–619.Article PubMed PDF
49. Gisbert JP, Parody-Rúa E, Chaparro M. Efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of ustekinumab for the treatment of ulcerative colitis: a systematic review. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2024;30:292–302.Article PubMed PMC PDF
50. Chaparro M, Hermida S, Acosta D, et al. Long-term benefit of ustekinumab in ulcerative colitis in clinical practice: ULISES study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2024;60:1325–1338.PubMed
51. Oh K, Hong HS, Ham NS, et al. Real-world effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab induction therapy for Korean patients with Crohn’s disease: a KASID prospective multicenter study. Intest Res 2023;21:137–147.Article PubMed PDF
52. Akiyama S, Miyatani Y, Rubin DT. The evolving understanding of histology as an endpoint in ulcerative colitis. Intest Res 2024;22:389–396.Article PubMed PMC PDF

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

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

Format:

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

Include:

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

One-year effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab treatment in patients with ulcerative colitis: an Asan-Crohn’s and Colitis Association in Daegu-Gyeongbuk (CCAiD) multicenter real-world cohort study

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00258

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Fig. 1. Outcomes of ustekinumab therapy in ulcerative colitis. (A) Clinical outcomes after ustekinumab induction and maintenance therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis. (B) Endoscopic outcomes after ustekinumab induction and maintenance therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis.

Fig. 2. Changes in clinical, endoscopic, and laboratory parameters. (A) Changes in Mayo score and partial Mayo score, expressed as least-squares means±SEMs. (B) Changes in MES and UCEIS, expressed as least-squares means±SEMs. (C) Changes in laboratory values, expressed as least-squares means±SEMs. MES, Mayo endoscopic subscore; UCEIS, Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity; WBC, white blood cell count; Hb, hemoglobin; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP, C-reactive protein; FC, fecal calprotectin; SEMs, standard error of the means.

Fig. 3. Persistence of ustekinumab in patients with ulcerative colitis.

Graphical abstract

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Graphical abstract

Characteristics	Value (n=60)
Age at diagnosis of UC (yr), median (IQR)	36.5 (21.0–53.0)
Age at initiating UST (yr), median (IQR)	44.5 (30.1–61.8)
Disease duration (yr), median (IQR)	6.5 (3.7–10.6)
Male sex, No. (%)	38 (63.3)
Body mass index (kg/m²), median (IQR)	22.1 (19.2–24.1)
Smoking, No. (%)
Current	7 (11.7)
Past	16 (26.7)
Non-smoker	31 (51.7)
Missing	6 (10.0)
p-ANCA, No. (%)
Positive	21 (35.0)
Negative	25 (41.7)
Missing	14 (23.3)
Previous exposure to advanced therapies, No. (%)	42 (70.0)
TNF inhibitors	35 (58.3)
Vedolizumab	22 (36.7)
Tofacitinib	8 (13.3)
Mirikizumab	1 (1.7)
Ravagalimab	1 (1.7)
Upadacitinib	1 (1.7)
Number of previous advanced therapies, mean±SD	1.3±1.1
Disease extent by Montreal classification, No. (%)
Proctitis (E1)	2 (3.3)
Left-sided colitis (E2)	19 (31.7)
Extensive colitis (E3)	39 (65.0)
Mayo score, median (IQR)	8.0 (7.0–9.0)
Partial Mayo score, median (IQR)	5.0 (5.0–6.0)
MES, median (IQR)	3.0 (2.0–3.0)
UCEIS, median (IQR)	5.5 (4.0–6.0)
Concomitant use of 5-ASAs, No. (%)
Oral	55 (91.7)
Topical (suppository)	29 (48.3)
Concomitant use of systemic corticosteroids, No. (%)	28 (46.7)
Concomitant use of immunomodulators, No. (%)	24 (40.0)
Baseline laboratory values, median (IQR)
WBC (mm³)	7,865 (5,950–9,500)
Hemoglobin (g/dL)	13.1 (10.7–14.3)
Serum albumin (g/dL)^a	3.7 (3.4–4.1)
ESR (mm/hr)^a	30.5 (16.0–50.3)
Serum CRP (mg/dL)	0.5 (0.1–1.3)
FC (mg/kg)^a	2,206 (866–4,138)

Factor	Univariable analysis		Multivariable analysis
Factor	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Age at diagnosis of UC	0.99 (0.96–1.02)	0.63
Age at starting UST	1.00 (0.97–1.03)	0.83
Disease duration	1.05 (0.95–1.16)	0.34
Male	0.82 (0.28–2.38)	0.71
Body mass index	1.04 (0.88–1.22)	0.65
Smoking
Never	Reference	0.65
Current	2.35 (0.38–14.47)	0.36
Past	1.18 (0.36–3.81)	0.79
p-ANCA	0.57 (0.19–1.71)	0.32
Previous exposure to advanced therapies	0.17 (0.05–0.59)	0.01^b	0.17 (0.05–0.65)	0.01^c
Concomitant use of systemic corticosteroids	0.62 (0.22–1.73)	0.36
Concomitant use of immunomodulators	4.04 (1.32–12.38)	0.01^b	3.85 (1.17–12.74)	0.03^c
Disease extent by Montreal classification
Proctitis (E1) or left-sided colitis (E2)
Extensive colitis (E3)	0.52 (0.17–1.54)	0.24
Baseline Mayo score	0.77 (0.55–1.08)	0.13
Baseline partial Mayo score	0.79 (0.54–1.14)	0.20
Baseline MES	0.66 (0.25–1.74)	0.40
Baseline UCEIS	0.99 (0.69–1.42)	0.95
Baseline WBC	1.03 (0.94–1.14)	0.51
Baseline hemoglobin	1.14 (0.92–1.41)	0.22
Baseline serum albumin	1.33 (0.49–3.56)	0.58
Baseline CRP	1.07 (0.85–1.35)	0.56
Baseline ESR	0.98 (0.97–1.01)	0.24
Baseline FC	1.00 (1.00–1.00)	0.48

Factor	Univariable analysis		Multivariable analysis
Factor	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Age at diagnosis of UC	1.01 (0.98–1.05)	0.45
Age at starting UST	1.00 (0.97–1.04)	0.84
Disease duration	0.92 (0.82–1.03)	0.14
Male	0.69 (0.23–2.07)	0.51
Body mass index	1.01 (0.85–1.19)	0.93
Smoking
Never	Reference	0.98
Current	0.82 (0.13–5.08)	0.83
Past	0.99 (0.29–3.31)	0.98
p-ANCA	1.64 (0.54–4.94)	0.38
Previous exposure to advanced therapies	0.46 (0.15–1.44)	0.19
Concomitant use of systemic corticosteroids	0.66 (0.23–1.91)	0.44
Concomitant use of immunomodulators	2.84 (0.95–8.49)	0.06^b	3.23 (1.01–10.29)	<0.05^c
Disease extent by Montreal classification
Proctitis (E1) or left-sided colitis (E2)	Reference
Extensive colitis (E3)	2.25 (0.74–6.82)	0.15
Baseline Mayo score	1.06 (0.76–1.47)	0.75
Baseline partial Mayo score	1.02 (0.71–1.46)	0.93
Baseline MES	1.73 (0.62–4.86)	0.30
Baseline UCEIS	1.29 (0.86–1.93)	0.22
Baseline WBC	1.14 (0.94–1.39)	0.20
Baseline hemoglobin	1.12 (0.90–1.39)	0.32
Baseline serum albumin	1.35 (0.48–3.80)	0.58
Baseline CRP	0.97 (0.77–1.23)	0.82
Baseline ESR	0.98 (0.95–1.00)	0.06^b	0.97 (0.95–1.00)	0.05
Baseline FC	1.00 (1.00–1.00)	0.39

Adverse events	No. (%)
Serious adverse events	1 (1.7)
Colectomy due to colorectal cancer	1 (1.7)
Adverse events	24 (40.0)
Infections	8 (13.3)
Upper respiratory tract infection	5 (8.3)
Cytomegalovirus colitis	1 (1.7)
Herpes zoster	1 (1.7)
Liver abscess	1 (1.7)
Nausea/vomiting	5 (8.3)
Anemia	4 (6.7)
Anorexia	4 (6.7)
Arthralgia	4 (6.7)
Pyrexia	3 (5.0)
Urticaria	3 (5.0)
Headache	2 (3.3)
Acne	1 (1.7)
Atopic dermatitis	1 (1.7)
Depression	1 (1.7)
Panic attack	1 (1.7)
Peripheral edema	1 (1.7)
Stomatitis	1 (1.7)

Table 1. Patient Characteristics

Patients may have been exposed to one or more advanced therapeutic agents.

The missing values (serum albumin, ESR, and FC) were filled via multiple imputation using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method.

Table 2. Univariable and Multivariable Analyses of Factors Associated with Clinical Remissiona at Week 8

The missing values (serum albumin, ESR, and FC) were filled via multiple imputation using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method.

Clinical remission was defined as partial Mayo score of ≤2 and no subscore >1.

P-value < 0.10.

P-value < 0.05.

Table 3. Univariable and Multivariable Analyses of Factors Associated with Endoscopic Improvementa at Week 52–56

The missing values (serum albumin, ESR, and FC) were filled via multiple imputation using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method.

Endoscopic improvement was defined as Mayo endoscopic score of ≤1.

P-value < 0.10.

P-value < 0.05.

Table 4. Adverse Events During Ustekinumab Treatment (n=60)