Abstract Background CD patients exhibit highly variable responses to biologics. While some patients achieve sustained remission with only one biologic over the course of their disease, other will require the sequencing of multiple biologics (“difficult-to-treat” patients) for optimal disease control. The aim of this study was to delineate the profile of treatment regimen of the biological exposed CD patients with luminal disease. Methods Among CD patients diagnosed between 1999 and 2019 with B1 phenotype at diagnosis, 203 patients who maintained this phenotype at maximum follow-up (FU, median 11y [8–15]) were selected, based on inclusion criteria. All events were recorded from date of diagnosis to maximum FU, from disease characteristics to treatment adaptations. A temporal clustering approach using k-means was applied to determine biologics treatment regimen profiles. Patient profiles were compared using the Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) similarity measure, considering 3 successive cumulative biologic exposures (for primary/secondary non response only). Clusters number was chosen to balance maximizing silhouette score while ensuring sufficient individuals per cluster. Cumulative biologic exposures were summarized as cluster profiles, represented by their corresponding barycenters computed with soft-DTW distance. Clustering approach was performed using Python (tslearn). Results The 203 patients were clustered in 5 distinct profiles, based on their cumulative biologics exposure in the first 10 years after CD diagnosis (Figure 1). Patients in Cluster 1 were not exposed to biologics (n=55). Patients in Cluster 2 were treated late with one biologic (n=51) while patients in Cluster 3 were treated early with one biologic (n=53). Patients from Cluster 4 (n=23) and Cluster 5 (n=21) were both treated early with multiple biologics. Patients from Cluster 2 were exposed to biologics later after CD diagnosis than patients from Cluster 3 to 5 (Median 5.7y [3.6–6.9] vs 0.7y [0.2-1.8], p<0.0001), as also shown by their lower biological exposure compared to those of Cluster 3 to 5 (median 48% [37-58] vs 80% [60-89], p<0.0001). Most interestingly, patients from Cluster 5 required faster biologics changes compared to patients from Cluster 4 (Figure 2). In Cluster 5 (rapid switchers), patients were exposed earlier compared to patients in Cluster 4 (Slow Switchers) to the first (p<0.005), second (P<0.005) and third biologic (p=0.01), introducing the concept of rapid and slow biologic switchers among CD patients. Conclusion This clustering approach highlights the highly variable pattern of response to biologics in luminal CD patients. Furthermore, this study discriminatessingle and multiple biologics-exposed patients, in whom we identified slow and rapid biologic switchers.
Read full abstract