Novel Utility of Leucine-Rich Alpha-2-Glycoprotein as a Biomarker in Ulcerative Colitis: A Predictor of Endoscopic Remission Independent of Symptoms

Introduction: Leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein (LRG) is a potential biomarker for disease activity and reflects mucosal healing in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). However, only a few studies have described a detailed sensitivity analysis of LRG in predicting mucosal healing in patients. This study aimed to evaluate the association between LRG and the endoscopic activity of UC and its predictability for mucosal healing and explore the utility and clinical application of LRG. Methods: The diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers, including LRG, in predicting the endoscopic activity of UC was evaluated. All consecutive patients who underwent total colonoscopy between April 2021 and September 2022 were included. The Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) was used for assessing endoscopic activity. Furthermore, endoscopic remission was defined as an MES of ≤1. Clinical activity was evaluated based on stool frequency and bloody stool. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and binary logistic regression were performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the biomarkers. We evaluated LRG trends and treatment response in patients with MES ≥2 who underwent induction therapy. Results: This study comprised 214 patients. The proportions of endoscopically and clinically active patients were 33.6% and 49.1%, respectively. LRG had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.856, with a higher diagnostic accuracy than other biomarkers, such as C-reactive protein, leukocyte, neutrophil, platelet, and albumin. The cutoff value for LRG was 15.6 μg/mL (sensitivity, 72.2%; specificity, 86.6%). Using the MES, patients with higher scores had higher LRG levels than those with lower scores. The cutoff value, AUC, sensitivity, and specificity varied with a higher AUC for left-sided colitis and pancolitis than for proctitis. Logistic regression analysis showed that LRG was an independent predictor of endoscopic remission using multivariate analysis, even with the factor of clinical activity. The change ratio of LRG pre- and post-treatment was statistically significant in the higher LRG group. Conclusion: LRG reflected endoscopic activity independently, regardless of clinical symptoms. An LRG below the cutoff value could indicate a significantly low probability of endoscopic activity in asymptomatic patients, and follow-up endoscopy (not for cancer screening) may be unnecessary. Furthermore, a higher LRG level might be more useful as an indicator of treatment efficacy.