Pedro Boal Carvalho1, Francisca Dias de Castro2, Bruno Rosa2, Maria João Moreira2, José Cotter3. 1. Hospital Senhora da Oliveira - Guimarães, Rua dos Cutileiros, Creixomil, 4831-044, Guimarães, Portugal pedroboalcarvalho@chaa.min-saude.pt. 2. Hospital Senhora da Oliveira - Guimarães, Rua dos Cutileiros, Creixomil, 4831-044, Guimarães, Portugal. 3. Hospital Senhora da Oliveira - Guimarães, Rua dos Cutileiros, Creixomil, 4831-044, Guimarães, Portugal Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health Sciences, University of Minho, Campus Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal ICVS/3B's, PT Government Associate Laboratory, 4710-057 Guimarães/Braga, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Extensive evidence has underlined the importance of mucosal healing as a treatment aim for ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to assess differences in the incidence of clinical relapse at 12 months between UC patients with Mayo endoscopic scores (MES) 0 and 1. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients in corticosteroid-free remission between 2008 and 2013 and with follow-up of at least 1 year, with MES 0 or 1 in complete colonoscopy. Clinical relapse was defined as need for induction treatment, treatment escalation, hospitalization or surgery. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The study included 138 patients, 72 (52.2%) female, with mean age of 49 (±14) years. Inflammatory activity was classified as MES 0 in 61 (44.2%) patients and MES 1 in 77 (55.8%) patients. Clinical relapse during follow-up was significantly more frequent in patients with MES 1 than MES 0 (27.3 vs 11.5%, p = 0.022), and in the multivariate analysis MES 1 was the only factor significantly associated with an increased risk of relapse (odds ratio 2.89, 95% confidence interval 1.14-7.36, p = 0.026). This association was encountered in the subgroup of patients with left-sided/extensive colitis (29.7 vs 11.1%, p = 0.049), but not proctitis (25.0 vs 12.0%, p = 0.202). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with UC in corticosteroid-free remission, particularly those with left-sided colitis or extensive colitis, MES 1 was significantly associated with a 3-fold increased risk of relapse compared with endoscopic MES 0. Our results support the use of endoscopic MES 0 as the most suitable treatment endpoint to define mucosal healing in patients with UC.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Extensive evidence has underlined the importance of mucosal healing as a treatment aim for ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to assess differences in the incidence of clinical relapse at 12 months between UC patients with Mayo endoscopic scores (MES) 0 and 1. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients in corticosteroid-free remission between 2008 and 2013 and with follow-up of at least 1 year, with MES 0 or 1 in complete colonoscopy. Clinical relapse was defined as need for induction treatment, treatment escalation, hospitalization or surgery. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The study included 138 patients, 72 (52.2%) female, with mean age of 49 (±14) years. Inflammatory activity was classified as MES 0 in 61 (44.2%) patients and MES 1 in 77 (55.8%) patients. Clinical relapse during follow-up was significantly more frequent in patients with MES 1 than MES 0 (27.3 vs 11.5%, p = 0.022), and in the multivariate analysis MES 1 was the only factor significantly associated with an increased risk of relapse (odds ratio 2.89, 95% confidence interval 1.14-7.36, p = 0.026). This association was encountered in the subgroup of patients with left-sided/extensive colitis (29.7 vs 11.1%, p = 0.049), but not proctitis (25.0 vs 12.0%, p = 0.202). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with UC in corticosteroid-free remission, particularly those with left-sided colitis or extensive colitis, MES 1 was significantly associated with a 3-fold increased risk of relapse compared with endoscopic MES 0. Our results support the use of endoscopic MES 0 as the most suitable treatment endpoint to define mucosal healing in patients with UC.
Authors: Wing Yan Mak; Anthony Buisson; Michael J Andersen; Donald Lei; Joel Pekow; Russell D Cohen; Stacy A Kahn; Bruno Pereira; David T Rubin Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Mohamed Attauabi; Gorm Roager Madsen; Flemming Bendtsen; Anne Vibeke Wewer; Rune Wilkens; Johan Ilvemark; Nora Vladimirova; Annette Bøjer Jensen; Frank Krieger Jensen; Sanja Bay Hansen; Hartwig Roman Siebner; Yousef Jesper Wirenfeldt Nielsen; Jakob M Møller; Henrik S Thomsen; Simon Francis Thomsen; Helene Andrea Sinclair Ingels; Klaus Theede; Trine Boysen; Jacob T Bjerrum; Christian Jakobsen; Maria Dorn-Rasmussen; Sabine Jansson; Yiqiu Yao; Ewa Anna Burian; Frederik Trier Møller; Viktoria Fana; Charlotte Wiell; Lene Terslev; Mikkel Østergaard; Kristina Bertl; Andreas Stavropoulos; Jakob B Seidelin; Johan Burisch Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Maryam Alkhatry; Ahmad Al-Rifai; Vito Annese; Filippos Georgopoulos; Ahmad N Jazzar; Ahmed M Khassouan; Zaher Koutoubi; Rahul Nathwani; Mazen S Taha; Jimmy K Limdi Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 5.742