Kentaro Ikeya1, Hiroyuki Hanai2, Ken Sugimoto3, Satoshi Osawa3, Shinsuke Kawasaki1, Takayuki Iida1, Yasuhiko Maruyama4, Fumitoshi Watanabe1. 1. Centre for Gastroenterology and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research, Hamamatsu South Hospital, Hamamatsu, Japan. 2. Centre for Gastroenterology and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research, Hamamatsu South Hospital, Hamamatsu, Japan flw-1013@topaz.plala.or.jp hanai@hamamatsu-minami.com. 3. First Department of Medicine, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Japan. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, Fujieda Municipal General Hospital, Fujieda, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) and the Mayo endoscopic score (Mayo ES) are used to evaluate ulcerative colitis (UC) severity. This study compared UCEIS and the Mayo ES for evaluating UC severity and outcomes in patients undergoing remission induction during routine clinical practice with the aim of predicting medium- to long-term prognosis. METHODS: Forty-one UC patients who received colonoscopy before and after tacrolimus remission induction therapy were included. An index of clinical activity and endoscopic findings scored by both the UCEIS and the Mayo ES were determined. Changes in UCEIS and Mayo ES before and after induction therapy were compared. RESULTS: The mean UCEIS improved from 6.2±0.9 to 3.4±2.1 (p < 0.001). Based on the UCEIS, a significant reduction was reached in both the response and the remission groups. In contrast, the Mayo ES did not reflect a significant change in the response group. The discrepancy appeared to be due to ulcers becoming smaller and shallower during the early stages of mucosal healing; the Mayo ES seems to miss these early changes. In other words, whereas the UCEIS indicates improvements when ulcers shrink, the Mayo ES does not distinguish deep ulcers from shallow ulcers and is 3 (severe UC) for both deep and shallow ulcers. Additionally, better UCEIS strata after induction therapy were associated with lower incidences of colectomy (p = 0.0001) or relapse (p = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: The UCEIS accurately reflects clinical outcomes and predicts the medium- to long-term prognosis in UC patients undergoing induction therapy. These findings should support decision-making in clinical practice settings.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) and the Mayo endoscopic score (Mayo ES) are used to evaluate ulcerative colitis (UC) severity. This study compared UCEIS and the Mayo ES for evaluating UC severity and outcomes in patients undergoing remission induction during routine clinical practice with the aim of predicting medium- to long-term prognosis. METHODS: Forty-one UC patients who received colonoscopy before and after tacrolimus remission induction therapy were included. An index of clinical activity and endoscopic findings scored by both the UCEIS and the Mayo ES were determined. Changes in UCEIS and Mayo ES before and after induction therapy were compared. RESULTS: The mean UCEIS improved from 6.2±0.9 to 3.4±2.1 (p < 0.001). Based on the UCEIS, a significant reduction was reached in both the response and the remission groups. In contrast, the Mayo ES did not reflect a significant change in the response group. The discrepancy appeared to be due to ulcers becoming smaller and shallower during the early stages of mucosal healing; the Mayo ES seems to miss these early changes. In other words, whereas the UCEIS indicates improvements when ulcers shrink, the Mayo ES does not distinguish deep ulcers from shallow ulcers and is 3 (severe UC) for both deep and shallow ulcers. Additionally, better UCEIS strata after induction therapy were associated with lower incidences of colectomy (p = 0.0001) or relapse (p = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: The UCEIS accurately reflects clinical outcomes and predicts the medium- to long-term prognosis in UC patients undergoing induction therapy. These findings should support decision-making in clinical practice settings.
Authors: Simon P L Travis; Dan Schnell; Piotr Krzeski; Maria T Abreu; Douglas G Altman; Jean-Frédéric Colombel; Brian G Feagan; Stephen B Hanauer; Gary R Lichtenstein; Philippe R Marteau; Walter Reinisch; Bruce E Sands; Bruce R Yacyshyn; Patrick Schnell; Christian A Bernhardt; Jean-Yves Mary; William J Sandborn Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Klaus Fellermann; Zita Tanko; Klaus R Herrlinger; Thomas Witthoeft; Nils Homann; Andreas Bruening; Diether Ludwig; Eduard F Stange Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Marc Ferrante; Séverine Vermeire; Herma Fidder; Fabian Schnitzler; Maja Noman; Gert Van Assche; Gert De Hertogh; Ilse Hoffman; Andre D'Hoore; Kristel Van Steen; Karel Geboes; Freddy Penninckx; Paul Rutgeerts Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 9.071
Authors: S Yamamoto; H Nakase; S Mikami; S Inoue; T Yoshino; Y Takeda; K Kasahara; S Ueno; N Uza; H Kitamura; H Tamaki; M Matsuura; K Inui; T Chiba Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2008-06-28 Impact factor: 8.171
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