Dong Suk Shin1, Jae Hee Cheon2,3, Yong Eun Park1, Yehyun Park1,4, Soo Jung Park1,4, Tae Il Kim1,4, Won Ho Kim1,4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Korea. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Korea. geniushee@yuhs.ac. 3. Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. geniushee@yuhs.ac. 4. Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Few studies have compared pancolitis and non-pancolitis E3 in adult patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to evaluate the natural disease courses and factors affecting outcomes between pancolitis and non-pancolitis E3. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 117 patients, including 93 with extensive colitis (E3) and 24 with UC confined to the rectum or left-sided colon and appendiceal orifice inflammation at the time of diagnosis, who were regularly followed up for at least 1 year. Patients with E3 were divided into two groups according to the degree of disease extension: pancolitis group (disease extent up to the cecum or proximal ascending colon) and non-pancolitis E3 group (disease extent above the splenic flexure but not up to the proximal ascending colon). Clinical findings at diagnosis; comorbidity; medications; Mayo score; cumulative rates of corticosteroid, immunomodulator, and anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) alpha use; relapse; and admission were compared between the pancolitis and non-pancolitis E3 groups. RESULTS: The median follow-up duration of the 117 patients was 74 (range 15-158) months. Fifty-one patients (43.5%) had pancolitis. The Mayo score at initial diagnosis, cumulative relapse rate, and cumulative admission rate were significantly higher in the pancolitis group than in the non-pancolitis E3 group (P < 0.001, P = 0.023 and P = 0.007, respectively). However, there was no significant difference between the groups in the rates of cumulative immunomodulator and anti-TNF alpha use (P = 0.67 and P = 0.73, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with extensive UC (E3), pancolitis was associated with higher probabilities of cumulative relapse or admission, indicating poor prognosis.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Few studies have compared pancolitis and non-pancolitis E3 in adult patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to evaluate the natural disease courses and factors affecting outcomes between pancolitis and non-pancolitis E3. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 117 patients, including 93 with extensive colitis (E3) and 24 with UC confined to the rectum or left-sided colon and appendiceal orifice inflammation at the time of diagnosis, who were regularly followed up for at least 1 year. Patients with E3 were divided into two groups according to the degree of disease extension: pancolitis group (disease extent up to the cecum or proximal ascending colon) and non-pancolitis E3 group (disease extent above the splenic flexure but not up to the proximal ascending colon). Clinical findings at diagnosis; comorbidity; medications; Mayo score; cumulative rates of corticosteroid, immunomodulator, and anti-tumornecrosis factor (anti-TNF) alpha use; relapse; and admission were compared between the pancolitis and non-pancolitis E3 groups. RESULTS: The median follow-up duration of the 117 patients was 74 (range 15-158) months. Fifty-one patients (43.5%) had pancolitis. The Mayo score at initial diagnosis, cumulative relapse rate, and cumulative admission rate were significantly higher in the pancolitis group than in the non-pancolitis E3 group (P < 0.001, P = 0.023 and P = 0.007, respectively). However, there was no significant difference between the groups in the rates of cumulative immunomodulator and anti-TNF alpha use (P = 0.67 and P = 0.73, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with extensive UC (E3), pancolitis was associated with higher probabilities of cumulative relapse or admission, indicating poor prognosis.
Authors: James D Lewis; Shaokun Chuai; Lisa Nessel; Gary R Lichtenstein; Faten N Aberra; Jonas H Ellenberg Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Clarence K Zhang; Jennifer Hewett; Jason Hemming; Taneisha Grant; Hongyu Zhao; Clara Abraham; Ioannis Oikonomou; Meera Kanakia; Judy H Cho; Deborah D Proctor Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Yong Eun Park; Yehyun Park; Soo Jung Park; Tae Il Kim; Won Ho Kim; Jung Nam Kim; Na Rae Lee; Jae Hee Cheon Journal: Intest Res Date: 2019-07-19