Techniques in coloproctology · 2018
Colonic hypereosinophilia in ulcerative colitis may help to predict the failure of steroid therapy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Leoncini Giuseppe, Villanacci Vincenzo, Marin Maria Grazia, Crisafulli Valentina, Cadei Moris, Antonelli Elisabetta, Leoci Claudio, Bassotti Gabrio
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although glucocorticosteroids (GS) and mesalazine are effective and widely employed to treat moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC), information regarding the factors responsible for response to such therapy is still scarce. One of these factors is thought to be an increased number of mucosal eosinophils. The aim of our study was to determine whether the presence of hypereosinophilia in colonic mucosa of UC patients might influence the short-term response to l treatment with GS and mesasalazine.
METHODS: Clinical, endoscopic, and pathologic data from patients with a recent diagnosis of moderate UC, who had not undergone treatment, were obtained, and the short-term outcome after 1 month of conventional first-line treatment (mesalazine plus GS) was evaluated.
RESULTS: There were 53 patients with a median age of 37 years (95% CI 30-47).Overall, at the end of treatment period 16 (30%) patients responded, whereas a response was not observed in the other 37 (70%) patients. Interestingly, all patients of this latter group had colonic mucosal hypereosinophilia. No significant differences were found between the two groups concerning sex and age at diagnosis, but hypereosinophilia was inversely correlated with the duration of the disease (p = 0.054), and significantly correlated to the localization of UC (p = 0.0023). In addition, The Mayo score was significantly higher in patients with hypereosinophilia (median 8; 95% CI 8-9;) when compared to patients without hypereosinophilia (median 7; 95% CI 7-7, p < 0.0001) including the Mayo endoscopic subscore (median 3; 95% CI 2-3 vs median 2; 95% CI 2-2, respectively; p = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of colonic mucosal hypereosinophilia may be useful to predict the short-term outcome to conventional first-line therapy in treatment-naïve UC patients. It remains to be seen whether this might be important in modifying the first-line therapy in this subgroup of patients.
METHODS: Clinical, endoscopic, and pathologic data from patients with a recent diagnosis of moderate UC, who had not undergone treatment, were obtained, and the short-term outcome after 1 month of conventional first-line treatment (mesalazine plus GS) was evaluated.
RESULTS: There were 53 patients with a median age of 37 years (95% CI 30-47).Overall, at the end of treatment period 16 (30%) patients responded, whereas a response was not observed in the other 37 (70%) patients. Interestingly, all patients of this latter group had colonic mucosal hypereosinophilia. No significant differences were found between the two groups concerning sex and age at diagnosis, but hypereosinophilia was inversely correlated with the duration of the disease (p = 0.054), and significantly correlated to the localization of UC (p = 0.0023). In addition, The Mayo score was significantly higher in patients with hypereosinophilia (median 8; 95% CI 8-9;) when compared to patients without hypereosinophilia (median 7; 95% CI 7-7, p < 0.0001) including the Mayo endoscopic subscore (median 3; 95% CI 2-3 vs median 2; 95% CI 2-2, respectively; p = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of colonic mucosal hypereosinophilia may be useful to predict the short-term outcome to conventional first-line therapy in treatment-naïve UC patients. It remains to be seen whether this might be important in modifying the first-line therapy in this subgroup of patients.