4.3 Article

Adsorptive Granulocyte and Monocyte Apheresis in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: The First Multicenter Study in China

Journal

GUT AND LIVER
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages 216-225

Publisher

EDITORIAL OFFICE GUT & LIVER
DOI: 10.5009/gnl15408

Keywords

Colitis, ulcerative; Mayo score; Myeloid lineage leucocytes; Adsorptive granulocyte/monocyte apheresis; Receiver operating characteristic curve

Funding

  1. JIMRO (Takasaki, Japan)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: Patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC) have elevated levels of activated myeloid-derived leukocytes as a source of inflammatory cytokines. The selective depletion of these leukocytes by adsorptive granulocyte/monocyte apheresis (GMA) with an Adacolumn should alleviate inflammation, proMote remission and enhance drug efficacy. However, studies have reported contrasting efficacy outcomes based on patients' baseline demographic variables. This study was undertaken to understand the demographic features of GMA responders and nonresponders. Methods: This was a multicenter study in China involving four institutions and 34 patients with active UC. Baseline conventional medications were continued without changing the dosage. The treatment efficacy was evaluated based on the endoscopic activity index and the Mayo score. Results: Thirty of the 34 patients completed all 10 GMA treatment sessions. The overall efficacy rate was 70.59%. The receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that the area under the curve was approximately 0.766 for a Mayo score of <= 5.5 with 0.273 specificity and 0.857 sensitivity (Youden index, 0.584) for GMA responders. No GMA-related serious adverse events were observed. Conclusions: The overall efficacy of GMA in patients with active UC who were taking first-line medications or were corticosteroid refractory was encouraging. Additionally, GMA was well tolerated and had a good safety profile.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available