4.5 Article

Long-term outcomes of patients with ulcerative proctitis: Analysis from a large referral centre cohort

Journal

UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 8, Issue 8, Pages 933-941

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2050640620941345

Keywords

Ulcerative colitis; refractory ulcerative proctitis; azathioprine; anti-TNF; vedolizumab

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Long-term outcomes of patients with ulcerative proctitis (UP) have been poorly investigated, since these patients are excluded from participation in randomized controlled clinical trials. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic and therapeutic long-term outcomes of patients with UP. Methods A retrospective study of patients with UP followed at our referral centre between 1 January 1998 and 1 January 2019 was performed. Treatment success was defined as clinical response (significant improvement in UP-related symptoms) and endoscopic response (mayo endoscopic sub-score of 0 or 1) if available at last follow-up. Results From a total of 1561 patients with ulcerative colitis, 118 patients with UP were identified. A total of 36 (31%) patients were refractory to rectal and oral therapy with 5-ASA and corticosteroids, necessitating azathioprine as monotherapy in 19 (16%) patients and/or biological therapies in 33 (28%) patients. After a median follow-up of 71 months (interquartile range 29-149 months), treatment success was observed in 103/118 (87%) UP patients and in 25/36 (69%) patients with refractory UP. Clinical response rates were significantly higher for refractory UP patients treated with biologicals (23/33; 70%) compared to ones treated with azathioprine (2/19; 11%;p = 0.001). Conclusion Good clinical outcomes were recorded in UP, with treatment success in 87% of patients. Nevertheless, 28% needed escalation to biologicals. Long-term outcome in patients on biologicals was superior to azathioprine.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available