4.7 Review

Systematic review with meta-analysis: mucosal healing is associated with improved long-term outcomes in Crohn's disease

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 43, Issue 3, Pages 317-333

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13475

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Clinical manifestations of Crohn's disease (CD) do not reliably correlate with endoscopic activity. While treating to achieve clinical remission (CR) has neither proven to improve CD outcomes nor alter the natural disease course, it is unclear whether targeting objective measures like mucosal healing (MH) is associated with improved long-term outcomes. Aim To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing long-term outcomes in active CD patients who achieve MH compared to those who do not. Methods We performed a systematic literature search to identify studies with prospective cohorts of active CD patients that included outcomes of patients who achieved MH at first endoscopic assessment (MH1) compared to those who did not. The primary outcome was long-term(>= 50 weeks) CR. Secondary outcomes included CD-related surgery-free rate, hospitalisation- free rate and long-term MH rate. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results Twelve studies with 673 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients achieving MH1 had a pooled OR of 2.80 (95% CI, 1.91-4.10) for achieving long-term CR, 2.22 (95% CI, 0.86-5.69) for CD-related surgery-free rate, and 14.30 (95% CI, 5.57-36.74) for long-term MH. Sensitivity analyses suggested no difference in outcomes if MH1 was achieved on biologics vs. non-biologics. No significant publication bias or heterogeneity was detected. Conclusions Achieving MH1 is associated with increased rates of long-term clinical remission, and maintenance of mucosal healing in active Crohn's disease and may therefore be a reasonable therapeutic target.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available