4.7 Review

Systematic review with meta-analysis: inflammatory bowel disease in the elderly

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages 459-477

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.12616

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundElderly patients represent an increasing proportion of the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) population. AimTo critically review available data regarding the care of elderly IBD patients. MethodsBibliographic searches (MEDLINE) up to June 2013. ResultsApproximately 10-15% of cases of IBD are diagnosed in patients aged >60years, and 10-30% of the IBD population are aged >60years. In the elderly, IBD is easily confused with other more common diseases, mainly diverticular disease and ischaemic colitis. The clinical features of IBD in older patients are generally similar to those in younger patients. Crohn's disease (CD) in elderly patients is characterised by its predominantly colonic localisation and uncomplicated course. Proctitis and left-sided ulcerative colitis are more common in patients aged >60years. Infections are associated with age and account for significant mortality in IBD patients. The treatment of IBD in the elderly is generally similar. However, the therapeutic approach in the elderly should be start low-go slow'. The benefit of thiopurines in older CD patients remains debatable. Although the indications for anti-tumour necrosis factors in the elderly are generally similar to those for younger patients, lower response and higher adverse events have been reported in the elderly. Surgery in elderly patients does not generally differ. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis can be successful, provided the patient retains good anal sphincter function. ConclusionsManagement of the older IBD patient differs from that of younger patients; therefore, conventional practice algorithms may have to be modified to account for advanced age.

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