4.7 Article

Daily granulocyte and monocyte adsorptive apheresis in patients with active ulcerative colitis: a prospective safety and feasibility study

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 46, 期 8, 页码 1003-1009

出版社

SPRINGER TOKYO
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-011-0428-4

关键词

Ulcerative colitis; Daily granulocyte and monocyte adsorptive apheresis; Efficacy; Safety; Tolerability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This prospective study was to assess the safety and feasibility of daily granulocyte and monocyte adsorptive apheresis (GMA) therapy in patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC). Thirty consecutive patients with moderately or severely active UC received daily GMA treatment (5 sessions over 5 consecutive days) with the Adacolumn. Adverse events (AE), patient tolerability, and clinical symptoms were monitored daily. Sixteen patients (53%) experienced AE during at least one GMA session. The most frequent AE was mild headache followed by fatigue and fever. None of the AE was serious, and all patients completed the 5 consecutive GMA sessions. Clinical symptoms (stool frequency and/or rectal bleeding) were improved in 21 patients (70%) during the course of GMA therapy. Clinical remission defined as normal stool frequency and no rectal bleeding was achieved in 7 patients (23%) after 5 GMA sessions. Seven of 20 patients (35%) with moderately active disease achieved clinical remission, whereas none of the 10 patients with severely active disease achieved clinical remission. Total and differential leukocyte counts, platelet count, and hemoglobin level did not significantly change, but C-reactive protein level significantly decreased during the course of GMA therapy. This is the first report on daily GMA in the treatment of patients with UC. Daily GMA was safe and well tolerated without serious AE. Furthermore, daily GMA was associated with rapid improvement of clinical symptoms in patients with moderately active UC. However, controlled trials are warranted to assess a definite efficacy for daily GMA therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据