4.3 Article

Long-term effects and colectomy rates in ulcerative colitis patients treated with infliximab: A Danish single center experience

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 45, 期 12, 页码 1457-1463

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2010.510572

关键词

Clinical response; colectomy rates; inflammatory bowel disease; infliximab; long-term effect; TNF-alpha antibody; ulcerative colitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Infliximab (IFX) is a well-established treatment for both acute, severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and chronic, refractory UC. However, data on the long-term clinical outcome and colectomy rates after IFX treatment in a routine clinical setting are sparse. The aim of this study was to provide further data on the long-term effect of IFX for acute, severe and chronic, refractory UC in unselected patients treated at a single center. Material and Methods. A retrospective analysis of all patients (n = 52) treated with IFX for UC before February 2009 was performed. The material comprised 19 patients (37%) with acute, severe UC and 33 patients (63%) with chronic, refractory UC. The primary outcome was colectomy rate; the secondary outcome clinical response. Results. The overall colectomy rate was 27% (14/52 patients) after a median follow-up of 22 months (range 4-57 months). The colectomy rate was 37% (7/19 patients) in the group with acute, severe UC and 21% (7/33 patients) among those with chronic, refractory UC. In all, 77% of the patients had clinical response to IFX treatment with no difference between the two subgroups. Among those with an initial clinical response, 50% (20/40 patients) had sustained clinical response. Conclusion. IFX is of long-term benefit as rescue treatment in selected patients with acute, severe UC with about two-thirds of the patients avoiding colectomy. The beneficial effect on colectomy rate in chronic, refractory UC seems less convincing although these patients may still achieve a sustained clinical response.

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

4.3
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