4.0 Article

Efficacy and safety of adsorptive granulomonocytapheresis in Chinese patients with ulcerative colitis: A retrospective analysis of 50 cases with focus on factors impacting clinical efficacy

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL APHERESIS
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 271-280

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jca.21787

关键词

adsorptive granulomonocytapheresis; albumin; hemoglobin; myeloid lineage leucocytes; ulcerative colitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Myeloid-derived leucocytes, a major source of inflammatory cytokines, play an important role in the exacerbation of ulcerative colitis (UC). Selective depletion of myeloid leucocytes by adsorptive granulomonocytapheresis (GMA) with an Adacolumn should alleviate inflammation and promote remission. However, there are discrepancies among the reported efficacy outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of GMA in UC patients with a focus on factors affecting clinical efficacy. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of 50 patients with active UC who had received GMA therapy. GMA efficacy was evaluated based on the Rachmilewitz's clinical activity index (CAI) and Mayo endoscopic score for mucosal healing. Laboratory findings were analyzed to demonstrate any relationship with the GMA-responder or nonresponder feature. Adverse events were recorded during and after GMA therapy. Results The overall clinical remission rate (CAI <= 4) was 79.2%, and among these, the mucosal healing rate was 59.2%. The clinical remission rate was 69.2% in patients who received 5 GMA sessions and 82.3% in patients who received 10 sessions. Significantly higher baseline CAIs and lower albumin and hemoglobin levels were observed in nonremission cases compared with those who achieved remission. Four patients (8%) experienced transient adverse events, but none were severe. Conclusions GMA was favored by patients because of its safety and nonpharmacological treatment options. Accordingly, UC patients were spared from pharmaceuticals after applying 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

4.0
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