4.7 Article

Serum oncostatin M at baseline predicts mucosal healing in Crohn's disease patients treated with infliximab

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 284-291

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.15870

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Oncostatin M is upregulated in Crohn's disease inflamed intestinal mucosa, and has been suggested as a promising biomarker to predict responsiveness to anti-TNF therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Aim To evaluate the suitability of serum oncostatin M as a predictive marker of response to infliximab in Crohn's disease. Methods We included patients treated with infliximab monotherapy. All patients underwent colonoscopy at week 54 to evaluate mucosal healing. Serum oncostatin M and faecal calprotectin were measured at baseline and after 14 weeks of treatment. Mann-Whitney test was used to evaluate correlation of oncostatin M and faecal calprotectin at baseline and week 14 with mucosal healing at week 54. Their accuracy in predicting mucosal healing was assessed by area under the curve (AUC). Results In a cohort of 45 included patients, 27 displayed mucosal healing. At both baseline and week 14, oncostatin M levels were significantly lower in patients with mucosal healing than in patients not achieving this endpoint (P < 0.001). Faecal calprotectin levels at week 14 were lower also in responders than nonresponders (P < 0.001). Oncostatin M values at baseline and week 14 were significantly associated (Spearman correlation = 0.92, P < 0.001). The diagnostic accuracy of oncostatin M at baseline in predicting mucosal healing (AUC = 0.91) was greater than faecal calprotectin (AUC = 0.51, P < 0.001). Conclusion These results suggest that oncostatin M can predict the outcome of infliximab treatment. Compared with faecal calprotectin, the predictive capability of oncostatin M was appreciable at baseline, thus indicating oncostatin M as a promising biomarker for driving therapeutic choices in Crohn's disease.

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