4.7 Review

Assessment of mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease: review

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 82, 期 2, 页码 246-255

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.03.1974

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [5T32DK007202-39]
  2. Alpco
  3. Polymedco
  4. Abbott/Abbvie
  5. Amgen
  6. Astra Zeneca
  7. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  8. Janssen
  9. Pfizer
  10. Tillotts
  11. UCB Pharma
  12. Avaxia Biologics Inc
  13. Celgene
  14. Biogen
  15. Ferring
  16. Merck
  17. Novonordisk
  18. Prometheus
  19. Protagonist
  20. Salix
  21. Takeda
  22. TiGenix
  23. Teva
  24. Roche/Genentech
  25. Millennium
  26. Receptos
  27. Santarus
  28. Sanofi
  29. Actogenix
  30. Albireo Pharma
  31. Avir Pharma
  32. Axcan
  33. Baxter Healthcare Corp
  34. Boehringer-Ingelheim
  35. Calypso Biotech
  36. EnGene
  37. GiCare Pharma
  38. Gilead
  39. Given Imaging Inc
  40. GSK
  41. Ironwood Pharma
  42. Kyowa Kakko Kirin Co Ltd
  43. Lexicon
  44. Lilly
  45. Nektar
  46. Serono
  47. Shire
  48. Sigmoid Pharma
  49. Synergy Pharma Inc
  50. Vertex Pharma
  51. VHsquared Ltd
  52. Warner-Chilcott
  53. Wyeth
  54. Zealand
  55. Zyngenia
  56. Abbvie
  57. Centocor
  58. Giuliani SpA
  59. Otsuka
  60. Schering-Plough
  61. UCB
  62. Vifor
  63. Given Imaging
  64. MSD
  65. Dr Falk Pharma
  66. Photopill
  67. Ablynx
  68. AM Pharma
  69. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH
  70. ChemoCentryx
  71. Cosmo Technologies
  72. Elan Pharmaceuticals
  73. Galapagos
  74. GlaxoSmithKline
  75. Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma
  76. Neovacs
  77. PDL Biopharma
  78. Sandoz
  79. Setpoint
  80. Sigma
  81. Versant
  82. Norgine
  83. Tramedico
  84. Western University London Ontario

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims: Mucosal healing is an important treatment end-point in inflammatory bowel disease, and achieving mucosal healing has been demonstrated to improve disease-related outcomes. Considerable uncertainty exists, however, regarding the optimal approach for the assessment of mucosal healing.Aims: to compare currently available diagnostic tools for the assessment of mucosal healing and outline the ideal approach to integrating these tools into clinical trials and clinical practice. Methods: Review article. Results: Endoscopy represents the criterion standard for the assessment of mucosal healing, and frequent endoscopic assessment is associated with a higher rate of achieving mucosal healing. The use of mucosal biopsy allows for the identification of persistent histologic disease activity, but the incremental clinical benefit of achieving histologic healing is yet to be determined. Magnetic resonance enterography has a high sensitivity for ulcer healing in endoscopically inaccessible disease activity. However, the presence of mucosal lesions cannot be reliably excluded based on this modality alone, and further small-bowel endoscopy should be considered in symptomatic patients. Video capsule endoscopy or device-assisted enteroscopy can be used, with device-assisted enteroscopy being preferred in stricturing Crohn's disease because of the risk of capsule retention or in patients in whom small-bowel malignancy is a possibility. Conclusions: Endoscopy remains the criterion standard for the assessment of mucosal healing. Several alternative diagnostic modalities have become available that can be of value in specific clinical circumstances, particularly in patients with small-bowel involvement.

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