4.1 Article

PLATELET-TO-LYMPHOCYTE RATIO AND NEUTROPHIL-TO-LYMPHOCYTE RATIO PREDICT MUCOSAL DISEASE SEVERITY IN ULCERATIVE COLITIS

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 155-162

出版社

DE GRUYTER POLAND SP ZOO
DOI: 10.1515/jomb-2017-0050

关键词

mucosal disease; neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; platelet to lymphocyte ratio; ulcerative colitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We investigated the sensitivity of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), as well as a combination of NLR and PLR to predict endoscopic disease severity based on mucosal assessment in ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods: The study group consisted 104 patients with active UC, 104 patients in remission, and 105 healthy individuals. Disease activity was described with Rachmilewitz endoscopic activity index (EAI). Curve analysis was used to determine the optimal cutoff values of NLR and PLR for obtaining remission. The patients with both PLR and NLR values higher than the cutoff values were coded as high risk, those with one parameter higher were coded as moderate risk, those with both parameters lower than the cutoff values were coded as low-risk patients. Results: The mean NLR and PLR values in the endoscopically active disease group were higher than the others, with higher values in the endoscopic remission group compared with the control group (p<0.001). Rachmilewitz EAI in high-risk patients was significantly higher than that in others (p<0.001). In Cox regression analyses, moderate and high risk, high erythrocyte sedimentation rate and high EAI were found as independent predictors of endoscopic active disease. Conclusions: This is the first study that investigated the use of NLR and PLR combination to assess endoscopic disease severity in UC. Either high NLR or PLR levels can predict active endoscopic disease. However, the use of these parameters in combination is more accurate in evaluating mucosal disease and inflammation in UC.

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

4.1
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