Dataset Information

Comparing the clinical application values of the Degree of Ulcerative Colitis Burden of Luminal Inflammation (DUBLIN) score and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) in patients with ulcerative colitis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The significance of endoscopic evaluation in the diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis (UC) has been widely recognized. Over the years, scholars have established several endoscopic scores. Herein, we assessed the clinical application value of the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore (Mayo ES), the Degree of Ulcerative Colitis Burden of Luminal Inflammation (DUBLIN) score, and the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) score in UC patients, by comparing their correlation with disease activity and their predictive potential for treatment response and clinical outcomes.

Methods

UC patients hospitalized from September 2015 to September 2019 were retrospectively analysed. We employed Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to assess the linear association of the assessed endoscopic scores with the clinical parameters. The receiver-operating characteristic curve was applied to evaluate the predictive capabilities of the endoscopic scores for treatment escalation and 1-year readmission.

Results

A total of 178 patients were enrolled; most of them (82%) suffered moderate or severe colitis. Among them, 48 (27%) patients received treatment escalation and 59 (33%) were readmitted within 1 year. The DUBLIN and UCEIS scores demonstrated higher correlations with clinical parameters than the Mayo ES. The DUBLIN scores significantly differed between patients with mild, moderate, and severe colitis (all P < 0.001). The UCEIS scores demonstrated the best predictabilities for treatment escalation and 1-year readmission with an area under the curve of 0.88 and 0.75, respectively. Compared to the UCEIS and DUBLIN scores, the predictive capabilities of the Mayo ES for treatment escalation (both P < 0.001) and 1-year readmission (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively) were lower. The UCEIS scores exhibited a significant difference between the steroid-responsive group and the steroid-dependent or steroid-refractory group (both P < 0.001), while no significant differences in the Mayo ES and DUBLIN scores were found among the three groups (both P > 0.05).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that both the DUBLIN and UCEIS scores outperform the Mayo ES in assessing disease severity and predicting treatment response and clinical outcomes in UC patients.

SUBMITTER: Zhang XF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8677544 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThe endoscopic evaluation is crucial for the management and treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). Currently, the Mayo Endoscopic Score (MES) and the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) are two major endoscopic score systems to evaluate the status of mucosal inflammation and disease activity. However, in both MES and UCEIS systems, the disease extent is not included. The Degree of Ulcerative Colitis Burden of Luminal Inflammation (DUBLIN) score is a simple clinical score which is calculated as a product of the MES (0-3) and the extent of disease (E1-E3). The objective of this study was to compare the correlation among DUBLIN, UCEIS and MES, and also investigate the clinical characteristics for predicting treatment failure in patients with active UC.MethodsBetween March 2015 and April 2019, 172 patients who were previously diagnosed with UC and had undergone colonoscopy were recruited in this study. We retrospectively reviewed the endoscopic scores and clinical characteristics at the time of the colonoscopy and assessed the prognosis of the patients. Endoscopic response was defined as the decrease in MES ⩾1 grade.ResultsDUBLIN showed significant correlation with MES (r = 0.748) and partial Mayo score (pMayo) (r = 0.707), and moderately correlated with CRP (r = 0.590). UCEIS also showed strong correlation with MES (r = 0.712) but moderate correlation with pMayo (r = 0.609) and CRP (r = 0.588). Compared with the UCEIS (cut-off value: 4; sensitivity: 75.73%), DUBLIN score (cut-off value: 4; sensitivity: 86.41%) showed higher diagnostic sensitivity than UCEIS score (McNemar test, p < 0.05). Furthermore, a multivariate analysis also revealed that DUBLIN ⩾4 was the independent factor for predicting treatment failure for UC (p < 0.001, odds ratio: 1.547; 95% confidence interval: 1.32-1.88).ConclusionThe DUBLIN score shows superior diagnostic performances in terms of sensitivity value compared with the UCEIS. Moreover, multivariate analysis indicates that DUBLIN ⩾4 is an independent factor for predicting medium- to long-term treatment failure in active UC patients.

Project description:BackgroundVariability in endoscopic assessment necessitates rigorous investigation of descriptors for scoring severity of ulcerative colitis (UC).ObjectiveTo evaluate variation in the overall endoscopic assessment of severity, the intra- and interindividual variation of descriptive terms and to create an Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity which could be validated.DesignA two-phase study used a library of 670 video sigmoidoscopies from patients with Mayo Clinic scores 0-11, supplemented by 10 videos from five people without UC and five hospitalised patients with acute severe UC. In phase 1, each of 10 investigators viewed 16/24 videos to assess agreement on the Baron score with a central reader and agreed definitions of 10 endoscopic descriptors. In phase 2, each of 30 different investigators rated 25/60 different videos for the descriptors and assessed overall severity on a 0-100 visual analogue scale. κ Statistics tested inter- and intraobserver variability for each descriptor. A general linear mixed regression model based on logit link and β distribution of variance was used to predict overall endoscopic severity from descriptors.ResultsThere was 76% agreement for 'severe', but 27% agreement for 'normal' appearances between phase I investigators and the central reader. In phase 2, weighted κ values ranged from 0.34 to 0.65 and 0.30 to 0.45 within and between observers for the 10 descriptors. The final model incorporated vascular pattern, (normal/patchy/complete obliteration) bleeding (none/mucosal/luminal mild/luminal moderate or severe), erosions and ulcers (none/erosions/superficial/deep), each with precise definitions, which explained 90% of the variance (pR(2), Akaike Information Criterion) in the overall assessment of endoscopic severity, predictions varying from 4 to 93 on a 100-point scale (from normal to worst endoscopic severity).ConclusionThe Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity accurately predicts overall assessment of endoscopic severity of UC. Validity and responsiveness need further testing before it can be applied as an outcome measure in clinical trials or clinical practice.