Application of clinical indexes in ulcerative colitis patients in regular follow-up visit: correlation with endoscopic 'mucosal healing' and implication for management. Preliminary results.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Ulcerative Colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the colon of unknown etiology. Several clinical indexes have been proposed for UC disease activity evaluation, but none have been properly validated. Moreover, the reference parameter for the scores and their prognostic value is not clear. Mucosal healing has been recently proposed as an important end-point. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the correlation of four clinical indexes with objective diagnostic tools for UC evaluation, the discriminative ability in identifying patients with endoscopic mucosal healing, and to analyze the possible prognostic indication for disease course in 1 year of follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed data of 75 patients recorded in regular follow-up visit in IBD clinic at S. Andrea Hospital, Rome, between 2007-2011. We recorded clinical data and lab tests at the time of the visit, and endoscopic/histological reports performed within 1 month. Clinical indexes (Seo' activity index, Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index, partial Mayo score and Endoscopic-Clinical Correlation Index) were calculated and correlation to endoscopic and histologic activity, and to C-reactive protein increment, was assessed by mean of Spearman's rank correlation. Discriminative ability of the indexes for patients with and without endoscopic mucosal healing was tested by calculation of area under ROC curve (AUC). Patients with low and high clinical scores were compared for number of flares and increment of therapy during 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: Clinical indexes had a good correlation with endoscopic activity (mean r = 0.73 ± 0.06), a fair correlation with CRP-increment (mean r = 0.55 ± 0.01) and a poor one with histologic activity (mean r = 0.35 ± 0.01). The discriminatory ability of the indexes for endoscopic mucosal healing was good for all the indexes (mean AUC = 0.87 ± 0.05). Patients with high clinical score had more flares and required more frequently increase of therapy at 1 year of follow up compared with patients with low score. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical indexes have a good correlation with endoscopic activity and can discriminate patients with and without mucosal healing. Patients with low and high score have different risk of disease flare and of need to increase therapy at 1 year. Clinical indexes may represent a useful tool for disease assessment in clinical practice in UC outpatients with mild-moderate disease.