Systematic review and meta-analysis: the advantage of endoscopic Mayo score 0 over 1 in patients with ulcerative colitis

13Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Mucosal healing (MH) evaluated by endoscopy is a novel target of therapy in UC as it is associated with improved long-term outcomes. It is defined based on the Mayo endoscopic score (MES), but it is still to define whether a value of MES 0 or 1 should be the target. The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a systematic review with meta-analysis which compares long-term outcomes of patients in steroid-free clinical remission with MES 0 with those with MES 1. Methods: A systematic electronic search of the literature was performed using Medline, Scopus, and CENTRAL through December 2020 (PROSPERO n:CRD42020179333). The studies concerned UC patients, in steroid-free clinical remission, with MES of 0 or 1, and with at least 12-months of follow-up. Results: Out of 4611 citations, 15 eligible studies were identified. Increases in clinical relapse among patients with MES 1 were observed in all the studies included in this review, suggesting that MES of 1 have a higher risk of relapse than a score of 0. MES 0 patients displayed a lower risk of clinical relapse (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.26–0.43; I2 13%) irrespective of the follow-up time (12-months or longer). On the other hand, no differences were found comparing MES 0 versus MES 1 about the risk of hospitalization or colectomy. Conclusions: MES 0 is associated with a lower rate of clinical relapse than is MES 1. For this reason, MES 0, rather than MES 0–1, should be considered the therapeutic target for patients with UC.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Viscido, A., Valvano, M., Stefanelli, G., Capannolo, A., Castellini, C., Onori, E., … Latella, G. (2022). Systematic review and meta-analysis: the advantage of endoscopic Mayo score 0 over 1 in patients with ulcerative colitis. BMC Gastroenterology, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-022-02157-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free