Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18602921›Full record

Trial reportGastroenterology2008

A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study of granulocyte/monocyte apheresis for active ulcerative colitis.

Bruce E Sands, William J Sandborn, Brian Feagan, Robert Löfberg, Toshifumi Hibi, Tao Wang, Lisa-Marie Gustofson, Cindy J Wong, Margaret K Vandervoort, Stephen Hanauer and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Gastroenterology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 204 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Interventions for fatigue in inflammatory bowel disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Macrophages in intestinal homeostasis and inflammatory bowel disease.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2023
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Bruce E SandsMGH Crohn's & Colitis Center and Gastrointestinal Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. bsands@partners.org
William J Sandborn
Brian Feagan
Robert Löfberg
Toshifumi Hibi
Tao Wang
Lisa-Marie Gustofson
Cindy J Wong
Margaret K Vandervoort
Stephen Hanauer
Adacolumn Study Group
Western University · CAOtsuka (United States) · USHarvard University · USKeio University · JPMayo Clinic · USSophiahemmet University College · SEUniversity of Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsActivated granulocytes and monocytes/macrophages are implicated in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis. Open-label studies and clinical experience in Japan and Europe have suggested that granulocyte/monocyte apheresis is safe and effective in treating ulcerative colitis.

methodsWe evaluated the efficacy of granulocyte/monocyte apheresis in a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in patients with active moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (Mayo score 6-11) in community-based and tertiary care centers. As intervention, we used granulocyte/monocyte apheresis with the Adacolumn Apheresis System (JIMRO, Ltd, Takasaki, Japan) or sham apheresis in a 2:1 ratio for 9 weeks of treatment in a North American pivotal study (N = 168) and in a smaller, companion study of identical design conducted in Europe and Japan (N = 47).

resultsIn the pivotal study, clinical remission rates (Mayo score 0-2, with scores of 0 on rectal bleeding and 0 or 1 on endoscopic examination) were 17% and 11% for the granulocyte/monocyte apheresis (n = 112)- and sham-treatment groups, respectively (n = 56; P = .361). Clinical response (Mayo score reduction of >/=3 points from baseline) was observed in 44% and 39% of patients, respectively (P = .620). Similar changes were observed for the apheresis- and sham-treatment groups for endoscopic remission and response, and changes in Mayo and quality-of-life scores. The companion study and pooled data from both studies also yielded similar results.

conclusionsIn this study, granulocyte/monocyte apheresis was well tolerated but did not demonstrate efficacy for induction of clinical remission or response in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.

Indexed as

GranulocytesMonocytesAdultAgedColitis, UlcerativeColonoscopyDouble-Blind MethodEuropeFemaleHumansJapanLeukapheresisMaleMiddle AgedNorth AmericaProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID18602921
OpenAlexW2039455576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.