Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2015
An open-label prospective randomized multicenter study of intensive versus weekly granulocyte and monocyte apheresis in active crohn's disease.
Trial report in BMC gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice-Evidence-Based Approach From the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: The Tenth Special Issue.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2026Guideline
- Granulomonocytapheresis for chronic inflammatory diseases and sepsis.Journal of intensive care · 2025Review
- Intensive Granulocyte and Monocyte Adsorptive Apheresis Plus Upadacitinib for Induction Treatment of Refractory Crohn's Disease.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2025Article
- Repeated steroid injection and polyglycolic acid shielding for prevention of refractory esophageal stricture.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Apheresis: A cell-based therapeutic tool for the inflammatory bowel disease.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Review
- Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease 2020.Journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Use of granulocyte/monocytapheresis in ulcerative colitis: A practical review from a European perspective.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Leukocytapheresis in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases.Przeglad gastroenterologiczny · 2021Review
- Efficacy and safety of adsorptive granulomonocytapheresis in Chinese patients with ulcerative colitis: A retrospective analysis of 50 cases with focus on factors impacting clinical efficacy.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2020Article
- Optimizing the Use of Current Treatments and Emerging Therapeutic Approaches to Achieve Therapeutic Success in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Gut and liver · 2020Review
- Safety and effectiveness of granulocyte and monocyte adsorptive apheresis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease in special situations: a multicentre cohort study.BMC gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Dynamics of Colon Monocyte and Macrophage Activation During Colitis.Frontiers in immunology · 2018Article
- A systems pharmacology model for inflammatory bowel disease.PloS one · 2018Article
- Immunological Mechanisms of Adsorptive Cytapheresis in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGranulocyte and monocyte adsorptive apheresis (GMA) has shown efficacy in patients with active Crohn's disease (CD). However, with routine weekly therapy, it may take several weeks to achieve remission. This study was performed to assess clinical efficacy and safety of intensive GMA in patients with active CD.
methodsIn an open-label, prospective, randomized multicentre setting, 104 patients with CD activity index (CDAI) of 200 to 450 received intensive GMA, at two sessions per week (n = 55) or one session per week (n = 49). Clinical remission was defined as a CDAI score <150. Patients in each arm could receive up to 10 GMA sessions. However, GMA treatment could be discontinued when CDAI decreased to <150 (clinical remission level).
resultsOf the 104 patients, 99 were available for efficacy evaluation as per protocol, 45 in the weekly GMA group, and 54 in the intensive GMA group. Remission was achieved in 16 of 45 patients (35.6 %) in the weekly GMA and in 19 of 54 (35.2 %) in the intensive GMA (NS). Further, the mean time to remission was 35.4 ± 5.3 days in the weekly GMA and 21.7 ± 2.7 days in the intensive GMA (P = 0.0373). Elevated leucocytes and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were significantly improved by intensive GMA, from 8005/μL to 6950/μL (P = 0.0461) and from 54.5 mm/hr to 30.0 mm/hr (P = 0.0059), respectively. In both arms, GMA was well tolerated and was without safety concern.
conclusionsIn this study, with respect to remission rate, intensive GMA was not superior to weekly GMA, but the time to remission was significantly shorter in the former without increasing the incidence of side effects. UMIN registration # 000003666.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.