ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2018
A multicenter retrospective study aiming to identify patients who respond well to adsorptive granulomonocytapheresis in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.
Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Granulomonocytapheresis for chronic inflammatory diseases and sepsis.Journal of intensive care · 2025Review
- Efficacy of Biologics in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis Exhibiting Non-Response or Insufficient Response to Cytapheresis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of granulocyte and monocyte adsorptive apheresis in patients with ulcerative colitis and 5-aminosalicylate intolerance.Medicine · 2025Observational
- Granulocyte and Monocyte Adsorptive Apheresis Maintenance Therapy Restored the Loss of Response to Anti-TNF-Alpha Agents in the Patients With UC: A Case Report.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2025Article
- Efficacy of cytapheresis in patients with ulcerative colitis showing insufficient or lost response to biologic therapy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Granulocyte and monocyte apheresis therapy for patients with active ulcerative colitis associated with COVID-19: a case report.Intestinal research · 2022Article
- Granulocyte and Monocyte Adsorptive Apheresis for Ulcerative Colitis in a Patient with Low Bone Mineral Density Due to Fanconi-Bickel Syndrome.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2021Article
- 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
- Exploratory Study of the Effectiveness of Granulocyte and Monocyte Adsorptive Apheresis Before Initiation of Steroids in Patients With Active Ulcerative Colitis (EXPECT Study): A Multicenter Prospective Clinical Trial.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2020Article
- 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
- Management of elderly ulcerative colitis in Japan.Journal of gastroenterology · 2019Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Adsorptive Granulocyte and Monocyte Apheresis in Elderly and Pregnant Patients With Ulcerative Colitis.Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAdsorptive granulomonocytapheresis (GMA) with the Adacolumn has been introduced as a non-pharmacologic treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC). However, a subset of patients who might respond well to GMA needs to be targeted. This study was conducted at three IBD centers to determine factors affecting the efficacy of GMA in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC.
methodsFrom January 2008 to December 2017, a total of 894 active episodes (first attack or relapse) in 593 patients were treated with GMA. Clinical remission was defined as normal stool frequency and no rectal bleeding. Multiple clinical and laboratory parameters at entry were considered for efficacy assessment.
resultsClinical remission was achieved during 422 (47%) of the 894 treatment cases. In the multivariate analysis, predictors for favorable response to GMA were age ≤60 years, UC duration <1 year, Mayo endoscopic subscore 2 (vs. 3), steroid naïve UC, and biologic naïve UC. Clinical remission rate was 70% in patients with four of the five factors, 52% in patients with three factors, 46% in patients with two factors, 39% in patients with one factor, and 18% in patients with none of these factors. Overall, the clinical remission rate was significantly higher in patients with a greater number of the five predictors (P < 0.0001).
conclusionsGMA appeared to be effective in steroid naïve and biologic naïve patients with short duration of UC. Elderly patients (>60 years) and those with severe endoscopic activity did not respond well to GMA. Additional, well designed, prospective, controlled trials should strengthen our findings.
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.