Systematic review with meta‐analysis: proximal disease extension in limited ulcerative colitis

Abstract

In this meta-analysis, approximately one quarter of patients with limited UC extend over time with most extension occurring during the first 10 years. Rate of extension depends on age at diagnosis and geographic origin. Predicting those at high risk of disease extension from diagnosis could lead to personalised therapeutic strategies.

Changes in medical management and colectomy rates: a population‐based cohort study on the epidemiology and natural history of ulcerative colitis in Örebro, Sweden, 1963‐2010

“…One possible explanation might be differences in healthcare‐seeking behaviour depending on sex, with a higher proportion of women seeking for mild morbidity and undiagnosed disease . Consistent with previous data, a substantial proportion (34.5%) of patients with proctitis at diagnosis progressed to left‐sided colitis or extensive colitis during the follow‐up of 10 years.…”

Disease course of inflammatory bowel disease unclassified in a European population‐based inception cohort: An Epi‐IBD study

“…One previous cohort did indeed find a worse prognosis regarding frequency of relapse in patients with IBDU as compared with UC . Rates of progression of extent in patients who were reclassified as UC were, however, comparable with rates found in UC patients …”

“…28 Rates of progression of extent in patients who were reclassified as UC were, however, comparable with rates found in UC patients. 29,30 A strength of the present study is the prospective inclusion and follow-up of incident IBD patients diagnosed within well-defined geographic areas. Furthermore, diagnostic criteria, case ascertainment methods, and the recorded data were all standardized, and patients thereby made comparable in observation time.…”

Editorial: does disease extension lead to disease progression in proctitis?

“…In this study by Roda et al, 3 a systemic review and meta-analysis The systematic review and meta-analysis by Rindom Krogsgaard and colleagues casts a cold eye on clinical trials of the low-FODMAP diet and points up a number of shortcomings: unrepresentative study population (tertiary referral rather than primary care), lack of blinding, inappropriate controls (in terms of diet or other intervention) and, most tellingly, short duration of exposure (maximum 6 weeks in a disorder that lasts a lifetime). 9 Furthermore, the reintroduction phase, fundamental to the low-FODMAP strategy, has not been subjected to critical assessment.…”