Systematic Reviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastroenterol. Aug 21, 2019; 25(31): 4534-4554
Published online Aug 21, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i31.4534
Table 2 Studies evaluating the use of small bowel capsule endoscopy in the assessment of mucosal healing in patients diagnosed with Crohn’s disease
Ref.Study designSample sizeTreatment evaluatedPrior biologic exposureInterval between the CECE findings considered for assessing mucosal healingPositive SB findings before treatmentPositive SB findings after treatmentP-value
Efthymiou et al[85], 2008Prospective, blinded40CS (60%) Mesalamine (70%) Azathioprine (10%) Infliximab (5%) Metronidazo-le (20%)-After achievement of clinical remission: 4 wk (75%)Number of apthous ulcers, mean ± SE26.0 ± 7.512.7 ± 2.30.07
6 wk (15%)Number of large ulcers, mean ± SE8.3 ± 1.45.0 ± 0.80.01
8 wk (10%)Percentage of the SBTT in which any endoscopic lesion was visible, mean ± SE22.0 ± 3.117.8 ± 2.50.08
Tsibouris et al[86], 2013Prospective, blinded1021--≥ 15 d after CDAI dropped < 150: 2-3 mo; (26.5%) 3-6 mo; (19.6%) 6-12 mo; (53.9%)CECDAI score, mean ± SD14 ± 64 ± 2-
Niv et al[44], 2014Prospective, blinded19Copaxone (68.4%) 5-ASA (52.6%) Antibiotics (15.8%) CS (5.3%) IS (10.5%) Vitamins (26.3%) Others (36.8%)-12 wkLewis score, mean ± SD1730 ± 1780No correlation between changes in CDAI/IBDQ and Lewis score2-
Hall et al[42], 2014Prospective, blinded43Adalimumab (84%) 160 mg W0, 80 mg W2, then 40 mg /2 wk or Azathioprine (16%) 2-2.5 mg/kgNaïve 38/43 Exposed 5/4352 wk3Complete MH = Absence of ulcers, n (%) Normalizatio-n of CECDAI score < 3.5, n (%) Change in CECDAI score, n (%)- - CECDAI < 3.5: 4/43 (9%) 3.5 ≤ CECDAI < 5.8: 13/43 (30%) CECDAI ≥ 5.8: 26/43 (61%)Complete MH: 12/28 (43%) CECDAI < 3.5: 2/28 (7%) CECDAI ≤ 3.5 < 5.8: 6/28 (21%) CECDAI ≥ 5.8: 8/28 (29%)< 0.0001
Kopylov et al[45], 2015Prospective52None (15.4%) 5-ASA (9.6%) Thiopurine (36.6%) Anti-TNF (26.9%) Anti-TNF+IS (11.5%)-NA Included patients were all in clinical remission (CDAI < 150) and had only one CE.MH = Lewis score < 135NAMH: 8/52 (15.4%) 135 ≤ Lewis < 790: 33/52 (63.5%) Lewis score ≥ 790: 11/52 (21.2%)-
Shafran et al[43], 2016Prospective, open-label15Certolizumab pegol 400 mg W0, W2, W4 then /4 wkNaïve 3/15 Exposed 12/15424 wk in respondersLewis score, mean1663226-
Aggarwal et al[46], 2017Prospective, blinded43None (14%) 5-ASA (60%) CS (12%) IS (74%) Anti-TNF (21%)-NA Included patients were all in clinical remission (CDAI < 150) and had only one CE.MH = Lewis score < 135NAMH: 17/43 (40%) 135 ≤ Lewis < 790: 19/43 (44%) Lewis score ≥ 790: 7/43 (16%) Significant correlation between Lewis score and fecal calprotectin (r = 0.82, P < 0.0001)-
Mitselos et al[47], 2018Retrospective30None (37%) 5-ASA (17%) Budesonide (10%) Azathioprine (10%) Anti-TNF (20%) Anti-TNF+IS (6%)-NA Included patients had only one CE (60% in both clinical and biochemical remission)MH = Lewis score < 1355NAMH: 6/15 (40%) Weak correlation between CDAI and Lewis score (r = 0.32, P = 0.088) and between CRP and Lewis score (r = 0.52, P = 0.004)-
Nakamura et al[87], 2018Prospective, blinded92None (27%) 5-ASA (18%) Thiopurines (17%) Infliximab (20%); Adalimumab (10%) Elemental diet (5%) CS (3%)Naïve 38/92Exposed 54/926 mo in the active group (40/92) Non-active patients ended the study at baseline (52/92)Lewis score, mean MH = Lewis score of 0 Active CD: Lewis score > 135458233 MH: 2/296 Improvement of LS in all 7 patients who received biologics, and in 8/11 (73%) of asymptomatic patients receiving additional medication0.0004