Systematic Reviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Meta-Anal. Sep 18, 2024; 12(3): 97210
Published online Sep 18, 2024. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v12.i3.97210
Table 3 Role of intestinal ultrasound in predicting response to therapy in ulcerative colitis
Ref.
Study type
Number of patients
Treatment agent(s)
IUS predictor(s)
Follow-up duration
Time points of IUS
Therapeutic outcomes
Dubbins[25]Retrospective9 UC (19 CD)Steroid ± immunosuppressive therapy BWT2-4 moBaseline, 2-4 mo No significant change in BWT in UC but there was significant response in CD
Maconi et al[38]Prospective30 active UCSteroids BWT2 mo Baseline and 2 mo Significant reduction in BWT in clinical responders; IUS response significantly correlated with clinical biochemical and endoscopic activity
Yoshida et al[26]Prospective26 UCCytaphresis + conventional therapy BWT1 year Baseline and 2-3 wk Early IUS response (decrease in BWT by 2.5 mm at 2-3 wk) predicted 1 year response (91% vs 40%) lower relapse (9% vs 47%)
Goertz et al[27]Prospective7 UCVedolizumabBWT, CDS, CEUS- amplitude and time derived parameters 14 wk Baseline, 14 wkDecrease in CDS intensity. Decrease in amplitude dependent CEUS parameters (peak enhancement and wash in rates)








Maaser et al[28]Prospective, multi centre224 UCSteroid, anti-TNF, anti-integrin, AZA/6-MPBWT, BWS, CDS, haustration, lymph nodes, inflammatory fat, ascites 16 wk Baseline, 2, 6, and 12 wk Significant improvement in IUS parameters was seen as early as 2 wk. Significant correlation of normalisation of BWT at 12 wk with clinical improvement and biomarkers
Les et al[29]Prospective28 UC (89 CD)5-ASA, budesonide, AZA, anti-TNFBWT, BWS, CDS, i-fat, lymph nodes6 mo Baseline Predictors (overall IBD); immediate treatment escalation (31.7%) Score = 1/[1 + Exp (-XB)] where XB = 0.75 × [BWT (mm)] + 3.5 × (CDS = 1) – 7.31; AUC: 0.94, score > 0.5 100% sensitivity, 83% specificity; subsequent treatment escalation (17.9%), AUC: 0.92; Score = 1/[1 + Exp (-XB)] where XB = 0.8X [bowel wall thickness (mm)] - 1.3X (Presence of wall stratification =1) – 3.82 Score > 0.6 has 90% sensitivity, 86.4% specificity
Smith et al[30]Retrospective 23 CD, 8 UC (22 CD and 7 UC on biologics)Anti-TNF, ustekinumab, vedolizumabBWT, CDS46 wk 2, 6, and 14 wk16% improvement in BWT at 6 wk and 10% improvement at wk 14 predicted treatment persistence/response at 46 wk
Vaughan et al[31]Prospective 79 UC and 24 CDMaintenance infliximabBWT, CDSCross-sectional (median disease duration 8 years) Cross-sectional data Lower infliximab trough level was associated with higher CDS in both UC and CD
Helwig et al[32]Post-hoc analysis of prospective, multi centre studies131 UC (118 CD)Standard of care BWT, CDS, BWS, i-fat, transmural healing, transmural response52 wk 0, 12, 52 wk 76.6% TR and 45%-61.4% TH at 12 wk after treatment intensification
de Voogd et al[33]Longitudinal, prospective30 UC on tofacinibTofacitinibBWT8 wkBaseline and 8 wkMost accurate BWT cut-off for endoscopic remission was 2.8 mm; for endoscopic response: 3.9 mm and > 32% decrease in BWT
Ilvemark et al[34]Blinded, prospective multi centre, observational 56 acute severe UC IV steroidBWT48 h and 6 d Baseline, 48 ± 24 h and 6 ± 1 d ≤ 20% reduction in BWT has 84.2% sensitivity and 78.4% specificity for determining non-response (AUC: 0.85)
Allocca et al[19]Prospective49 UCInfliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumabMilan ultrasound criteria based on BWT and CDS intensity1 year Baseline, week 12, and 1 year MUC ≤ 6.2 at week 12 independent predictor of MES ≤ 1; A ≥ 2 reduction in MUC predicted MES = 0
de Voogd et al[33]Prospective, single center51 UC patientsSteroids, 5-ASA, thiopurines, biologics, tofacitinib, cyclosporinBWT, CDS, haustrations, BWS, fat wrapping, lymph nodes 26 wk Baseline, week 2, week 6, weeks 8-26BWT and CDS at weeks 2 and 6 predicted endoscopic remission and response at 8-26 wk