Comparing the clinical application values of the Degree of Ulcerative Colitis Burden of Luminal Inflammation (DUBLIN) score and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) in patients with ulcerative colitis

Abstract

Abstract Background The significance of endoscopic evaluation in the diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis (UC) has been widely recognized. Over the years, scholars have established several endoscopic scores. Herein, we assessed the clinical application value of the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore (Mayo ES), the Degree of Ulcerative Colitis Burden of Luminal Inflammation (DUBLIN) score, and the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) score in UC patients, by comparing their correlation with disease activity and their predictive potential for treatment response and clinical outcomes. Methods UC patients hospitalized from September 2015 to September 2019 were retrospectively analysed. We employed Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to assess the linear association of the assessed endoscopic scores with the clinical parameters. The receiver-operating characteristic curve was applied to evaluate the predictive capabilities of the endoscopic scores for treatment escalation and 1-year readmission. Results A total of 178 patients were enrolled; most of them (82%) suffered moderate or severe colitis. Among them, 48 (27%) patients received treatment escalation and 59 (33%) were readmitted within 1 year. The DUBLIN and UCEIS scores demonstrated higher correlations with clinical parameters than the Mayo ES. The DUBLIN scores significantly differed between patients with mild, moderate, and severe colitis (all P < 0.001). The UCEIS scores demonstrated the best predictabilities for treatment escalation and 1-year readmission with an area under the curve of 0.88 and 0.75, respectively. Compared to the UCEIS and DUBLIN scores, the predictive capabilities of the Mayo ES for treatment escalation (both P < 0.001) and 1-year readmission (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively) were lower. The UCEIS scores exhibited a significant difference between the steroid-responsive group and the steroid-dependent or steroid-refractory group (both P < 0.001), while no significant differences in the Mayo ES and DUBLIN scores were found among the three groups (both P > 0.05). Conclusion This study demonstrates that both the DUBLIN and UCEIS scores outperform the Mayo ES in assessing disease severity and predicting treatment response and clinical outcomes in UC patients.