
==== Front
Gut Liver
Gut Liver
Gut and Liver
1976-2283
2005-1212
Editorial Office of Gut and Liver

38623059
10.5009/gnl230370
gnl-18-5-834
Original Article
Alimentary Tract
A New Risk Prediction Model for Detecting Endoscopic Activity of Ulcerative Colitis
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5727-8922
Guan Guoyu 1
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3906-4915
Zhuoga Sangdan 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4453-4664
Zheng Songbai 1
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3127-7608
Xu Kangqiao 2
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9329-2842
Weng Tingwen 3
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2591-0003
Qian Wensi 4
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3201-9163
Ji Danian 5
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5384-6881
Yu Xiaofeng 6
1 Department of Gastroenterology, Huadong Hospital, Shanghai Medical College Fudan University, Shanghai, China
2 Department of Respiration, Jiading Branch of Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
3 Department of Cardiology, Huadong Hospital, Shanghai Medical College Fudan University, Shanghai, China
4 Department of Hematology, Huadong Hospital, Shanghai Medical College Fudan University, Shanghai, China
5 Department of Endoscopy Center, Huadong Hospital, Shanghai Medical College Fudan University, Shanghai, China
6 Department of General Practice, Huadong Hospital, Shanghai Medical College Fudan University, Shanghai, China
Corresponding Author Songbai Zheng, ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4453-4664, E-mail songbai1009@163.com
16 9 2024
16 4 2024
16 4 2024
18 5 834844
19 9 2023
13 12 2023
11 1 2024
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Background/Aims

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an incurable, relapsing-remitting inflammatory disease that increases steadily. Mucosal healing has become the primary therapeutic objective for UC. Nevertheless, endoscopic assessments are invasive, expensive, time-consuming, and inconvenient. Therefore, it is crucial to develop a noninvasive predictive model to monitor endoscopic activity in patients with UC.

Methods

Clinical data of 198 adult patients with UC were collected from January 2016 to August 2022 at Huadong Hospital, China.

Results

Patients with UC were randomly divided into the training cohort (70%, n=138) and the validation cohort (30%, n=60). The receiver operating characteristic curve value for the training group was 0.858 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.781 to 0.936), whereas it was 0.845 (95% CI, 0.731 to 0.960) for the validation group. The calibration curve employed the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (p>0.05) to demonstrate the consistency between the predicted and the actual probabilities in the nomogram of these two groups. The decision curve analysis validated that the nomogram had clinical usefulness.

Conclusions

The nomogram, which incorporated activated partial thromboplastin time, fecal occult blood test, β2-globulin level, and fibrinogen degradation products, served as a prospective tool for evaluating UC activity in clinical practices.

Ulcerative colitis
Fecal marker
Blood marker
Endoscopy
Nomograms
Jiading District Health Commission of Shanghai National Key R&D Program of China 10.13039/501100012166
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory disease characterized by recurring episodes of inflammation that is incurable. The frequency of UC has been continuously increasing worldwide, particularly in developing nations.1 To date, the pathogenesis and etiology of UC remain unknown; however, they may be related to immunological, inflammatory, environmental, or genetic factors.2 Bloody purulent stool is the main clinical manifestation of UC, usually accompanied by abdominal pain and diarrhea.3 Currently, immunosuppressants, biological agents, and 5-aminosalicylic are the main treatment options for UC.4,5 Most patients with UC require long-term treatment, surveillance, and management, which can even be life-long. Endoscopy is a common, efficient, and preferable method used for monitoring the activity of inflammatory diseases.6 Mucosal healing has become the main therapeutic objective for UC since it is strongly associated with long-lasting clinical remission and reduced incidence of colectomy.7-10 Nevertheless, endoscopy is associated with several limitations, including invasiveness, expensive healthcare costs, and intricate preoperative preparations.11 Additionally, there are potential hazards associated with conducting a colonoscopy, such as the risk of perforation and bleeding. This risk is particularly heightened among older people and persons with a history of inflammatory bowel disease.12

It is important to promote the use of non-endoscopic indicators of disease activity to predict the severity of the disease and assess the clinical prognosis.13 Over the past decades, a growing number of studies have shown that biological disease markers, including C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate, hemoglobin, platelets (PLT), blood leukocytes, vitamin D, fecal calprotectin test (FCT), and fecal immunochemical test have been proposed as the indicators for estimating the activity of the disease.14-17 An ideal biomarker should include attributes that make it readily applicable for routine clinical use, and it should have the ability to detect and distinguish specific diseases in individuals accurately. Unfortunately, such a biomarker has not yet been determined for UC. The current blood markers lack specificity and sensitivity in assessing endoscopic activity due to the potential influence of inflammatory, autoimmune, and infectious diseases beyond the digestive system, which elevates the levels of these markers in the blood.18

Currently, fecal indicators have demonstrated greater specificity in comparison to blood markers, although some other conditions may also elevate the level of such fecal markers, including colonic tumors and treatment with anti-inflammation or nonsteroidal drugs.19 Emerging data suggested that the prediction model with the combined use of blood and fecal markers for detecting endoscopic activity in patients with UC tends to be more specific and sensitive compared to their separate detection.20 However, the process of testing these biomarkers, such as FCT, is inaccessible, time-consuming, and expensive in clinical practice. It is necessary to develop a new risk prediction model that incorporates universal blood and fecal markers. This approach would replace the need for endoscopic inspections and alleviate the physical and financial constraints faced by patients with UC.

A nomogram is a graphical tool that is frequently used to condense complex statistical prediction models into a single numerical estimate of the likelihood of a clinical occurrence. It is known for its simplicity, intuitiveness, and widespread usage.21 The present retrospective study aimed to develop a new risk prediction model based on noninvasive parameters of blood and stool for well-detecting endoscopic activity in patients with UC. Moreover, the clinical results provided another choice for monitoring and guiding the medicating of patients with UC, circumventing the need for routine colonoscopy exams.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Study patients and design

The study was approved by the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee at Huadong Hospital (Number: 2021K174). A total of 493 adult patients with a diagnosed UC, as recorded in the Electronic Medical Record System, were included in this study and referred to Huadong Hospital, affiliated with Fudan University, between January 2016 and August 2022. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients clearly diagnosed with UC according to clinical consensus;22 (2) patients aged ≥18 years; and (3) patients who had undergone the overall examinations of blood and stool within 7 days before or after undergoing colonoscopy. The key exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients who had not been hospitalized previously (n=290); (2) patients lacking information regarding colonoscopy examinations (n=5); (3) pregnant women (n=0); or (4) patients with autoimmune illnesses, severe underlying conditions, persistent infectious diseases, or malignant tumors (n=0). Finally, a total of 198 patients with UC were found to be eligible for the analysis in this study. These patients were randomly divided into the training cohort (70%, n=138) and the validation cohort (30%, n=60), as Fig. 1 shows. The Mayo endoscopic subscore was used to evaluate disease activity based on endoscopic assessments conducted by skilled endoscopists.23 Mayo endoscopic subscore=0 was defined as "endoscopic remission," while Mayo endoscopic subscore ≥1 was defined as "endoscopic activity." The extension of endoscopic activity was categorized into three distinct types (proctitis, left-sided, and extensive) based on the Montreal classification.24

2. Clinical data collection

Predominantly relevant parameters of the patients were collected according to the literature review.14-17 Demographic variables and clinical characteristics were recorded, including age, gender, Montreal classification, medications, and comorbidities. Serum biomarkers were monitored as well, involving white blood cell (×109/L), neutrophils (%), lymphocyte (%), monocyte (%), red blood cell (×1012/L), hemoglobin (g/L), red blood cell distribution width (%), PLT (×1012/L), platelet distribution width (fL), mean platelet volume (fL), alanine transaminase (U/L), aspartate transaminase (U/L), γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (U/L), alkaline phosphatase (U/L), albumin (g/L), total bilirubin (μmol/L), total cholesterol (mmol/L), triglyceride (mmol/L), high-density lipoprotein (mmol/L), low-density lipoprotein (mmol/L), blood urea nitrogen (mmol/L), serum creatinine (μmol/L), uric acid (μmol/dL), estimated glomerular filtration rate (mL/min), blood glucose (fasting, mmol/L), amylase (U/L), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mm/hr), CRP (mg/L), procalcitonin (ng/mL), prothrombin time (sec), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT, sec), international normalized ratio, fibrinogen (g/L), fibrinogen degradation products (FDPs, mg/L), D-dimer (DD, mg/L), immunoglobulin (Ig) A (g/L), IgG (g/L), IgM (g/L), prealbumin (g/L), α1-globulin (%), α2-globulin (%), β1-globulin (%), β2-globulin (%), peripheral antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, myeloperoxidase-antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, vitamin A (μmol/L), vitamin B1 (nmol/L), vitamin B2 (mg/mL), vitamin B6 (nmol/L), vitamin B9 (nmol/L), vitamin C (μmol/L), 1,25-(OH)2-vitamin D3 (nmol/L), vitamin E (μg/mL), procollagen type I C-terminal propeptide (pg/μL), procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (ng/mL), osteocalcin (ng/mL), and parathyroid hormone (pg/mL). The fecal marker exhibited a fecal occult blood test (FOBT). In the current study, the above biomarkers were detected within 7 days before or after colonoscopy.

3. Statistical analysis

This study used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to assess the normality of data distribution for continuous variables. The data on normal distribution was represented by the mean and standard deviation and was compared using the independent samples t-test. Data that did not follow a normal distribution were presented using the median and interquartile range and were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Descriptive statistics was conducted with frequencies for categorical variables presented as percentages (%) and using the chi-square or Fisher exact tests for comparison.

Statistical analysis employing univariate logistic regression was performed to assess the significance of variables and to screen for potential predictors of endoscopic activity in patients with UC. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant and included in the multivariable logistic regression analysis. The nomogram model was constructed using variables that had a p-value less than 0.05, which were then further filtered by multivariable analysis. These predictors were presented as odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI).

The performance of the prediction model was evaluated with respect to discriminatory capacity, calibration ability, and clinical effectiveness. The area under the curve (AUC) or receiver operating characteristic displayed the discriminatory capacity, which equaled the concordance index (c-index). The calibration accuracy was assessed by the utilization of a visual calibration plot and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The decision curve analysis was utilized to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the prediction model. Two-tailed p<0.05 was regarded as significant. The R version 4.2.0 was used for all statistical analysis (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

RESULTS

1. Baseline characteristics of patients with UC

Of the 493 patients with UC, 198 were entered into the study. In the training cohort, patients were classified as endoscopic activity (n=102) and endoscopic remission (n=36). In the validation cohort, patients were sorted as endoscopic activity (n=43) and endoscopic remission (n=17). Out of the individuals that were excluded, 290 were not the first hospitalization, and five did not have data on colonoscopy examinations. The baseline characteristics of the individuals with UC are shown in Table 1. The median age of included patients was 56.0 years (interquartile range, 41.2 to 64.0 years), and 52.0% of patients (103/198) were male. Statistically significant differences (p<0.05) were seen in six variables between the two groups–red blood cell, hemoglobin, red blood cell distribution width, serum creatinine, DD, and IgM. According to Fig. 2, patients with active UC had greater odds ratio for FDP, α1-globulin, β1-globulin, FOBT, PLT, prothrombin time, APTT, fibrinogen, DD, and CRP. They also had lower odds ratio for vitamin B1, β2-globulin, and mean platelet volume compared to inactive individuals.

2. Predictive model development

The findings of univariate logistic regression analysis are displayed in Fig. 2. Thirteen variables with statistical significance (p<0.05) were initially assessed, including vitamin B1, FDP, α1-globulin, β1-globulin, β2-globulin, FOBT, PLT, PT, APTT, fibrinogen, DD, CRP, and mean platelet volume. Then, the 13 parameters were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression for further selection. Four variables (APTT, FOBT, β2-globulin, and FDP) were identified as the independent risk variables and used to construct the final model (Fig. 3) based on multivariate logistic regression analysis (Table 2). The specific steps for interpreting the nomogram are as follows. Firstly, the initial data of each individual was intuitively exhibited in the form of a figure on the horizontal axis of the four predictive variables, respectively. Secondly, each figure on the horizontal axis vertically corresponds to the "Points Line" at the top of the nomogram, resulting in a new score ranging from 0 to 100. Third, the "Total Points" were obtained by summation of each new score of the four predictors, which ranges from 0 to 160. Finally, the "Risk" is read by drawing a vertical line from the "Total Points Line" downward the "Risk Line," which ranges from 0 to 1. The value of the "Risk" represents the likelihood of endoscopic activity in individuals with UC. As the "Total Points" amount rises, the "Risk" value likewise climbs proportionally.

3. The performance and validation of the nomogram

The AUC of the nomogram in the training group (Fig. 4A) was 0.858 (95% CI, 0.781 to 0.936), and in the validation group (Fig. 4B) was 0.845 (95% CI, 0.731 to 0.960), indicating that this model had good discriminatory ability. To assess the consistency between anticipated and actual probabilities in these two groups, a calibration plot and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test was employed. The results were χ2=3.121 (p=0.959) in the training group (Fig. 5A) and χ2=6.032 (p=0.737) in the validation group (Fig. 5B), which exhibited good predicting accuracy of the nomogram. The decision curve analysis of this model was performed to evaluate the clinical validity in the training group (Fig. 6A) and validation group (Fig. 6B), showing that the net benefits of these two groups were significantly higher than the two extreme cases, where no patients had endoscopic activity, and all patients had endoscopic activity. In other words, the produced nomogram can guide therapeutic decisions as a prospective tool.

DISCUSSION

The prevalence of UC has significantly grown across various regions of the world over the past several decades, leading to a noticeable rise in the social and economic burden on the global healthcare system and healthcare professionals.25 The government must effectively address the management of this intricate and costly ailment by implementing early prevention strategies for UC and introducing innovative measures to enhance existing healthcare systems. According to the second European evidence-based consensus for the management of UC, endoscopic remission was regarded as the ideal therapeutic goal.26 Previous studies highlighted the association between one or several parameters and the endoscopic activity of UC, paying less attention to the development of a prediction model.16,17,27 Therefore, in the present study, a more acceptable and less costly nomogram model was developed for monitoring the disease activity of UC based on noninvasive biomarkers (blood and fecal samples). This model would enable the early detection of individuals with endoscopic activity and guide clinical practice.

Through multivariate logistic regression analysis, four variables were considered as the independent risk factors and selected for the construction of the final model: APTT, FOBT, β2-globulin, and FDP. This nomogram was a reliable prediction tool for monitoring the endoscopic activity of patients with UC not only in the training group but also in the validation group. This study specifically examined the ability of combined biomarkers to predict disease activity in patients with UC, comparing it to the use of FCT. The study included a small sample size of 27 UC patients, which was due to the limited use of FCT and its high cost (Supplementary Fig. 1). The results showed that employing combined biomarkers (APTT, FOBT, β2-globulin, and FDP) was more effective than FCT (p=0.03).

It has long been seen that autoimmune disorders play an important role in the etiopathogenesis of UC.2 β2-globulin is a small protein with a low molecular weight. Its levels in the blood rise during immunological activation and autoimmune disorders because of its structural similarity to immunoglobulin domains. Macrophages and T-lymphocytes release this protein.28 The immunity in the severe activity or steroid-resistant UC is usually suppressed, which leads to a decrease in the number of lymphocytes. This suggests that the decrease in β2-globulin can be considered a reliable indicator for assessing the activity of UC. In addition, clinical evidence showed that β2-globulin is related to the activity of inflammatory bowel disease as well. Zissis et al.29 conducted a study including 74 cases of Crohn's disease and 68 cases of control individuals. The study revealed a correlation between the levels of β2-globulin in the blood serum and the disease activity in patients with Crohn's disease. Yamamoto-Furusho et al.30 also found a correlation between β2-globulin serum levels and the histological activity of patients with UC (p=0.02).

Patients with UC who experienced intestinal damage were shown to have a blood coagulation disease characterized by symptoms such as bleeding, hypercoagulability, and hyperfunction of the fibrinolytic system.31,32 The prolongation of APTT in UC patients may be related to the consumption of coagulation factors. Patients with UC frequently have a hypercoagulable condition, commonly resulting from intestinal inflammation. When UC disease is active, inflammatory intestinal endothelial cell damage exposes negatively charged collagen fibers beneath the endothelium, activating factor XII and thus initiating the endogenous coagulation pathway. The compromised intestinal mucosal cells secrete tissue factors, which then bind to factor VIIa to form a complex, ultimately initiating the exogenous coagulation pathway.33 In addition, Stadnicki revealed that patients with UC had a considerably longer APTT compared to control participants. This suggests that APTT can be used as a dependable indicator for assessing the disease activity of UC.34

A crosstalk between inflammation and coagulation exists in UC patients.33 Inflammation can promote the activation of coagulation and cause hyperfunction of the fibrinolytic system via various pathways. Inflammation can stimulate the initiation of blood clotting and result in excessive activity of the system that breaks down blood clots through different mechanisms. These mechanisms include reducing the effectiveness of anticoagulants and the fibrinolytic activities, elevating the levels of homocysteine, and contributing to the series of reactions that lead to a coagulation cascade. This can potentially lead to an increase in the levels of FDP, which are markers associated with the breakdown of blood clots.35 Furthermore, basic research has shown that FDP can produce inflammatory effects by upregulating the expression of interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor, which may exacerbate the degree of intestinal inflammation in active UC patients.36 Currently, the efficacy of preventive heparin medication is uncertain. However, it is considered safe to administer anticoagulant therapy to high-risk patients with UC.37 Additionally, high serum FDP levels are easily presented in patients with UC who have experienced an active phase and have failed to respond to medicinal intervention.38,39 Several investigators have proposed that FDP might emerge as a potential predictor for detecting endoscopic activity in patients with UC.40 The clinical evidence was consistent with the results obtained from the present study.

Fecal biomarkers are also the common noninvasive parameters for monitoring the disease activity of patients with UC.14 Despite initial indications that FCT could serve as a reliable predictor, subsequent research has revealed that this fecal marker is not able to distinguish between UC and Crohn's disease effectively. It is also susceptible to the influence of medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, have inconsistent cutoff levels, and is unable to determine the extent of colonic involvement accurately.14,19,41,42 FOBT, also called fecal immunochemical test, is generally a fast and inexpensive technique that could be easily used in routine facilities that indicated bleeding from inflammation in the intestines.43 Takashima et al.44 reported that FOBT was a more sensitive method for determining the remission of patients with UC than FCT (AUC 0.833 vs 0.581, p=0.025). A recent study suggests that FOBT was a specific (AUC, 0.800; 95% CI, 0.670 to 0.890) and sensitive (AUC, 0.720; 95% CI, 0.570 to 0.840) predictor for detecting disease activity in UC.45 These findings encourage the use of FOBT as a preferred technique in medical practice for evaluating the clinical status of patients with UC.

There are some limitations to this study as well. First, the present study was conducted at a single center, which is consistent with the majority of research on correlation analysis and prediction models of UC lacking support from multicenter data.46-48 However, it needed the support of data from multicenter. Therefore, further research should be performed to validate these results among a larger study patient. Secondly, the study primarily focused on endoscopic mucosal healing and did not assess histological mucosal healing. However, this aspect will be investigated in future research.

In conclusion, this nomogram based on noninvasive parameters (APTT, FOBT, β2-globulin, and FDP) was a highly accurate tool for detecting the endoscopic activity of UC, which simultaneously avoids repeated, costly, time-consuming, and painful endoscopic examinations. From a clinical viewpoint, the present model was convenient for doctors and healthcare professionals in treating and managing these patients in any medical institute, such as a hospital, community, nursing home, etc. Further prospective studies with large samples of UC patients are required to determine the role of these risk factors as useful treatment targets.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by the Jiading District Health Commission of Shanghai (grant number: 2023KY10; Kangqiao Xu) and the National Key R&D Program of China (grant numbers: 2020YFC2009000 and 2020YFC2009001; Songbai Zheng).

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary materials can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl230370.

Fig. 1 Flowchart of this study. UC, ulcerative colitis.

Fig. 2 Univariate logistic regression analysis of endoscopic activity in patients with ulcerative colitis. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; FDP, fibrinogen degradation product; FOBT, fecal occult blood test; PLT, platelet; PT, prothrombin time; APTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; FBG, fibrinogen; DD, D-dimer; CRP, C-reactive protein; MPV, mean platelet volume.

Fig. 3 Nomogram developed for predicting endoscopic activity in patients with ulcerative colitis. APTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; FOBT, fecal occult blood test; FDP, fibrinogen degradation product.

Fig. 4 Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the nomogram for predicting the endoscopic activity in patients with ulcerative colitis. (A) ROC curve in the training group; (B) ROC curve in the validation group. AUC, area under the ROC.

Fig. 5 Calibration curve of the nomogram for predicting the endoscopic activity in patients with ulcerative colitis. (A) Calibration curve in the training group. (B) Calibration curve in the validation group.

Fig. 6 Decision curve of the nomogram for predicting the endoscopic activity in patients with ulcerative colitis. (A) Decision curve in the training group. (B) Decision curve in the validation group.

Table 1 Baseline Characteristics of Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

Variable	Validation cohort (n=60)	Training cohort (n=138)	p-value	
Age, yr	57.00 (41.20–66.00)	55.50 (41.20–63.00)	0.231	
Sex			0.251	
Male	27 (45.0)	76 (55.1)		
Female	33 (55.0)	62 (44.9)		
Montreal classification			0.612	
E1	31 (51.7)	69 (50.0)		
E2	14 (23.3)	26 (18.8)		
E3	15 (25.0)	43 (31.2)		
Medications			0.332	
Thiopurine	1 (1.7)	0		
Biologics	0	1 (0.7)		
Corticosteroid	23 (38.3)	63 (45.7)		
5-ASA	36 (60.0)	74 (53.6)		
Hematological variable				
WBC, ×109/L	6.05 (4.85–7.30)	6.40 (5.10–7.77)	0.150	
NEUT, %	59.90±10.00	61.90±10.70	0.219	
LYM, %	30.30±8.93	28.90±9.58	0.335	
MONO, %	6.16 (5.10–6.90)	6.00 (5.00–7.00)	0.995	
RBC, ×1012/L	4.26 (3.93–4.53)	4.46 (4.10–4.81)	0.039	
Hb, g/dL	12.80 (11.60–13.60)	13.30 (12.00–14.50)	0.047	
RDW, %	12.90 (12.70–13.50)	12.70 (12.30–13.30)	0.028	
PLT, ×1012/L	0.23 (0.18–0.28)	0.22 (0.18–0.27)	0.381	
PDW, fL	15.90 (15.40–16.20)	16.00 (15.50–16.40)	0.280	
MPV, fL	9.90 (9.00–10.60)	9.97 (9.00–11.00)	0.368	
Biochemical variable				
ALT, U/L	14.00 (11.00–22.20)	14.00 (9.93–20.00)	0.397	
AST, U/L	17.00 (14.00–22.00)	16.10 (13.00–20.00)	0.205	
γ-GGT, U/L	18.60 (13.10–25.60)	16.10 (11.10–23.80)	0.168	
AKP, U/L	67.40 (60.50–79.00)	67.00 (55.00–78.50)	0.435	
ALB, g/L	42.80 (39.80–45.00)	43.00 (40.00–45.90)	0.606	
TBIL, μmol/L	9.45 (6.83–13.80)	9.85 (7.50–13.00)	0.715	
TCHO, mmol/L	4.31±0.97	4.44±0.94	0.407	
TG, mmol/L	1.00 (0.79–1.25)	1.21 (0.86–1.57)	0.053	
HDL, mmol/L	1.37 (1.29–1.43)	1.35 (1.24–1.49)	0.691	
LDL, mmol/L	2.66 (2.26–2.99)	2.70 (2.28–2.99)	0.907	
BUN, mmol/L	4.45 (3.30–5.27)	4.60 (3.50–5.30)	0.715	
SCR, μmol/L	67.20 (56.60–75.50)	72.00 (60.50–83.10)	0.016	
UA, μmol/dL	27.10 (22.10–35.00)	29.80 (24.50–36.00)	0.148	
eGFR, mL/min	99.20 (90.80–108.00)	96.10 (85.00–108.00)	0.143	
BG, mmol/L	4.95 (4.38–5.30)	4.90 (4.40–5.38)	0.887	
AMY, U/L	63.10 (58.60–75.00)	67.50 (56.40–86.00)	0.268	
ESR, mm/hr	12.00 (6.00–21.00)	12.00 (6.00–22.00)	0.749	
CRP, mg/L	6.55 (2.36–8.54)	4.64 (2.10–8.49)	0.677	
PCT, ng/mL	0.22 (0.18–0.27)	0.22 (0.18–0.26)	0.619	
Coagulation variable				
PT, sec	11.80 (11.20–12.90)	11.50 (11.10–12.30)	0.320	
APTT, sec	29.20 (27.00–35.40)	29.90 (27.40–33.30)	0.760	
INR	0.98 (0.96–1.03)	0.98 (0.95–1.03)	0.862	
FBG, g/L	3.16 (2.48–3.48)	3.07 (2.57–3.56)	0.959	
FDP, mg/L	1.46 (0.89–2.37)	1.40 (0.93–2.07)	0.392	
DD, mg/L	0.34 (0.23–0.75)	0.29 (0.18–0.55)	0.014	
Immunological variable				
IgA, g/L	2.07 (1.89–2.65)	2.15 (1.88–2.55)	0.671	
IgG, g/L	12.20 (11.70–13.40)	12.30 (11.60–13.30)	0.732	
IgM, g/L	0.91 (0.76–1.13)	1.06 (0.86–1.36)	0.004	
PA, mg/L	232.00 (211.00–241.00)	230.00 (203.00–245.00)	0.815	
α1-Globulin, %	3.70 (3.47–4.64)	3.71 (3.45–4.41)	0.616	
α2-Globulin, %	7.51 (7.11–8.71)	7.40 (6.98–8.13)	0.189	
β1-Globulin, %	6.29 (5.94–6.69)	6.26 (5.93–6.58)	0.364	
β2-Globulin, %	4.08 (3.72–4.76)	4.21 (3.86–4.80)	0.526	
pANCA, n (%)			0.222	
No	50 (83.3)	125 (90.6)		
Yes	10 (16.7)	13 (9.4)		
MPO-ANCA, n (%)			0.515	
No	59 (98.3)	137 (99.3)		
Yes	1 (1.7)	1 (0.7)		
Vitamin variable				
Vitamin A, μmol/L	0.59 (0.54–0.70)	0.61 (0.55–0.69)	0.605	
Vitamin B1, nmol/L	61.60 (58.20–68.20)	60.90 (56.60–67.20)	0.673	
Vitamin B2, mg/mL	0.24 (0.21–0.25)	0.24 (0.21–0.26)	0.522	
Vitamin B6, nmol/L	26.70 (25.40–29.80)	26.60 (24.10–29.70)	0.420	
Vitamin B9, nmol/L	12.30 (11.60–13.10)	12.30 (11.40–13.50)	0.995	
Vitamin C, μmol/L	38.10 (36.70–41.10)	38.70 (36.50–41.50)	0.662	
1,25-(OH)2- Vitamin D3, nmol/L	17.80 (14.90–20.50)	18.70 (13.00–21.80)	0.796	
Vitamin E, μg/mL	11.00 (10.30–11.40)	10.90 (10.40–11.60)	0.754	
Bone metabolism				
PICP, pg/μL	0.66 (0.53–0.76)	0.69 (0.60–0.78)	0.367	
PINP, ng/mL	50.60 (39.60–57.90)	53.40 (40.20–64.30)	0.284	
OC, ng/mL	21.50 (16.20–24.70)	22.60 (18.70–24.70)	0.256	
PTH, pg/mL	40.00 (35.60–44.10)	39.90 (36.20–44.40)	0.990	
FOBT			0.899	
No	30 (50.0)	72 (52.2)		
Yes	30 (50.0)	66 (47.8)		
Comorbidity				
Diabetes			0.558	
No	57 (95.0)	127 (92.0)		
Yes	3 (5.0)	11 (8.0)		
Hypertension			0.595	
No	46 (76.7)	112 (81.2)		
Yes	14 (23.3)	26 (18.8)		
Thyroid nodule			0.898	
No	43 (71.7)	96 (69.6)		
Yes	17 (28.3)	42 (30.4)		
Data are presented as median (interquartile range), number (%), or mean±SD.

E1, proctitis; E2, left-sided; E3, extensive; 5-ASA, 5-amino salicylic acid; WBC, white blood cell; NEUT, neutrophils; LYM, lymphocyte; MONO, monocyte; RBC, red blood cell; Hb, hemoglobin; RDW, red blood cell distribution width; PLT, platelet; PDW, platelet distribution width; MPV, mean platelet volume; ALT, alanine transaminase; AST, aspartate transaminase; γ-GGT, γ-glutamyl transpeptidase; AKP, alkaline phosphatase; ALB, albumin; TBIL, total bilirubin; TCHO, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; SCR, serum creatinine; UA, uric acid; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; BG, blood glucose (fasting); AMY, amylase; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP, C-reactive protein; PCT, procalcitonin; prothrombin time; PT, prothrombin time; APTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; INR, international normalized ratio; FBG, fibrinogen; FDP, fibrinogen degradation product; DD, D-dimer; PA, prealbumin; p-ANCA, peripheral antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies; MPO-ANCA, myeloperoxidase-antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies; PICP, procollagen type I C-terminal propeptide; PINP, procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide; OC, osteocalcin; PTH, parathyroid hormone; FOBT, fecal occult blood test.

Table 2 Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis of Endoscopic Activity in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

Variable	OR (95% CI)	p-value	
APTT	1.16 (1.04–1.31)	0.011	
FOBT	9.53 (3.35–32.71)	<0.001	
β2-Globulin	0.47 (0.24–0.85)	0.018	
FDP	3.15 (1.54–7.14)	0.003	
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; APTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; FOBT, fecal occult blood test; FDP, fibrinogen degradation product.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Study concept and design: Sangdan Zhuoga. Data acquisition: Sangdan Zhuoga, W.Q. Data analysis and interpretation: G.G., K.X. Drafting of the manuscript; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: G.G. Statistical analysis: G.G., K.X. Obtained funding: K.X., Songbai Zheng. Administrative, technical, or material support; study supervision: Songbai Zheng, T.W., X.Y. Endoscopic evaluation: D.J. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

1 Ng SC Shi HY Hamidi N 2017 Worldwide incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in the 21st century: a systematic review of population-based studies Lancet 390 2769 2778 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32448-0 29050646
2 Ungaro R Mehandru S Allen PB Peyrin-Biroulet L Colombel JF 2017 Ulcerative colitis Lancet 389 1756 1770 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32126-2 27914657
3 Kucharzik T Koletzko S Kannengiesser K Dignass A 2020 Ulcerative colitis: diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms Dtsch Arztebl Int 117 564 574 10.3238/arztebl.2020.0564 33148393
4 Faubion WA Jr Loftus EV Jr Harmsen WS Zinsmeister AR Sandborn WJ 2001 The natural history of corticosteroid therapy for inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based study Gastroenterology 121 255 260 10.1053/gast.2001.26279 11487534
5 Herrlinger KR Stange EF 2023 Prioritization in inflammatory bowel disease therapy Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 17 753 767 10.1080/17474124.2023.2240699 37480322
6 D'Haens G Sandborn WJ Feagan BG 2007 A review of activity indices and efficacy end points for clinical trials of medical therapy in adults with ulcerative colitis Gastroenterology 132 763 786 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.12.038 17258735
7 Peyrin-Biroulet L Sandborn W Sands BE 2015 Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE): Determining Therapeutic Goals for Treat-to-Target Am J Gastroenterol 110 1324 1338 10.1038/ajg.2015.233 26303131
8 Neurath MF Travis SP 2012 Mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel diseases: a systematic review Gut 61 1619 1635 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302830 22842618
9 Frøslie KF Jahnsen J Moum BA Vatn MH IBSEN Group 2007 Mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease: results from a Norwegian population-based cohort Gastroenterology 133 412 422 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.05.051 17681162
10 Lichtenstein GR Rutgeerts P 2010 Importance of mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis Inflamm Bowel Dis 16 338 346 10.1002/ibd.20997 19637362
11 Li X Tang Z Liu Y Zhu X Liu F 2023 Risk prediction model based on blood biomarkers for predicting moderate to severe endoscopic activity in patients with ulcerative colitis Front Med (Lausanne) 10 1101237 10.3389/fmed.2023.1101237 41d6e27731334c78869efc48ec84329a 36895716
12 Kim SY Kim HS Park HJ 2019 Adverse events related to colonoscopy: global trends and future challenges World J Gastroenterol 25 190 204 10.3748/wjg.v25.i2.190 30670909
13 Mohammed Vashist N Samaan M Mosli MH 2018 Endoscopic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1 CD011450 10.1002/14651858.CD011450.pub2 29338066
14 Lobatón T Rodríguez-Moranta F Lopez A Sánchez E Rodríguez-Alonso L Guardiola J 2013 A new rapid quantitative test for fecal calprotectin predicts endoscopic activity in ulcerative colitis Inflamm Bowel Dis 19 1034 1042 10.1097/MIB.0b013e3182802b6e 23470502
15 Nielsen OH Vainer B Madsen SM Seidelin JB Heegaard NH 2000 Established and emerging biological activity markers of inflammatory bowel disease Am J Gastroenterol 95 359 367 10.1016/S0002-9270(99)00849-7 10685736
16 Danese S Motte Cd Cde L Fiocchi C 2004 Platelets in inflammatory bowel disease: clinical, pathogenic, and therapeutic implications Am J Gastroenterol 99 938 945 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.04129.x 15128364
17 Blanck S Aberra F 2013 Vitamin d deficiency is associated with ulcerative colitis disease activity Dig Dis Sci 58 1698 1702 10.1007/s10620-012-2531-7 23334382
18 Abraham BP Kane S 2012 Fecal markers: calprotectin and lactoferrin Gastroenterol Clin North Am 41 483 495 10.1016/j.gtc.2012.01.007 22500530
19 Burakoff R Pabby V Onyewadume L 2015 Blood-based biomarkers used to predict disease activity in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis Inflamm Bowel Dis 21 1132 1140 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000340 25895006
20 Mak LY Tong TS Cheung KS 2020 Combined use of common fecal and blood markers for detection of endoscopically active inflammatory bowel disease Clin Transl Gastroenterol 11 e00138 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000138 32132451
21 Iasonos A Schrag D Raj GV Panageas KS 2008 How to build and interpret a nomogram for cancer prognosis J Clin Oncol 26 1364 1370 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.9791 18323559
22 Magro F Gionchetti P Eliakim R 2017 Third European evidence-based consensus on diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis. Part 1: definitions, diagnosis, extra-intestinal manifestations, pregnancy, cancer surveillance, surgery, and ileo-anal pouch disorders J Crohns Colitis 11 649 670 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx008 28158501
23 Schroeder KW Tremaine WJ Ilstrup DM 1987 Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis: a randomized study N Engl J Med 317 1625 1629 10.1056/NEJM198712243172603 3317057
24 Satsangi J Silverberg MS Vermeire S Colombel JF 2006 The Montreal classification of inflammatory bowel disease: controversies, consensus, and implications Gut 55 749 753 10.1136/gut.2005.082909 16698746
25 GBD 2017 Inflammatory Bowel Disease Collaborators 2020 The global, regional, and national burden of inflammatory bowel disease in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 5 17 30 31648971
26 Dignass A Lindsay JO Sturm A 2012 Second European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis part 2: current management J Crohns Colitis 6 991 1030 10.1016/j.crohns.2012.09.002 23040451
27 Chen YH Wang L Feng SY Cai WM Chen XF Huang ZM 2020 The relationship between C-reactive protein/albumin ratio and disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease Gastroenterol Res Pract 2020 3467419 10.1155/2020/3467419 ad45395b0aa14d8f9710543c1873f616 32655630
28 Descos L André C Beorghia S Vincent C Revillard JP 1979 Serum levels of beta-2-microglobulin: a new marker of activity in Crohn's disease N Engl J Med 301 440 441 10.1056/NEJM197908233010827 88674
29 Zissis M Afroudakis A Galanopoulos G 2001 B2 microglobulin: is it a reliable marker of activity in inflammatory bowel disease? Am J Gastroenterol 96 2177 2183 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03881.x 11467650
30 Yamamoto-Furusho JK Camacho-Escobedo J Téllez-Avila F Barreto R 2010 Serum levels of beta2 microglobulin and ultrasensitive C-reactive protein as markers of histological activity in ulcerative colitis Gac Med Mex 146 31 35 20422932
31 Bai X Bai G Tang L Liu L Li Y Jiang W 2020 Changes in MMP-2, MMP-9, inflammation, blood coagulation and intestinal mucosal permeability in patients with active ulcerative colitis Exp Ther Med 20 269 274 10.3892/etm.2020.8710 32536995
32 Shen J Ran ZH Zhang Y 2009 Biomarkers of altered coagulation and fibrinolysis as measures of disease activity in active inflammatory bowel disease: a gender-stratified, cohort analysis Thromb Res 123 604 611 10.1016/j.thromres.2008.04.004 18499234
33 Kume K Yamasaki M Tashiro M Yoshikawa I Otsuki M 2007 Activations of coagulation and fibrinolysis secondary to bowel inflammation in patients with ulcerative colitis Intern Med 46 1323 1329 10.2169/internalmedicine.46.0237 17827828
34 Stadnicki A Bojko B Myczkowska K Witalińska-Łabuzek J 2003 Selected risk factors of thrombotic complications in patients with ulcerative colitis Wiad Lek 56 341 347 10.5772/28664 14969162
35 Danese S Papa A Saibeni S Repici A Malesci A Vecchi M 2007 Inflammation and coagulation in inflammatory bowel disease: the clot thickens Am J Gastroenterol 102 174 186 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00943.x 17100967
36 Lu PP Liu JT Liu N Guo F Ji YY Pang X 2011 Pro-inflammatory effect of fibrinogen and FDP on vascular smooth muscle cells by IL-6, TNF-α and iNOS Life Sci 88 839 845 10.1016/j.lfs.2011.03.003 21439977
37 Stadnicki A 2012 Involvement of coagulation and hemostasis in inflammatory bowel diseases Curr Vasc Pharmacol 10 659 669 10.2174/157016112801784495 22272910
38 Linskens RK van Bodegraven AA Schoorl M Tuynman HA Bartels P 2001 Predictive value of inflammatory and coagulation parameters in the course of severe ulcerative colitis Dig Dis Sci 46 644 648 10.1023/A:1005628005734 11318546
39 Kumar S Ghoshal UC Aggarwal R Saraswat VA Choudhuri G 2004 Severe ulcerative colitis: prospective study of parameters determining outcome J Gastroenterol Hepatol 19 1247 1252 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2004.03486.x 15482530
40 Kjeldsen J Schaffalitzky de Muckadell OB 1993 Assessment of disease severity and activity in inflammatory bowel disease Scand J Gastroenterol 28 1 9 10.3109/00365529309096037 8430269
41 Tibble JA Sigthorsson G Foster R Forgacs I Bjarnason I 2002 Use of surrogate markers of inflammation and Rome criteria to distinguish organic from nonorganic intestinal disease Gastroenterology 123 450 460 10.1053/gast.2002.34755 12145798
42 van Rheenen PF Van de Vijver E Fidler V 2010 Faecal calprotectin for screening of patients with suspected inflammatory bowel disease: diagnostic meta-analysis BMJ 341 c3369 10.1136/bmj.c3369 20634346
43 Ishida N Miyazu T Matsuura T 2020 Effect of ulcerative colitis duration on the usefulness of immunochemical fecal occult blood test result as a disease activity biomarker Int J Colorectal Dis 35 1729 1739 10.1007/s00384-020-03636-5 32472230
44 Takashima S Kato J Hiraoka S 2015 Evaluation of mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis by fecal calprotectin vs. fecal immunochemical test Am J Gastroenterol 110 873 880 10.1038/ajg.2015.66 25823769
45 Lee MW Pourmorady JS Laine L 2020 Use of fecal occult blood testing as a diagnostic tool for clinical indications: a systematic review and meta-analysis Am J Gastroenterol 115 662 670 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000495 31972617
46 Song CS Park DI Yoon MY 2012 Association between red cell distribution width and disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease Dig Dis Sci 57 1033 1038 10.1007/s10620-011-1978-2 22147246
47 Patel A Panchal H Dubinsky MC 2017 Fecal calprotectin levels predict histological healing in ulcerative colitis Inflamm Bowel Dis 23 1600 1604 10.1097/MIB.0000000000001157 28590341
48 Nakarai A Kato J Hiraoka S 2018 An elevated platelet count increases the risk of relapse in ulcerative colitis patients with mucosal healing Gut Liver 12 420 425 10.5009/gnl17236 7973c0e8dd3a4c6f83f9d6291f30a4cc 29945423
