English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

To the Editor:With great interest, we read the article titled “Long-term outcomes of cytomegalovirus reactivation in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: a multicenter study” by Kim et al.1 In this very-well designed study, authors have found that the cumulative colectomy rate was significantly higher in the cytomegalovirus (CMV)-positive group than in the CMV-negative group. They concluded that the patients who had CMV-reactivated ulcerative colitis (UC) showed poor outcomes at the long-term follow-up, and the long-term efficacy of ganciclovir therapy was marginal. These findings provided important information regarding the association between UC and CMV infection. However, we have some suggestions regarding methodology of the study.In the study, CMV IgM antibody or histologic detection of inclusion bodies on hematoxylin and eosin (HE they would have visited a participating center if the patients experienced a flare-up. However, these 11 patients may be admitted due to flare up apart from 10 participating centers since there is no feedback information.In addition, authors reported that three patients showed evidence of CMV reactivation during the follow-up period in CMV-negative group and those patients were successfully treated with ganciclovir. However, this study has no information regarding the outcome of those patients. It seems like these patients had sustained remission. Moreover, we suggest that patients with CMV reactivation in CMV-negative group should be added to CMV-positive group because the complications which occurred after CMV diagnosis may be associated with viral reactivation. If these patients are included in CMV-positive group, cumulative colectomy rate will change.Consequently, we conclude that, before making certain interpretations, this work should be rearranged in light of the above mentioned suggestions. This could provide the readers of the journal clearer information regarding the role of CMV infection in cumulative colectomy rate and the clinical course of the UC.

The Cumulative Colectomy Rate in Patients with Cytomegalovirus-Positive Ulcerative Colitis