Cross-sectional analysis reveals deep remission rates in IBD patients, suggesting factors influencing outcomes.
Background: Data on STRIDE-II treatment target achievement in Middle Eastern inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) populations remain limited. We assessed the prevalence and predictors of deep remission at a tertiary IBD center in the United Arab Emirates. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted on 389 IBD patients (242 Crohn’s disease [CD], 147 ulcerative colitis [UC]) on stable treatment for ≥6 months. Deep remission required concurrent clinical, biochemical, and endoscopic remission. Predictors were identified using logistic regression. Results: Complete STRIDE-II assessment was available in 264 patients (67.9%). Deep remission was achieved in 164 patients (62.1% available-case; 42.2% conservative, treating incomplete assessments as failure). In the advanced therapy subgroup ( n = 182), deep remission was 64.3% available-case and 43.8% conservative. Clinical remission was 78.7%, biochemical remission 72.4%, and endoscopic remission 69.2%. Rates were similar between CD and UC, and complicated CD phenotypes achieved equivalent deep remission to non-complicated disease (62.7% vs 63.9%, P = 0.85). Disease duration was the strongest overall predictor (OR 1.06 per year, 95% CI 1.02–1.10, P = 0.009). CD-specific predictors included B3 penetrating behavior (OR 5.49, P = 0.027) and male sex (OR 0.47, P = 0.039). In UC, older age and male sex were independently associated with remission. Higher advanced therapy exposure predicted lower remission odds in CD (adjusted OR 0.70, P = 0.034). No individual therapy demonstrated significant superiority in adjusted drug comparisons. Efficacy was preserved at second-line (67.4%) with decline at third-line (50.0%). Conclusion: Deep remission rates in this UAE tertiary center cohort were comparable to or numerically higher than international reports. Further validation in prospective, geographically diverse populations is warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hosani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: