Effectiveness of adjunctive use of antibiotics in acute severe ulcerative colitis: a propensity score matching analysis

Hye Kyung Hyun; Jihye Park; Soo Jung Park; Jae Jun Park; Tae Il Kim; Nak-Hoon Son; Jae Hee Cheon

doi:10.5217/ir.2025.00341

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Intest Res > Ahead-of print articles > Article

Original Article Effectiveness of adjunctive use of antibiotics in acute severe ulcerative colitis: a propensity score matching analysis: Hye Kyung Hyun¹, Jihye Park^2,3, Soo Jung Park^2,3, Jae Jun Park^2,3, Tae Il Kim^2,3, Nak-Hoon Son⁴, Jae Hee Cheon^2,3; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00341
Published online: July 1, 2026

¹Department of Internal Medicine, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, Korea

²Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

³Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea

⁴Department of Statistics, Keimyung University, Daegu, Korea

Correspondence to Jae Hee Cheon, Department of Internal Medicine and Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Severance Hospital, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea. E-mail: GENIUSHEE@yuhs.ac

Co-Correspondence to Nak-Hoon Son, Department of Statistics, Keimyung University, 1095 Dalgubeol-daero, Dalseo-gu, Daegu 42601, Korea. E-mail: nhson@ms.kmu.ac.kr

• Received: December 30, 2025 • Revised: February 9, 2026 • Accepted: February 13, 2026

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.

954 Views
19 Download

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
Graphical abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
Supplementary Material
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
The exact cause of ulcerative colitis (UC) remains unclear but likely involves an immune response to an unidentified component of gut microbiota. The use of antibiotics in treating acute severe UC (ASUC) remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the benefits of adding antibiotics to corticosteroids for managing ASUC.
Methods
This retrospective study included patients with ASUC who met the Truelove and Witts diagnostic criteria at admission and received intravenous (IV) corticosteroids, with or without adjunctive antibiotics. Key outcomes included the need for medical and surgical rescue therapy during hospitalization and UC-related re-hospitalization rates at 1 week, 3 months, and 1 year. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to minimize selection bias in evaluating the impact of adjunctive antibiotics on clinical outcomes.
Results
Of the 386 screened patients, 222 met the inclusion criteria: 75 (33.8%) received IV corticosteroids alone, while 147 (66.2%) received IV corticosteroids combined with antibiotics. After PSM (60 patients per group), the addition of antibiotics showed no significant effect on the need for medical rescue therapy during hospitalization, re-hospitalization, or clinical response based on the partial Mayo score after 1 week of hospitalization (68.3% vs. 60.0%; P= 0.341). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the need for medical rescue therapy, re-hospitalization, or UC-related surgery rates at 3 months or 1 year (P> 0.05).
Conclusions
In patients with ASUC, treatment outcomes did not significantly differ between those receiving IV corticosteroids alone and those receiving a combination of IV corticosteroids and antibiotics, suggesting that adjunctive antibiotic use may offer no added clinical benefits.
Keywords: Acute severe ulcerative colitis; Corticosteroids; Anti-bacterial agents; Propensity score; Treatment outcome

Graphical abstract

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory bowel diseases, including Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (UC), are complex disorders characterized by dysregulated immune responses to intestinal microbes in genetically predisposed individuals. Antibiotics are proven effective in specific clinical scenarios, such as treating perianal fistulas or intra-abdominal abscesses in Crohn’s disease and managing acute pouchitis following total proctocolectomy [1,2]. However, their role in UC treatment remains unclear. UC is a chronic disease with no definitive cure, characterized by recurring periods of remission and flare-ups throughout a patient’s lifetime, often with the potential for life-threatening complications [3-5].

The 10-year risk of disease relapse in patients with UC is approximately 70% to 80%. Among these patients, 50% will require hospitalization, with a 5-year re-hospitalization rate of 50%. The risk of colectomy within 5–10 years is estimated at 10% to 15% [6-8]. Additionally, about 25% of patients with UC will experience at least one episode of acute severe UC (ASUC) during their disease course [9]. A meta-analysis of population-based studies over the past two decades estimates the mortality rate of ASUC at approximately 1% [10]. Without prompt and appropriate treatment, ASUC can rapidly progress to a life-threatening medical emergency, often requiring colectomy [10,11]. The diagnosis of ASUC is based on Truelove and Witts criteria, which include more than 6 bloody stools per day along with symptoms such as fever and anemia [12,13].

Alterations in the gut microbiota are thought to play a role in the pathogenesis of UC, providing a theoretical rationale for antibiotic use [14-16]. ASUC is often associated with elevated inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), and fever in some patients. Some experts advocate for antibiotic use in its management, particularly in cases with signs of infection [17]. However, antibiotics disrupt intestinal microbiota, leading to significant microbial shifts [18]. As a result, their use in ASUC remains controversial because of their dual effects on inflammation and microbial balance. Although antibiotics may help control inflammation by targeting harmful bacteria, they can also disrupt gut microbiota, exacerbate dysbiosis, and potentially worsen disease progression.

Some studies suggest that combining antibiotics with intravenous (IV) corticosteroids lowers the likelihood of requiring additional treatment during hospitalization [19-21]. However, other studies report conflicting results, failing to demonstrate significant benefits from specific antibiotics. These discrepancies may result from variations in study design and patient characteristics. Overall, evidence supporting this practice remains limited, as previous studies had small sample sizes and significant variability in antibiotic type, dose, and duration. The Current European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation guidelines recommend IV corticosteroids as the first-line treatment for ASUC [22]. However, clear evidence for the effectiveness of antibiotics as an adjunctive treatment in ASUC is still lacking. Few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in the Western population [20,21], while none have focused on Asian patients. Additionally, only a limited number of studies have utilized propensity score matching (PSM) analysis to minimize bias.

Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of adjunctive antibiotics in the management of hospitalized patients with ASUC, assessing their potential benefits and limitations when used alongside IV corticosteroid therapy.

METHODS

1. Study Design and Participants

This retrospective, single-center PSM cohort study analyzed 386 patients hospitalized for ASUC at a tertiary referral hospital between November 2005 and July 2024. The inclusion criteria were: (1) adults aged 18 years or older and (2) patients hospitalized for first-line ASUC treatment who received IV corticosteroids. The exclusion criteria were: (1) age <18 years, (2) insufficient laboratory data or incomplete clinical information that precluded definitive assessment of ASUC diagnosis or clinical outcomes, (3) coexisting infections—such as sepsis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, or Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI)—requiring antibiotic treatment, and (4) patients in whom corticosteroids had been administered as pretreatment prior to planned IV infliximab induction. To evaluate the clinical outcomes of adjunctive antibiotic use in ASUC, patients receiving both IV corticosteroids and adjunctive antibiotics were matched 1:1 using PSM with those who did not receive antibiotics. This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Severance Hospital (IRB No. 4-2024-1226). The requirement for written informed consent was waived.

2. Diagnosis, Treatment, and Assessment of Disease Activity in ASUC

ASUC is diagnosed based on the Truelove and Witts criteria, which include: (1) more than 6 bloody stools per day, along with at least one marker of systemic involvement, such as (2) tachycardia (heart rate exceeding 90 beats per minute), (3) fever (core temperature above 37.8°C), (4) elevated inflammatory markers—defined as erythrocyte sedimentation rate greater than 30 mm/hr or CRP levels above 30 mg/L, and (5) anemia, indicated by hemoglobin levels below 10.5 g/dL [22]. These criteria help assess disease severity, ensuring accurate diagnosis and timely therapeutic intervention. Current guidelines recommend IV corticosteroids as the first-line treatment for ASUC, with a dose of 0.8–1.0 mg/kg (methylprednisolone equivalent) for 5 to 7 days [23]. Clinical disease activity in UC is evaluated using the partial Mayo score, which assesses 3 parameters: rectal bleeding, stool frequency, physician’s global assessment. It does not include endoscopic findings. Each parameter is scored from 0 to 3, with a total score ranging from 0 to 12. A score of 3–5 indicates mild disease, 6–10 indicates moderate disease, and 11–12 indicates severe disease [24]. In accordance with the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID) guidelines [25], all hospitalized ASUC patients undergo early flexible sigmoidoscopy to assess disease extent and severity, along with baseline laboratory testing and abdominal imaging (plain radiography or contrast-enhanced computed tomography). Endoscopic evaluation was performed cautiously by experienced endoscopists using minimal insufflation to reduce the risk of procedure-related complications. All hospitalized patients underwent routine testing for CDI at admission, in accordance with institutional protocols aligned with the 2017 Korean guidelines for UC. CDI screening was performed using stool toxin assays or polymerase chain reaction for toxigenic C. difficile. Screening for cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation was not performed universally at admission but was conducted selectively in patients with clinical suspicion, such as lack of response to IV corticosteroids or severe mucosal ulceration on endoscopy. CMV colitis was evaluated by immunohistochemical staining for CMV antigen on colonic biopsy. When performed, these diagnostic evaluations were conducted before or concurrently with corticosteroid initiation to ensure diagnostic accuracy and minimize the risk of inappropriate immunosuppression. Infectious etiologies such as C. difficile and CMV were routinely screened using stool toxin polymerase chain reaction and colonic biopsy-based immunohistochemistry, respectively, particularly in cases refractory to initial corticosteroid therapy. Laboratory markers, including CRP, hemoglobin, and albumin, were monitored daily during corticosteroid treatment. No endoscopy-related adverse events were observed during hospitalization.

3. Outcomes

The primary outcome was the requirement for in-hospital rescue therapy, including biologic treatment with infliximab or re-hospitalization within the first week of admission. The coprimary outcome was the achievement of first clinical remission, defined as a reduction in the partial Mayo score of at least 3 points and a decrease of at least 30% from baseline, along with either a reduction of at least 1 point on the rectal bleeding subscale or an absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1 [26]. This was assessed by comparing measurements taken immediately before hospitalization and 1 week after admission. Secondary outcomes included the requirement for rescue therapy—such as immunomodulators (azathioprine, methotrexate), biologics (infliximab, golimumab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab), or small-molecule agents (tofacitinib, upadacitinib)—as well as the initiation of immunomodulators (azathioprine, methotrexate) as maintenance therapy, re-hospitalization, or UC-related surgery at 3 months and 1 year.

4. Statistical Analyses

Descriptive analyses were conducted to compare the demographic and baseline characteristics of patients receiving IV corticosteroids alone versus those treated with both IV corticosteroids and antibiotics. Continuous variables were reported as means with standard deviations and were compared using the independent two-sample t-test. Categorical variables were expressed as percentages and were analyzed using either the chi-square test or Fisher exact test, depending on expected frequencies. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the cumulative relapse-free survival of UC. The cumulative rate was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the survival curves for the 2 groups were compared using the log-rank test. The proportional hazards assumption was tested using the Kolmogorov-type supremum test and satisfied for all survival analyses (P=0.293, P=0.082, P=0.437). To minimize potential biases from baseline imbalances common in retrospective studies, PSM was applied to balance covariates between the groups. To evaluate outcomes conditional on early treatment response, landmark analyses were additionally performed by excluding patients who experienced clinical relapse before each landmark time point (1 week and 3 months) and analyzing subsequent relapse-free survival in the remaining cohort. All statistical tests were two-sided, with P-values < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Data analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

RESULTS

1. Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population

A total of 386 patients with UC were screened for inclusion. After applying the exclusion criteria, 222 patients with ASUC met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 75 (33.8%) received IV corticosteroids alone, while 147 (66.2%) received IV corticosteroids combined with antibiotics. The study flowchart is presented in Fig. 1. After excluding unmatched individuals through PSM, 120 patients who received IV corticosteroids were included in the final analysis. The demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population are summarized in Table 1. After PSM, the 2 groups were well balanced in terms of age, sex, body mass index, disease duration, smoking status at diagnosis, disease extent, disease activity index (partial Mayo score), laboratory parameters, fecal calprotectin, concomitant medications (5-aminosalicylic acid, sulfasalazine, immunomodulators, biologics, and small molecular agents), corticosteroid dose and duration, and length of hospital stay (Table 1). According to the UC Montreal classification, proctitis, left-sided colitis, and pancolitis were observed in 4 (6.7%), 29 (48.3%), and 27 (45.0%) patients in the IV corticosteroid group, and in 3 (5.0%), 27 (45.0%), and 30 (50.0%) patients in the IV corticosteroid and adjunctive antibiotic group, respectively. The mean age was 46.6 ± 16.4 years, while the mean disease duration was 5.08 ± 5.98 years. The mean length of hospitalization and duration of IV antibiotics were 10.4 ±6.1 and 10.4 ± 5.9 days, respectively.

Most patients (95%) received IV hydrocortisone (62.5–450 mg daily), while the remaining patients received IV methylprednisolone (40–75 mg daily). For analysis, these doses were converted, with 50 mg of methylprednisolone considered equivalent to 250 mg of hydrocortisone. The most commonly used IV antibiotics were a combination of third-generation cephalosporin and metronidazole (56.7%), followed by quinolone and metronidazole (25.0%). Monotherapy with a third-generation cephalosporin and quinolone was used in 10.0% and 6.7% of cases, respectively. Tazobactam was administered to only 1.7% of patients.

2. Clinical Outcomes at 1 Week, 3 Months, and 1 Year

After PSM, no significant differences were observed between the groups at 1-week post-hospitalization in terms of infliximab use (P>0.999) or re-hospitalization rates (P>0.999) (Table 2). The first clinical remission rate was 68.3% in the IV corticosteroid group and 60.0% in the IV corticosteroid combined with the adjunctive antibiotics group (P=0.341) (Fig. 2). The Kaplan- Meier analysis of relapse-free survival also showed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (log-rank P=0.947) (Fig. 3), suggesting that the use of adjunctive antibiotics did not significantly impact relapse-free survival at 1-week post-hospitalization.

At 3 months, the use of biologics, immunomodulators, and re-hospitalization rates were similar between the groups (P>0.05). However, the use of small-molecule agents was more frequent in the corticosteroid-alone group prior to PSM (P=0.038), though this difference was no longer significant after matching (P>0.999). UC-related surgery was rare, with no significant difference between the groups (P>0.999) (Table 2). The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in relapse-free survival at 3 months between the groups (Fig. 4).

At 1 year, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the use of biologics, immunomodulators, small-molecule agents, re-hospitalization rates, or UC-related surgery (P>0.05) (Table 2). The Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated no significant difference in relapse-free survival at 1 year between the groups (Fig. 5). Overall, adjunctive antibiotic use did not significantly impact clinical outcomes at 1 week (P=0.947), 3 months (P=0.749), or 1 year (P=0.969) in patients with ASUC receiving IV corticosteroids. For descriptive purposes, separate Kaplan-Meier plots based on landmark analysis showing the relapse-free survival distributions at 3 months and 1 year are provided in the Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 (P=0.625 and P=0.863, respectively).

DISCUSSION

This retrospective study using PSM investigated the impact of adjunctive antibiotics in ASUC. The main finding was that there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between treatment with IV corticosteroids alone and a combination of IV corticosteroids and antibiotics. This observation is particularly noteworthy given the limited supporting evidence for antibiotic use in ASUC, especially considering that adjunctive antibiotics are frequently prescribed for inflammatory exacerbations in various immune-mediated diseases despite guideline recommendations and expert opinion [27].

Several studies have explored the potential benefits of antibiotic use in ASUC treatment. A large retrospective cohort study and meta-analysis revealed that the requirement for inhospital medical rescue therapy was significantly lower in patients receiving antibiotics than in those treated with steroids alone (21.0% vs. 37.5%: adjusted odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.19–0.93; P=0.04) [28]. Similarly, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial demonstrated that a 2-week course of amoxicillin, tetracycline, and metronidazole significantly improved clinical response rates (44.8% vs. 22.8%; P=0.001) and facilitated steroid withdrawal in active UC [29]. Although several prospective RCTs have been conducted to evaluate the role of adjunctive antibiotics in ASUC, most were limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneous antibiotic combinations, and inconsistent results regarding clinical efficacy. In contrast, consistent with our findings, other RCTs have demonstrated that adjunctive IV metronidazole or ciprofloxacin did not provide additional benefits for patients with ASUC [19,20]. Similarly, another study found no evidence supporting IV ceftriaxone and metronidazole use in these patients [21]. Additionally, randomized trials conducted in Western populations have demonstrated no clear benefit of antibiotics in ASUC [30,31]. A double-blind trial involving 40 patients with idiopathic colitis found no significant benefit of vancomycin, with similar improvement rates in both the vancomycin (89%) and placebo (89%) groups [30]. Likewise, a prospective double-blind trial evaluated IV metronidazole as an adjunct to corticosteroids in 39 patients with severe UC. After 5 days, remission rates were similar between the metronidazole (74%) and placebo (70%) groups, with no significant impact on colectomy rates [31].

ASUC is characterized by severe inflammation and an altered gut microbiome, with a loss of beneficial bacteria (Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus) and an overgrowth of pro-inflammatory species (Enterobacteriaceae, Bacteroides, Fusobacterium varium). This imbalance contributes to increased gut permeability, immune activation, and epithelial damage [32-34]. Microbial diversity is closely linked to bacterial load, and bacteria are increasingly recognized for their significant role in mucosal inflammation [35,36]. Substantial evidence suggests that colonic luminal bacteria influence disease activity, indicating that targeted antimicrobial therapy, in combination with traditional immunosuppression, may be beneficial in UC management [29]. However, while antibiotics can help eliminate harmful bacteria, they also disrupt the microbial balance by reducing diversity, impairing the production of short-chain fatty acids—essential for mucosal healing—and promoting antibiotic-resistant pathogens, such as C. difficile [15,18,37]. As a result, the routine use of antibiotics remains controversial and should be approached with caution because of their potential to exacerbate gut dysbiosis.

This study has several clinical implications. First, our findings suggest that routinely adding antibiotics to IV corticosteroids in hospitalized Korean patients with ASUC does not confer short- or long-term benefits. Second, this study utilized PSM to minimize baseline differences between groups, thereby reducing potential confounding factors and strengthening the validity of the results. Although some short-term outcomes appeared numerically worse in the non-antibiotic group, this likely reflects confounding by indication, as antibiotics might possibly have been prescribed empirically to patients perceived to have greater inflammatory severity rather than reflecting a true therapeutic benefit of antibiotics. The absence of significant improvement in the antibiotic group argues against a clinically meaningful effect. Third, clinical outcomes were assessed at multiple time points (1 week, 3 months, and 1 year), providing a comprehensive evaluation of both short- and long-term effects of antibiotic use. Fourth, this study focused on hospitalized patients with ASUC who were managed according to standard clinical guidelines, enhancing the generalizability of its findings to real-world practice. Finally, the mean disease duration was 5.08 ±5.98 years, indicating that the majority of patients had an established diagnosis of UC prior to hospitalization. As the study was conducted at a tertiary referral center, many patients were referred after their initial diagnosis of UC. To establish more definitive clinical recommendations, further research—including larger, well-designed prospective studies and randomized trials—is warranted.

This study has several limitations. First, as a retrospective cohort study, inherent biases—such as unmeasured confounders—could not be entirely eliminated despite statistical adjustments. Notably, body temperature (fever), a key clinical determinant of empiric antibiotic use in ASUC, could not be reliably incorporated because of incomplete and inconsistent documentation in retrospective records. Accordingly, residual confounding related to clinical severity—including fever—cannot be fully excluded and may have contributed to indication bias. Second, although PSM helped reduce confounding, it inevitably reduced the sample size (60 patients per group), which may have limited the statistical power—particularly for detecting rare outcomes such as colectomy. Because this was an exploratory retrospective study without a predefined sample size, a post hoc power analysis was not performed, and the observed effect sizes may guide a future trial design. Third, variations in antibiotic types, dosages, and duration—determined at the discretion of the treating physician—may have introduced heterogeneity in treatment effects. This real-world variability may have attenuated regimen-specific effects, as our analysis focused on the overall impact of adjunctive antibiotic use rather than individual antibiotic strategies. Furthermore, antibiotics were administered empirically, without standardized or confirmed indications, which could further contribute to indication bias. Identification of risk factors for non-response to IV corticosteroids and assessment of whether adjunctive antibiotics influenced steroid responsiveness would be clinically valuable. However, the limited sample size after matching and the retrospective design precluded adequately powered multivariable or subgroup analyses. While CDI was routinely excluded, CMV reactivation screening was performed only in selected cases. Therefore, the possibility of undetected CMV colitis influencing treatment response—particularly in the steroid-only group—cannot be entirely ruled out. Fourth, we did not assess gut microbiota composition before and after antibiotic administration, limiting insights into the potential microbial mechanisms underlying our findings. Such microbiome-integrated approaches could elucidate host–microbe interactions and ultimately support more personalized therapeutic strategies in ASUC. Future studies integrating microbiome analyses are needed to identify subgroups that may benefit from selective antibiotic use. Finally, we cannot exclude the possibility that antibiotics might benefit specific subgroups of ASUC patients, which our limited sample size may have failed to identify.

In conclusion, our study suggests that adjunctive antibiotics cannot be routinely recommended, as they did not significantly impact early clinical remission, the need for additional rescue therapies, or long-term outcomes. Our findings contribute to the limited evidence base regarding antibiotic use in ASUC receiving IV corticosteroids. Additionally, future studies incorporating gut microbiome analysis might identify specific bacterial signatures that could guide selective antibiotic use in particular ASUC subgroups. Until such evidence is available, a more personalized therapeutic approach that carefully weighs the potential benefits against the risks of antibiotic-induced dysbiosis is warranted.

NOTES

Funding Source

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of Interest

Park J and Cheon JH are editorial board members of the journal but were not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this article will be shared upon reasonable request from the corresponding authors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Hyun HK, Cheon JH. Data curation: Hyun HK, Son NH, Cheon JH. Formal analysis: Hyun HK, Cheon JH. Investigation: Hyun HK. Methodology: Hyun HK, Son NH, Cheon JH. Project administration: Hyun HK, Cheon JH. Resources: Hyun HK, Park J, Park SJ, Park JJ, Kim TI, Cheon JH. Software: Hyun HK, Son NH. Supervision: Cheon JH. Validation: Hyun HK, Cheon JH. Visualization: Hyun HK, Son NH, Cheon JH. Writing–original draft: Hyun HK. Writing–review & editing: Hyun HK, Park J, Park SJ, Park JJ, Kim TI, Son NH, Cheon JH. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials are available at the Intestinal Research website (https://www.irjournal.org).

Supplementary Fig. 1.

Cumulative relapse-free survival at 3 months.

ir-2025-00341-Supplementary-Fig-1.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 2.

Cumulative relapse-free survival at 1 year.

ir-2025-00341-Supplementary-Fig-2.pdf

Fig. 1.

Flowchart of the study population. Among 386 patients with UC treated with IV corticosteroids, 222 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 75 (33.8%) received IV corticosteroids alone, while 147 (66.2%) received IV corticosteroids with antibiotics. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 60 patients from each group were included in the final analysis. Patients were excluded primarily due to insufficient laboratory data or incomplete clinical information, which precluded accurate assessment of ASUC diagnosis or clinical outcomes. UC, ulcerative colitis; IV, intravenous; ASUC, acute severe ulcerative colitis.

Fig. 2.

Comparison of clinical remission rates (defined as ≥3-point improvement in the partial Mayo score) at 1 week in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis treated with intravenous corticosteroids alone versus adjunctive antibiotics (propensity score matching analysis).

Fig. 3.

Comparison of cumulative relapse-free survival rates at 1 week in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis treated with intravenous corticosteroids alone versus those receiving adjunctive antibiotics (propensity score matching analysis).

Fig. 4.

Comparison of cumulative relapse-free survival rates at 3 months in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis treated with intravenous corticosteroids alone versus those receiving adjunctive antibiotics (propensity score matching analysis).

Fig. 5.

Comparison of cumulative relapse-free survival rates at 1 year in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis treated with intravenous corticosteroids alone versus those receiving adjunctive antibiotics (propensity score matching analysis).

Table 1.

Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population in Patients with ASUC Using PSM

Variable	Before				After PSM
Variable	All (n=222)	Corticosteroid alone (n=75)	Corticosteroid and antibiotics (n=147)	P-value	All (n = 120)	Corticosteroid alone (n = 60)	Corticosteroid and antibiotics (n = 60)	P-value
Demographic variables
Age (yr)	46.6 ± 16.1	47.9 ± 16.7	46.0 ± 16.0	0.400^c	46.6 ± 16.4	47.2 ± 16.7	45.9 ± 16.1	0.673^c
Male sex	123 (55.4)	49 (65.3)	74 (50.3)	0.034^a	75 (62.5)	39 (65.0)	36 (60.0)	0.572^a
Body mass index (kg/m²)	23.0 ± 5.0	23.4 ± 4.5	22.8 ± 5.2	0.369^c	23.8 ± 4.7	23.8 ± 4.7	23.9 ± 4.7	0.915^c
Duration from IBD diagnosis (yr)	4.98 ± 5.73	4.42 ± 5.21	5.26 ± 5.98	0.301^c	5.08 ± 5.98	4.57 ± 5.51	5.59 ± 6.42	0.353^c
Smoking status at diagnosis				0.327^a				0.080^a
Never smoked	153 (68.9)	53 (70.7)	100 (68.0)		73 (60.8)	42 (70.0)	31 (51.7)
Ex-smoker	23 (10.4)	10 (13.3)	13 (8.8)		17 (14.2)	8 (13.3)	9 (15.0)
Current smoker	46 (20.7)	12 (16.0)	34 (23.1)		30 (25.0)	10 (16.7)	20 (33.3)
Previous intestinal resection surgery	1 (0.5)	0	1 (0.7)	> 0.999^b	0	0	0
UC disease location				0.204^a				0.836^b
Proctitis (E1)	11 (5.0)	4 (5.3)	7 (4.7)		7 (5.8)	4 (6.7)	3 (5.0)
Left sided (E2)	92 (41.4)	37 (49.3)	55 (37.4)		56 (46.7)	29 (48.3)	27 (45.0)
Pancolitis (E3)	119 (53.6)	34 (45.3)	85 (57.8)		57 (47.5)	27 (45.0)	30 (50.0)
Disease activity index
Partial Mayo score	8.5 ± 1.3	8.5 ± 1.2	8.5 ± 1.3	0.892^c	8.4 ± 1.3	8.5 ± 1.2	8.3 ± 1.4	0.397^c
Laboratory variables
White blood cell count (10⁹/L)	10.4 ± 4.7	9.52 ± 4.18	10.83 ± 4.9	0.048^c	9.9 ± 4.2	9.9 ± 4.2	9.9 ± 4.3	0.984^c
Hemoglobin (g/dL)	12.2 ± 2.3	12.29 ± 2.26	12.08 ± 2.32	0.512^c	12.4 ± 2.4	12.5 ± 2.3	12.4 ± 2.4	0.753^c
Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mm/hr)	50.7 ± 33.4	45.13 ± 33.62	53.51 ± 33.06	0.077^c	44.4 ± 31.4	45.3 ± 34.2	43.5 ± 28.7	0.762^c
Serum C-reactive protein (mg/L)	53.7 ± 55.7	28.51 ± 35.91	66.51 ± 59.64	< 0.001^c	32.8 ± 36.8	32.9 ± 38.7	32.8 ± 35.2	0.991^c
Serum albumin (g/dL)	3.7 ± 0.6	3.81 ± 0.55	3.62 ± 0.65	0.027^c	3.8 ± 0.6	3.8 ± 0.6	3.8 ± 0.7	0.799^c
Fecal calprotectin (mg/kg)	2,120 ± 2,164	2,777 ± 2,302	1,730 ± 2,021	0.127^c	2,055 ± 2,166	2,407 ± 2,126	1,702 ± 2,233	0.417^c
Concomitant medications
5-Aminosalicylic acid	205 (92.3)	69 (92.0)	136 (92.5)	0.891^a	107 (89.2)	54 (90.0)	53 (88.3)	0.769^a
Sulfasalazine	2 (0.9)	0	2 (1.4)	0.551^b	2 (1.7)	0	2 (3.3)	0.496^b
Immunomodulator	53 (23.9)	15 (20.0)	38 (25.9)	0.334^a	22 (18.3)	10 (16.7)	12 (20.0)	0.637^a
Biologics	26 (11.7)	8 (10.7)	18 (12.2)	0.729^a	14 (11.7)	7 (11.7)	7 (11.7)	> 0.999^a
Small molecular agents	1 (0.5)	0	1 (0.7)	> 0.999^b	1 (0.8)	0	1 (1.7)	> 0.999^b
Use of IV corticosteroid
Dose of IV corticosteroids (mg/day)	248.2 ± 47.0	252.0 ± 38.7	246.3 ± 50.7	0.349^c	251.1 ± 49.1	253.0 ± 40.3	249.2 ± 56.8	0.674^c
Duration of IV corticosteroids (day)	9.4 ± 6.0	7.9 ± 4.5	10.2 ± 6.4	0.002^c	8.0 ± 4.4	8.3 ± 4.8	7.6 ± 4.0	0.384^c
Use of IV antibiotics				<.0001^b
Duration of IV antibiotics (day)	10.4 ± 5.9		10.4 ± 5.9
3rd cephalosporin	11 (5.0)	0	11 (7.5)		6 (5.0)	0	6 (10.0)
3rd cephalosporin + metronidazole	91 (41.0)	0	91 (61.9)		34 (28.3)	0	34 (56.7)
Quinolone	6 (2.7)	0	6 (4.1)		4 (3.3)	0	4 (6.7)
Quinolone + metronidazole	31 (14.0)	0	31 (21.1)		15 (12.5)	0	15 (25.0)
Tazobactam	8 (3.6)	0	8 (5.4)		1 (0.8)	0	1 (1.7)
Length of hospital stay (day)	12.5 ± 7.8	9.5 ± 4.1	14.1 ± 8.7	< 0.001^c	10.4 ± 6.1	9.9 ± 4.3	11.0 ± 7.4	0.323^c

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

ASUC, acute severe ulcerative colitis; PSM, propensity score matching; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; UC, ulcerative colitis; IV, intravenous.

^a Chi-square test.

^b Fisher exact test.

^c t-test.

Table 2.

Primary and Secondary Outcomes as Observed in Our Study Population with PSM

Variable	Before				After PSM
Variable	All (n=222)	Corticosteroid alone (n=75)	Corticosteroid and antibiotics (n=147)	P-value	All (n=120)	Corticosteroid alone (n=60)	Corticosteroid and antibiotics (n=60)	P-value
1st clinical remission	138 (62.2)	51 (68.0)	87 (59.2)	0.200^a	77 (64.2)	41 (68.3)	36 (60.0)	0.341^a
1-wk after hospitalization
Infliximab	23 (10.4)	7 (9.3)	16 (10.9)	0.720^a	12 (10)	6 (10.0)	6 (10.0)	> 0.999^a
Re-admission	1 (0.5)	0	1 (0.7)	> 0.999^b	1 (0.8)	0	1 (1.7)	> 0.999^b
1-wk clinical relapse	24 (10.8)	7 (9.3)	17 (11.6)	0.613^a	13 (10.8)	6 (10.0)	7 (11.7)	0.769^a
1-mo clinical relapse	47 (21.2)	17 (22.7)	30 (20.4)	0.697^a	22 (18.3)	14 (23.3)	8 (13.3)	0.157^a
3-mo after hospitalization
Immunomodulator	39 (17.6)	12 (16.0)	27 (18.4)	0.661^a	20 (16.7)	10 (16.7)	10 (16.7)	> 0.999^a
Biologics	46 (20.7)	14 (18.7)	32 (21.8)	0.590^a	22 (18.3)	12 (20.0)	10 (16.7)	0.637^a
Small molecular agents	3 (1.4)	3 (4.0)	0	0.038^b	1 (0.8)	1 (1.7)	0	> 0.999^b
Re-admission	22 (9.9)	6 (8.0)	16 (10.9)	0.496^a	9 (7.5)	5 (8.3)	4 (6.7)	> 0.999^b
UC-related surgery	1 (0.5)	1 (1.3)	0	0.338^b	1 (0.8)	1 (1.7)	0	> 0.999^b
3-mo clinical relapse	79 (35.6)	25 (33.3)	54 (36.7)	0.617^a	37 (30.8)	19 (31.7)	18 (30.0)	0.843^a
1-yr after hospitalization
Immunomodulator	15 (6.7)	2 (2.7)	13 (8.8)	0.083^a	6 (5.0)	1 (1.7)	5 (8.3)	0.207^b
Biologics	28 (12.6)	14 (18.7)	14 (9.5)	0.052^a	13 (10.8)	9 (15.0)	4 (6.7)	0.142^a
Small molecular agents	6 (2.7)	3 (4.0)	3 (2.0)	0.409^b	5 (4.2)	3 (5.0)	2 (3.3)	> 0.999^b
Re-admission	24 (10.8)	7 (9.3)	17 (11.6)	0.613^a	13 (10.8)	4 (6.7)	9 (15.0)	0.142^a
UC-related surgery	2 (0.9)	1 (1.3)	1 (0.7)	> 0.999^b	1 (0.8)	1 (1.7)	0	> 0.999^b
1-yr clinical relapse	53 (23.8)	19 (25.3)	34 (23.1)	0.716^a	28 (23.3)	14 (23.3)	14 (23.3)	> 0.999^a

Values are presented as number (%).

PSM, propensity score matching; UC, ulcerative colitis.

^a Chi-square test.

^b Fisher exact test.

REFERENCES

1. Barnes EL, Agrawal M, Syal G, et al. AGA clinical practice guideline on the management of pouchitis and inflammatory pouch disorders. Gastroenterology 2024;166:59–85.Article PubMed PMC
2. Abraham B, Quigley EMM. Antibiotics and probiotics in inflammatory bowel disease: when to use them? Frontline Gastroenterol 2020;11:62–69.Article PubMed PMC
3. Singh S, Allegretti JR, Siddique SM, Terdiman JP. AGA technical review on the management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2020;158:1465–1496.Article PubMed PMC
4. Lin WC, Lin CC, Hsu WH, et al. Short-term and long-term outcomes of acute severe ulcerative colitis in Taiwan: a multicenter study with pre- and post-biologics comparison. Intest Res 2026;24:117–128.Article PubMed PMC PDF
5. Park J, Zhang HS, Nam CM, et al. Development and assessment of a novel ulcerative colitis-specific quality of life questionnaire: a prospective, multi-institutional study. Yonsei Med J 2024;65:636–644.Article PubMed PMC PDF
6. Fumery M, Singh S, Dulai PS, Gower-Rousseau C, Peyrin-Biroulet L, Sandborn WJ. Natural history of adult ulcerative colitis in population-based cohorts: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;16:343–356.Article PubMed PMC
7. Con D, De Cruz P. Defining management strategies for acute severe ulcerative colitis using predictive models: a simulation-modeling study. Intest Res 2024;22:439–452.Article PubMed PMC PDF
8. Yoo EJ, Cho SH, Park SJ, Kim TI, Kim WH, Cheon JH. Characteristics and treatment outcomes of transition among patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Yonsei Med J 2023;64:541–548.Article PubMed PMC PDF
9. Dinesen LC, Walsh AJ, Protic MN, et al. The pattern and outcome of acute severe colitis. J Crohns Colitis 2010;4:431–437.Article PubMed
10. Dong C, Metzger M, Holsbø E, Perduca V, Carbonnel F. Systematic review with meta-analysis: mortality in acute severe ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2020;51:8–33.Article PubMed PDF
11. Leeds IL, Sundel MH, Gabre-Kidan A, et al. Outcomes for ulcerative colitis with delayed emergency colectomy are worse when controlling for preoperative risk factors. Dis Colon Rectum 2019;62:600–607.Article PubMed PMC
12. Rivière P, Li Wai Suen C, Chaparro M, De Cruz P, Spinelli A, Laharie D. Acute severe ulcerative colitis management: unanswered questions and latest insights. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;9:251–262.Article PubMed
13. Truelove SC, Witts LJ. Cortisone in ulcerative colitis; final report on a therapeutic trial. Br Med J 1955;2:1041–1048.Article PubMed PMC
14. Popov J, Caputi V, Nandeesha N, Rodriguez DA, Pai N. Microbiota-immune interactions in ulcerative colitis and colitis associated cancer and emerging microbiota-based therapies. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22:11365.Article PubMed PMC
15. Dahiya D, Nigam PS. Antibiotic-therapy-induced gut dysbiosis affecting gut microbiota-brain axis and cognition: restoration by intake of probiotics and synbiotics. Int J Mol Sci 2023;24:3074.Article PubMed PMC
16. Sartor RB. Therapeutic manipulation of the enteric microflora in inflammatory bowel diseases: antibiotics, probiotics, and prebiotics. Gastroenterology 2004;126:1620–1633.Article PubMed
17. Croft A, Lord A, Radford-Smith G. Markers of systemic inflammation in acute attacks of ulcerative colitis: what level of C-reactive protein constitutes severe colitis? J Crohns Colitis 2022;16:1089–1096.Article PubMed PMC PDF
18. Ramirez J, Guarner F, Bustos Fernandez L, Maruy A, Sdepanian VL, Cohen H. Antibiotics as major disruptors of gut microbiota. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2020;10:572912.Article PubMed PMC
19. Mantzaris GJ, Hatzis A, Kontogiannis P, Triadaphyllou G. Intravenous tobramycin and metronidazole as an adjunct to corticosteroids in acute, severe ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol 1994;89:43–46.PubMed
20. Mantzaris GJ, Petraki K, Archavlis E, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of intravenous ciprofloxacin as an adjunct to corticosteroids in acute, severe ulcerative colitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2001;36:971–974.Article PubMed
21. Mishra S, Mandavdhare HS, Singh H, et al. Adjuvant use of combination of antibiotics in acute severe ulcerative colitis: a placebo controlled randomized trial. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2021;19:949–955.Article PubMed
22. Spinelli A, Bonovas S, Burisch J, et al. ECCO guidelines on therapeutics in ulcerative colitis: surgical treatment. J Crohns Colitis 2022;16:179–189.Article PubMed PDF
23. Magro F, Gionchetti P, Eliakim R, et al. 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 2017;11:649–670.Article PubMed PMC PDF
24. Bewtra M, Brensinger CM, Tomov VT, et al. An optimized patient-reported ulcerative colitis disease activity measure derived from the Mayo score and the simple clinical colitis activity index. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2014;20:1070–1078.Article PubMed PMC
25. Na SY, Choi CH, Song EM, et al. Korean clinical practice guidelines on biologics and small molecules for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Intest Res 2023;21:61–87.Article PubMed PMC PDF
26. Achieving clinical response and remission in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis with golimumab. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 2014;10:452–454.PubMed PMC
27. Pola S, Patel D, Ramamoorthy S, et al. Strategies for the care of adults hospitalized for active ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:1315–1325.Article PubMed PMC
28. Gupta V, Rodrigues R, Nguyen D, et al. Adjuvant use of antibiotics with corticosteroids in inflammatory bowel disease exacerbations requiring hospitalisation: a retrospective cohort study and meta-analysis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2016;43:52–60.Article PubMed PMC
29. Ohkusa T, Kato K, Terao S, et al. Newly developed antibiotic combination therapy for ulcerative colitis: a double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:1820–1829.Article PubMed PDF
30. Dickinson RJ, O’Connor HJ, Pinder I, Hamilton I, Johnston D, Axon AT. Double blind controlled trial of oral vancomycin as adjunctive treatment in acute exacerbations of idiopathic colitis. Gut 1985;26:1380–1384.Article PubMed PMC
31. Chapman RW, Selby WS, Jewell DP. Controlled trial of intravenous metronidazole as an adjunct to corticosteroids in severe ulcerative colitis. Gut 1986;27:1210–1212.Article PubMed PMC
32. Hitch TCA, Hall LJ, Walsh SK, et al. Microbiome-based interventions to modulate gut ecology and the immune system. Mucosal Immunol 2022;15:1095–1113.Article PubMed PMC PDF
33. Kostic AD, Xavier RJ, Gevers D. The microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease: current status and the future ahead. Gastroenterology 2014;146:1489–1499.Article PubMed PMC
34. Shin SY, Kim Y, Kim WS, et al. Compositional changes in fecal microbiota associated with clinical phenotypes and prognosis in Korean patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Intest Res 2023;21:148–160.Article PubMed PMC PDF
35. Contijoch EJ, Britton GJ, Yang C, et al. Gut microbiota density influences host physiology and is shaped by host and microbial factors. Elife 2019;8:e40553.PubMed PMC
36. Vandeputte D, Kathagen G, D’hoe K, et al. Quantitative microbiome profiling links gut community variation to microbial load. Nature 2017;551:507–511.Article PubMed PDF
37. Lathakumari RH, Vajravelu LK, Satheesan A, Ravi S, Thulukanam J. Antibiotics and the gut microbiome: understanding the impact on human health. Med Microecol 2024;20:100106.Article

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Effectiveness of adjunctive use of antibiotics in acute severe ulcerative colitis: a propensity score matching analysis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00341

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Effectiveness of adjunctive use of antibiotics in acute severe ulcerative colitis: a propensity score matching analysis

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the study population. Among 386 patients with UC treated with IV corticosteroids, 222 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 75 (33.8%) received IV corticosteroids alone, while 147 (66.2%) received IV corticosteroids with antibiotics. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 60 patients from each group were included in the final analysis. Patients were excluded primarily due to insufficient laboratory data or incomplete clinical information, which precluded accurate assessment of ASUC diagnosis or clinical outcomes. UC, ulcerative colitis; IV, intravenous; ASUC, acute severe ulcerative colitis.

Fig. 2. Comparison of clinical remission rates (defined as ≥3-point improvement in the partial Mayo score) at 1 week in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis treated with intravenous corticosteroids alone versus adjunctive antibiotics (propensity score matching analysis).

Fig. 3. Comparison of cumulative relapse-free survival rates at 1 week in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis treated with intravenous corticosteroids alone versus those receiving adjunctive antibiotics (propensity score matching analysis).

Fig. 4. Comparison of cumulative relapse-free survival rates at 3 months in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis treated with intravenous corticosteroids alone versus those receiving adjunctive antibiotics (propensity score matching analysis).

Fig. 5. Comparison of cumulative relapse-free survival rates at 1 year in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis treated with intravenous corticosteroids alone versus those receiving adjunctive antibiotics (propensity score matching analysis).

Graphical abstract

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Graphical abstract

Effectiveness of adjunctive use of antibiotics in acute severe ulcerative colitis: a propensity score matching analysis

Variable	Before				After PSM
Variable	All (n=222)	Corticosteroid alone (n=75)	Corticosteroid and antibiotics (n=147)	P-value	All (n = 120)	Corticosteroid alone (n = 60)	Corticosteroid and antibiotics (n = 60)	P-value
Demographic variables
Age (yr)	46.6 ± 16.1	47.9 ± 16.7	46.0 ± 16.0	0.400^c	46.6 ± 16.4	47.2 ± 16.7	45.9 ± 16.1	0.673^c
Male sex	123 (55.4)	49 (65.3)	74 (50.3)	0.034^a	75 (62.5)	39 (65.0)	36 (60.0)	0.572^a
Body mass index (kg/m²)	23.0 ± 5.0	23.4 ± 4.5	22.8 ± 5.2	0.369^c	23.8 ± 4.7	23.8 ± 4.7	23.9 ± 4.7	0.915^c
Duration from IBD diagnosis (yr)	4.98 ± 5.73	4.42 ± 5.21	5.26 ± 5.98	0.301^c	5.08 ± 5.98	4.57 ± 5.51	5.59 ± 6.42	0.353^c
Smoking status at diagnosis				0.327^a				0.080^a
Never smoked	153 (68.9)	53 (70.7)	100 (68.0)		73 (60.8)	42 (70.0)	31 (51.7)
Ex-smoker	23 (10.4)	10 (13.3)	13 (8.8)		17 (14.2)	8 (13.3)	9 (15.0)
Current smoker	46 (20.7)	12 (16.0)	34 (23.1)		30 (25.0)	10 (16.7)	20 (33.3)
Previous intestinal resection surgery	1 (0.5)	0	1 (0.7)	> 0.999^b	0	0	0
UC disease location				0.204^a				0.836^b
Proctitis (E1)	11 (5.0)	4 (5.3)	7 (4.7)		7 (5.8)	4 (6.7)	3 (5.0)
Left sided (E2)	92 (41.4)	37 (49.3)	55 (37.4)		56 (46.7)	29 (48.3)	27 (45.0)
Pancolitis (E3)	119 (53.6)	34 (45.3)	85 (57.8)		57 (47.5)	27 (45.0)	30 (50.0)
Disease activity index
Partial Mayo score	8.5 ± 1.3	8.5 ± 1.2	8.5 ± 1.3	0.892^c	8.4 ± 1.3	8.5 ± 1.2	8.3 ± 1.4	0.397^c
Laboratory variables
White blood cell count (10⁹/L)	10.4 ± 4.7	9.52 ± 4.18	10.83 ± 4.9	0.048^c	9.9 ± 4.2	9.9 ± 4.2	9.9 ± 4.3	0.984^c
Hemoglobin (g/dL)	12.2 ± 2.3	12.29 ± 2.26	12.08 ± 2.32	0.512^c	12.4 ± 2.4	12.5 ± 2.3	12.4 ± 2.4	0.753^c
Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mm/hr)	50.7 ± 33.4	45.13 ± 33.62	53.51 ± 33.06	0.077^c	44.4 ± 31.4	45.3 ± 34.2	43.5 ± 28.7	0.762^c
Serum C-reactive protein (mg/L)	53.7 ± 55.7	28.51 ± 35.91	66.51 ± 59.64	< 0.001^c	32.8 ± 36.8	32.9 ± 38.7	32.8 ± 35.2	0.991^c
Serum albumin (g/dL)	3.7 ± 0.6	3.81 ± 0.55	3.62 ± 0.65	0.027^c	3.8 ± 0.6	3.8 ± 0.6	3.8 ± 0.7	0.799^c
Fecal calprotectin (mg/kg)	2,120 ± 2,164	2,777 ± 2,302	1,730 ± 2,021	0.127^c	2,055 ± 2,166	2,407 ± 2,126	1,702 ± 2,233	0.417^c
Concomitant medications
5-Aminosalicylic acid	205 (92.3)	69 (92.0)	136 (92.5)	0.891^a	107 (89.2)	54 (90.0)	53 (88.3)	0.769^a
Sulfasalazine	2 (0.9)	0	2 (1.4)	0.551^b	2 (1.7)	0	2 (3.3)	0.496^b
Immunomodulator	53 (23.9)	15 (20.0)	38 (25.9)	0.334^a	22 (18.3)	10 (16.7)	12 (20.0)	0.637^a
Biologics	26 (11.7)	8 (10.7)	18 (12.2)	0.729^a	14 (11.7)	7 (11.7)	7 (11.7)	> 0.999^a
Small molecular agents	1 (0.5)	0	1 (0.7)	> 0.999^b	1 (0.8)	0	1 (1.7)	> 0.999^b
Use of IV corticosteroid
Dose of IV corticosteroids (mg/day)	248.2 ± 47.0	252.0 ± 38.7	246.3 ± 50.7	0.349^c	251.1 ± 49.1	253.0 ± 40.3	249.2 ± 56.8	0.674^c
Duration of IV corticosteroids (day)	9.4 ± 6.0	7.9 ± 4.5	10.2 ± 6.4	0.002^c	8.0 ± 4.4	8.3 ± 4.8	7.6 ± 4.0	0.384^c
Use of IV antibiotics				<.0001^b
Duration of IV antibiotics (day)	10.4 ± 5.9		10.4 ± 5.9
3rd cephalosporin	11 (5.0)	0	11 (7.5)		6 (5.0)	0	6 (10.0)
3rd cephalosporin + metronidazole	91 (41.0)	0	91 (61.9)		34 (28.3)	0	34 (56.7)
Quinolone	6 (2.7)	0	6 (4.1)		4 (3.3)	0	4 (6.7)
Quinolone + metronidazole	31 (14.0)	0	31 (21.1)		15 (12.5)	0	15 (25.0)
Tazobactam	8 (3.6)	0	8 (5.4)		1 (0.8)	0	1 (1.7)
Length of hospital stay (day)	12.5 ± 7.8	9.5 ± 4.1	14.1 ± 8.7	< 0.001^c	10.4 ± 6.1	9.9 ± 4.3	11.0 ± 7.4	0.323^c

Variable	Before				After PSM
Variable	All (n=222)	Corticosteroid alone (n=75)	Corticosteroid and antibiotics (n=147)	P-value	All (n=120)	Corticosteroid alone (n=60)	Corticosteroid and antibiotics (n=60)	P-value
1st clinical remission	138 (62.2)	51 (68.0)	87 (59.2)	0.200^a	77 (64.2)	41 (68.3)	36 (60.0)	0.341^a
1-wk after hospitalization
Infliximab	23 (10.4)	7 (9.3)	16 (10.9)	0.720^a	12 (10)	6 (10.0)	6 (10.0)	> 0.999^a
Re-admission	1 (0.5)	0	1 (0.7)	> 0.999^b	1 (0.8)	0	1 (1.7)	> 0.999^b
1-wk clinical relapse	24 (10.8)	7 (9.3)	17 (11.6)	0.613^a	13 (10.8)	6 (10.0)	7 (11.7)	0.769^a
1-mo clinical relapse	47 (21.2)	17 (22.7)	30 (20.4)	0.697^a	22 (18.3)	14 (23.3)	8 (13.3)	0.157^a
3-mo after hospitalization
Immunomodulator	39 (17.6)	12 (16.0)	27 (18.4)	0.661^a	20 (16.7)	10 (16.7)	10 (16.7)	> 0.999^a
Biologics	46 (20.7)	14 (18.7)	32 (21.8)	0.590^a	22 (18.3)	12 (20.0)	10 (16.7)	0.637^a
Small molecular agents	3 (1.4)	3 (4.0)	0	0.038^b	1 (0.8)	1 (1.7)	0	> 0.999^b
Re-admission	22 (9.9)	6 (8.0)	16 (10.9)	0.496^a	9 (7.5)	5 (8.3)	4 (6.7)	> 0.999^b
UC-related surgery	1 (0.5)	1 (1.3)	0	0.338^b	1 (0.8)	1 (1.7)	0	> 0.999^b
3-mo clinical relapse	79 (35.6)	25 (33.3)	54 (36.7)	0.617^a	37 (30.8)	19 (31.7)	18 (30.0)	0.843^a
1-yr after hospitalization
Immunomodulator	15 (6.7)	2 (2.7)	13 (8.8)	0.083^a	6 (5.0)	1 (1.7)	5 (8.3)	0.207^b
Biologics	28 (12.6)	14 (18.7)	14 (9.5)	0.052^a	13 (10.8)	9 (15.0)	4 (6.7)	0.142^a
Small molecular agents	6 (2.7)	3 (4.0)	3 (2.0)	0.409^b	5 (4.2)	3 (5.0)	2 (3.3)	> 0.999^b
Re-admission	24 (10.8)	7 (9.3)	17 (11.6)	0.613^a	13 (10.8)	4 (6.7)	9 (15.0)	0.142^a
UC-related surgery	2 (0.9)	1 (1.3)	1 (0.7)	> 0.999^b	1 (0.8)	1 (1.7)	0	> 0.999^b
1-yr clinical relapse	53 (23.8)	19 (25.3)	34 (23.1)	0.716^a	28 (23.3)	14 (23.3)	14 (23.3)	> 0.999^a

Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population in Patients with ASUC Using PSM

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

ASUC, acute severe ulcerative colitis; PSM, propensity score matching; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; UC, ulcerative colitis; IV, intravenous.

Chi-square test.

Fisher exact test.

t-test.

Table 2. Primary and Secondary Outcomes as Observed in Our Study Population with PSM

Values are presented as number (%).

PSM, propensity score matching; UC, ulcerative colitis.

Chi-square test.

Fisher exact test.