No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The advent of biological therapy has revolutionized inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care. Nonetheless, not all patients require biological therapy. Selection of patients depends on clinical characteristics, previous response to other medical therapy, and comorbid conditions. Availability, reimbursement guidelines, and patient preferences guide the choice of first-line biological therapy for luminal Crohn's disease (CD). Infliximab (IFX) has the most extensive clinical trial data, but other biological agents (adalimumab (ADA), certolizumab pegol (CZP), and natalizumab (NAT)) appear to have similar benefits in CD. Steroid-refractory, steroid-dependent, or complex fistulizing CD are indications for starting biological therapy, after surgical drainage of any sepsis. For fistulizing CD, the efficacy of IFX for inducing fistula closure is best documented. Unique risks of NAT account for its labeling as a second-line biological agent in some countries. Patients who respond to induction therapy benefit from systematic re-treatment. The combination of IFX with azathioprine is better than monotherapy for induction of remission and mucosal healing up to 1 year in patients who are naïve to both agents. Whether this applies to other agents remains unknown. IFX is also effective for treatment-refractory, moderate, or severely active ulcerative colitis. Patients who have a diminished or loss of response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy may respond to dose adjustment of the same agent or switching to another agent. Careful consideration should be given to the reasons for loss of response. There are insufficient data to make recommendations on when to stop anti-TNF therapy. Preliminary evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of patients in clinical remission for >1 year, without signs of active inflammation can remain in remission after stopping treatment.

Up to 8 microg/kg of rhuIL-10 was well tolerated. A tendency toward clinical improvement but not remission was observed in the 8-microg/kg dose group. Further studies should delineate which subgroups of patients with CD benefit from rhuIL-10 therapy.

When patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are admitted to the hospital with a flare of acute severe colitis, the possibility of a concurrent cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection causing or worsening the colitis is often considered. IBD patients are usually immunosuppressed, and therefore presumably at increased risk for active CMV infection and disease. Multiple techniques are used to diagnose CMV infection, including endoscopy, histology, serology, viral culture, CMV antigen testing, and CMV DNA testing. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) performed on colon biopsy specimens with monoclonal antibodies directed against CMV immediate early antigen is considered by most to be the current gold standard for diagnosis. The prevalence of CMV infection in acute severe colitis appears to be 21-34%, and the prevalence of CMV infection in the steroid refractory subgroup of these patients is 33-36%. After antiviral therapy, colitis remission rates in IBD patients with CMV infection range from 67% to 100%, though CMV histological infection or the presence of circulating virus alone is not always associated with steroid resistance, and may not require antiviral therapy.

Metronidazole is effective for the treatment of acute pouchitis after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, but it has not been directly compared with other antibiotics. This randomized clinical trial was designed to compare the effectiveness and side effects of ciprofloxacin and metronidazole for treating acute pouchitis. Acute pouchitis was defined as a score of 7 or higher on the 18-point Pouchitis Disease Activity Index (PDAI) and symptom duration of 4 weeks or less. Sixteen patients were randomized to a 2-week course of ciprofloxacin 1,000 mg/d (n = 7) or metronidazole 20 mg/kg/d (n = 9). Clinical symptoms, endoscopic findings, and histologic features were assessed before and after therapy. Both ciprofloxacin and metronidazole produced a significant reduction in the total PDAI score as well as in the symptom, endoscopy, and histology subscores. Ciprofloxacin lowered the PDAI score from 10.1+/-2.3 to 3.3+/-1.7 (p = 0.0001), whereas metronidazole reduced the PDAI score from 9.7+/-2.3 to 5.8+/-1.7 (p = 0.0002). There was a significantly greater reduction in the ciprofloxacin group than in the metronidazole group in terms of the total PDAI (6.9+/-1.2 versus 3.8+/-1.7; p = 0.002), symptom score (2.4+/-0.9 versus 1.3+/-0.9; p = 0.03), and endoscopic score (3.6+/-1.3 versus 1.9+/-1.5; p = 0.03). None of patients in the ciprofloxacin group experienced adverse effects, whereas three patients in the metronidazole group (33%) developed vomiting, dysgeusia, or transient peripheral neuropathy. Both ciprofloxacin and metronidazole are effective in treating acute pouchitis with significant reduction of the PDAI scores. Ciprofloxacin produces a greater reduction in the PDAI and a greater improvement in symptom and endoscopy scores, and is better tolerated than metronidazole. Ciprofloxacin should be considered as one of the first-line therapies for acute pouchitis.

No abstract