Analysis of the therapeutic efficacy of different doses of budesonide in patients with active Crohn's ileocolitis depending on disease activity and localization

Stemming the tide with ileocecal Crohn's disease: when is pharmacotherapy enough?

INTRODUCTION

Crohn's disease (CD) mostly affects the terminal ileum and ileocecal region and up to 80% of patients end up requiring surgery. Previously reserved for complicated or refractory forms, surgery is now considered as an alternative to medical treatment in localized ileocecal disease.

AREAS COVERED

This review examines factors associated with response to medical treatment and those associated with the need for surgery in ileocecal CD to identify the patients' profile for whom pharmacotherapy might be enough. Factors associated with the recurrence and the postoperative complications are also reviewed to help the clinician identify patients for whom medical therapy might be preferred.

EXPERT’S OPINION

LIR!C study long-term follow-up data show that 38% of infliximab-treated patients were still treated with infliximab at the end of their follow-up, while 14% had switched to another biologic or had received immunomodulator or corticosteroid and 48% had CD-related surgery. Only the combination with an immunomodulator was associated with a greater likelihood of continuing infliximab. Patients with ileocecal CD for whom pharmacotherapy might be sufficient are probably those with no risk factors for CD-related surgery.In addition, patients with high risk of recurrence or of post-operative complications may benefit more from medical treatment than from surgery.

Systematic review: outcomes and adverse events from randomised trials in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

The suitability of disease activity indices has been challenged, with growing interest in objective measures of inflammation.

AIM

To undertake a systematic review of efficacy and safety outcomes in placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with Crohn's disease.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched until November 2015, for RCTs of adult Crohn's disease patients treated with medical or surgical therapies. Data on efficacy and safety outcomes, end-point definitions, and measurement instruments were extracted and stratified by publication date (pre-2009 and 2009 onwards).

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-one RCTs (110 induction and 71 maintenance) were identified, including 23 850 patients. About 92.3% reported clinical efficacy endpoints. The Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) dominated, defining clinical response or remission in 63.5% of trials (35 definitions of response or remission). CDAI < 150 was the commonest endpoint, but reporting reduced between periods (46.4%-41.1%), whilst use of CDAI100 increased (16.8%-30.4%). Fistula studies most commonly reported fistula closure (9, 90.0%). Reporting of biomarker, endoscopy and histology endpoints increased overall (33.3%-40.6%, 14.4%-30.4% and 3.2%-12.5%, respectively), but were heterogeneous and rarely reported in fistula trials. Patient-reported outcome measures were reported in 41.4% of trials and safety endpoints in 35.4%. Many of the common adverse events relate to disease exacerbation or treatment failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial endpoints vary across studies, over time and are distinct in fistula studies. Despite growth in reporting of objective measures of inflammation and in patient-reported outcome measures, there is a lack of standardisation. This confirms the need for a core outcome set for comparative effectiveness research in Crohn's disease.

Prognostic factors of budesonide therapy for the management of Crohn's disease: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify factors that affect the prognosis of budesonide therapy for Crohn's disease patients.

METHOD

Change in Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) scores at latest follow-up after budesonide therapy reported by individual studies were pooled to gain overall effect size under random effects model and then metaregression analyses were performed to identify factors affecting the change in CDAI scores after budesonide treatment.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (1875 patients; age, 35.6 years [95% confidence interval (CI): 34.1, 37.0]; 41.66% [95% CI: 37.44, 45.88] males; 33.3% [95% CI: 24.3, 42.3] smokers; weight, 64.7 kg [95% CI: 62.71 66.6] and height, 168 cm [95% CI: 165, 171]) were included. Disease duration was 7.0 years [95% CI: 5.7, 8.2] and duration of the current episode was 3.1 months [95% CI: 1.7, 4.4]. Proportion of patients with prior resection was 42% [95% CI: 34%, 50%]. The disease was 21% in the ileum, 61% in ileocecum, and 18% in the colon. Budesonide dose was 8.83 mg/d [95% CI: 7.52, 10.14]. In a follow-up duration of 21.0 weeks [95% CI: 15.2, 26.8], budesonide treatment was associated with improvement in CDAI score of -117.8 [95% CI: -134.0, -102.0]. The magnitude of the change in CDAI score at the latest follow-up was significantly inversely associated with the percentage of smokers, but positively associated with the baseline CDAI score and duration of the current episode.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide therapy to Crohn's disease patients appears to be more effective in patients with the more serious condition. Smoking may also affect the prognosis.

Reviewing the therapeutic role of budesonide in Crohn's disease

Oral budesonide is a glucocorticoid of primarily local action. In the field of digestive diseases, it is used mainly in inflammatory bowel disease, but also in other indications. This review addresses the pharmacology, pharmacodynamics and therapeutic use of budesonide. Its approved indications are reviewed, as well as other clinical scenarios in which it could play a role, in order to facilitate its use and improve the accuracy of its prescription.

Oral budesonide in gastrointestinal and liver disease: A practical guide for the clinician

Oral budesonide is a second-generation steroid that allows local, selective treatment of the gastrointestinal tract and the liver, minimizing systemic exposure. The results of randomized trials comparing budesonide versus placebo or active comparators have led to expert recommendations that budesonide be used to treat mild or moderate active ileocecal Crohn's disease, microscopic colitis (including both collagenous and lymphocytic colitis), ulcerative colitis, and non-cirrhotic autoimmune hepatitis. The mechanism of budesonide action obviates the need for dose tapering due to safety reasons after induction therapy. Where low-dose budesonide is used to maintain remission, usually in microscopic colitis, it does not appear to have adverse safety implications other than slight reductions in cortisol levels on rare occasions. As a gut-selective and liver-selective corticosteroid, budesonide offers an appealing alternative to conventional systemic glucocorticoids in diseases of these organs.

Comparative Effectiveness of Mesalamine, Sulfasalazine, Corticosteroids, and Budesonide for the Induction of Remission in Crohn's Disease: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis: Republished

BACKGROUND

Induction treatment of mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease is controversial.

PURPOSE

To compare the induction of remission between different doses of mesalamine, sulfasalazine, corticosteroids, and budesonide for active Crohn's disease.

DATA SOURCES

We identified randomized controlled trials from existing Cochrane reviews and an updated literature search in Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to November 2015.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials (n = 22) in adult patients with Crohn's disease that compared budesonide, sulfasalazine, mesalamine, or corticosteroids with placebo or each other, for the induction of remission (8-17 wks). Mesalamine (above and below 2.4 g/d) and budesonide (above and below 6 mg/d) were stratified into low and high doses.

DATA EXTRACTION

Our primary outcome was remission, defined as a Crohn's Disease Activity Index score <150. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was performed on the proportion in remission.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR] = 3.64; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 2.16-6.19), high-dose budesonide (OR = 2.99; 95% CrI: 1.83-4.90), and high-dose mesalamine (OR = 1.87; 95% CrI: 1.14-3.15) were superior to placebo. Corticosteroids were similar to high-dose budesonide (OR = 1.21; 95% CrI: 0.79-1.89), but more effective than high-dose mesalamine (OR = 1.95; 95% CrI: 1.14-3.25). Sulfasalazine was not significantly superior to any therapy including placebo.

LIMITATIONS

Randomized controlled trials that use a strict definition of induction of remission and disease severity at enrollment to assess effectiveness in treating mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease are limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroids and high-dose budesonide were effective treatments for inducing remission in mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease. High-dose mesalamine maybe an option among patients preferring to avoid steroids.

Comparative Effectiveness of Mesalamine, Sulfasalazine, Corticosteroids, and Budesonide for the Induction of Remission in Crohn's Disease: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Induction treatment of mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease is controversial.

PURPOSE

To compare the induction of remission between different doses of mesalamine, sulfasalazine, corticosteroids, and budesonide for active Crohn's disease.

DATA SOURCES

We identified randomized controlled trials from existing Cochrane reviews and an updated literature search in Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to November 2015.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials (n = 22) in adult patients with Crohn's disease that compared budesonide, sulfasalazine, mesalamine, or corticosteroids with placebo or each other, for the induction of remission (8-17 wks). Mesalamine (above and below 2.4 g/d) and budesonide (above and below 6 mg/d) were stratified into low and high doses.

DATA EXTRACTION

Our primary outcome was remission, defined as a Crohn's Disease Activity Index score <150. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was performed on the proportion in remission.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR] = 3.80; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 2.48-5.66), high-dose budesonide (OR = 2.96; 95% CrI: 2.06-4.30), and high-dose mesalamine (OR = 2.29; 95% CrI: 1.58-3.33) were superior to placebo. Corticosteroids were similar to high-dose budesonide (OR = 1.21; 95% CrI: 0.84-1.76), but more effective than high-dose mesalamine (OR = 1.83; 95% CrI: 1.16-2.88). Sulfasalazine was not significantly superior to any therapy including placebo.

LIMITATIONS

Randomized controlled trials that use a strict definition of induction of remission and disease severity at enrollment to assess effectiveness in treating mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease are limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroids and high-dose budesonide were effective treatments for inducing remission in mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease. High-dose mesalamine is an option among patients preferring to avoid steroids.

Budesonide for the treatment of ulcerative colitis

INTRODUCTION

Budesonide is a synthetic corticosteroid characterized by enhanced topical potency and limited systemic bioavailability. Its use in ulcerative colitis (UC) was limited to rectal preparations until recently when the new oral budesonide formulation incorporating the multi-matrix system technology was introduced. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current role of oral and rectal budesonide in managing UC patients Areas covered: In this paper, we described the chemical structure and pharmacologic characteristics of the different oral and rectal budesonide preparations, provided a summary of the published trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of budesonide in UC, and discussed the current status of its use in this population Expert opinion: Budesonide is effective in inducing remission in a subset of patients with mild-moderate UC. Nevertheless, the current evidence suggests inferiority of oral budesonide to 5-aminosalisylates (5-ASA) and systemic steroids, whereas rectal applications are comparable to other rectal steroid preparations, but still inferior to rectal 5-ASA. In clinical practice, several issues need clarification including, its exact position in the line of induction agents; the role of combining budesonide and 5-ASAs; the role of combining oral and rectal budesonide; and the role of budesonide in maintenance therapy.

Budesonide for induction of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are commonly used for the induction of remission in Crohn's disease. However, traditional corticosteroids can cause significant adverse events. Budesonide is an alternative glucocorticoid with limited systemic bioavailability.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for the induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched up to June 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane IBD/FBD Group Specialised Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Reference lists of articles, as well as conference proceedings were manually searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing budesonide to a placebo or active comparator were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed study quality. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.5 software. The primary outcome was induction of remission (defined by a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) < 150) by week 8 to 16 of treatment. Secondary outcomes included: time to remission, mean change in CDAI, clinical, histological or endoscopic improvement, improvement in quality of life, adverse events and early withdrawal. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each dichotomous outcome and the mean difference and corresponding 95% CI for each continuous outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. A random-effects model was used for the pooled analyses. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcomes and selected secondary outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen studies (1805 patients) were included: Nine (779 patients) compared budesonide to conventional corticosteroids, three (535 patients) were placebo-controlled, and two (491 patients) compared budesonide to mesalamine. Ten studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. Three studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to open label design. One study was judged to be at high risk of bias due to selective reporting. After eight weeks of treatment, 9 mg budesonide was significantly more effective than placebo for induction of clinical remission. Forty-seven per cent (115/246) of budesonide patients achieved remission at 8 weeks compared to 22% (29/133) of placebo patients (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.73; 3 studies, 379 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (144 events). Budesonide was significantly less effective than conventional steroids for induction of remission at eight weeks. Fifty-two per cent of budesonide patients achieved remission at week 8 compared to 61% of patients who received conventional steroids (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; 8 studies, 750 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate due to risk of bias. Budesonide was significantly less effective than conventional steroids among patients with severe disease (CDAI > 300) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95). Studies comparing budesonide to mesalamine were not pooled due to heterogeneity (I(2) = 81%). One study (n = 182) found budesonide to be superior to mesalamine for induction of remission at 8 weeks. Sixty-eight per cent (63/93) of budesonide patients were in remission at 8 weeks compared to 42% (37/89) of mesalamine patients (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16). The other study found no statistically significant difference in remission rates at eight weeks. Sixty-nine per cent (107/154) of budesonide patients were in remission at 8 weeks compared to 62% (132/242) of mesalamine patients (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.32). Fewer adverse events occurred in those treated with budesonide compared to conventional steroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76) and budesonide was better than conventional steroids in preserving adrenal function (RR for abnormal ACTH test 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.78).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide is more effective than placebo for induction of remission in Crohn's disease. Although short-term efficacy with budesonide is less than with conventional steroids, particularly in those with severe disease or more extensive colonic involvement, the likelihood of adverse events and adrenal suppression with budesonide is lower. The current evidence does not allow for a firm conclusion on the relative efficacy of budesonide compared to 5-ASA products.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: comparative efficacy and safety of budesonide and mesalazine (mesalamine) for Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Budesonide and mesalazine (mesalamine) are commonly used in the medical management of patients with mild to moderate Crohn's disease.

AIM

To assess their comparative efficacy and harm using the methodology of network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov, through October 2014, was performed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited adult patients with active or quiescent Crohn's disease, and compared budesonide or mesalazine with placebo, or against each other, or different dosing strategies of one drug.

RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs were combined using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Budesonide 9 mg/day, or at higher doses (15 or 18 mg/day), was shown superior to placebo for induction of remission [odds ratio (OR), 2.93; 95% credible interval (CrI), 1.52-5.39, and OR, 3.28; CrI, 1.46-7.55 respectively] and ranks at the top of the hierarchy of the competing treatments. For maintenance of remission, budesonide 6 mg/day demonstrated superiority over placebo (OR, 1.69; CrI, 1.05-2.75), being also at the best ranking position among all compared treatment strategies. No other comparisons (i.e. different doses of mesalazine vs. placebo or budesonide, for induction or maintenance of remission) reached significance. The occurrence of withdrawals due to adverse events was not shown different between budesonide, mesalazine and placebo, in both the induction and maintenance phases.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide, at the doses of 9 mg/day, or higher, for induction of remission in active mild or moderate Crohn's disease, and at 6 mg/day for maintenance of remission, appears to be the best treatment choice.

Low bioavailability steroids in inflammatory bowel disease: an old chestnut or a whole new ballgame?

At present, therapy of inflammatory bowel disease is still far from being fully satisfactory; old drugs like steroids, for instance, still represent a cornerstone in the treatment of active disease despite their associated important side effects and incomplete clinical efficacy. In the last years, new therapeutic strategies have been suggested in order to avoid or at least limit steroids use and in this direction the so-called low bioavailability steroids appeared to be a promising therapeutic weapon; however, some grey areas about their real utility and manner of use still remain. The aim of this review is to evaluate the available evidence about the use of oral budesonide and beclomethasone dipropionate in inflammatory bowel disease, to critically assess their current position in the therapeutic algorithm of these diseases and to give simple and practical indications for their use in every-day clinical practice.

Top-down or step-up treatment in Crohn's disease?

In recent years, a change in the treatment goals for patients with Crohn's disease (CD) has come under intense discussion. Whereas 10 years ago treatment was initiated mainly in reaction to acute flares of the disease aimed to improve clinical symptoms, the focus now has changed to the prevention of damage to the intestinal wall. The prevention of structural damage by achievement of 'mucosal healing', however, is associated with the more 'aggressive' treatment and an earlier use of immunosuppressants and biologicals. The use of immunosuppressants and biologicals especially in patients with CD has decreased the rates of surgery and hospitalizations, indicating that there is a group of patients definitely profiting from such an early use of immunosuppressive treatment. In this group of patients, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of immunosuppression: the increased risk of severe infections. However, it remains questionable whether this improvement can only be achieved by completely reversing established treatment strategies. The dispute has been condensed to the questions whether 'top-down' (e.g. start with a combination of biological and immunosuppressant and 'de-escalate' if possible) or 'step-up' treatment (e.g. start with topical steroids, step up to systemic steroid, go to immunosuppression and biologicals if necessary) may be better. In general, in an upcoming era of individualized and personalized medicine, a 'one-size-fits-all' approach does not appear to be desirable. CD patients definitely should not be undertreated (which is still frequently the case) or remain on steroid treatment (which is inappropriate); however, overtreatment (putting patients at risk of side effects without benefit) is against a fundamental principle of medicine: nihil nocere (do no harm).

3g mesalazine granules are superior to 9mg budesonide for achieving remission in active ulcerative colitis: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Budesonide may be an effective therapy for mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority for oral 9mg budesonide once daily (OD) versus 3g mesalazine granules OD.

METHODS

This was an eight-week randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study in which patients with mild-to-moderately active UC, defined as Clinical Activity Index (CAI) ≥6 and Endoscopic Index (EI) ≥4, received budesonide (Budenofalk® 3mg capsules×3) or mesalazine (Salofalk® 1000mg granules×3). The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 8 (CAI ≤4 with stool frequency and rectal bleeding subscores of "0").

RESULTS

343 patients were randomised (177 budesonide, 166 mesalazine). Fewer patients achieved the primary endpoint with budesonide versus mesalazine (70/177 [39.5%] versus 91/166 [54.8%]) with a difference in proportions of -15.3% (95% CI [-25.7%, -4.8%]; p=0.520 for non-inferiority). The median time to first resolution of symptoms was 14.0 days (budesonide) and 11.0 days (mesalazine) (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI [0.94, 1.51]). Mucosal healing was observed in 54/177 (30.5%) budesonide patients versus 65/166 (39.2%) mesalazine patients, a difference of -8.6% (95% CI [-18.7%, 1.4%]; p=0.093). The incidences of adverse events (budesonide 26.6%, mesalazine 25.3%) and serious adverse events (budesonide 1.7%, mesalazine 1.2%) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily 3g mesalazine administered as granules is superior to 9mg budesonide OD administered as capsules for achieving remission in mild-to-moderately active UC. However, it is noteworthy that remission of UC was attained in about 40% of budesonide-treated patients with a rapid onset of resolution.

Budesonide is effective in treating lymphocytic colitis: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Budesonide is effective in treating collagenous colitis, but no treatment is established for lymphocytic colitis. We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the effects of budesonide in patients with lymphocytic colitis.

METHODS

Forty-two patients (median age, 61 years) with lymphocytic colitis and chronic diarrhea were randomly assigned to groups that were given oral doses of budesonide (9 mg/d) or placebo for 6 weeks. Nonresponders at week 6 were given open-label budesonide (9 mg/d) for 6 additional weeks. A complete colonoscopy and histologic and quality-of-life analyses were performed at baseline and at week 6. The primary end point was clinical remission at 6 weeks, with last observation carried forward (LOCF). All patients who left the study in clinical remission were followed for relapse.

RESULTS

At week 6, 86% of patients given budesonide were in clinical remission (with LOCF) compared with 48% of patients given placebo (P = .010). Furthermore, open-label budesonide therapy induced clinical remission in 7 of 8 patients given placebo. Histologic remission was observed in 73% of patients given budesonide compared with 31% given placebo (P = .030). Only 1 patient discontinued budesonide therapy prematurely. During a mean follow-up period of 14 months, 15 patients (44.1%) experienced a clinical relapse (after a mean of 2 months); 8 of the relapsing patients were retreated with and responded again to budesonide.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide effectively induces clinical remission in patients with lymphocytic colitis and significantly improves histology results after 6 weeks. Clinical relapses occur but can be treated again with budesonide.

Nonabsorbable corticosteroids use in the treatment of gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease

For over a decade, nonabsorbable corticosteroids have been employed in the treatment of gastrointestinal graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), as monotherapy or in combination with systemic corticosteroids. The majority of the evidence showing a favorable outcome consisted of case series, small phase II trials and a large randomized phase III trial. The 2 most commonly studied molecules were oral budesonide and beclomethasone diproprionate. Although these reports hint at some benefit with the local treatment strategy, their methodologic inconsistencies preclude meaningful adoption to everyday clinical practice. This review evaluates the current evidence of nonabsorbable corticosteroids in HSCT and sets forth recommendations for future trials with these agents.

Budesonide for induction of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids play a key role in the induction of remission in Crohn's disease. However, corticosteroids can cause significant adverse events. Budesonide is an alternate enteral glucocorticoid with limited systemic bioavailability.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for the induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane IBD/FBD Group Specialised Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Reference lists of articles, as well as conference proceedings were manually searched. Pharmaceutical companies were also contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing budesonide to a control treatment were included. The study population included patients of any age with active Crohn's disease (CDAI > 150). The primary outcome was induction of remission (CDAI < 150) by week 8 to 16 of treatment. Secondary outcomes included: time to remission, mean change in CDAI, clinical, histological or endoscopic improvement, improvement in quality of life, adverse events and early withdrawal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed study quality. A random effects model was used and studies were weighted using the DerSimonian & Laird method. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 4.2.10 software.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies were included: 9 compared budesonide with conventional corticosteroids, 2 were placebo-controlled, and 1 compared budesonide with mesalamine. After 8 weeks of treatment, budesonide was significantly more effective than placebo (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.23) or mesalamine (RR 1.63; 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16) for induction of remission. Budesonide was significantly less effective than conventional steroids for induction of remission (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.98), particularly among patients with severe disease (CDAI > 300) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95). Fewer adverse events occurred in those treated with budesonide compared to conventional steroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76) and budesonide was better able to preserve adrenal function (RR for abnormal ACTH test 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.78).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide is more effective than placebo or mesalamine for induction of remission in Crohn's disease. Although short-term efficacy with budesonide is less than with conventional steroids, particularly in those with severe disease or more extensive colonic involvement, the likelihood of adverse events and adrenal suppression is lower.

Treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: a review of medical therapy

Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are chronic inflammatory diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. While a cure remains elusive, both can be treated with medications that induce and maintain remission. With the recent advent of therapies that inhibit tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha the overlap in medical therapies for UC and CD has become greater. Although 5-ASA agents have been a mainstay in the treatment of both CD and UC, the data for their efficacy in patients with CD, particularly as maintenance therapy, are equivocal. Antibiotics may have a limited role in the treatment of colonic CD. Steroids continue to be the first choice to treat active disease not responsive to other more conservative therapy; non-systemic steroids such as oral and rectal budesonide for ileal and right-sided CD and distal UC respectively are also effective in mild-moderate disease. 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and its prodrug azathioprine are steroid-sparing immunomodulators effective in the maintenance of remission of both CD and UC, while methotrexate may be used in both induction and maintenance of CD. Infliximab and adalimumab are anti-TNF agents approved in the US and Europe for the treatment of Crohn's disease, and infliximab is also approved for the treatment of UC.

Current pharmacologic treatment paradigms for inflammatory bowel disease and the potential role of granulocyte/monocyte apheresis

BACKGROUND

A broad range of pharmacologic therapies are available to treat active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including 5-aminosalicylate preparations, corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants (e.g., azathio prine/6-mercaptopurine [AZA/6-MP] or methotrexate). Although these therapies are effective, up to 60% of patients are refractory or intolerant. Biologic therapies, such as the anti-TNF agent infliximab, offer promise but are not without controversy; despite many positive reports, steroid-refractory patients are less likely than other individuals to respond to infliximab. Effective, long-term therapies that do not add to the adverse-effects burden in patients with IBD are needed. Of these, granulocyte/monocyte apheresis (GMA) is one promising approach.

SCOPE

PubMed and relevant congresses databases were searched using the terms 'granulocyte/monocyte apheresis,' 'GMA,' 'leukocytapheresis,' 'Adacolumn,' and 'Cellsorba.' These studies were further selected to include only those focusing on IBD. A time frame of 2000-2006 was used.

FINDINGS

Data from open-label trials show that patients with moderate-to-severe IBD refractory to conventional pharmacologic treatment achieved clinical response and/or remission after treatment with GMA. Furthermore, recent small open-label trials of GMA show increased rates of induction and maintenance of response/remission in steroid-naïve IBD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The remission rates seen in these open-label clinical trials of GMA are consistent with those of currently available pharmacologic therapies for IBD. However, the majority of these trials enrolled only small numbers of patients, were largely open-label, and were of limited duration. These data must be confirmed in well-controlled, large-scale clinical trials.

Comparison of capsule endoscopy and magnetic resonance (MR) enteroclysis in suspected small bowel disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Small bowel MR enteroclysis and wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) are new diagnostic tools for the investigation of the small bowel. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of WCE with MR enteroclysis in the detection of small bowel pathologies.

METHODS

A total of 36 patients were included in the study. Indications for imaging of the small bowel were proven or suspected small bowel Crohn's disease (CD; n=18), obscure gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (n=14) and tumour surveillance (n=4).

RESULTS

In patients with Crohn's disease WCE detected significantly more inflammatory lesions in the first two segments of the small bowel compared with MR enteroclysis (12 patients vs. 1 patient, p=0.016). In 5 out of 14 (36%) patients with GI bleeding, angiodysplasia was detected as a possible bleeding source. Three of these patients had active bleeding sites detected by WCE. One patient had scattered inflammation of the mucosa. MR enteroclysis did not reveal any intestinal abnormalities in this patient group. MR enteroclysis provided extraintestinal pathologies in 10 out of 36 (28%) patients.

CONCLUSION

In patients with Crohn's disease WCE revealed significantly more inflammatory lesions in the proximal and middle part of the small bowel in comparison to MR enteroclysis, whereas in patients with obscure GI bleeding WCE was superior to MR enteroclysis.

Targeted delivery, safety, and efficacy of oral enteric-coated formulations of budesonide

Budesonide is a potent corticosteroid with a high first-pass metabolism rate. Two commercially available enteric-coated pH-dependent release formulations (Entocort EC and Budenofalk) deliver budesonide to the ileum and proximal colon, regions most commonly affected in Crohn's disease. The drug's effectiveness in this disease has been proven in multiple, placebo-controlled trials, where it has been shown to be superior to mesalamine and placebo, and equivalent to prednisolone for the control of mild to moderately active right-sided Crohn's disease. This beneficial therapeutic effect comes with less adrenal suppression and a small improvement in the clinical adverse effect profile, as compared to prednisolone. However, budesonide provides no benefit over conventional therapy for left-sided colonic disease, and it is less effective for treatment of more severe disease activity and more distal colonic disease. Continuous budesonide does not prolong remission and is, therefore, best used in an intermittent fashion to treat acute exacerbations.

Review article: systemic and topical steroids in inflammatory bowel disease

Steroids are still widely used in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases. Pharmacological studies have shown that there is no major abnormality in the pharmacokinetics of steroids in these disorders. Foam preparations with rectal application decrease the bioavailability to low levels, eliminating systemic complications. For oral use, 'nonsystemic' steroids have been developed. In ulcerative colitis, steroids are rarely needed as 5-aminosalicylates are effective in the majority of patients. This is true for rectal application in distal colitis, as well as in more extensive disease. In Crohn's disease, steroids are more often used; however, in population-based studies, less than 50% of patients have been treated with steroids, as there are alternative treatments available for the large group of patients with mild to moderate activity. For those patients needing steroid treatment, budesonide seems to be a good choice in active disease, but has not shown convincing effects in the maintenance of remission over longer periods of time. There is no place for long-term steroid treatment in ulcerative colitis and very little in Crohn's disease--immunosuppression with azathioprine or related drugs is certainly the better alternative.