Beclomethasone dipropionate in Crohn's ileitis: a randomised, double-blind trial

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.

Comparative safety of systemic and low-bioavailability steroids in inflammatory bowel disease: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS

Oral systemic corticosteroids have been used to induce remission in patients with active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) for over 50 years; however, the wide array of adverse events (AEs) associated with these drugs prompted the development of steroid compounds with targeted delivery and low systemic bioavailability. This study assessed corticosteroids' comparative harm using network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries, regulatory authorities' websites and major conference proceedings, through March 2017. Randomized controlled trials that recruited adult IBD patients and compared oral systemic corticosteroids (prednisone/prednisolone) or compounds/formulations with low systemic bioavailability (budesonide, budesonide MMX, and beclomethasone dipropionate) with placebo, or against each other, were considered eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and outcomes, and rated each trial's risk-of-bias.

RESULTS

We identified and synthesized evidence from 31 trials including 5689 IBD patients. Budesonide MMX was associated with significantly fewer corticosteroid-related AEs than oral systemic corticosteroids [odds ratio (OR): 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13-0.49] and beclomethasone (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13-1.00), but not significantly fewer AEs than budesonide (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.37-1.11); it performed equally good with placebo. By contrast, the occurrence of serious AEs, and treatment discontinuations due to AEs, did not differ between the comparator treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide MMX is associated with fewer corticosteroid-related AEs than its comparator steroid treatments for adult IBD patients. Further high-quality research is warranted to illuminate the steroid drugs' comparative safety profiles.

Safety of treatments for inflammatory bowel disease: Clinical practice guidelines of the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IG-IBD)

Inflammatory bowel diseases are chronic conditions of unknown etiology, showing a growing incidence and prevalence in several countries, including Italy. Although the etiology of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis is unknown, due to the current knowledge regarding their pathogenesis, effective treatment strategies have been developed. Several guidelines are available regarding the efficacy and safety of available drug treatments for inflammatory bowel diseases. Nevertheless, national guidelines provide additional information adapted to local feasibility, costs and legal issues related to the use of the same drugs. These observations prompted the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IG-IBD) to establish Italian guidelines on the safety of currently available treatments for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. These guidelines discuss the use of aminosalicylates, systemic and low bioavailability corticosteroids, antibiotics (metronidazole, ciprofloxacin, rifaximin), thiopurines, methotrexate, cyclosporine A, TNFα antagonists, vedolizumab, and combination therapies. These guidelines are based on current knowledge derived from evidence-based medicine coupled with clinical experience of a national working group.

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.

Oral locally active steroids in inflammatory bowel disease

IBD is a chronic and relapsing inflammatory disorder of the gut that demands long-lasting treatment targeting both flare-up periods and maintenance of remission. Oral systemic steroids have been used to induce remission in patients with active IBD for over 50 years due to their potent anti-inflammatory effects. The efficacy of systemic steroids in this setting has been largely demonstrated. However, the wide range of adverse events associated with these drugs has prompted the development of equally effective but less toxic steroid compounds. Currently, topically acting oral steroids are an important therapeutic option for Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis and microscopic colitis, being oral budesonide and oral beclomethasone established elements of the IBD armamentarium. At present, oral budesonide is the first-line therapy to induce remission in microscopic colitis and mild to moderate ileocaecal CD patients and oral beclomethasone is effective treating mild to moderate UC patients with left-sided or extensive disease. This review aims at evaluating the current role of these compounds in IBD clinical practice.

Glucocorticosteroids in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and approaches to minimizing systemic activity

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are a group of inflammatory conditions characterized by chronic, uncontrolled inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. Reported prevalence is high in the United States and northern Europe, while the incidence varies greatly across the rest of Europe. Glucocorticosteroids are the standard treatment for IBD, but due to adverse events their use can be limited. However, new formulations of glucocorticosteroids have been developed to reduce systemic activation. The aim of this review was to assess and summarize the efficacy and safety of new formulations of glucocorticosteroids. A MEDLINE search identified publications focused on new formulations of nonsystemic steroid-based drugs for IBD and benefits and limitations of each of the new glucocorticosteroid formulations were identified. Budesonide has good efficacy and is an established treatment for Crohn's disease; it has been shown to be beneficial for the induction of remission in these patients, although it is not recommended for the maintenance of induced remission. Glucocorticosteroids are not recommended for the maintenance of remission in patients with IBD. However, a recent study suggested that beclomethasone dipropionate may be effective for prolonged treatment in patients in the postacute phase of Crohn's disease who were treated with a short course of systemic steroids. The efficacy of fluticasone propionate and prednisolone metasulphobenzoate in IBD is not well established given the small number of patients enrolled in the few published clinical trials. While the tolerability of these glucocorticosteroids is favourable, more research comparing these new agents with traditional systemic glucocorticosteroids is warranted.