Oral budesonide significantly improves water absorption in patients with ileostomy for Crohn disease

Clinical management of high-output stoma: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

High output is a common complication after stoma formation. Although the management of high output is described in the literature, there is a lack of consensus on definitions and treatment. Our aim was to review and summarise the current best evidence.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from 1 Jan 2000 to 31 Dec 2021 for relevant articles on adult patients with a high-output stoma. Patients with enteroatmospheric fistulas and case series/reports were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2 and MINORS. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021226621).

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 1095 articles, of which 32 studies with 768 patients met the inclusion criteria. These studies comprised 15 randomised controlled trials, 13 non-randomised prospective trials, and 4 retrospective cohort studies. Eighteen different interventions were assessed. In the meta-analysis, there was no difference in stoma output between controls and somatostatin analogues (g - 1.72, 95% CI - 4.09 to 0.65, p = 0.11, I2 = 88%, t2 = 3.09), loperamide (g - 0.34, 95% CI - 0.69 to 0.01, p = 0.05, I2 = 0%, t2 = 0) and omeprazole (g - 0.31, 95% CI  - 2.46 to 1.84, p = 0.32, I2 = 0%, t2 = 0). Thirteen randomised trials showed high concern of bias, one some concern, and one low concern. The non-randomised/retrospective trials had a median MINORS score of 12 out of 24 (range 7-17).

CONCLUSION

There is limited high-quality evidence favouring any specific widely used drug over the others in the management of high-output stoma. Evidence, however, is weak due to inconsistent definitions, risk of bias and poor methodology in the existing studies. We recommend the development of validated core descriptor and outcomes sets, as well as patient-reported outcome measures.

Budesonide as induction therapy for incomplete microscopic colitis: A randomised, placebo-controlled multicentre trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Incomplete microscopic colitis (MCi) is a subtype of microscopic colitis (MC). Budesonide is recommended as a first-line treatment for MC. However, randomised trials on efficacy of treatment in MCi are missing. We therefore performed a randomised, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate budesonide as induction therapy for MCi.

METHODS

Patients with active MCi were randomly assigned to either budesonide 9 mg once daily or placebo for 8 weeks in a double-blind, double-dummy design. The primary endpoint was clinical remission, defined as a mean of <3 stools/day and a mean of <1 watery stool/day in the 7 days before week 8.

RESULTS

Due to insufficient patient recruitment, the trial was discontinued prematurely. The intention-to-treat analysis included 44 patients (21 budesonide and 23 placebo). The primary endpoint of clinical remission at week 8 was obtained by 71.4% on budesonide and 43.5% on placebo (p = 0.0582). All clinical secondary endpoints were in favour of budesonide. Budesonide decreased the number of soft or watery stools (16.3 vs. 7.7, p = 0.0186) and improved health-related quality of life for all four dimensions of the short health scale. Adverse events with a suspected relation to study drug were reported in one patient in the budesonide group and two patients in the placebo group. Neither serious nor severe adverse events occurred during the double-blind phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide decreased the frequency of soft or watery stools and improved the patients' quality of life significantly in MCi, but the primary endpoint was not met due to the low sample size (type 2 error). Budesonide was safe and well tolerated during the 8-weeks treatment course.

Chronic intestinal failure and short bowel syndrome in Crohn’s disease

Chronic intestinal failure (CIF) is a rare but feared complication of Crohn’s disease. Depending on the remaining length of the small intestine, the affected intestinal segment, and the residual bowel function, CIF can result in a wide spectrum of symptoms, from single micronutrient malabsorption to complete intestinal failure. Management of CIF has improved significantly in recent years. Advances in home-based parenteral nutrition, in particular, have translated into increased survival and improved quality of life. Nevertheless, 60% of patients are permanently reliant on parenteral nutrition. Encouraging results with new drugs such as teduglutide have added a new dimension to CIF therapy. The outcomes of patients with CIF could be greatly improved by more effective prevention, understanding, and treatment. In complex cases, the care of patients with CIF requires a multidisciplinary approach involving not only physicians but also dietitians and nurses to provide optimal intestinal rehabilitation, nutritional support, and an improved quality of life. Here, we summarize current literature on CIF and short bowel syndrome, encompassing epidemiology, pathophysiology, and advances in surgical and medical management, and elucidate advances in the understanding and therapy of CIF-related complications such as catheter-related bloodstream infections and intestinal failure-associated liver disease.

Perioperative Dietary Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is rising worldwide and no cure is available. Many patients require surgery and they often present with nutritional deficiencies. Although randomised controlled trials of dietary therapy are lacking, expert IBD centres have long-established interdisciplinary care, including tailored nutritional therapy, to optimise clinical outcomes and resource utilisation. This topical review aims to share expertise and offers current practice recommendations to optimise outcomes of IBD patients who undergo surgery.

METHODS

A consensus expert panel consisting of dietitians, surgeons, and gastroenterologists, convened by the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation, performed a systematic literature review. Nutritional evaluation and dietary needs, perioperative optimis ation, surgical complications, long-term needs, and special situations were critically appraised. Statements were developed using a Delphi methodology incorporating three successive rounds. Current practice positions were set when ≥80% of participants agreed on a recommendation.

RESULTS

A total of 26 current practice positions were formulated which address the needs of IBD patients perioperatively and in the long term following surgery. Routine screening, perioperative optimisation by oral, enteral, or parenteral nutrition, dietary fibre, and supplements were reviewed. IBD-specific situations, including management of patients with a restorative proctocolectomy, an ostomy, strictures, or short-bowel syndrome, were addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative dietary therapy improves the outcomes of IBD patients who undergo a surgical procedure. This topical review shares interdisciplinary expertise and provides guidance to optimise the outcomes of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. taking advantage of contemporary nutrition science.

Ileostomy diarrhea: Pathophysiology and management

Ileostomy is a common component of surgical treatments for various gastrointestinal conditions. Loss of the fluid absorptive capacity of the colon results in increased fluid and electrolyte losses, which causes a state of relative fluid depletion. These losses can be offset in part by increased oral intake, but the remaining small intestine also compensates by increasing the efficiency of fluid and electrolyte absorption, a process termed adaptation, which occurs within weeks to months of ileostomy creation. Some patients fail to adapt adequately and have high ileostomy outputs from the time of surgery. Others with a previously well-adapted ileostomy may encounter periods of sustained high output when some additional process causes diarrhea. Many patients experience periods of high output after ileostomy creation and often require hospital readmission for this reason. Any patient with an ileostomy is at great risk of dehydration and electrolyte depletion should output rise dramatically. Prompt attention should be given to rehydration and identification of the underlying cause so that directed therapies may be implemented. This review discusses the alteration of normal intestinal fluid balance from colectomy with ileostomy, proposed mechanisms for adaptation, the differential diagnosis of ileostomy diarrhea, the evaluation of ileostomy diarrhea, and current treatment options.

Efficacy and Safety of Budesonide, vs Mesalazine or Placebo, as Induction Therapy for Lymphocytic Colitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Lymphocytic colitis is a common cause of chronic, nonbloody diarrhea. However, the effects of treatment are unclear and randomized placebo-controlled trials were requested in a Cochrane review. We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study to evaluate budesonide and mesalazine as induction therapy for lymphocytic colitis.

METHODS

Patients with active lymphocytic colitis were randomly assigned to groups given budesonide 9 mg once daily (Budenofalk granules), mesalazine 3 g once daily (Salofalk granules), or placebo for 8 weeks in a double-blind, double-dummy design. The primary endpoint was clinical remission, defined as ≤21 stools (including ≤6 watery stools), in the 7 days before week 8.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 57 patients (19 per group). Most patients were female (72%) and the mean age was 59 years. The proportion of patients in clinical remission at week 8 was significantly higher in the budesonide group than in the placebo group (intention-to-treat analysis, 79% vs 42%; P = .01). The difference in proportions of patients in clinical remission at week 8 between the mesalazine (63%) and placebo groups was not significant (P = .09). The proportion of patients with histologic remission at week 8 was significantly higher in the budesonide group (68%) vs the mesalazine (26%; P = .02) or placebo (21%; P = .008) groups. The incidence of adverse events was 47.4% in the budesonide group, 68.4% in the mesalazine group, and 42.1% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized multicenter study, we found oral budesonide 9 mg once daily to be effective and safe for induction of clinical and histologic remission in patients with lymphocytic colitis, compared with placebo. Oral mesalazine 3 g once daily was not significantly better than placebo. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01209208.

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.

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.

Budesonide for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are effective for induction, but not maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Significant concerns exist regarding the risk for adverse events, particularly when corticosteroids are used for long treatment courses. Budesonide is a glucocorticoid with limited systemic bioavailability due to extensive first-pass hepatic metabolism and is effective for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.

SEARCH METHODS

The following databases were searched from inception to 12 June 2014: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, 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

Randomized controlled trials comparing budesonide to a control treatment, or comparing two doses of budesonide, were included. The study population included patients of any age with quiescent Crohn's disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was maintenance of remission at various reported follow-up times during the study. Secondary outcomes included: time to relapse, mean change in CDAI, clinical, histological, improvement in quality of life, adverse events and study withdrawal. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi(2) and I(2) statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. Random-effects models were used to allow for expected clinical and statistical heterogeneity. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome was assessed using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies (n = 1273 patients) were included in the review: eight studies compared budesonide to placebo, one compared budesonide to 5-aminosalicylates, one compared budesonide to traditional systemic corticosteroids, one compared budesonide to azathioprine, and one compared two doses of budesonide. Nine studies used a controlled ileal release form of budesonide, while three used a pH-modified release formulation. Nine studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. Three studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to blinding and one of these studies also had inadequate allocation concealment. Budesonide 6 mg daily was no more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission at 3 months, 6 months or 12 months. At three months 64% of budesonide 6 mg patients remained in remission compared to 52% of placebo patients (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.58; 6 studies, 540 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was low due to moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 56%) and sparse data (315 events). At six months 61% of budesonide 6 mg patients remained in remission compared to 52% of placebo patients (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.39; 5 studies, 420 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (238 events). At 12 months 55% of budesonide 6 mg patients remained in remission compared to 48% of placebo patients (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; 5 studies, 420 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (215 events). Similarly, there was no significant benefit for budesonide 3 mg compared to placebo at 6 and 12 months. There was no statistically significant difference in continued remission at 12 months between budesonide and weaning doses of prednisolone (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13; 1 study, 90 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (51 events) and high risk of bias (no blinding). Budesonide 6 mg was better than mesalamine 3 g/day at 12 months (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.12; 1 study, 57 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to very sparse data (18 events) and high risk of bias (no blinding). There was no statistically significant difference in continued remission at 12 months between budesonide and azathioprine (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.08; 1 study 77 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to sparse data (55 events) and high risk of bias (single-blind and no allocation concealment). The use of budesonide 6 mg resulted in slight improvements in CDAI scores when assessed at 6 months (MD -24.30, 95% CI -46.31 to -2.29) and 12 months (MD -23.49, 95% CI -46.65 to -0.32) and mean time to relapse of disease (MD 59.93 days, 95% CI 19.02 to 100.84). Mean time to relapse was significantly shorter for patients receiving budesonide than for those receiving azathioprine (MD -58.00, 95% CI -96.68 to -19.32). Adverse events were not more common in patients treated with budesonide compared to placebo (6 mg: RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.52; 3 mg: RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.24). These events were relatively minor and did not result in increased rates of study withdrawal. Commonly reported treatment-related adverse effects included acne, moon facies, hirsutism, mood swings, insomnia, weight gain, striae, and hair loss. Abnormal adrenocorticoid stimulation tests were seen more frequently in patients receiving both 6 mg (RR 2.88, 95% CI 1.72 to 4.82) and 3 mg daily (RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.57) compared to placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest budesonide is not effective for maintenance of remission in CD, particularly when used beyond three months following induction of remission. Budesonide does have minor benefits in terms of lower CDAI scores and longer time to relapse of disease. However, these benefits are offset by higher treatment-related adverse event rates and more frequent adrenocorticoid suppression in patients receiving budesonide.

Budesonide is more effective than mesalamine or placebo in short-term treatment of collagenous colitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Studies reporting that budesonide is effective for the treatment of collagenous colitis have been small and differed in efficacy measures. Mesalamine has been proposed as a treatment option for collagenous colitis, although its efficacy has never been investigated in placebo-controlled trials. We performed a phase 3, placebo-controlled, multicenter study to evaluate budesonide and mesalamine as short-term treatments for collagenous colitis.

METHODS

Patients with active collagenous colitis were randomly assigned to groups given pH-modified release oral budesonide capsules (9 mg budesonide once daily, Budenofalk, n = 30), mesalamine granules (3 g mesalamine once daily, Salofalk, n = 25), or placebo for 8 weeks (n = 37) in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion. The study was conducted in 31 centers (hospital clinics and private practices) in Germany, Denmark, Lithuania, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The primary end point was clinical remission at 8 weeks defined as ≤ 3 stools per day. Secondary end points included clinical remission at 8 weeks, according to the Hjortswang-Criteria of disease activity, taking stool consistency into account.

RESULTS

A greater percentage of patients in the budesonide group were in clinical remission at week 8 than the placebo group (intention-to-treat analysis, 80.0% vs 59.5%; P = .072; per-protocol analysis, 84.8% vs 60.6%; P = .046). Based on the Hjortswang-Criteria, 80.0% of patients given budesonide achieved clinical remission compared with 37.8% of patients given placebo (P = .0006); 44.0% of patients given mesalamine achieved clinical remission, but budesonide was superior to mesalamine (P = .0035). Budesonide significantly improved stool consistency and mucosal histology, and alleviated abdominal pain. The rate of adverse events did not differ among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral budesonide (9 mg once daily) is effective and safe for short-term treatment of collagenous colitis. Short-term treatment with oral mesalamine (3 g once daily) appears to be ineffective. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00450086.

Budesonide for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids have been shown to be effective for induction, but not maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. However, significant concerns exist regarding their risk for adverse events, particularly when used for long treatment courses. Budesonide is a glucocorticoid with limited systemic bioavailability due to extensive first-pass hepatic metabolism. Budesonide has been shown to be effective for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for maintenance 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. Study authors, study sponsors and pharmaceutical companies were also contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing budesonide to a control treatment, or comparing two doses of budesonide, were included. The study population included patients of any age with Crohn's disease in remission. The primary outcome was maintenance of remission at various reported follow-up times during the study, up to 12 months following enrollment. Secondary outcomes included: time to relapse, mean change in CDAI, clinical, histological or endoscopic improvement, improvement in quality of life, adverse events and study withdrawal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed study quality using Jadad's criteria. A random or fixed effects model was chosen based on an assessment of heterogeneity, and studies were weighted using the DerSimonian & Laird or the Mantel-Haenszel method accordingly. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 4.2.10 software.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies were included in the review: 8 studies compared budesonide with placebo, one compared budesonide to 5-aminosalicylates, one compared budesonide to traditional systemic corticosteroids, and one compared two doses of budesonide with no control group. Eight studies used a controlled ileal release form of budesonide, while three used a pH-modified release formulation. Budesonide 6 mg daily was no more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission at 3 months (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.58; P = 0.05), 6 months (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.39; P = 0.14), or 12 months (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; P = 0.19). Budesonide was not more effective than weaning doses of prednisolone for maintenance of remission at 12 months (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13; P = 0.20), but was better than mesalamine 3 grams per day (RR of remission 2.51; 95% CI 1.03 to 6.12; P = 0.04). Budesonide 3 mg daily was more effective than placebo at 3 months (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.67; P = 0.03). This benefit was not sustained at 6 months (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.50; P = 0.53), or 12 months (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.30; P = 0.70). No differences in efficacy were detected based on the different formulations of budesonide, methods used to induce remission, or budesonide dose. The use of budesonide 6 mg resulted in slight improvements in CDAI scores when assessed at 6 months (WMD -24.3; 95% CI -46.31 to -2.29; P = 0.03) and 12 months (WMD -23.49; 95% CI -46.65 to -0.32; P = 0.05) and mean time to relapse of disease (WMD 59.93 days; 95% CI 19.02 to 100.84; P = 0.004). Adverse events were more frequent in patients treated with 6 mg of budesonide compared with placebo (RR 1.49; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.19; P = 0.05), but not in patients using lower doses of budesonide. These events were relatively minor and did not result in increased rates of study withdrawal. Abnormal adrenocorticoid stimulation tests were seen more frequently in patients receiving both 6 mg daily (RR 2.88; 95% CI 1.72 to 4.82; P < 0.0001) and 3 mg daily (RR 2.73; 95% CI 1.34 to 5.57; P = 0.006) compared with placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide is not more effective than placebo or weaning prednisolone for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Some modest benefits are noted in patients receiving budesonide compared with placebo in terms of lower CDAI scores and longer time to relapse of disease. However, these benefits are offset by higher treatment-related adverse event rates and more frequent adrenocorticoid suppression in patients receiving budesonide. Therefore, budesonide is not recommended for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.

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.

Ileostomy diarrhea

Ileostomy diarrhea is not an uncommon problem and can lead to considerable loss of quality of life. Unfortunately, well-designed therapeutic trials are lacking, and thus, treatment of patients with ileostomy diarrhea remains largely empiric. The majority of individuals will have "idiopathic" ileostomy diarrhea, or increased output due to proctocolectomy with limited ileal resection alone. Once other, less common causes are excluded, empiric treatment should be initiated with the safest, least costly option. In general, this consists of a dietary evaluation and symptomatic treatment with loperamide and advancing as needed to other, more expensive options, frequently with an increase in side effect profile. Other more recently evaluated treatment options include budesonide and oleic acid; however, efficacy has only been demonstrated in preliminary studies; further evaluation is needed. Limited data exist regarding success of surgical therapy such as reversed peristaltic ileal segments. It remains to be seen if surgery, other than ileostomy revision, has a role in the treatment of ileostomy diarrhea.

Long-term treatment of high intestinal output syndrome with budesonide in patients with Crohn's disease and ileostomy

PURPOSE

In a previous, controlled study, it was shown that orally administered budesonide increases the absorptive capacity of the intestinal mucosa in patients with ileostomies caused by Crohn's disease. This open, nonrandomized study was designed to analyze this functional, not inflammation-dependent steroid-effect in the long-term course comparing exposure, withdrawal, and reexposure.

METHODS

Phase 1: 23 patients without inflammatory activity of the disease received oral budesonide (3 mg t.i.d.) for at least four weeks (36.7 weeks; standard deviation, 45.3 weeks) because of high intestinal output syndrome. Phase 2: Medication was stopped for four weeks. Phase 3: Medication as in Phase 1. In each phase the weight of the ileostomy bags was measured with a spring balance before emptying and documented in a diary. Mean values per day and per week were calculated and the differences statistically evaluated by the Wilcoxon-(Pratt)-test.

RESULTS

Comparing the last week of Phase 1 to first week of Phase 2, a significant (P < 0.0001) increase of the intestinal output (295 g; standard deviation, 313 g) was observed after omitting budesonide. In contrast, comparing the last week of Phase 2 to Phase 3, a significant (P < 0.0001) decrease of the intestinal output by 323.7 g (standard deviation, 322.2 g) was noticed reaching the same level as in Phase 1.

CONCLUSIONS

These data show that the functional, inflammation-independent effect of budesonide on the intestinal mucosa is strongly correlated to the administration of the drug and may be maintained long-term. These results should be confirmed by a larger number of patients.

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.