Leukocytapheresis with leukocyte removal filter for severe ulcerative colitis in childhood

Therapeutic landscape for ulcerative colitis: where is the Adacolumn(®) system and where should it be?

Granulocyte-monocyte apheresis is a relatively new therapy that has been proposed, sometimes with controversial results, for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, particularly ulcerative colitis. The aim of the present study was to perform a thorough review of the literature on the application of this type of treatment in ulcerative colitis and discuss the results, in order to provide an opinion on its use which is shared by the involved experts. The review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed with appropriate key words. The results obtained suggest that the major role for this treatment at this moment is for those patients with steroid dependency or with major contraindications to use of steroids. However, promising, albeit very preliminary, results have also been observed in steroid-naïve subjects, and this is of particular interest in consideration of the safety profile of this therapeutic method. As such, the Adacolumn may prove useful in specific subgroups of patients. Future phenotypic, genotypic, and molecular characterization of patients with inflammatory bowel disease might prove useful in defining better those subjects who might benefit most from this treatment modality.

Safety and efficacy of granulocyte and monocyte adsorption apheresis in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Selective granulocyte-monocyte adsorption (GMA) apheresis is a safe technique that has shown efficacy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), especially in adult steroid-dependent and steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. GMA apheresis is performed with Adacolumn, a direct blood perfusion system that selectively adsorbs circulating granulocytes and monocytes. Studies on efficacy of GMA apheresis in paediatric IBD are scarce. Our aim was to evaluate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of GMA apheresis in paediatric IBD patients followed for 1 year.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Nine patients with a mild to moderate flare-up (6 boys, 3 girls; 5 ulcerative colitis [UC], 4 Crohn disease [CD]) were included. Mean age at inclusion was 13 years and 9 months, and mean disease duration before inclusion was 28 months. All of our patients with UC were steroid-dependent; patients with CD had been unsuccessfully treated with other therapies. GMA apheresis consisted of 5 consecutive weekly sessions lasting 60 minutes each.

RESULTS

After the 5 sessions, 4 of 5 patients with UC and 1 of 4 patients with CD achieved remission. This remission was maintained in 2 of 4 patients with UC and in the single patients with CD. Patients taking steroids could begin to taper their daily doses after the second apheresis, and 3 of 5 of these patients reached the end of the study steroid-free. GMA apheresis was well tolerated and no severe side effects related to the technique were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

GMA apheresis is a safe, well-tolerated technique in paediatric IBD. As previously reported, we have observed a better efficacy in promoting and maintaining remission, and reducing conventional drugs in patients with UC than in patients with CD.

Selection of Anticoagulants for Leukocytapheresis Therapy in Cases of Active Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Leukocytapheresis (LCAP) is an extracorporeal leukocyte removal therapy that removes immunocompetent leukocytes from the peripheral blood. Nafamostat mesilate (NM) is the most commonly used anticoagulant for LCAP due to various benefits associated with its use, such as a reduced likelihood of bleeding and minimization of adverse reactions caused by contact between blood and the LCAP device. However, adverse reactions have also been reported with NM administration. We reviewed the safety of anticoagulants other than NM, from the perspective of bradykinin production and the consequent drop in blood pressure during treatment.

METHODS

For each of 10 patients with ulcerative colitis, we used four types of anticoagulants sequentially [NM (30-50 mg), heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and NM (1 mg), and LMWH] for LCAP. We then examined the changes in the blood bradykinin concentrations from the perspective of adverse reactions during LCAP.

RESULTS

The bradykinin production levels from Cellsorba EX varied, depending on the type of anticoagulant used. NM alone (30-50 mg) or LMWH + NM (1 mg) inhibited bradykinin production, whereas heparin alone or LMWH alone significantly accelerated it. However, an excessive fall of blood pressure was not noted in any of the cases. Use of LMWH alone was frequently associated with pressure elevations in the column.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the significant benefits of minimized adverse reactions of LCAP and of continuation of LCAP, we suggest that an appropriate selection of the anticoagulant(s) may allow safer execution of LCAP.