Leukocytapheresis for Ulcerative Colitis: A Comparative Study of Anticoagulant (Nafamostat Mesilate vs. Dalteparin Sodium) for Reducing Clinical Complications

Cytapheresis (CAP) with leukocyte removal filter/bead column as one therapeutic option for inflammatory bowel disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) like Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are chronic inflammatory disorders that affect the bowel. The disease is characterized by periods of clinical remission and relapse due to severe intestinal inflammation. Drug therapy of IBD is associated with unpleasant side effects. Further, efficacies of conventional drugs decrease with chronic use and this can represent a major difficulty in the long term management of IBD. However, in active IBD, leukocytes are elevated in the lesion they may be able to be a factor of IBD aggravation. Membrane filters column and leukocyte adsorbing beads have been developed which are direct blood perfusion systems for removing any desired level of leukocytes. Clinical studies with these two new models have shown good effects for active IBD. Clinical data suggest that leukocytapheresis might be an effective adjunct to therapy of IBD, to promote remission, taper conventional drug dosage and potentially should reduce the number of patients who require colectomy. The results may further understandings of the pathophysiology of IBD and this in turn should contribute to a more effective treatment of this disorder.

Safety and Tolerability of Nafamostat Mesilate and Heparin as Anticoagulants in Leukocytapheresis for Ulcerative Colitis: Post Hoc Analysis of a Large-Scale, Prospective, Observational Study

Nafamostat mesilate is the first anticoagulant of choice for leukocytapheresis (LCAP) with a Cellsorba E column for treating ulcerative colitis (UC). However, because of complications, mainly due to allergy to nafamostat mesilate, heparin may be used as a substitute. To evaluate the safety and tolerability of nafamostat mesilate and heparin as anticoagulants in LCAP for UC, we conducted post hoc analysis of data from a large-scale, prospective, observational study of LCAP, which was conducted at 116 medical facilities in Japan between May 2010 and December 2012. Of 832 patients included in this analysis, nafamostat mesilate and heparin were used in 676 (81.3%) and 113 (13.6%), respectively. There were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse reactions (8.6% vs. 7.1%) and intrafilter pressure increases (12.7% vs. 16.8%) between the nafamostat mesilate and heparin groups. Adverse reactions of hemorrhage or blood pressure decreases associated with heparin use were not observed. There were no significant differences in rates of clinical remission (69.1% vs. 68.1%) and mucosal healing (62.9% vs. 63.6%) between the nafamostat mesilate and heparin groups. Thus, the safety and tolerability were comparable in the nafamostat mesilate and heparin groups, indicating that both nafamostat mesilate and heparin can be well tolerated as anticoagulants in LCAP for UC.

Unfractionated or low-molecular weight heparin for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

There are a limited number of treatment options for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). An increased risk of thrombosis in UC coupled with an observation that UC patients being treated with anticoagulant therapy for thrombotic events had an improvement in their bowel symptoms led to trials examining the use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in patients with active UC.

OBJECTIVES

To review randomized trials examining the efficacy of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for remission induction in patients with ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD/FBD group specialized trials register up to June 2014. We also searched review papers on ulcerative colitis and references from identified papers in an effort to identify additional randomized trials studying UFH or LMWH use in patients with ulcerative colitis. We searched abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings to identify research published in abstract form.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing UFH or LMWH to placebo or a control therapy for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis were included. Studies published in abstract form only were included if the authors could be contacted for further information.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A data extraction form was developed and used to extract data from included studies. Two authors independently extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess study quality. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was induction of remission, as defined by the studies. Secondary outcomes measures included: endoscopic remission as defined by the authors; clinical, histological or endoscopic improvement as defined by the authors; the occurrence of adverse events; the occurrence of bleeding; and improvements in quality of life as measured by a validated instrument. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval for dichotomous outcomes. Data were combined for analysis if they assessed the same treatments (UFH or LMWH versus placebo or other therapy). The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies were eligible for inclusion (329 patients). Three studies (270 patients) compared low molecular weight heparin to placebo, one study (34 patients) compared LMWH in addition to standard therapy, and one study (25 patients) compared UFH to corticosteroids. The study comparing UFH to corticosteroids was rated at high risk of bias due to a single-blind design. The study that compared the addition of LMWH to standard therapy to standard therapy alone was rated at high risk of bias due to open-label design. The other three studies were rated as low risk of bias. LMWH administered subcutaneously showed no benefit over placebo for any outcome, including clinical remission (very low quality of evidence), and clinical, endoscopic, or histological improvement. High dose LMWH administered via an extended colon-release tablet demonstrated benefit over placebo for clinical remission (RR 1.39; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.77 ; P = 0.008; very low quality of evidence), clinical improvement (RR 1.28; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.55; P = 0.01; very low quality of evidence), and endoscopic improvement (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.47 ; P = 0.05) but not endoscopic remission or histologic improvement. LMWH was not beneficial when added to standard therapy for clinical remission, clinical improvement, endoscopic remission or endoscopic improvement. LMWH was well-tolerated but provided no significant benefit for quality of life. One study examining UFH versus corticosteroids for the treatment of severe UC demonstrated the inferiority of UFH for clinical improvement. More patients assigned to UFH had rectal hemorrhage as an adverse event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence to suggest that LMWH may be effective for the treatment of active UC. When administered by extended colon-release tablets, LMWH was more effective than placebo for treating outpatients with mild to moderate disease. This benefit needs to be confirmed by further randomized controlled studies. The same benefits were not seen when LMWH was administered subcutaneously at lower doses. There is no evidence to support the use of UFH for the treatment of active UC. A further trial of UFH in patients with mild disease may also be justified. Any benefit found would need to be weighed against a possible increased risk of rectal bleeding in patients with active UC.

Unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis: a Cochrane inflammatory bowel disease and functional bowel disorders systematic review of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

We aimed to systematically review the efficacy of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for remission induction in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

A literature search to April 2011 was performed to identify all randomized trials studying UFH or LMWH use in patients with UC. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess study quality.

RESULTS

LMWH administered subcutaneously showed no benefit over placebo for any outcome, including clinical remission, and clinical, endoscopic, or histological improvement. High-dose LMWH administered via an extended colon-release tablet demonstrated benefit over placebo for clinical remission (odds ratio [OR] 2.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-5.67; P = 0.007), clinical improvement (OR 2.99; 95% CI 1.30-6.87; P = 0.01), and endoscopic improvement (OR 2.25; 95% CI 1.01-5.01; P = 0.05) but not endoscopic remission or histologic improvement. LMWH was not beneficial when added to standard therapy for clinical remission, clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, or endoscopic improvement. One study examining UFH versus corticosteroids for the treatment of severe UC demonstrated the inferiority of UFH for clinical improvement. More patients assigned to UFH had rectal hemorrhage as an adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

LMWH administered by extended colon-release tablets may be effective for the treatment of active UC. This benefit needs to be confirmed by further randomized controlled studies. The same benefits were not seen when LMWH was administered subcutaneously at lower doses. There is no evidence to support the use of UFH for the treatment of active UC.

Unfractionated or low-molecular weight heparin for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

There are a limited number of treatment options for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). An increased risk of thrombosis in UC coupled with an observation that UC patients being treated with anticoagulant therapy for thrombotic events had an improvement in their bowel symptoms led to trials examining the use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in patients with active UC.

OBJECTIVES

To review randomized trials examining the efficacy of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for remission induction in patients with ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The MEDLINE (PUBMED), and EMBASE databases, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane IBD/FBD group specialized trials register, review papers on ulcerative colitis, and references from identified papers were searched up to June 2010 in an effort to identify all randomized trials studying UFH or LMWH use in patients with ulcerative colitis. Abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings were searched to identify research published in abstract form only.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Each author independently reviewed potentially relevant trials to determine their eligibility for inclusion based on the criteria identified above. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess study quality. Studies published in abstract form only were included if the authors could be contacted for further information.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A data extraction form was developed and used to extract data from included studies. At least 2 authors independently extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was induction of remission, as defined by the studies. Data were combined for analysis if they assessed the same treatments (UFH or LMWH versus placebo or other therapy).

MAIN RESULTS

LMWH administered subcutaneously showed no benefit over placebo for any outcome, including clinical remission, and clinical, endoscopic, or histological improvement. High dose LMWH administered via an extended colon-release tablet demonstrated benefit over placebo for clinical remission (OR 2.73; 95% CI 1.32 to 5.67; P = 0.007), clinical improvement (OR 2.99; 95% CI 1.30 to 6.87; P = 0.01), and endoscopic improvement (OR 2.25; 95%CI 1.01 to 5.01; P = 0.05) but not endoscopic remission or histologic improvement. LMWH was not beneficial when added to standard therapy for clinical remission, clinical improvement, endoscopic remission or endoscopic improvement. LMWH was well-tolerated but provided no significant benefit for quality of life. One study examining UFH versus corticosteroids for the treatment of severe UC demonstrated the inferiority of UFH for clinical improvement. More patients assigned to UFH had rectal hemorrhage as an adverse event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence to suggest that LMWH may be effective for the treatment of active UC. When administered by extended colon-release tablets, LMWH was more effective than placebo for treating outpatients with mild to moderate disease. This benefit needs to be confirmed by further randomized controlled studies. The same benefits were not seen when LMWH was administered subcutaneously at lower doses. There is no evidence to support the use of UFH for the treatment of active UC. A further trial of UFH in patients with mild disease may also be justified. Any benefit found would need to be weighed against a possible increased risk of rectal bleeding in patients with active UC.

Unfractionated or low-molecular weight heparin for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

There are a limited number of treatment options for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). An increased risk of thrombosis in UC coupled with an observation that UC patients being treated with anticoagulant therapy for thrombotic events had an improvement in their bowel symptoms led to trials examining the use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in patients with active UC.

OBJECTIVES

To review randomized trials examining the efficacy of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for remission induction in patients with ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The MEDLINE (PUBMED), and EMBASE databases, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane IBD/FBD group specialized trials register, review papers on ulcerative colitis, and references from identified papers were searched in an effort to identify all randomized trials studying UFH or LMWH use in patients with ulcerative colitis. Abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings were searched to identify research published in abstract form only.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Each author independently reviewed potentially relevant trials to determine their eligibility for inclusion based on the criteria identified above. The Jadad scale was used to assess study quality. Studies published in abstract form only were included if the authors could be contacted for further information.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A data extraction form was developed and used to extract data from included studies. At least 2 authors independently extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data were analyzed using Review Manager (RevMan 4.2.9). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, and treated dichotomously. In cross-over studies, only data from the first arm were included. The primary endpoint was induction of remission, as defined by the studies. Data were combined for analysis if they assessed the same treatments (UFH or LMWH versus placebo or other therapy). If a comparison was only assessed in a single trial, P-values were derived using the chi-square test. If the comparison was assessed in more than one trial, summary test statistics were derived using the Peto odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The presence of heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the chi-square test (a P value of 0.10 was regarded as statistically significant). If statistically significant heterogeneity was identified the odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 2 randomized, double-blind studies assessing LMWH versus placebo for the treatment of mild-moderate active UC. Various outcomes were assessed in the 2 studies. LMWH showed no benefit over placebo in any outcome, including clinical remission (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.26 to 4.63; P = 0.91), clinical improvement (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66; P = 0.45 and OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.18 to 6.58; P = 0.92 in the two studies, respectively), endoscopic improvement (OR 1.35; 95% CI 0.29 to 6.18; P = 0.70), or histological improvement (OR 2.00; 95% CI 0.45 to 8.96; P = 0.37). LMWH was also not beneficial when added to standard therapy in a randomized open-label trial in which the outcome measures included clinical remission (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.17 to 2.95; P = 0.64), clinical improvement (OR 2.00; 95% CI 0.31 to 12.75; P = 0.46), endoscopic remission (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.17 to 2.95; P = 0.64), or endoscopic improvement (OR 1.40; 95% CI 0.34 to 5.79; P = 0.64). LMWH was well-tolerated and provided no significant benefit for quality of life. One study examining UFH versus corticosteroids in the treatment of severe UC demonstrated inferiority of UFH in clinical improvement as an outcome measure (OR 0.02; 95% CI 0 to 0.40; P = 0.01). Patients assigned to UFH did not improve clinically. More patients assigned to UFH had rectal hemorrhage as an adverse event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support the use of UFH or LMWH for the treatment of active UC. No further trials examining these drugs for patients with UC are warranted, except perhaps a trial of UFH in patients with mild disease. Any benefit found would need to be weighed against a possible increased risk of rectal bleeding in patients with active UC.