Double blind trial of oral fluticasone propionate v prednisolone in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis

British Society of Gastroenterology endorsed guidance for the management of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced enterocolitis

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a novel class of cancer treatment that have improved outcomes for a subset of cancer patients. They work by antagonising inhibitory immune pathways, thereby augmenting immune-mediated antitumour responses. However, immune activation is not cancer-specific and often results in the activation of immune cells in non-cancer tissues, resulting in off-target immune-mediated injury and organ dysfunction. Diarrhoea and gastrointestinal tract inflammation are common and sometimes serious side-effects of this type of therapy. Prompt recognition of gastrointestinal toxicity and, in many cases, rapid institution of anti-inflammatory or biologic therapy (or both) is required to reverse these complications. Management of organ-specific complications benefits from multidisciplinary input, including engagement with gastroenterologists for optimal management of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced enterocolitis. In this British Society of Gastroenterology endorsed guidance document, we have developed a consensus framework for the investigation and management of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced enterocolitis.

Histologic Healing Rates of Medical Therapies for Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

Histologic remission is a potentially valuable means of assessing disease activity and treatment response in ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the efficacy of existing therapies to achieve this outcome is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of histologic outcomes in UC randomized controlled trials and examined the relationship between histologic and endoscopic outcomes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Register were searched for randomized controlled trials of aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, immunosuppressives, biologics, and small molecules. Histologic and endoscopic remission and response data were independently extracted and pooled using binomial-normal random-effect or fixed-effect models. Pooled efficacy estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RRs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Univariable and multivariable random-effect meta-regression models examined factors associated with histologic remission.

RESULTS

Seventy-four studies (68 induction and 7 maintenance) were identified. Topical aminosalicylate enemas [37.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 29.0-46.3] and suppositories (44.9%, 95% CI, 28.9-62.3) had the highest induction of histologic remission rates. Aminosalicylate enemas (RR = 4.14, 95% CI, 2.35-7.31), aminosalicylate suppositories (RR = 3.94, 95% CI, 1.26-12.32), and budesonide multimatrix (RR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.08-1.99) had higher histologic remission rates than placebo. Data were lacking for biologics and immunosuppressives. The pooled histologic remission rate for placebo in induction studies was 10.4% (95% CI, 7.1-15.2). Histologic and endoscopic remission correlated strongly (r = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78). In multivariate analysis of placebo-arm data, less severe clinical disease activity and corticosteroid use were associated with higher histologic remission rates. Similarly, mild clinical disease activity was associated with higher histologic remission rates when active-arm data were analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

Histologic remission rates for current UC treatments ranged from 15.0% to 44.9% according to drug class and patient population with the highest rates observed for topical aminosalicylates. Placebo remission rates were low with relatively narrow CIs. These data provide benchmarks to inform future trial design. Histologic remission is a potential treatment target in clinical practice.

AGA Technical Review on the Management of Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis

Most patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) have mild-to-moderate disease activity, with low risk of colectomy, and are managed by primary care physicians or gastroenterologists. Optimal management of these patients decreases the risk of relapse and proximal disease extension, and may prevent disease progression, complications, and need for immunosuppressive therapy. With several medications (eg, sulfasalazine, diazo-bonded 5-aminosalicylates [ASA], mesalamines, and corticosteroids, including budesonide) and complex dosing formulations, regimens, and routes, to treat a disease with variable anatomic extent, there is considerable practice variability in the management of patients with mild-moderate UC. Hence, the American Gastroenterological Association prioritized clinical guidelines on this topic. To inform clinical guidelines, this technical review was developed in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework for interventional studies. Focused questions included the following: (1) comparative effectiveness and tolerability of different oral 5-ASA therapies (sulfalsalazine vs diazo-bonded 5-ASAs vs mesalamine; low- (<2 g) vs standard (2-3 g/d) vs high-dose (>3 g/d) mesalamine); (2) comparison of different dosing regimens (once-daily vs multiple times per day dosing) and routes (oral vs rectal vs both oral and rectal); (3) role of oral budesonide in patients mild-moderate UC; (4) comparative effectiveness and tolerability of rectal 5-ASA and corticosteroid formulations in patients with distal colitis; and (5) role of alternative therapies like probiotics, curcumin, and fecal microbiota transplantation in the management of mild-moderate UC.

The use of oral corticosteroids in inflammatory bowel diseases in Italy: An IG-IBD survey

AIM

To evaluate how Italian gastroenterologists use corticosteroids in clinical practice for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All members of the Italian Group for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IG-IBD) were invited to fill in a web-based questionnaire.

RESULTS

131/448 (29.2%) members completed the survey. In mild-to-moderate UC and CD relapses, low-bioavailability steroids (LBS) are first-line therapy for 37% and 42% of clinicians, respectively. In case of failure, immediate step-up to biologics or immunosuppressants is considered by 23% and 29%. Regarding conventional corticosteroids (CCS), a fixed starting dose is prescribed by 50%, and a weight-based dose by 22%. Tapering is started after 7-10days by 41% and after 14days by 32%. The preferred tapering schedule is 5mg/week. In case of CCS failure, 47% switch to parenteral steroids before considering shifting to different drug classes. In case of symptoms recurrence during tapering, 14% re-increase the dose and try tapering again. Before prescribing steroids, 72% do not prescribe any specific evaluation whereas during treatment some evaluation is performed by 85%. Vitamin D and calcium supplements are routinely prescribed along with steroids by 38%.

CONCLUSIONS

Several discrepancies and some deviation from the available guidelines were recorded among Italian gastroenterologists regarding corticosteroids use in IBD patients.

Safety Considerations with the Use of Corticosteroids and Biologic Therapies in Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

The risk of corticosteroid-associated adverse events can limit the use of systemic corticosteroids. Oral, topically acting, second-generation corticosteroids that deliver drug to the site of inflammation, and biologic therapies, are effective treatment alternatives. The aim of this review was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of topically acting corticosteroids and biologic therapies versus oral systemic corticosteroids for ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for clinical and observational trials, systematic reviews, and case reports/series published between January 1950 and September 30, 2016. Search terms used included "corticosteroids," "beclomethasone dipropionate," "budesonide," "infliximab," "adalimumab," "golimumab," and "vedolizumab" in combination with "ulcerative colitis" or "inflammatory bowel disease."

RESULTS

A total of 582 studies were identified from PubMed searches. Only 1 direct comparative trial for oral topically acting corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids was available, and no comparative trials versus biologic therapies were identified. In patients with mild-to-moderate UC, short-term (4-8 wk) oral beclomethasone dipropionate or oral budesonide multimatrix system demonstrated safety profiles comparable with placebo with few corticosteroid-related adverse events reported. Based on long-term data in patients with moderate-to-severe UC, biologics have a generally tolerable adverse event profile, although infections, infusion reactions, and autoimmune disorders were frequently reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-generation corticosteroids, beclomethasone dipropionate and budesonide multimatrix system, exhibited a favorable safety profile in patients with mild-to-moderate UC. For biologics, which are only indicated in moderate-to-severe UC, additional studies are needed to further ascertain the benefit to risk profile of these agents in patients with mild-to-moderate disease (see Video Abstract, Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/IBD/B653).

Time to clinical response and remission for therapeutics in inflammatory bowel diseases: What should the clinician expect, what should patients be told?

An awareness of the expected time for therapies to induce symptomatic improvement and remission is necessary for determining the timing of follow-up, disease (re)assessment, and the duration to persist with therapies, yet this is seldom reported as an outcome in clinical trials. In this review, we explore the time to clinical response and remission of current therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as well as medication, patient and disease related factors that may influence the time to clinical response. It appears that the time to therapeutic response varies depending on the indication for therapy (Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis). Agents with the most rapid time to clinical response included corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, exclusive enteral nutrition, aminosalicylates and anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy which will work in most patients within the first 2 mo. Vedolizumab, methotrexate and thiopurines had a longer time to clinical response and can take several months to achieve maximal efficacy. Factors affecting the time to clinical response of therapies included use of concomitant therapy, disease duration, smoking status, disease phenotype and advanced age. There appears to be marked variation in time to clinical response for therapies used in IBD which is further influenced by disease and patient related factors. Understanding the expected time to therapeutic response is integral to inform further decision making, maintain a patient-centered approach and ensure treatment is given an appropriate timeframe to achieve maximal benefit prior to cessation.

Systematic review: second-generation vs. conventional corticosteroids for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Oral corticosteroids are the mainstay treatment for induction of ulcerative colitis remission in patients failing or intolerant to aminosalicylate therapy, but the poor tolerability profile of these drugs limits their usefulness. Second-generation, gut-selective corticosteroids may offer a safe alternative to systemic agents.

AIM

To review the efficacy and safety of systemic and second-generation oral corticosteroids for the induction of remission in ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for randomised, controlled, and open-label trials of orally administered corticosteroids published between January 1950 and September 2015. Additional trials were identified from review of citation lists. Trials that compared oral corticosteroids with non-oral agents or in combination with agents other than aminosalicylates were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 240 studies identified, 21 were eligible for inclusion. Few trials directly compared oral systemic and second-generation corticosteroids (n = 4). Some second-generation corticosteroids had questionable efficacy vs. placebo or mesalazine (mesalamine), but beclomethasone dipropionate and budesonide MMX demonstrated a comparative benefit. Only beclomethasone dipropionate was similar to conventional corticosteroids for induction of remission and other clinical endpoints. Direct comparative trials for budesonide MMX were unavailable. Second-generation corticosteroids had an overall favourable safety profile, with minimal adverse effects on cardiovascular and metabolic parameters and a low incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Beclomethasone dipropionate and budesonide MMX provide greater induction of remission in ulcerative colitis than placebo or mesalazine but additional active-comparator trials are needed to firmly establish the efficacy profile vs. systemic corticosteroids. Second-generation corticosteroids have a more favourable safety and tolerability profile than systemic corticosteroids.

Intravenous corticosteroids in moderately active ulcerative colitis refractory to oral corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Oral corticosteroids remain the mainstay of treatment for moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC). In patients who fail to respond to oral corticosteroids, attempting the intravenous route before starting rescue therapies is an alternative, although no evidence supports this strategy.

AIM

To evaluate clinical outcomes after a course of intravenous corticosteroids for moderate attacks of UC according to the failed oral corticosteroids or not.

METHODS

All episodes of active UC admitted to three university hospitals between January 2005 and December 2011 were identified and retrospectively reviewed. Only moderately active episodes treated with intravenous corticosteroids were included. Treatment outcome was compared between episodes which failed to outpatient oral corticosteroids for the index flare and those directly treated by intravenous corticosteroids.

RESULTS

110 episodes were included, 45% of which failed to outpatient oral corticosteroids (median dose 60mg/day [IQR 50-60], median length of course 10days [IQR 7-17]). Initial response (defined as mild severity or inactive disease at day 7 after starting intravenous corticosteroids, without rescue therapy) was achieved in 75%, with no between-group differences (78% vs. 75%). After a median follow-up of 12months (IQR 4-24), 35% of the initial responders developed steroid-dependency and up to 13% required colectomy. Unsuccessful response to oral corticosteroids was the only factor associated with steroid-dependency in the long term (P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous corticosteroids are efficient for inducing remission in moderately active UC unresponsive to oral corticosteroids, but almost half of these patients develop early steroid-dependency. Alternative therapeutic strategies should be assessed in this clinical setting.

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.

The role of oral beclometasone dipropionate in the treatment of gastrointestinal Graft-versus-Host Disease

Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation causes significant morbidity and mortality. An important site of GVHD is the gastrointestinal (GI) tract because development of acute GI GVHD is prognostic of overall survival. The standard of care to treat acute GI GVHD is systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressants; however, the use of these therapies can cause life-threatening opportunistic infections. To limit the adverse effects of systemic immunosuppression, the topically active corticosteroid beclometasone dipropionate has been investigated in case studies and in randomized placebo-controlled trials for the treatment of acute GI GVHD. In this review, we appraise these studies with beclometasone dipropionate, and discuss future randomized studies to clarify the role of beclometasone dipropionate for the treatment and prevention of acute GVHD. At present, more data are required before the addition of beclometasone dipropionate to systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of acute GVHD can be considered the standard of care.

How important is onset of action in ulcerative colitis therapy?

Pharmacotherapy is the cornerstone of management in ulcerative colitis. However, controversy remains over optimal medical strategies. Specifically, differences in the onset of action of various drug therapies are thought to influence the achievement and maintenance of remission of disease, yet this is poorly characterised. There is a wide range of recent data concerning aminosalicylates, with much debate as to the relative merits of the various formulations and delivery systems. Meta-analyses confirm the efficacy of aminosalicylates for the induction and maintenance of remission and suggest that the newer agents are comparable in efficacy to sulfasalazine. Among aminosalicylates, data from clinical trials reveal that the onset of action is earlier with balsalazide than mesalazine. Although the efficacy of the newer 5-aminosalicylate agents is no greater than that of sulfasalazine, they have better adverse effect profiles. Factors such as tolerability and adherence appear more important than onset of action in long-term maintenance. Corticosteroids have long been used in the treatment of ulcerative colitis, yet there is a paucity of data regarding this. They have a rapid onset of action but considerable systemic adverse effects. Therefore, corticosteroids are reserved for disease that fails to respond to other agents or for primary therapy in patients with severe disease, although there is no universal acceptance of a threshold at which to initiate corticosteroid treatment.Rectal preparations of both aminosalicylates and corticosteroids have been developed in an attempt to exert a more rapid and direct onset of action while minimising adverse systemic effects. In clinical trials, topical preparations of both aminosalicylates and corticosteroids are effective in inducing remission. However, patient acceptability and proximal extent of disease dictate selection of a topical agent more than concern with rate of onset.A wide range of immunomodulators have been investigated in patients with steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. The thioguanine derivatives are the most widely used but have a limited evidence base to support this use with controlled trials providing equivocal results regarding efficacy in severe ulcerative colitis. In addition, the thioguanine derivatives have a protracted onset of action and a considerable serious adverse effect profile. Calcineurin inhibitors and methotrexate have a more rapid onset of action than the thiopurines but have even less data to support their widespread use. They are widely regarded as salvage therapy and further data are required. Regarding biological agents, infliximab revolutionised the treatment of Crohn's disease, yet results in ulcerative colitis have been disappointing. Further trials are ongoing with great anticipation for more favourable data. The practical clinical implications of any differences between the agents depend on patient satisfaction with various therapies. Noncompliance is a major concern in maintenance therapy and is probably associated with relapse. Dose administration schedules and acceptability of therapy appear to be important factors in adherence. Overall, it is not clear that onset of action has a major influence on patient adherence and addressing issues of compliance may have more direct clinical impact.

Novel drug delivery strategies for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) encompasses two idiopathic inflammatory diseases of the intestinal tract: Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Existing therapy for IBD consists mainly of orally or rectally administered small drug molecules, such as 5-aminosalicylates and corticosteroids, or potent systemic immune suppressants. IBD presents a challenging target for drug delivery, particularly by the oral route, as, contrary to most therapeutic regimens, minimal systemic absorption and maximal intestinal wall drug levels are desired. Several delivery strategies are employed to achieve this goal, including the chemical modification of the drug molecules, the use of controlled- and delayed-release formulations and the use of bioadhesive particles. The goal of this review is to summarise existing IBD therapy and examine novel approaches in intestinal drug delivery.

Medical therapy for ulcerative colitis

Although newer therapeutic agents are being developed for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, aminosalicylates and corticosteroids remain the mainstay of treatment for UC (Tables 2-5). Patients who do not respond to these agents or become steroid dependent require immunomodulatory therapy or curative surgery. Cyclosporine represents the greatest treatment advance for UC in 10 years. The role of nicotine, heparin, antibiotics, probiotics, and SCFA in the treatment of UC is less clear, but these agents may offer an alternative therapeutic approach for patients intolerant or nonresponsive to standard therapy.

Comparative tolerability of treatments for inflammatory bowel disease

Despite limited understanding of therapeutic aetiopathogenesis of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, there is a strong evidence base for the efficacy of pharmacological and biological therapies. It is equally important to recognise toxicity of the medical armamentarium for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Sulfasalazine consists of sulfapyridine linked to 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) via an azo bond. Common adverse effects related to sulfapyridine 'intolerance' include headache, nausea, anorexia, and malaise. Other allergic or toxic adverse effects include fever, rash, haemolytic anaemia, hepatitis, pancreatitis, paradoxical worsening of colitis, and reversible sperm abnormalities. The newer 5-ASA agents were developed to deliver the active ingredient of sulfasalazine while minimising adverse effects. Adverse effects are infrequent but may include nausea, dyspepsia and headache. Olsalazine may cause a secretory diarrhoea. Uncommon hypersensitivity reactions, including worsening of colitis, pancreatitis, pericarditis and nephritis, have also been reported. Corticosteroids are commonly prescribed for treatment of moderate to severe IBD. Despite short term efficacy, corticosteroids have numerous adverse effects that preclude their long term use. Adverse effects include acne, fluid retention, fat redistribution, hypertension, hyperglycaemia, psycho-neurological disturbances, cataracts, adrenal suppression, growth failure in children, and osteonecrosis. Newer corticosteroid preparations offer potential for targeted therapy and less corticosteroid-related adverse effects. Azathioprine and mercaptopurine are associated with pancreatitis in 3 to 15% of patients that resolves upon drug cessation. Bone marrow suppression is dose related and may be delayed. The adverse effects of methotrexate include nausea, leucopenia and, rarely, hypersensitivity pneumonia or hepatic fibrosis. Common adverse effects of cyclosporin include nephrotoxicity, hypertension, headache, gingival hyperplasia, hyperkalaemia, paresthesias, and tremors. These adverse effects usually abate with dose reduction or cessation of therapy. Seizures and opportunistic infections have also been reported. Antibacterials are commonly employed as primary therapy for Crohn's disease. Common adverse effects of metronidazole include nausea and a metallic taste. Peripheral neuropathy can occur with prolonged administration. Ciprofloxacin and other antibacterials may be beneficial in those intolerant to metronidazole. Newer immunosuppressive agents previously reserved for transplant recipients are under investigation for IBD. Tacrolimus has an adverse effect profile similar to cyclosporin, and may cause renal insufficiency. Mycophenolate mofetil, a purine synthesis inhibitor, has primarily gastrointestinal adverse effects. Biological agents targeting specific sites in the immunoinflammatory cascade are now available to treat IBD. Infliximab, a chimeric antibody targeting tumour necrosis factor-or has been well tolerated in clinical trials and early postmarketing experience. Additional trials are needed to assess long term adverse effects.

Medical therapy for inflammatory bowel disease

CD and UC represent a spectrum of chronic IBD that present in protean ways and are accompanied by a variety of systemic sequelae. Sulfasalazine and the newer 5-aminosalicylates are important in the management of mild-to-moderate disease, whereas corticosteroids remain the primary therapy for most patients with moderate-to-severe disease (Tables 2-5). The toxicities associated with long-term steroid therapy, combined with their ineffectiveness as maintenance medications, have led to increased use of immunomodulators, such as azathioprine and 6-MP, for the treatment of steroid-dependent and steroid-resistant IBD. Infliximab is a novel therapeutic adjunct for chronically active and fistulizing CD that will herald a new era of biologic therapy for IBD. Meanwhile, CSA remains an alternative to urgent colectomy in severe UC unresponsive to corticosteroids and also for CD patients with severe disease or refractory fistulas. Finally, continued insights into the etiopathogenic pathways in IBD will provide evolving and innovative approaches until the eventual causes and cures are elucidated. In the meantime, clinicians should remain optimistic regarding current ability to reduce the morbidity and maintain the quality of life for patients suffering with these frustrating diseases.

Review article: issues in oral administration of locally acting glucocorticosteroids for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

Inflammatory bowel diseases are treated in some cases by local administration of anti-inflammatory drugs. Local delivery of drugs in the colon following oral administration may lead to improved efficacy/side-effect profiles and may improve patient compliance. This review covers a number of issues important in the design of oral delivery systems of glucocorticosteroids for local therapy of colonic inflammation. The choice of specific glucocorticosteroids is based on the drug's physicochemical and pharmacological properties. The conditions under which an orally administered glucocorticosteroid (or other drug) must be delivered to treat ulcerative colitis are also discussed. These conditions include variations in local pH, transit throughout the gastrointestinal tract, the potential role of gut microflora, and drug dissolution in both the healthy and diseased large intestine. The effective delivery of topically-active glucocorticosteroids in ulcerative colitis and Crohn's colitis patients is complex, but if successful could improve their usefulness.

A practical guide to the management of distal ulcerative colitis

This article reviews the role of corticosteroids, sulfasalazine and mesalazine (5-aminosalicylic acid, mesalamine), immunosuppressive agents and alternative novel drugs for the treatment of distal ulcerative colitis. Short cycles of traditional, rectally administered corticosteroids (methylprednisolone, betamethasone, hydrocortisone) are effective for the treatment of mild to moderately active distal ulcerative colitis. In this context, their systemic administration is limited to patients who are refractory to either oral 5-amino-salicylates, topical mesalazine or topical corticosteroids. Of no value in maintaining remission, the long term use of either or topical corticosteroids may be hazardous. A new class of topically acting corticosteroids [budesonide, fluticasone, beclomethasone dipropionate, prednisolone-21-methasulphobenzoate, tixocortol (tixocortol pivalate)] represents a valid alternative for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis, and may be useful in the treatment of refractory distal ulcerative colitis. Although there is controversy concerning dosage or duration of therapy, oral and topical mesalazine is effective in the treatment of mild to moderately active distal ulcerative colitis. Sulfasalazine and mesalazine remain the first-choice drugs for the maintenance therapy of distal ulcerative colitis. Evidence exists showing a trend to a higher remission rate with higher doses of oral mesalazine. Topical mesalazine (suppositories or enemas) also is effective in maintenance treatment. For patients with chronically active or corticosteroid-dependent disease, azathioprine and mercaptopurine are effective in reducing either the need for corticosteroids or clinical relapses. Moreover, they are effective for long term maintenance remission. Cyclosporin may be useful in inducing remission in patients with acutely severe disease who do not achieve remission with an intensive intravenous regimen. Existing data suggest that azathioprine and mercaptopurine may be effective in prolonging remission in these patients. The role of alternative drugs for the treatment of distal ulcerative colitis and its different forms is reviewed. In particular data are reported concerning the effectiveness of 5-lipoxygenase inhibitors, topical use of short chain fatty acids, nicotine, local anaesthetics, bismuth subsalicylate enema, sucralfate, clonidine, free radical scavengers, heparin and hydroxychloroquine.

Newer treatments for inflammatory bowel disease

Despite intense investigative efforts, the causes of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease remain elusive. The mainstay of medical therapy focuses on inhibition of the effects of the inflammatory mediators operant in inflammatory bowel disease because the causes of these two chronic disorders are unknown. During recent years, the physician's armamentarium for medical treatment of inflammatory bowel disease has increased substantially. In this article, the current standard medical therapies available for treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease are reviewed along with their efficacy; the side effects and status of other investigative drugs also are reviewed.

Treatment of inflammatory bowel disease from now to the millennium

After decades of therapeutic stasis, treatment advances are occurring in inflammatory bowel disease. Recognition that mesalazine was the active moiety of sulphasalazine has led to a number of new methods of delivering mesalazine without sulphapyridine, with improved toxicity ratios. Current attempts to deliver topical steroids directly to the large bowel have yet to be established as therapeutically effective. Immunosuppressive treatment has been used for many years but recent evidence has firmly established its value and cyclosporin has recently been added to the therapeutic armamentarium. Increasing understanding of the basic processes of inflammation has yielded targets for anti-inflammatory treatments aimed both at the processes of immune activation and of attraction by chemotaxis of neutrophils from the circulation to the lamina propria. Some of these novel treatments, which will be assessed in forthcoming years, involve large molecular weight bioengineered peptides and antibodies that are likely to be expensive and difficult to administer. Other treatment, e.g. 5-lipoxygenase or thromboxane synthesis inhibitors or platelet-activating factor antagonists, are conventional lower molecular weight compounds that are easier to produce and are orally active. It is predicted that 5-lipoxygenase inhibitors will be the next therapeutic advance in inflammatory bowel disease. Such a prediction may founder if blanket suppression of multiple inflammatory mechanisms, rather than targeted actions, is required in inflammation.

Medical management of chronic inflammatory bowel disease

In the absence of a definitive cure for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the aim of therapy must be to induce and maintain clinical remission at acceptable cost to the patient in terms of adverse effects. Despite the differences in their pathogenesis, the first-line treatments for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are still based upon combinations of amino-salicylic acid derivatives and corticosteroids, although the use of enteral nutrition regimes is becoming increasingly widespread in Crohn's disease. In this chapter we attempt to provide reasonably didactic guidance for the management of most cases of chronic inflammatory bowel disease. However, we have tried to go beyond this brief, motivated by the recent explosion in knowledge of inflammatory mechanisms, to suggest a rational approach to the choice of newer and less well tested therapeutic approaches in the affected child who is not responding effectively. The relative failure of cyclosporine therapy in Crohn's disease has been particularly disappointing in view of its ideal theoretical suitability. However, the encouraging early reports of treatment with anti-CD4 and anti-TNF alpha monoclonals suggest that the shift from broad spectrum immunomodulation to the targeting of critical components of the inflammatory cascade may yet field important dividends.

Inhaled fluticasone propionate. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in asthma

Fluticasone propionate is an androstane carbothioate glucocorticosteroid with almost twice the topical anti-inflammatory potency of beclomethasone dipropionate. Importantly, it is not appreciably absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. However, the fraction of active drug absorbed from the lungs after inhalation, and therefore total systemic availability, has yet to be determined. Inhaled fluticasone propionate administered at dosages of 1500 micrograms/day for 1 year or 2000 micrograms/day for 6 weeks did not cause clinically significant pituitary-adrenal suppression. Preliminary data from 2 published trials also indicate no significant effect on growth in children. However, wider clinical experience is needed to clarify the effects of long term administration on pituitary-adrenal function, bone metabolism and attainment of adult height in children. In clinical studies, inhaled fluticasone propionate was at least as effective as beclomethasone dipropionate or budesonide when administered at half the dosage of the comparators in patients with mild to moderate or severe asthma. Limited data suggest that fluticasone propionate also has considerable potential in the management of childhood asthma. In trials of up to 1 year in duration, fluticasone propionate appeared to be well tolerated by both adults and children. Whether an improved tolerability profile compared with other corticosteroids is a major clinical benefit of the extremely low oral bioavailability of inhaled fluticasone propionate requires confirmation. Nevertheless, on the basis of available data from initial clinical trials of mostly limited duration, inhaled fluticasone propionate offers an effective treatment option for the management of asthma, with the potential of an enhanced safety profile.