Exacerbation of Bloody Diarrhea as a Side Effect of Mesalamine Treatment of Active Ulcerative Colitis

Mesalamine has been used as the first-line therapy for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) because of its efficacy and fewer side effects. However, earlier study showed that mesalamine occasionally causes diarrhea. We are presenting a patient with active UC in whom bloody diarrhea accompanied by abdominal pain and fever occurred and the symptoms were aggravated after administration of mesalamine. In order to clarify the reason of symptoms aggravation, drug lymphocyte stimulation test and rechallenge trial with mesalamine were performed. The results indicated the possibility that aggravation was related to allergic reaction and was dose-dependent. Furthermore, we examined colonoscopic views but there was no remarkable change in before and after rechallenge trial. Based on the above result, the patient was diagnosed with mesalamine intolerance. In order to differentiate whether the exacerbation of bloody diarrhea is due to the side effects of the mesalamine or a true relapse of UC, taking careful history before and after increasing mesalamine dosage as well as being aware of side effects of mesalamine are required. Clinicians should be aware of diarrhea as a side effect of mesalamine particularly after onset of mesalamine formulation, change in mesalamine formulation, or change in mesalamine dose

The management of iron deficiency in inflammatory bowel disease

__Background__ Iron deficiency is a common and undertreated problem in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). __Aim__ To develop an online tool to support treatment choice at the patient-specific level. __Methods__ Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM), a European expert panel assessed the appropriateness of treatment regimens for a variety of clinical scenarios in patients with non-anaemic iron deficiency (NAID) and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA). Treatment options included adjustment of IBD medication only, oral iron supplementation, high-/low-dose intravenous (IV) regimens, IV iron plus erythropoietin-stimulating agent (ESA), and blood transfusion. The panel process consisted of two individual rating rounds and three plenary discussion meetings. __Results__ The panel reached agreement on 71% of treatment indications. 'No treatment' was never considered appropriate, and repeat treatment after previous failure was generally discouraged. For 98% of scenarios, at least one treatment was appropriate. Adjustment of IBD medication was deemed appropriate in all patients with active disease. Use of oral iron was mainly considered an option in NAID and mildly anaemic patients without disease activity. IV regimens were often judged appropriate, with high-dose IV iron being the preferred option in 77% of IDA scenarios. Blood transfusion and IV+ESA were indicated in exceptional cases only. __Conclusions__ The RUAM revealed high agreement amongst experts on the management of iron deficiency in patients with IBD. High-dose IV iron was more often considered appropriate than other options. To facilitate dissemination of the recommendations, panel outcomes were embedded in an online tool, accessible via http://ferroscope.com/

Liposomal Formulations of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Drugs: Local versus Systemic Drug Delivery in a Rat Model

Based on adherence to intestinal mucosa, intralumenally administered liposomal formulations of 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) and 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) were studied for their potential to enhance local drug delivery to intestinal tissue for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/41509/1/11095_2005_Article_5376.pd