Therapie der CED bei Steroidversagen: Immunsuppressiva oder Biologika?

Zusammenfassung: Trotz oftmals erfolgreichem Einsatz von systemischen Steroiden in der Behandlung von Patienten mit aktiver chronisch-entzündlicher Darmerkrankung (CED) sind Limitationen vorhanden aufgrund von primärem Nichtansprechen, Steroidabhängigkeit sowie Steroidresistenz. Eine Langzeittherapie mit Steroiden ist im Hinblick auf die bekannten Nebenwirkungen zu vermeiden. Dieser Artikel erläutert Indikationen für den Einsatz von Immunmodulatoren (Azathioprin, 6-Mercaptopurin, Methotrexat), Medikamenten gegen Tumornekrosefaktor (Anti-TNF-Therapie) sowie Calcineurininhibitoren (Ciclosporin, Tacrolimus) bei Steroidresisten

Therapie der CED bei Steroidversagen : Immunsuppressiva oder Biologika? [Therapy of steroid resistant inflammatory bowel disease Immunomodulators or biologicals?]

Although systemic corticosteroids are often successfully applied for induction of clinical response and remission of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients presenting with a flare, a proportion of these treated patients present with a primary non-response to steroids, resistance or steroid dependence. Long-term therapy with corticosteroids for treatment of IBD should be avoided given the high frequency of adverse treatment effects. This article highlights the indications for the use of immunomodulators (e.g. azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine and methotrexate), drugs directed against tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) as well as calcineurin inhibitors (e.g. cyclosporine and tacrolimus)

Eosinophilic Esophagitis beyond Eosinophils - an Emerging Phenomenon Overlapping with Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Collegium Internationale Allergologicum (CIA) Update 2023.

Having long been considered the mainstay in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) diagnosis and pathogenesis, the role of eosinophils has been questioned and might be less important than previously thought. It is well known now that EoE is a Th2-mediated disease with many more disease features than eosinophilic infiltration. With more knowledge on EoE, less pronounced phenotypes or nuances of the disease have become apparent. In fact, EoE might be only the tip of the iceberg (and the most extreme phenotype) with several variant forms, at least three, lying on a disease spectrum. Although a common (food induced) pathogenesis has yet to be confirmed, gastroenterologists and allergologists should be aware of these new phenomena in order to further characterize these patients. In the following review, we discuss the pathogenesis of EoE, particularly those mechanisms beyond eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa, non-eosinophilic inflammatory cell populations, the new disease entity EoE-like disease, variant forms of EoE, and the recently coined term mast cell esophagitis

Current concepts in eosinophilic esophagitis.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a disease entity first described in the 1990s, but showing an increasing incidence that is characterized clinically by esophageal dysfunction and histologically by a striking eosinophil infiltration. This article discusses new aspects of the pathogenesis, symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of EoE. EoE affects both children and adults and is frequently associated with atopic disease and IgE sensitization. Barrier dysfunction and T‑helper 2 inflammation are considered to be pathogenetically important factors. Recently, a proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-sensitive EoE subtype as well as an EoE-like disorder have been described. Research in recent years has contributed to a better understanding of the disease spectrum and pathogenesis of EoE, including genetic dispositions, thereby laying the foundation for innovative treatment approaches

Comparison of different biopsy forceps models for tissue sampling in eosinophilic esophagitis.

Background and aims: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a mixed inflammatory and fibrostenotic disease. Unlike superficial inflammatory changes, subepithelial fibrosis is not routinely sampled in esophageal biopsies. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of deep esophageal sampling with four different types of biopsy forceps. Patients and methods: In this cross-sectional study, esophageal biopsies were taken in 30 adult patients by one expert endoscopist. Biopsies sampled from distal esophagus using a static jaw forceps (Olympus, FB-11K-1) were compared with proximal biopsies sampled with static jaw (Olympus, FB-45Q-1), alligator jaw (Olympus, FB-210K), and large-capacity forceps (Boston Scientific, Radial Jaw 4). One pathologist calculated the surface area of epithelial and subepithelial layers in hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained biopsies. Results: Subepithelial tissue was acquired in 97 % (static jaw FB-11K-1), 93 % (static jaw FB-45Q-1), 80 % (alligator jaw), and 55 % (large-capacity) of samples. Median (interquartile [IQR]) ratios of surface area of epithelial to subepithelial tissue were: static jaw FB-45Q-1, 1.07 (0.65 - 4.465); static jaw FB-11K-1, 1.184 (0.608 - 2.545); alligator jaw, 2.353 (1.312 - 4.465); and large-capacity, 2.71 (1.611 - 4.858). The static jaw models obtained a larger surface area of subepithelial tissue compared with the alligator jaw (P < 0.001 and P = 0.037, for FB-11K-1 and FB-45Q-1, respectively) and the large-capacity forceps (P < 0.001, for both static jaw models). No esophageal perforations occurred. Conclusions: The static jaw forceps models allowed sampling of subepithelial tissue in > 90 % of biopsies and appear to be superior to alligator or large-capacity forceps in sampling larger amounts of subepithelial tissue

Fluticasone Propionate Orally Disintegrating Tablet (APT-1011) for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Topical steroids are effective treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The FLUTE (Fluticasone in EoE) trial evaluated safety and efficacy of APT-1011 (fluticasone propionate oral disintegrating tablet) vs placebo for treatment of EoE. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 2b trial, 106 adults with EoE received 1 of 4 APT-1011 doses or placebo for a 12-week induction period and 40 weeks of maintenance. Primary outcome was histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) at Week 12. Secondary outcomes included endoscopic features and dysphagia frequency. Histologic response rates were 0% for placebo, 80% for APT-1011 3 mg twice daily (BID), 67% for 3 mg at bedtime (HS), 86% for 1.5 mg BID, 48% for 1.5 mg HS (P < .001 for all groups vs placebo). At Week 12, mean Edema/Rings/Exudates/Furrows/Strictures (EoE Endoscopic Reference Score) total score (max, 9.0) improved from 4.5 to 2.3 for 3 mg BID, 5.3 to 2.1 for 3 mg HS, 4.6 to 1.7 for 1.5 mg BID, 5.3 to 2.9 for 1.5 mg HS vs 5.2 to 4.5 for placebo. Mean dysphagia frequency over 14 days improved from baseline to Week 12 with all active groups improving more than placebo. Improvements were sustained to Week 52. APT-1011 was safe and well-tolerated, with higher incidence of candidiasis noted at the higher twice daily doses. APT-1011 dosing regimens were superior for histologic and endoscopic responses, and for reduction in dysphagia frequency vs placebo. Based on the symptom improvement and assessment of adverse events together with the histologic response rate, 3 mg once daily at bedtime dose showed the most favorable risk-benefit profile. gov, Number: NCT03191864

Prevalence and risk factors for therapy escalation in ulcerative colitis in the Swiss IBD Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Physicians traditionally treat ulcerative colitis (UC) using a step-up approach. Given the paucity of data, we aimed to assess the cumulative probability of UC-related need for step-up therapy and to identify escalation-associated risk factors. METHODS: Patients with UC enrolled into the Swiss IBD Cohort Study were analyzed. The following steps from the bottom to the top of the therapeutic pyramid were examined: (1) 5-aminosalicylic acid and/or rectal corticosteroids, (2) systemic corticosteroids, (3) immunomodulators (IM) (azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate), (4) TNF antagonists, (5) calcineurin inhibitors, and (6) colectomy. RESULTS: Data on 996 patients with UC with a median disease duration of 9 years were examined. The point estimates of cumulative use of different treatments at years 1, 5, 10, and 20 after UC diagnosis were 91%, 96%, 96%, and 97%, respectively, for 5-ASA and/or rectal corticosteroids, 63%, 69%, 72%, and 79%, respectively, for systemic corticosteroids, 43%, 57%, 59%, and 64%, respectively, for IM, 15%, 28%, and 35% (up to year 10 only), respectively, for TNF antagonists, 5%, 9%, 11%, and 12%, respectively, for calcineurin inhibitors, 1%, 5%, 9%, and 18%, respectively, for colectomy. The presence of extraintestinal manifestations and extended disease location (at least left-sided colitis) were identified as risk factors for step-up in therapy with systemic corticosteroids, IM, TNF antagonists, calcineurin inhibitors, and surgery. Cigarette smoking at diagnosis was protective against surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of extraintestinal manifestations, left-sided colitis, and extensive colitis/pancolitis at the time of diagnosis were associated with use of systemic corticosteroids, IM, TNF antagonists, calcineurin inhibitors, and colectomy during the disease course

Impact of Overweight and Obesity on Disease Outcome in the Pediatric Swiss Inflammatory Bowel Disease Cohort.

Given the paucity of data, we aimed to assess the impact of obesity on disease activity, complications, and quality of life (QoL) in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Prospective analysis of pediatric IBD patients. Patients were categorized into 4 groups according to the World Health Organization (WHO) child growth standards: obese, overweight, normal weight, and underweight. Three hundred twenty-seven pediatric patients were included (146 with Crohn's disease [CD], 181 with ulcerative colitis of whom 13 [4%] were underweight, 272 [83.2%] had normal weight, 22 [6.7%] were overweight, and 20 [6.1%] were obese). Compared with normal weight patients, obese ulcerative colitis had a significantly higher clinical but not biological disease activity nor severity. Compared with normal weight patients, overweight/obese CD patients did not have higher clinical or biological disease activity nor severity. Perianal abscesses and surgery for this purpose were more frequently observed in overweight/obese CD patients compared with normal weight controls. Overweight/obese IBD patients were similarly hospitalized in the last 12 months compared with normal weight controls. Prevalence of overweight/obesity was 12.8% in pediatric IBD patients. Obesity was not associated with a decrease in disease remission rates nor an increase in the risk of complicated disease progression in IBD pediatric patients, except for the occurrence of perianal abscesses and related surgery in CD patients

Expression Patterns of TNFα, MAdCAM1, and STAT3 in Intestinal and Skin Manifestations of Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Pathogenesis of cutaneous extraintestinal manifestations [EIM] in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] remains elusive. Efficacy of anti-TNF agents suggests TNF-dependent mechanisms. The role of other biologics, such as anti-integrins or JAK-inhibitors, is not yet clear. We performed immunohistochemistry for TNFα, NFκB, STAT1/STAT3, MAdCAM1, CD20/68, caspase 3/9, IFNγ, and Hsp-27/70 on 240 intestinal [55 controls, 185 IBD] and 64 skin biopsies [11 controls, 18 erythema nodosum [EN], 13 pyoderma gangenosum [PG], 22 psoriasis]. A semiquantitative score [0-100%] was used for evaluation. TNFα was upregulated in intestinal biopsies from active Crohn`s disease [CD] vs controls [36.2 vs 12.1, p < 0.001], but not ulcerative colitis [UC: 17.9]. NFκB, however, was upregulated in intestinal biopsies from both active CD and UC [43.2 and 34.5 vs 21.8, p < 0.001 and p = 0.017, respectively]. TNFα and NFκB were overexpressed in skin biopsies from EN, PG, and psoriasis. No MAdCAM1 overexpression was seen in skin tissues, whereas it was upregulated in active UC vs controls [57.5 vs 35.4, p = 0.003]. STAT3 was overexpressed in the intestinal mucosa of active and non-active IBD, and a similar upregulation was seen in skin biopsies from EN [84.7 vs 22.3, p < 0.001] and PG [60.5 vs 22.3, p = 0.011], but not in psoriasis. Caspase 3 and CD68 overexpression in skin biopsies distinguished EN/PG from psoriasis and controls. Upregulation of TNFα/NFκB in EN and PG is compatible with the efficacy of anti-TNF in EIM management. Data on overexpressed STAT3, but not MAdCAM1, support a rationale for JAK-inhibitors in EN and PG, while questioning the role of vedolizumab

Efficacy of Dupilumab in a Phase 2 Randomized Trial of Adults With Active Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an allergen-mediated inflammatory disease with no approved treatment in the United States. Dupilumab, a VelocImmune-derived human monoclonal antibody against the interleukin (IL) 4 receptor, inhibits IL4 and IL13 signaling. Dupilumab is effective in the treatment of allergic, atopic, and type 2 diseases, so we assessed its efficacy and safety in patients with EoE. We performed a phase 2 study of adults with active EoE (2 episodes of dysphagia/week with peak esophageal eosinophil density of 15 or more eosinophils per high-power field), from May 12, 2015, through November 9, 2016, at 14 sites. Participants were randomly assigned to groups that received weekly subcutaneous injections of dupilumab (300 mg, n = 23) or placebo (n = 24) for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 10 in Straumann Dysphagia Instrument (SDI) patient-reported outcome (PRO) score. We also assessed histologic features of EoE (peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and EoE histologic scores), endoscopically visualized features (endoscopic reference score), esophageal distensibility, and safety. The mean SDI PRO score was 6.4 when the study began. In the dupilumab group, SDI PRO scores were reduced by a mean value of 3.0 at week 10 compared with a mean reduction of 1.3 in the placebo group (P = .0304). At week 12, dupilumab reduced the peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count by a mean 86.8 eosinophils per high-power field (reduction of 107.1%; P < .0001 vs placebo), the EoE-histologic scoring system (HSS) severity score by 68.3% (P < .0001 vs placebo), and the endoscopic reference score by 1.6 (P = .0006 vs placebo). Dupilumab increased esophageal distensibility by 18% vs placebo (P < .0001). Higher proportions of patients in the dupilumab group developed injection-site erythema (35% vs 8% in the placebo group) and nasopharyngitis (17% vs 4% in the placebo group). In a phase 2 trial of patients with active EoE, dupilumab reduced dysphagia, histologic features of disease (including eosinophilic infiltration and a marker of type 2 inflammation), and abnormal endoscopic features compared with placebo. Dupilumab increased esophageal distensibility and was generally well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02379052