Anas Zaher 1, Maria Julia Moura Nascimento Santos 2, Hassan Elsaygh 3, Stephen J Peterson 1, Carolina Colli Cruz 2, Anusha Shirwaikar Thomas 2, Yinghong Wang 2
Tag: treament
Evidencia científica
Management of refractory checkpoint inhibitor-induced colitis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40251944/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14740338.2025.2496431
Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2025 Apr 21:1-10. doi: 10.1080/14740338.2025.2496431. Online ahead of print.
Introduction: This review discusses the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and factors associated with refractory immune-mediated diarrhea and colitis (r-IMDC), emphasizing tailored treatment strategies.
Areas covered: The current literature on r-IMDC was reviewed using PubMed (2015-2025), focusing on clinical trials, meta-analyses, and case reports relevant to its management.
Expert opinion: Effectively managing r-IMDC is crucial for balancing toxicities and antitumor response. Available second and third-line management options for r-IMDC cases must be carefully evaluated. Future perspectives include development of standardized protocols beyond second-line therapies and predictive biomarkers to enable personalized treatment.
- ICIs are essential in cancer therapy but often cause IMDC, with up to 41% of patients developing steroid-refractory cases.
- Current guideline-recommended second-line therapies, such as infliximab and vedolizumab, fail in 11% of IMDC cases, underscoring the need for third-line interventions.
- Emerging therapies, including Janus kinase inhibitors, fecal microbiota transplantation, and interleukin-targeting agents, show promise for r-IMDC management. Also gma, IVIG.
- Personalized management strategies, incorporating gut microbiota modulation and targeted immune suppression, could improve outcomes in refractory colitis.
- Effective management of r-IMDC is critical for reducing prolonged immunosuppression, minimizing cancer treatment interruptions, and improving patient quality of life.
Evidencia científica
Treatment Options and Goals for Patients with Generalized Pustular Psoriasis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35061230/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40257-021-00658-9
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022 Jan;23(Suppl 1):51-64. doi: 10.1007/s40257-021-00658-9. Epub 2022 Jan 21.
Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare, severe neutrophilic skin disorder characterized by sudden widespread eruption of superficial sterile pustules with or without systemic inflammation. GPP flares can be life-threatening if untreated due to potential severe complications such as cardiovascular failure and serious infections. Currently, there are no GPP-specific therapies approved in the USA or Europe. Retinoids, cyclosporine, and methotrexate are the most commonly used non-biologic therapies for GPP. The evidence that supports the currently available treatment options is mainly based on case reports and small, open-label, single-arm studies. However, recent advances in our understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms of GPP and the identification of gene mutations linked to the disease have paved the way for the development of specific targeted therapies that selectively suppress the autoinflammatory and autoimmune mechanisms induced during GPP flares. Several biologic agents that target key cytokines involved in the activation of inflammatory pathways, such as tumor necrosis factor-α blockers and interleukin (IL)-17, IL-23, and IL-12 inhibitors, have emerged as potential treatments for GPP, with several being approved in Japan. The evidence supporting the efficacy of these agents is mainly derived from small, uncontrolled trials. A notable recent advance is the discovery of IL36RN mutations and the central role of IL-36 receptor ligands in the pathogenesis of GPP, which has defined key therapeutic targets for the disease. Biologic agents that target the IL-36 pathway have demonstrated promising efficacy in patients with GPP, marking the beginning of a new era of targeted therapy for GPP.
Evidencia científica
Granulocyte and monocyte apheresis therapy for patients with active ulcerative colitis associated with COVID-19: a case report
Miki Koroku 1, Teppei Omori 1, Harutaka Kambayashi 1, Shun Murasugi 1, Tomoko Kuriyama 1, Yuichi Ikarashi 1, Maria Yonezawa 1, Ken Arimura 2, Kazunori Karasawa 3, Norio Hanafusa 4, Masatoshi Kawana 5, Katsutoshi Tokushige
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is now a pandemic. Although several treatment guidelines have been proposed for patients who have both inflammatory bowel disease and COVID-19, immunosuppressive therapy is essentially not recommended, and the treatment options are limited. Even in the COVID-19 pandemic, adjuvant adsorptive granulocyte and monocyte apheresis may safely bring ulcerative colitis (UC) into remission by removing activated myeloid cells without the use of immunosuppressive therapy. Our patient was a 25-year-old Japanese male with UC and COVID-19. This is the first case report of the induction of UC remission with granulocyte and monocyte apheresis treatment for active UC associated with COVID-19.
Evidencia científica
Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comprehensive Review
Zhaobei Cai 1 2, Shu Wang 3, Jiannan Li 1 Front Med (Lausanne) 2021 Dec 20;8:765474. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.765474. eCollection 2021.
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), as a global disease, has attracted much research interest. Constant research has led to a better understanding of the disease condition and further promoted its management. We here reviewed the conventional and the novel drugs and therapies, as well as the potential ones, which have shown promise in preclinical studies and are likely to be effective future therapies. The conventional treatments aim at controlling symptoms through pharmacotherapy, including aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, immunomodulators, and biologics, with other general measures and/or surgical resection if necessary. However, a considerable fraction of patients do not respond to available treatments or lose response, which calls for new therapeutic strategies. Diverse therapeutic options are emerging, involving small molecules, apheresis therapy, improved intestinal microecology, cell therapy, and exosome therapy. In addition, patient education partly upgrades the efficacy of IBD treatment. Recent advances in the management of IBD have led to a paradigm shift in the treatment goals, from targeting symptom-free daily life to shooting for mucosal healing. In this review, the latest progress in IBD treatment is summarized to understand the advantages, pitfalls, and research prospects of different drugs and therapies and to provide a basis for the clinical decision and further research of IBD.
Evidencia científica
Leukocyte adsorption apheresis for the treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum
Yumiko WATANABE,Hiromichi YAMADA, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1346-8138.2008.00572.x
Evidencia científica
Management of cutaneous disorders related to inflammatory bowel disease
Zaira Pellicer,a Jesus Manuel Santiago,b Alejandro Rodriguez,b Vicent Alonso,a Rosario Antón,b and Marta Maia Boscab ,Ann Gastroenterol. 2012; 25(1): 21–26.
Almost one-third of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) develop skin lesions. Cutaneous disorders associated with IBD may be divided into 5 groups based on the nature of the association: specific manifestations (orofacial and metastatic IBD), reactive disorders (erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, pyodermatitis-pyostomatitis vegetans, Sweet’s syndrome and cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa), miscellaneous (epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, bullous pemphigoid, linear IgA bullous disease, squamous cell carcinoma-Bowen’s disease, hidradenitis suppurativa, secondary amyloidosis and psoriasis), manifestations secondary to malnutrition and malabsorption (zinc, vitamins and iron deficiency), and manifestations secondary to drug therapy (salicylates, immunosupressors, biological agents, antibiotics and steroids). Treatment should be individualized and directed to treating the underlying IBD as well as the specific dermatologic condition. The aim of this review includes the description of clinical manifestations, course, work-up and, most importantly, management of these disorders, providing an assessment of the literature on the topic.
Evidencia científica
An open-label prospective randomized multicenter study shows very rapid remission of ulcerative colitis by intensive granulocyte and monocyte adsorptive apheresis as compared with routine weekly treatment
Atsushi Sakuraba 1, Satoshi Motoya, Kenji Watanabe, Masakazu Nishishita, Kazunari Kanke, Toshiyuki Matsui, Yasuo Suzuki, Tadayuki Oshima, Reiko Kunisaki, Takayuki Matsumoto, Hiroyuki Hanai, Ken Fukunaga, Naoki Yoshimura, Toshimi Chiba, Shinsuke Funakoshi, Nobuo Aoyama, Akira Andoh, Hiroshi Nakase, Yohei Mizuta, Ryoichi Suzuki, Taiji Akamatsu, Masahiro Iizuka, Toshifumi Ashida, Toshifumi Hibi
Objectives: Granulocyte and monocyte adsorptive apheresis (GMA) has shown efficacy in patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC). However, with routine weekly treatment, it may take several weeks to achieve remission, and to date, the efficacy of a more frequent treatment schedule remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of intensive GMA treatment in patients with active UC. Methods: This was an open-label, prospective, randomized multicenter study to compare an intensive, two GMA sessions per week, with the routine, one GMA session per week. A total of 163 patients with mild-to-moderately active UC were randomly assigned to routine weekly treatment or intensive treatment. The maximum number of sessions of GMA permitted was 10. However, when patients achieved remission, GMA was discontinued. Remission rate at the end of the study, time to remission, and adverse events were assessed in both groups. Results: Of the 163 patients, 149 were available for efficacy analysis as per protocol, 76 were in weekly GMA, and 73 were in intensive GMA. At the end of the study period, clinical remission was achieved in 41 of 76 patients (54.0%) in weekly GMA and in 52 of 73 patients (71.2%) in intensive GMA (P=0.029). The mean time to remission was 28.1+/-16.9 days in the weekly GMA treatment group and 14.9+/-9.5 days in the intensive GMA group (P<0.0001). Intensive GMA was well tolerated without GMA-related serious adverse side effects. Conclusions: Intensive GMA in patients with active UC seems to be more efficacious than weekly treatment, and significantly reduced the patients’ morbidity time without increasing the incidence of side effects.
ContáctanosPara solicitar información adicional
Contáctanos