Choon Jin Ooi 1, Kwong Ming Fock, Govind K Makharia, Khean Lee Goh, Khoon Lin Ling, Ida Hilmi, Wee Chian Lim, Thia Kelvin, Peter R Gibson, Richard B Gearry, Qin Ouyang, Jose Sollano, Sathaporn Manatsathit, Rungsun Rerknimitr, Shu-Chen Wei, Wai Keung Leung, H Janaka de Silva, Rupert Wl Leong, Asia Pacific Association of Gastroenterology Working Group on Inflammatory Bowel Disease
The Asia-Pacific consensus on ulcerative colitis
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasing in many parts of the Asia-Pacific region. There is a need to improve the awareness of IBD and develop diagnostic and management recommendations relevant to the region. This evidence-based consensus focuses on the definition, epidemiology and management of ulcerative colitis (UC) in Asia. A multi-disciplinary group developed the consensus statements, reviewed the relevant literature, and voted on them anonymously using the Delphi method. The finalized statements were reviewed to determine the level of consensus, evidence quality and strength of recommendation. Infectious colitis must be excluded prior to diagnosing UC. Typical histology and macroscopic extent of the disease seen in the West is found in the Asia-Pacific region. Ulcerative colitis is increasing in many parts of Asia with gender distribution and age of diagnosis similar to the West. Extra-intestinal manifestations including primary sclerosing cholangitis are rarer than in the West. Clinical stratification of disease severity guides management. In Japan, leukocytapheresis is a treatment option. Access to biologic agents remains limited due to high cost and concern over opportunistic infections. The high endemic rates of hepatitis B virus infection require stringent screening before initiating immune-suppressive agents. Vaccination and prophylactic therapies should be initiated on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with local practice. Colorectal cancer complicates chronic colitis. A recent increase in UC is reported in the Asia-Pacific region. These consensus statements aim to improve the recognition of UC and assist clinicians in its management with particular relevance to the region.
Evaluation of 5 versus 10 granulocyteaphaeresis sessions in steroid-dependent ulcerative colitis: A pilot, prospective, multicenter, randomized study
Elena Ricart, Maria Esteve, Montserrat Andreu, Francesc Casellas, David Monfort, Miquel Sans, Natalia Oudovenko, Raúl Lafuente, and Julián Panés World J Gastroenterol. 2007 Apr 21; 13(15): 2193–2197.Published online 2007 Apr 21. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i15.2193
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of 5 compared to 10 granulocyteaphaeresis sessions in patients with active steroid-dependent ulcerative colitis. METHODS: In this pilot, prospective, multicenter randomized trial, 20 patients with moderately active steroid-dependent ulcerative colitis were randomized to 5 or 10 granulocyteaphaeresis sessions. The primary objective was clinical remission at wk 17. Secondary measures included endoscopic remission and steroid consumption. RESULTS: Nine patients were randomized to 5 granulocyteaphaeresis sessions (group 1) and 11 patients to 10 granulocyteaphaeresis sessions (group 2). At wk 17, 37.5% of patients in group 1 and 45.45% of patients in group 2 were in clinical remission. Clinical remission was accompanied by endoscopic remission in all cases. Eighty-six percent of patients achieving remission were steroid-free at wk 17. Daily steroid requirements were significantly lower in group 2. Eighty-nine per cent of patients remained in remission during a one year follow-up. One serious adverse event, not related to the study therapy, was reported. CONCLUSION: Granulocyteaphaeresis is safe and effective for the treatment of steroid-dependent ulcerative colitis. In this population, increasing the number of aphaeresis sessions is not associated with higher remission rates, but affords a significant steroid-sparing effect.
Safety and clinical efficacy of granulocyte and monocyte adsorptive apheresis therapy for ulcerative colitis
Active ulcerative colitis (UC) is frequently associated with infiltration of a large number of leukocytes into the bowel mucosa. Therefore, removal of activated circulating leukocytes by apheresis has the potential for improving UC. In Japan, since April 2000, leukocytapheresis using Adacolumn has been approved as the treatment for active UC by the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The Adacolumn is an extracorporeal leukocyte apheresis device filled with cellulose acetate beads, and selectively adsorbs granulocytes and monocytes / macrophages. To assess the safety and clinical efficacy of granulocyte and monocyte adsorptive apheresis (GMCAP) for UC, we reviewed 10 open trials of the use of GMCAP to treat UC. One apheresis session (session time, 60 min) per week for five consecutive weeks (a total of five apheresis sessions) has been a standard protocol. Several studies used modified protocols with two sessions per week, with 90-min session, or with a total of 10 apheresis sessions. Typical adverse reactions were dizziness, nausea, headache, flushing, and fever. No serious adverse effects were reported during and after GMCAP therapy, and almost all the patients could complete the treatment course. GMCAP is safe and well-tolerated. In the majority of patients, GMCAP therapy achieved clinical remission or improvement. GMCAP is a useful alternative therapy for patients with steroid-refractory or -dependent UC. GMCAP should have the potential to allow tapering the dose of steroids, and is useful for shortening the time to remission and avoiding re-administration of steroids at the time of relapse. Furthermore, GMCAP may have efficacy as the first-line therapy for steroid-naive patients or patients who have the first attack of UC. However, most of the previous studies were uncontrolled trials. To assess a definite efficacy of GMCAP, randomized, double blind, sham-controlled trials are necessary. A serious problem with GMCAP is cost; a single session costs ¥145 000 ($1 300). However, if this treatment prevents hospital admission, re-administration of steroids and surgery, and improves a quality of life of the patients, GMCAP may prove to be cost-effective.
Contact UsFor more informationContact Us