The Host-Microbiome Response to Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy in Ulcerative Colitis Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is a promising treatment for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. However, our current understanding of the host and microbial response to HBOT remains unclear. This study examined the molecular mechanisms underpinning HBOT using a multi-omic strategy. METHODS: Pre- and post-intervention mucosal biopsies, tissue, and fecal samples were collected from HBOT phase 2 clinical trials. Biopsies and fecal samples were subjected to shotgun metaproteomics, metabolomics, 16s rRNA sequencing, and metagenomics. Tissue was subjected to bulk RNA sequencing and digital spatial profiling (DSP) for single-cell RNA and protein analysis, and immunohistochemistry was performed. Fecal samples were also used for colonization experiments in IL10-/- germ-free UC mouse models. RESULTS: Proteomics identified negative associations between HBOT response and neutrophil azurophilic granule abundance. DSP identified an HBOT-specific reduction of neutrophil STAT3, which was confirmed by immunohistochemistry. HBOT decreased microbial diversity with a proportional increase in Firmicutes and a secondary bile acid lithocholic acid. A major source of the reduction in diversity was the loss of mucus-adherent taxa, resulting in increased MUC2 levels post-HBOT. Targeted database searching revealed strain-level associations between Akkermansia muciniphila and HBOT response status. Colonization of IL10-/- with stool obtained from HBOT responders resulted in lower colitis activity compared with non-responders, with no differences in STAT3 expression, suggesting complementary but independent host and microbial responses. CONCLUSIONS: HBOT reduces host neutrophil STAT3 and azurophilic granule activity in UC patients and changes in microbial composition and metabolism in ways that improve colitis activity. Intestinal microbiota, especially strain level variations in A muciniphila, may contribute to HBOT non-response.

A phase 2B randomised trial of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for ulcerative colitis patients hospitalised for moderate to severe flares.

BACKGROUND: Hyperbaric oxygen has been reported to improve disease activity in hospitalised ulcerative colitis (UC) patients. AIM: To evaluate dosing strategies with hyperbaric oxygen for hospitalised UC patients. METHODS: We enrolled UC patients hospitalised for acute flares (Mayo score 6-12). Initially, all patients received 3 days of hyperbaric oxygen at 2.4 atmospheres (90 minutes with two air breaks) in addition to intravenous steroids. Day 3 responders (reduction of partial Mayo score ≥ 2 points and rectal bleeding score ≥ 1 point) were randomised to receive a total of 5 days vs 3 days of hyperbaric oxygen. RESULTS: We treated 20 patients with hyperbaric oxygen (75% prior biologic failure). Day 3 response was achieved in 55% (n = 11/20), with significant reductions in stool frequency, rectal bleeding and CRP (P < 0.01). A more significant reduction in disease activity was observed with 5 days vs 3 days of hyperbaric oxygen (P = 0.03). Infliximab or colectomy was required in only three patients (15%) despite a predicted probability of 80% for second-line therapy. Day 3 hyperbaric oxygen responders were less likely to require re-hospitalisation or colectomy by 3 months vs non-responders (0% vs 66%, P = 0.002). No treatment-related adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: Hyperbaric oxygen appears to be effective for optimising response to intravenous steroids in UC patients hospitalised for acute flares, with low rates of re-hospitalisation or colectomy at 3 months. An optimal clinical response is achieved with 5 days of hyperbaric oxygen. Larger phase 3 trials are needed to confirm efficacy and obtain labelled approval.

Treatment Pathways Leading to Biologic Therapies for Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Biologic therapies have been available for inflammatory bowel disease for >20 years, but patient outcomes have not changed appreciably over this time period. To better understand medication utilization for this disease, we evaluated a novel technique for visualizing treatment pathways, including initial treatment, switching, and combination therapies. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study used administrative claims data from the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Database. Adult patients with ≥2 consecutive health claims and newly diagnosed with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD) were evaluated. Treatment pathways were visualized using Sankey diagrams representing the number of patients receiving treatment and duration of each treatment. RESULTS: In all, 28,119 patients with UC and 16,260 patients with CD were identified. The most common initial treatment for UC was 5-aminosalicylic acid monotherapy (61% of the patients), followed by corticosteroid monotherapy (25%); <1% of patients were initially treated with biologics. The most common initial treatment for CD was corticosteroid monotherapy (42%), followed by 5-aminosalicylic acid monotherapy (35%); <5% of the patients were initially treated with biologics. Significantly fewer patients followed biologic vs nonbiologic treatment pathways (UC: 6% vs 94%, CD: 19% vs 81%, both P < 0.05). DISCUSSION: Significantly fewer patients with inflammatory bowel disease followed treatment pathways that included biologic therapies compared with nonbiologic therapies, and very few patients were ever initiated on biologic therapy. Although we have made significant progress in treatment, our most effective medications are only being used in a small proportion of patients, suggesting barriers prevent optimized patient management.

A qualitative inquiry into patients' perspectives on individualized priorities for treatment outcomes in inflammatory bowel diseases.

PURPOSE: Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) experience a variety of symptoms and limitations due to their condition. While many outcome measures are available to assess IBD symptom level and disease activity, individual patients' preferences are usually not accounted for. Individualized outcome measures allow individual patients to select and weigh outcomes based on their relative importance, and have been developed in other medical disciplines. In this study, we explored IBD patients' perspectives on different strategies to prioritize IBD-specific health outcomes. METHODS: Existing individualized measures were modified for relevance to IBD patients. We performed six focus groups, in which patients were asked to rate and weigh these measures in a series of exercises and to discuss the pros and cons of five different prioritization methods (Likert scale, ranking, selecting outcomes, distribute points, and using a rotating disk) using a semi-structured approach. A thematic analysis revealed key themes in the data. RESULTS: Patients' thoughts could be grouped into four key themes with 2-4 subthemes each: (1) prioritizing outcomes; (2) differences between methods; (3) outcomes to include; and (4) practical use. Overall, it was challenging for many patients to prioritize outcomes. Among the different prioritization methods, the rotating disk was perceived as the most intuitive. Patients anticipated that this visualization would also help them communicate with their physician. CONCLUSION: In a series of focus groups, a visual rotating disk was found to be an intuitive and holistic way to elicit the relative importance of different outcomes for individual IBD patients.

Effects of Apremilast, an Oral Inhibitor of Phosphodiesterase 4, in a Randomized Trial of Patients With Active Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: New oral therapeutic agents are needed for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who are unresponsive or intolerant to conventional therapy. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, phase 2 trial of adults with active UC for 3 months or more who were naïve to biologic therapy or had been failed by, could not tolerate, or had contraindications to conventional therapies. The study was performed at 61 sites in 14 countries (screening from January 2015 through May 2017). Patients were randomly assigned to groups given apremilast 30 mg (n = 57), apremilast 40 mg (n = 55), or placebo (n = 58) twice daily for 12 weeks; patients were then randomly assigned to groups that received apremilast, 30 or 40 mg twice daily, for an additional 40 weeks. Endoscopies were performed and biopsies were collected during the screening phase, at week 12, and at week 52. Blood and fecal samples were also collected and analyzed throughout the study. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 12, defined as a total Mayo score of 2 or less, with no individual subscore above 1. RESULTS: Clinical remission was achieved at week 12 by 31.6% of patients in the 30 mg apremilast group and 12.1% of patients in the placebo group (P = .01). However, only 21.8% of patients in the 40 mg apremilast group achieved clinical remission at week 12 (P = .27 compared with placebo). Differences in clinical remission between the 30 mg and 40 mg apremilast groups were associated with differences in endoscopic improvement. Both apremilast groups had similar improvements from baseline in Mayo score components (stool frequency score, rectal bleeding score, physician's global assessment). The 30 mg and 40 mg apremilast groups had greater median percent reductions in C-reactive protein (measured by a high-sensitivity blood test) and fecal calprotectin through week 12 than the placebo group. At week 52, clinical remission was achieved by 40.4% of patients initially assigned to the apremilast 30 mg group and 32.7% of patients initially assigned to the apremilast 40 mg group. The most frequent apremilast-associated adverse events were headache and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary endpoint of clinical remission was not met in this phase 2 trial, a greater proportion of patients with active UC who received apremilast (30 mg or 40 mg) had improvements in clinical and endoscopic features, and markers of inflammation, at 12 weeks. Clinical remission was maintained to week 52 in up to 40% of patients who continued apremilast until that time point. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02289417.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is well tolerated and effective for ulcerative colitis patients hospitalized for moderate-severe flares: a phase 2A pilot multi-center, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) markedly increases tissue oxygen delivery. Case series suggest it may have a potential therapeutic benefit in ulcerative colitis (UC). We investigated the therapeutic potential of HBOT as an adjunct to steroids for UC flares requiring hospitalization. METHODS: The study was terminated early due to poor recruitment with 18 of the planned 70 patients enrolled. UC patients hospitalized for moderate-severe flares (Mayo score ≥6, endoscopic sub-score ≥2) were block randomized to steroids + daily HBOT (n = 10) or steroids + daily sham hyperbaric air (n = 8). Patients were blinded to study assignment, and assessments were performed by a blinded gastroenterologist. Primary outcome was the clinical remission rate at study day 5 (partial Mayo score ≤2 with no sub-score >1). Key secondary outcomes were: clinical response (reduction in partial Mayo score ≥2, rectal bleeding sub-score of 0-1) and progression to second-line therapy (colectomy or biologic therapy) during the hospitalization. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of HBOT-treated patients achieved clinical remission at study day 5 and 10 (50 vs. 0%, p = 0.04). HBOT-treated patients less often required progression to second-line therapy during the hospitalization (10 vs. 63%, p = 0.04). The proportion requiring in-hospital colectomy specifically as second-line therapy for medically refractory UC was lower in the HBOT group compared to sham (0 vs. 38%, p = 0.07). There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: In this small, proof-of-concept, phase 2A trial, the use of HBOT as an adjunctive therapy to steroids for UC patients hospitalized for moderate-severe flares resulted in higher rates of clinical remission, and a reduction in rates of progression to second-line therapy during the hospitalization. Larger well-powered trials are needed, however, to provided definitive evidence of therapeutic benefit.

Is the Hype of Medical Marijuana All Smoke and Mirrors?

Being classified as a Schedule I drug by the Federal government has not prevented states from passing their own medical marijuana laws. While there is no denying that marijuana's euphoria makes people feel better, there is a lack of scientific data to support the efficacy of marijuana for gastrointestinal diseases. Marijuana, when used as a medical treatment, should be held to the same standards as any other drug coming to market including investigating the adverse event profile and ensuring a rigorous quality control program. Although we are not writing a prescription in the classic definition, we are signing state paperwork supporting the use as a treatment for a medical illness. Therefore, we have the obligation to our patients to ensure that we are recommending a safe and effective drug. More research needs to be conducted until we can reach that conclusion.

Medical marijuana for digestive disorders: high time to prescribe?

The use of recreational and medical marijuana is increasingly accepted by the general public in the United States. Along with growing interest in marijuana use has come an understanding of marijuana's effects on normal physiology and disease, primarily through elucidation of the human endocannabinoid system. Scientific inquiry into this system has indicated potential roles for marijuana in the modulation of gastrointestinal symptoms and disease. Some patients with gastrointestinal disorders already turn to marijuana for symptomatic relief, often without a clear understanding of the risks and benefits of marijuana for their condition. Unfortunately, that lack of understanding is shared by health-care providers. Marijuana's federal legal status as a Schedule I controlled substance has limited clinical investigation of its effects. There are also potential legal ramifications for physicians who provide recommendations for marijuana for their patients. Despite these constraints, as an increasing number of patients consider marijuana as a potential therapy for their digestive disorders, health-care providers will be asked to discuss the issues surrounding medical marijuana with their patients.

Foam preparations for the treatment of ulcerative colitis.

Patients with ulcerative colitis uniformly have disease involving the distal colon. When patients have disease limited to the left colon or symptoms suggestive of active rectal inflammation, guidelines recommend topical rectal therapies as first-line agents either as monotherapy or in conjunction with oral products. Rectal delivery modalities offer the advantage of delivering high local concentrations of active medication to the site of maximal inflammation with minimization of systemic side effects. Methods of rectal administration include suppositories, liquid enemas and foams. Suppositories are limited to the treatment of rectal disease, and patients often have difficulty retaining the liquid enema secondary to its high volume and consistency. Rectal foams reliability extend to the descending and sigmoid colon with application. Foams are further characterized by increased viscosity, lower volumes, finer dispersion on the colonic mucosa, and increased adhesiveness to the colonic mucosa compared with liquid enemas. Additionally, rectal foam agents demonstrate equal efficacy to their liquid enema counterparts yet consistently yield better patient tolerance, lower incidence of side effects, and increased patient acceptability. Currently available agents include 5-aminosalicylic acid and corticosteroids, both first and newer generation. This review focuses on clinical trials assessing efficacy, tolerability, and patient preferences for these agents as well as describing the currently available rectal foam products.