Effectiveness of Non-Budesonide Therapies in Management of Microscopic Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Budesonide is accepted as first-choice therapy for microscopic colitis (MC); however, symptoms often recur and some patients may be dependent, intolerant, or even fail budesonide. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of non-budesonide therapies (thiopurines, bismuth subsalicylate [BSS], bile acid sequestrants [BAS], loperamide and biologics) for MC suggested by international guidelines. METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases from their inception to 18 April 2023 for the above-mentioned therapeutics in MC. We pooled the response and remission rates by medication using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies comprising 1475 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Treatment with BSS showed the highest response rate of 75% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.83; I2 = 70.12%), with 50% achieving remission of symptoms (95% CI 0.35-0.65; I2 = 71.06%). Treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (infliximab and adalimumab) demonstrated a response rate of 73% (95% CI 0.63-0.83; I2 = 0.00%), with a remission rate of 44% (95% CI 0.32-0.56; I2 = 0.00%). The response rate for those treated with vedolizumab was similar; 73% responded to treatment (95% CI 0.57-0.87; I2 = 35.93%), with a remission rate of 56% (95% CI 0.36-0.75; I2 = 46.30%). Loperamide was associated with response and remission rates of 62% (95% CI 0.43-0.80; I2 = 92.99%) and 14% (95% CI 0.07-0.25), respectively, whereas BAS use was associated with response and remission rates of 60% (95% CI 0.51-0.68; I2 = 61.65%) and 29% (95% CI 0.12-0.55), respectively. Finally, the outcomes for thiopurine use were 49% (95% CI 0.27-0.71; I2 = 81.45%) and 38% (95% CI 0.23-0.54; I2 = 50.05%), respectively DISCUSSION: The present systematic review and meta-analysis provides rates of effectiveness of non-budesonide therapies for MC based on available data in the field. Studies in the meta-analysis showed a large amount of heterogeneity due to the variability in assessing the clinical effects of intervention between the studies caused by differences in the definitions of response or remission rates between the studies included. This may likely result in overestimating the benefit of a treatment. Furthermore, the number of participants and drug dosages varied, and only a few studies applied disease-specific activity indices. Only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) was identified. All other 24 included studies were either case series or (retrospective) cohort studies, which complicated efforts to perform further sensitivity analyses to adjust for potential confounders and risk of bias. In addition, the overall evidence on the effect of these treatment options was judged as low, mostly due to comparability bias and the observational nature of the available studies, which limited statistically robust comparisons of rates of effectiveness of the different non-budesonide agents ranked against each other. However, our observational findings may inform clinicians regarding the most rational selection of non-budesonide therapies to patients with MC. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: PROSPERO protocol #CRD42020218649.

Nanomolar EP4 receptor potency and expression of eicosanoid-related enzymes in normal appearing colonic mucosa from patients with colorectal neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Aberrations in cyclooxygenase and lipoxygenase (LOX) pathways in non-neoplastic, normal appearing mucosa from patients with colorectal neoplasia (CRN), could hypothetically qualify as predisposing CRN-markers. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, biopsies were obtained during colonoscopy from macroscopically normal colonic mucosa from patients with and without CRN. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) receptors, EP1-4, were examined in Ussing-chambers by exposing biopsies to selective EP receptor agonists, antagonists and PGE2. Furthermore, mRNA expression of EP receptors, prostanoid synthases and LOX enzymes were evaluated with qPCR. RESULTS: Data suggest that PGE2 binds to both high and low affinity EP receptors. In particular, PGE2 demonstrated EP4 receptor potency in the low nanomolar range. Similar results were detected using EP2 and EP4 agonists. In CRN patients, mRNA-levels were higher for EP1 and EP2 receptors and for enzymes prostaglandin-I synthase, 5-LOX, 12-LOX and 15-LOX. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, normal appearing colonic mucosa from CRN patients demonstrates deviating expression in eicosanoid pathways, which might indicate a likely predisposition for early CRN development and furthermore that PGE2 potently activates high affinity EP4 receptor subtypes, supporting relevance of testing EP4 antagonists in colorectal neoplasia management.

Tuft Cells and Their Role in Intestinal Diseases.

The interests in intestinal epithelial tuft cells, their basic physiology, involvement in immune responses and relevance for gut diseases, have increased dramatically over the last fifteen years. A key discovery in 2016 of their close connection to helminthic and protozoan infection has further spurred the exploration of these rare chemosensory epithelial cells. Although very sparse in number, tuft cells are now known as important sentinels in the gastrointestinal tract as they monitor intestinal content using succinate as well as sweet and bitter taste receptors. Upon stimulation, tuft cells secrete a broad palette of effector molecules, including interleukin-25, prostaglandin E2 and D2, cysteinyl leukotriene C4, acetylcholine, thymic stromal lymphopoietin, and ß-endorphins, some of which with immunomodulatory functions. Tuft cells have proven indispensable in anti-helminthic and anti-protozoan immunity. Most studies on tuft cells are based on murine experiments using double cortin-like kinase 1 (DCLK1) as a marker, while human intestinal tuft cells can be identified by their expression of the cyclooxygenase-1 enzyme. So far, only few studies have examined tuft cells in humans and their relation to gut disease. Here, we present an updated view on intestinal epithelial tuft cells, their physiology, immunological hub function, and their involvement in human disease. We close with a discussion on how tuft cells may have potential therapeutic value in a clinical context.