Mesalazine for People with Diverticular Disease: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: Diverticular disease treatment is limited to fibres, antibiotics, and surgery. There is conflicting evidence on mesalazine benefits and harms. Aim: We systematically reviewed current evidence on benefits and harms of mesalazine versus all other treatments in people with diverticular disease. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published to July 2018. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (disease remission/recurrence, acute diverticulitis in symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease, need for surgery/hospitalization, all-cause/disease-related mortality, adverse events), mean differences (MD) or standardized MD (SMD) for continuous outcomes (quality of life, symptoms score, time to recurrence/remission), and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. We quantified heterogeneity by Chi2 and I2 tests. We performed subgroup analyses by disease subtype, comparator, follow-up duration, mesalazine dose, and mode of administration. Results: We identified 13 randomized trials (n=3028 participants). There was a higher likelihood of disease remission with mesalazine than controls in acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (1 trial, 81 participants, RR=2.67, 95%CI=1.05-6.79), but not in symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (1 trial, 123 participants, RR=1.04, 95%CI=0.81-1.34). There was a lower likelihood of disease recurrence with mesalazine than controls in symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (2 trials, 216 participants, RR=0.52, 95%CI=0.28-0.97), but not in acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (7 trials, 2196 participants, RR=0.90, 95%CI=0.61-1.33). There was no difference in the likelihood of developing acute diverticulitis in symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease between the two groups (3 trials, 484 participants, RR=0.26, 95%CI=0.06-1.20). There was a higher global symptoms score reduction with mesalazine than controls in symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (2 trials, 326 participants, SMD=-1.01, 95%CI=-1.51,-0.52) and acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (2 trials, 153 participants, SMD=-0.56, 95%CI=-0.88,-0.24). Conclusions: Mesalazine may reduce recurrences in symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease. There is uncertainty on the effect of mesalazine in achieving diverticular disease remission. Mesalazine may not prevent acute diverticulitis in symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease.

Mesalazine to treat symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease and to prevent acute diverticulitis occurrence. A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Symptomatic Uncomplicated Diverticular disease (SUDD) affects about 25% of patients harboring colonic diverticula. We assessed the effectiveness of mesalazine in improving symptoms (namely abdominal pain, primary outcome) and in preventing diverticulitis occurrence (secondary outcome) in patients with SUDD. METHODS: Pertinent studies were selected from the Medline and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status), which compared mesalazine, irrespective of the dosage assumption, with placebo in SUDD were evaluated. RESULTS: Four RCTs enrolled 379 patients, 197 treated with mesalazine and 182 with placebo. Two studies provided data on symptom relief according to definition: it was achieved in 97/121 (80%) patients in the mesalazine group and in 81/129 (62.7%) patients in the placebo group (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.24-0.75; p=0.003 in favour of the mesalazine group). Two studies provided information regarding occurrence of diverticulitis during follow-up. It occurred in 23/119 (19.3%) patients in the mesalazine group and in 34/102 (33.3%) patients in the placebo group (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.17-0.70; p=0.003 in favour of the mesalazine group). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with mesalazine seems to be effective in achieving symptom relief and in the primary prevention of diverticulitis in patients with SUDD.

A case of diverticular colitis with lesions resembling ulcerative colitis and correlation of tumor necrosis factor-alpha staining with clinical manifestations.

A 45-year-old male with a 3-month history of abdominal pain and melena underwent colonoscopy (CS) at our hospital in May 2009. He was diagnosed with diverticular colitis based on findings of redness around diverticula in the sigmoid colon and biopsy findings of non-specific inflammation. The second CS, which was performed in July 2009 to investigate relapse, showed diffuse redness around diverticula in the sigmoid colon. As seen in active ulcerative colitis (UC), the formation of crypt abscesses was observed in the biopsy. Although the patient was making satisfactory progress after administration of oral mesalazine, CS was performed again in September 2011 because of recurrence of melena, which revealed redness and erosion around diverticula in the ascending and sigmoid colon. Biopsy findings were similar to those of active UC. Immunohistochemical staining of the biopsy specimen with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-a antibody showed 80 % of lymphocytes were positive for TNF-a compared with 20 % at the first biopsy. The patient's symptoms subsided with an increase in the dose of mesalazine and concurrent administration of prednisolone at 10 mg. He has remained on oral mesalazine and is currently asymptomatic. The findings of this study suggested a correlation between clinical manifestations and the proportion of TNF-a-positive lymphocytes.

Increased diverticular complications with nonsteriodal anti-inflammatory drugs and other medications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: Complications of colonic diverticula, perforation and bleeding are a source of morbidity and mortality. A variety of drugs have been implicated in these complications. We present a systemic review and meta-analysis of the literature to assess the importance of this relationship. METHOD: A systematic review of articles in PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, Embase and Google Scholar was undertaken in February 2013. An initial literature search yielded 2916 results that were assessed for study design and topicality. Twenty-three articles were included in the review. A qualitative data synthesis was conducted using forest plots of studies comparing single medication with complications. RESULTS: Individual studies demonstrated the odds of perforation and abscess formation with nonsteridal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (1.46-10.30), aspirin (0.66-2.40), steroids (2.17-31.90) and opioids (1.80-4.51) and the odds of bleeding with NSAIDs (2.01-12.60), paracetamol (0-3.75), aspirin (1.14-3.70) and steroids (0.57-5.40). Pooled data showed significantly increased odds of perforation and abscess formation with NSAIDs (OR = 2.49), steroids (OR = 9.08) and opioids (OR = 2.52). They also showed increased odds of diverticular bleeding from NSAIDs (OR = 2.69), aspirin (OR = 3.24) and calcium-channel blockers (OR = 2.50). Most studies did not describe the duration or dosage of medication used and did not systematically describe the severity of diverticular complications. CONCLUSION: Various common medications are implicated in complications of diverticular disease.

Intermittent versus every-day mesalazine therapy in preventing complications of diverticular disease: a long-term follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Mesalazine seems to be effective in preventing recurrence of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (AUD), but the optimal mesalazine scheme to achieve these results is still debated. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of two different mesalazine-based treatments in preventing recurrence of AUD and the occurrence of other complications of diverticular disease (DD) during a long-term follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed 311 patients suffer from recent episode of AUD and undergoing to mesalazine treatment: 207 (group A, 105 males, median age 63 years, range 47-74 years) were treated with mesalazine 1.6 g for 10 days each month, whilst 104 (group B, 55 males, median age 65 years, range 50-72 years) were treated with mesalazine 1.6 g every day. Patients were followed-up every 6 months (median 7.5 months, range 5-13 months). RESULTS: Patients were followed-up for a mean time of 3 years (range 12-72 months). Overall, occurrence of complication recurred more frequently in group A than in group B (p = 0.030, log-rank test). Acute diverticulitis recurred in 17 (8.2%) patients in group A and in 3 (2.9%) in group B; diverticular bleeding occurred in 4 (1.9%) patients in group A and in 1 (0.96%) patient in group B; surgery was required in 3 (1.4%) patients in group A and in no (0%) patient in group B. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study showing that long-term mesalazine treatment is significantly better that intermittent mesalazine treatment in preventing occurrence of DD complications after an attack of acute diverticulitis.

Randomised clinical trial: mesalazine and/or probiotics in maintaining remission of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease--a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Placebo-controlled studies in maintaining remission of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD) of the colon are lacking. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of mesalazine and/or probiotics in maintaining remission in SUDD. METHODS: A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted. Two hundred and ten patients were randomly enrolled in a double-blind fashion in four groups: Group M (active mesalazine 1.6 g/day plus Lactobacillus casei subsp. DG placebo), Group L (active Lactobacillus casei subsp. DG 24 billion/day plus mesalazine placebo), Group LM (active Lactobacillus casei subsp. DG 24 billion/day plus active mesalazine), Group P (Lactobacillus casei subsp. DG placebo plus mesalazine placebo). Patients received treatment for 10 days/month for 12 months. Recurrence of SUDD was defined as the reappearance of abdominal pain during follow-up, scored as ≥5 (0: best; 10: worst) for at least 24 consecutive hours. RESULTS: Recurrence of SUDD occurred in no (0%) patient in group LM, in 7 (13.7%) patients in group M, in 8 (14.5%) patients in group L and in 23 (46.0%) patients in group P (LM group vs. M group, P = 0.015; LM group vs. L group, P = 0.011; LM group vs. P group, P = 0.000; M group vs. P group, P = 0.000; L group vs. P group, P = 0.000). Acute diverticulitis occurred in six group P cases and in one group L case (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Both cyclic mesalazine and Lactobacillus casei subsp. DG treatments, particularly when given in combination, appear to be better than placebo for maintaining remission of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01534754).

[Role of rifaximin in the treatment of colonic diverticular disease]. / Ruolo della rifaximina nel trattamento della malattia diverticolare del colon.

Diverticular disease of the colon is the fifth most important gastrointestinal disease in terms of direct and indirect healthcare costs in western countries. Although most patients with colonic diverticula remain asymptomatic for their whole life, in 20-25% of cases will develop symptoms. Antibiotics are commonly used in the treatment of inflammatory complication of diverticular disease. Several clinical observation suggest a role of rifaximin in the management of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon. This is a critical review of clinical studies addressing the role of long term administration of rifaximin for the treatment of symptomatic colonic diverticular disease. The evidence from prospective controlled trials suggests that rifaximin is effective for obtaining symptomatic relief in patients with uncomplicated diverticular disease. The therapeutic gain compared with fiber supplementation only is approximately 30%. No definitive conclusion can be drawn regard a possible role of rifaximin for preventing diverticulitis.

Treatment of diverticular disease of the colon and prevention of acute diverticulitis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Diverticular disease of the colon is a common disorder, characterized by recurrent symptoms and complications such as diverticulitis, requiring hospital admissions and surgery. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review the evidence for medical therapy of diverticular disease in reducing symptoms and preventing acute diverticulitis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Embase databases (1966 to February 2010). STUDY SELECTION: The studies selected were prospective clinical trials on uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon. INTERVENTIONS: Four investigators independently reviewed articles, extracted data, and assessed study quality according to standardized criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes measured were improvement in symptoms, complete remission of symptoms, and prevention of acute diverticulitis. RESULTS: We identified 31 studies, including 6 placebo-controlled trials. The methodological quality of these studies was suboptimal. Only 10 trials provided a detailed description of the patient history, 8 assessed symptoms by the use of a validated questionnaire, and 14 appropriately defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Only one long-term double-blind placebo-controlled study was identified. This reported a significant improvement in symptoms and greater prevalence of symptom-free patients at 1 year with fiber plus rifaximin in comparison with fiber alone. The efficacy of treatment in preventing acute diverticulitis was evaluated in 11 randomized trials. Four trials compared rifaximin plus fiber vs fiber alone and failed to show a significant difference between treatments. However, cumulative data from these trials revealed a significant benefit following rifaximin and fiber (1-year rate of acute diverticulitis: 11/970 (1.1%) vs 20/690 (2.9%); P = .012), but with a number needed to treat of 57, to prevent an attack of acute diverticulitis. LIMITATIONS: : Heterogeneity of the study design, patients' characteristics, regimens and combination of studied treatment, and outcome reporting precluded the pooling of results and limited interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment for diverticular disease relies mainly on data from uncontrolled studies. Treatment showed some evidence of improvement in symptoms, but its role in the prevention of acute diverticulitis remains to be defined.

Meta-analysis: long-term therapy with rifaximin in the management of uncomplicated diverticular disease.

BACKGROUND: Diverticular disease of the colon is a common gastrointestinal disease. Although most patients remain asymptomatic for their whole life, about 20-25% present symptoms related to 'diverticular disease'. Several randomised trials verified efficacy of a poorly absorbed antibiotic, such as rifaximin-α (rifaximin), in soothing symptoms and preventing diverticulitis. AIM: To evaluate the long-term efficacy administration of rifaximin plus fibre supplementation vs. fibre supplementation alone, on symptoms and complications, in patient with symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease. METHODS: Pertinent studies were selected from the Medline, and the Cochrane Library Databases, references from published articles and reviews. Conventional meta-analysis according to DerSimonian and Laird method was used for the pooling of the results. The outcomes were 1- year complete symptom relief, and 1- year complication incidence. The rate difference (RD, with 95% CI) and the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) were used as measure of the therapeutic effect on each outcome. RESULTS: Four prospective randomised trials including 1660 patients were selected. The pooled RD for symptom relief was 29.0% (rifaximin vs. control; 95% CI 24.5-33.6%; P<0.0001; NNT=3). The pooled RD for complication rate was -1.7% in favour of rifaximin (95% CI -3.2 to -0.1%; P=0.03; NNT=59). When considering only acute diverticulitis, the pooled RD in the treatment group was -2% (95% CI -3.4 to -0.6%; P=0.0057; NNT=50). CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease, treatment with rifaximin plus fibre supplementation is effective in obtaining symptom relief and preventing complications at 1 year.

Continuous versus cyclic mesalazine therapy for patients affected by recurrent symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon.

Forty consecutive patients affected by recurrent attacks of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon were evaluated to investigate the effectiveness of 2 different mesalazine therapeutic schedules in preventing recurrence of the disease. The patients were randomly enrolled and treated with mesalazine 1.6 g/d (group A) or mesalazine 1.6 g/d 10 days per month (group B). Thirty-four patients completed the study (85%): 3 (7.5%, 1 in group A and 2 in group B) were lost to follow-up, 2 (5%, both group B) were withdrawn from the study for protocol violation, and 1 (2.5%) for hospital admission for stroke (group A). Twenty-three patients (67.65%) were symptom free after 24 months of treatment (overall symptomatic score, 0): 14 of 18 in group A (per-protocol, 77.78%; intention to treat, 70% [95% confidence interval [CI], 61.5-91.8]), 9 of 16 in group B (per protocol, 56.25%; intention to treat, 45% [95% CI, 61.5-91.8]; P < 0.05). Four patients (10%) improved, but were not completely symptom free. Six patients (15%) showed recurrence of symptoms: 1 in group A (5.56%) and 5 in group B (31.25%; P < 0.005; overall symptomatic score, 68). Daily mesalazine supplying seems to be more effective than cyclic supplying in maintaining remission in recurrent symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease.

Transient lactose malabsorption in patients affected by symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon.

Lactose malabsorption (LM) may be secondary to several small bowel diseases, and small intestinal overgrowth (SIBO) may be one of them. We looked for a correlation between symptomatic diverticular disease of the colon and LM and assessed whether this correlation may be related to SIBO. Ninety consecutive patients (pts; 39 males, 51 females; mean age, 67.2 years; range, 32-91 years) affected by symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon were evaluated to assess orocecal transit time (OCTT), SIBO, and LM by lactulose and lactose H2 breath test (H2-BT) at entry and after 8 weeks of treatment. OCTT was delayed in 67 of 90 pts (74.44%). Fifty-three of 90 pts (58.88%) showed SIBO, and OCTT was normal in 23 of 90 pts (25.56%). LM was diagnosed in 59 of 90 pts (65.55%): 49 of 59 (71.74%) were simultaneously affected by SIBO and delayed OCTT (and thus 49 of 53 pts [92.45%] with delayed OCTT and SIBO were affected by LM); 3 of 59 pts (5.09%) showed only delayed OCTT; 7 of 59 pts (11.86%) did not show either SIBO or delayed OCTT. The association of LM and SIBO was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Seventy-nine of 86 pts (91.86%) showed normal OCTT, while OCTT remained prolonged but shorter in the remaining 7 pts (8.14%). SIBO was eradicated in all pts completing the study, while a new lactulose H2-BT showed persistence of SIBO in one pt with recurrence of symptomatic diverticular disease. Forty-seven of 59 pts (79.66%) had a normal lactose H2-BT (P < 0.002), while 12 of 59 pts (20.34%) showed persistence of LM. LM disappeared in 46 of 49 pts (93.88%) concurrently with normalization of OCTT and eradication of SIBO (P < 0.002); it also disappeared in 1 of 3 pts (33.33%) previously affected by delayed OCTT (without SIBO) and LM concurrently with normalization of OCTT. On the contrary, it persisted in all pts with normal OCTT and absence of SIBO. Moreover, it persisted also in the pt with recurrence of symptomatic diverticular disease and persistence of SIBO. In conclusion, most pts affected by symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon showed LM, and in more than 70% of cases it disappeared after successful treatment of the colonic disease.

Epithelial cell proliferation of the colonic mucosa in diverticular disease: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: A higher risk of both advanced adenoma and carcinoma occurs in the sigmoid colon of patients with diverticular disease, for which bacterial carcinogens have been claimed to play a role. AIM: To assess epithelial cell proliferation in colonic mucosa of diverticular disease patients before and after rifaximin treatment. METHODS: Twelve consecutive patients with a new endoscopic diagnosis of left-sided diverticular disease and 12 matched controls were enrolled. Epithelial cell proliferation in the sigmoid mucosa was assessed by using proliferating cell nuclear antigen. The proliferating cell nuclear antigen index of the whole crypt and of the upper third was separately evaluated before and after 10-day rifaximin (400 mg b.d.) therapy. RESULTS: Proliferating cell nuclear antigen index in the upper third of the crypt was significantly higher in the diverticular patients (median: 25, range: 14-32) as compared with controls (median: 15, range: 5-20) (P = 0.038), and it was not reverted by rifaximin therapy. No difference of the proliferating cell nuclear antigen index of the whole crypt was detected between cases (median: 27, range: 23-44) and controls (median: 25, range: 18-42) (P = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed an upward shifting of cellular proliferation in the sigmoid mucosa of patients with diverticular disease. Because of rifaximin failure in reversing this alteration, factors other than the bacterial load should probably be investigated.

Efficacy of mesalazine in the treatment of symptomatic diverticular disease.

We aimed to improve symptoms by means of mesalazine in symptomatic colonic diverticular disease patients. One hundred seventy outpatients (98 M, 72 F; age, 67.1 years; range, 39-84 years) were assigned to four different schedules: rifaximin, 200 mg bid (Group R1: 39 pts), rifaximin, 400 mg bid (Group R2: 43 pts), mesalazine, 400 mg bid (Group M1: 40 pts), and mesalazine, 800 mg bid (Group M2: 48 pts), for 10 days per month. At baseline and after 3 months we recorded 11 clinical variables (upper/lower abdominal pain/discomfort, bloating, tenesmus, diarrhea, abdominal tenderness, fever, general illness, nausea, emesis, dysuria), scored from 0 = no symptoms to 3 = severe. The global symptomatic score was the sum of all symptom scores. After 3 months in all schedules but Group R1, 3 of the 11 symptoms improved (P < 0.03); the global score decreased in all groups but Group R1 (P < 0.0001). Mesalazine-treated patients had the lowest global score at 3 months (P < 0.001). Mesalazine is as effective as rifaximin (higher dosage schedule) for diminishing some symptoms, but it appears to be better than rifaximin for improving the global score in those patients.