Philip Esters1, Christopher Hackenberg1, Herrmann Schulze1, Axel U Dignass2. 1. Medizinische Klinik I, Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Wilhelm-Epstein-Str. 4, 60431, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland. 2. Medizinische Klinik I, Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Wilhelm-Epstein-Str. 4, 60431, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland. axel.dignass@agaplesion.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In addition to conventional anti-inflammatory treatment for chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), there has been an evolution of new treatment options over the past 20 years. Already approved biologics provide multiple treatment alternatives but also make the treatment algorithms more complex. This development results in a substantial improvement in patient care. The ambitious treatment targets are associated with a higher quality of life and the reduction of long-term disability and morbidity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to give an overview of how biologics can currently be implemented in IBD. In particular, the current clinical management is presented and an outlook on future treatment options with biologics for IBD is provided. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was carried out in PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov and the current German and European guidelines and expert recommendations were evaluated. RESULTS: Since the late 1990s there have been a continuously increasing number of treatment options for IBD. All substances have proven safety and efficacy in large randomized clinical studies and enable increasingly more individualized treatment for patients with IBD. Biologics are currently the standard treatment of choice for moderate to severe inflammatory activity as well as for steroid-refractory or steroid-dependent courses of disease after failure of conventional treatment. CONCLUSION: The diversity of IBD treatment offers increasing treatment options and thus improved patient care; however, as the number of new substances increases treatment becomes more complex. This article summarizes the current and future treatment options for IBD and their integration into current treatment algorithms.
BACKGROUND: In addition to conventional anti-inflammatory treatment for chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), there has been an evolution of new treatment options over the past 20 years. Already approved biologics provide multiple treatment alternatives but also make the treatment algorithms more complex. This development results in a substantial improvement in patient care. The ambitious treatment targets are associated with a higher quality of life and the reduction of long-term disability and morbidity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to give an overview of how biologics can currently be implemented in IBD. In particular, the current clinical management is presented and an outlook on future treatment options with biologics for IBD is provided. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was carried out in PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov and the current German and European guidelines and expert recommendations were evaluated. RESULTS: Since the late 1990s there have been a continuously increasing number of treatment options for IBD. All substances have proven safety and efficacy in large randomized clinical studies and enable increasingly more individualized treatment for patients with IBD. Biologics are currently the standard treatment of choice for moderate to severe inflammatory activity as well as for steroid-refractory or steroid-dependent courses of disease after failure of conventional treatment. CONCLUSION: The diversity of IBD treatment offers increasing treatment options and thus improved patient care; however, as the number of new substances increases treatment becomes more complex. This article summarizes the current and future treatment options for IBD and their integration into current treatment algorithms.
Authors: K Rajender Reddy; Kimberly L Beavers; Sarah P Hammond; Joseph K Lim; Yngve T Falck-Ytter Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Jean-Frédéric Colombel; William J Sandborn; Paul Rutgeerts; Robert Enns; Stephen B Hanauer; Remo Panaccione; Stefan Schreiber; Dan Byczkowski; Ju Li; Jeffrey D Kent; Paul F Pollack Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-11-29 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: I J Fuss; M Neurath; M Boirivant; J S Klein; C de la Motte; S A Strong; C Fiocchi; W Strober Journal: J Immunol Date: 1996-08-01 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Fernando Gomollón; Axel Dignass; Vito Annese; Herbert Tilg; Gert Van Assche; James O Lindsay; Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet; Garret J Cullen; Marco Daperno; Torsten Kucharzik; Florian Rieder; Sven Almer; Alessandro Armuzzi; Marcus Harbord; Jost Langhorst; Miquel Sans; Yehuda Chowers; Gionata Fiorino; Pascal Juillerat; Gerassimos J Mantzaris; Fernando Rizzello; Stephan Vavricka; Paolo Gionchetti Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 9.071
Authors: Jaana T Joensuu; Saara Huoponen; Kalle J Aaltonen; Yrjö T Konttinen; Dan Nordström; Marja Blom Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: G L Goll; K K Jørgensen; J Sexton; I C Olsen; N Bolstad; E A Haavardsholm; K E A Lundin; K S Tveit; M Lorentzen; I P Berset; B T S Fevang; S Kalstad; K Ryggen; D J Warren; R A Klaasen; Ø Asak; S Baigh; I M Blomgren; Ø Brenna; T J Bruun; K Dvergsnes; S O Frigstad; I M Hansen; I S H Hatten; G Huppertz-Hauss; M Henriksen; S S Hoie; J Krogh; I P Midtgard; P Mielnik; B Moum; G Noraberg; A Poyan; U Prestegård; H U Rashid; E K Strand; K Skjetne; K A Seeberg; R Torp; C M Ystrøm; C Vold; C C Zettel; K Waksvik; B Gulbrandsen; J Hagfors; C Mørk; J Jahnsen; T K Kvien Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 8.989