Is biologic therapy effective for antibiotic-refractory pouchitis?

Abstract

Main text introduction

The use of biologic therapy for antibiotic-refractory pouchitis is controversial, due to few studies on the subject and lack of convincing results.

Objectives

To study the efficacy of biologic therapy for refractory pouchitis.

Materials and methods

In this retrospective study, patient records at the Medical and Surgical departments in our hospital during an eleven-year period were scrutinized. 25 patients treated with biologics for refractory pouchitis were identified.

Results

The majority of these patients (n = 19, 76%) had either good or partial effect of biologic therapy for refractory pouchitis. Six of these patients did not respond until the second or third-line treatment. All naïve patients (n = 14) had good or partial response regardless if the diagnosis was idiopathic or Crohn’s-like pouchitis. In comparison, only 45% (n = 5) of the patients with prior exposure to biologics (n = 11) had a positive response. Six of ten patients treated with second or third-line therapy had a good or partial response. All not naïve patients who had previously been treated with Infliximab (n = 9) had adverse reactions when the same drug was given for pouchitis.

Conclusions

This retrospective study suggests that biologic therapy may be effective for both idiopathic and Crohn’s-like refractory pouchitis. Naïve patients seem to respond more successfully than not naïve patients. In cases without response on first-line treatment should second-line treatment be considered. Due to the high risk of adverse reactions Infliximab should be avoided to not naïve patients.

Keywords:

• Pouchitis
• anti-TNF
• ulcerative colitis
• IPAA
• antibiotic-refractory

Acknowledgment

The authors express our gratitude and appreciation to all those who gave us the possibility to complete this report. Special thanks to Marie Forsberg at the Department of Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, who helped us to find relevant patient records.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.