Upload
francis-price
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Complementary and Alternative Therapies in IBDHype or Hope?
Meenakshi Bewtra, MD, MPH, PhDUniversity of Pennsylvania
Division of GastroenterologyCenter for Clinical Epidemiology &
Biostatistics
CCEB
Outline:• Why CAM?• Alternative therapies in IBD
– Acupuncture and moxibustion– Aloe Vera– Andrographis panniculata extract– Wormwood – Curcumin– Trichuris suis– Cannabis– Fish oil
• Conclusion
Definition of Complementary and Alternative (CAM) Therapies
• “…a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices and products that are not presently considered part of conventional medicine.”– National Center for Complimentary and Alternative
Medicine (NCCAM)
• Complementary and Alternative are Different– Complementary: using non-mainstream approach
together with conventional medicine– Alternative: using non-mainstream approach in place
of conventional medicine
Use of CAM in N. America and Europe
• Current use: 11-34%• Current and past use: 21-60%
Hilsden et al, IBD 2011:17,2 665-662
Most common CAM therapies used in IBD
Hilsden et al, IBD 2011:17,2 665-662
Issues in evaluating CAM in IBD• Lack of high-quality studies• Lack of studies in IBD population• Studies assessing CAM often suffer from
inferior quality– small sample sizes– lack of adequate controls– inadequate study designs– weak results even when positive– poor reporting of results– no real follow-up studies
Why do IBD patients pursue CAM?• Existing therapies are not working• Fear of side effects of current available
therapies• “they make sense”
– Desire for greater control over their life and their IBD
– Value of treating the “whole person”• Internet hype and misinformation• Improvement in concomitant IBS• Because we have not cured IBD yet!
Outline:• Why CAM?• Alternative therapies in IBD
– Acupuncture and moxibustion– Aloe Vera– Andrographis panniculata extract– Wormwood – Curcumin– Trichuris suis– Cannabis– Fish oil
• Conclusion
Alternative Therapies in IBD(for today)
• Acupuncture and moxibustion• Aloe Vera• Andrographis panniculata extract• Wormwood • Curcumin• Trichuris suis• Cannabis• Fish oil
Acupuncture and Moxibustion: UCSingle-center single blind randomized controlled trial
• Small differences in outcome (moxa/acupuncture vs sham acupuncture) – CAI: 8 4.2 vs 6.5 4.8 (p=0.048)
• Both groups improved general well-being and quality of life (no difference between groups)
• Both traditional and sham offer benefit
29 UC patientsmild-mod disease (CAI 4-10)
stable meds for ≥ 4 weeks
15 patients10 Acu/Mox sessions over 5 weeks
14 patients10 Sham sessions over 5 weeks
Joos et al Scand J of Gastro 2006; 41:1056-1063
Acupuncture and Moxibustion: CDSingle-center single blind randomized controlled trial
• Both groups improved general well-being and quality of life • Moxa/acupuncture group improved CDAI more
– CDAI: 250 163 vs 220 181 (p=0.003) • Both traditional and sham offer benefit, but
moxa/acupuncture more
51 CD patientsmild-mod disease (CDAI 150-350)
stable meds for ≥ 4 weeks(no AZA/6-MP/MTX)
27 patients10 Acu/Mox sessions over 4 weeks
24 patients10 Sham sessions over 4 weeks
Joos et al Digestion 2004, 69(3): 131-9
Aloe Vera Gel: UCSingle-center single blind randomized controlled trial
• Clinical response: 47% vs 14% (p<0.05)• Clinical remission: 30% vs 7% (p=0.09) • Sigmoidoscopy scores no different • Histological scores improved with aloe vera but not placebo
(p=0.03) • Conclusion: mixed results but promising. Needs more study
44 UC patientsmild-mod disease (SCCAI 4-10)
stable meds for ≥ 4 weeks
30 patients100 ml Aloe Vera Gel BID for 4 weeks
14 patients100 ml Placebo BID for 4 weeks
Langmead et al Al Pharm Ther 2004; 19: 739-747
Andrographis panniculata extract
• Study: Sandborn, 5 countries USA/Europe, 2013• Population: Active UC• Patients: 224• CAM: 1800 mg daily• Comparator: placebo• Duration: 8 weeks• Remission/Response:
– 38% (CAM) vs 25% (PBO), p=0.1– 60% (CAM) vs 40% (PBO), p=0.02
• Phase III clinical trial currently enrolling patients with UC on mesalamine
Wormwood: CDMulti-centre double blind randomized placebo controlled trial
40 CD patientsCDAI > 170
Excluded IFX-treated patients
20 patientsWormwood capsules 500mg TID
20 patientsWormwood capsules 500mg TID
Omer et al Phytomedicine 2007; 14: 87-95
Omer et al Phytomedicine 2007; 14: 87-95
Wormwood: CDMulti-centre double blind randomized placebo controlled trial
100
200
300
400
Week -2 2 6 10 16 20
(n=20)
(n=20)
Placebo Wormwood
P=0.01*
Baseline Double blind treatment Follow up observation period
CD
AI
*proportion with 70 pt dec. in CDAI
CurcuminMulti-center double blind randomized maintenance trial in quiescent UC
Hanai et al Clin Gastro Hep 2006; 4:1502-1506
89 UC patientsCAI ≤ 4
No steroids/AZA/6MP/CsA
45 patientsCurcumin 1g po BID + 5-ASA
44patientsPlacebo 1g po BID + 5-ASA
2 patients relapsed
8 patients relapsed
8 patients relapsed
8 patients relapsed
Curcumin
PlaceboNS
X2=0.049
Treatment Period Follow up Period
3 months 6 months 9 months 12 months0
50
100
Pat
ient
s in
Rem
issi
on (
%)
CurcuminMulti-center double blind randomized controlled trial in active UC
50 UC patientsCAI 5-12
Stable AZA/6MP; no IFX, steroids
26 patientsCurcumin 3g po qd + 5-ASA
24 patientsPlacebo 3g po qd + 5-ASA
Lang et al Clin Gastro Hep 2015; Aug;13(8):1444-1449
Parasites: The question or the answer?
The Environmental Illness Resource webpage (accessed 8/2015)
Trichuris suis ova (worm eggs)Safety and Tolerability of
Trichuris ova in CD1
Trichuris suis therapy for active UC2
Study: • 36 patients (2 to 6 mo F/U)Results:• GI symptoms: 7( 25.9%) in ova
vs 3 (33.3%) in placebo group.• No dose dependent
relationship.• No clinically meaningful
changes in GI signs and symptoms.
Study: • RCT of 54 pts (12 wk Tx)
Results:Clinical Outcomes
TSO(n=30)
Placebo (n=24)
P-value
Clinical response(↓UCDAI ≥ 4)
43% (13/30)
16.7% (4/24)
0.04
1. Sandborn W et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38(3):255-63.; 2. Summers RW et al. Gastroenterology 2005;128(4)825-32; 3. Gark SK et al Cochrane 2014
Cochrane: “Insufficient evidence…regarding efficacy and safety of helminth therapy…further RCT needed”3
Trichuris suis ova (worm eggs)• Schölmerich J, et al., (2014), Efficacy and safety of Trichuris
suis ova for treatment of mildly-to-moderately active Crohn's disease: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study, UEG Journal, 2(1S):A123 (OP392)• Phase II clinical trial of 252 CD pts treated with T. suis eggs• Study did not meet its primary endpoint of improving response
nor the key secondary endpoint of remission
• Ongoing study: Phase II – RCT of Suis Ova Treatment in left-sided UC and its effects on Mucosal Immune State and Microbiota (NCT01953354)– Treatment arms:
• 7500 Trichuris suis ova every 2 weeks for 10 weeks versus placebo
Cannabis and IBD: patients’ perspective
• 18% of patients of surveyed patients reported current or past use– Heard cannabis would help 46%– Frustrated with their disease 41%– Wanted to try a different approach 38%– Medications prescribed haven’t worked 27%
• 39% of patients discussed cannabis use with their physicians– 82% of patients reported physicians were indifferent or not
supportive of cannabis use for IBD treatment• 82% plan to continue using cannabis for as part of
their IBD treatment• 88% would recommend cannabis to other IBD patients
Storr et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2014;20:472-480
Cannabis and IBD: patients’ perspective
Storr et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2014;20:472-480
91% of cannabis users indicated it helped with their IBD symptoms
abdominal pain
abdominal cramps
joint pain
diarrhea
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
84%
77%
48%
29%
Cannabis users:• More severe disease activity• More abdominal pain• More hospitalizations for IBD• More flares within the past year
• More surgeries for IBD• More analgesic use, including narcotics• More complementary and alternative
medicine use
Mechanism of Cannabinoid Derivatives in IBD
• Unknown• Appetite stimulant• Bowel
relaxant/anticholinergic• No evidence that it is
anti-inflammatory• Very little clinical
evidence demonstrating efficacy
Controlled Trial of THC in CD
• Inclusion: IBD patients with CDAI>200 refractory to steroids, IMMs or anti-TNFs.
• RCT of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)• Cigarettes with 115mg THC vs no THC• Primary endpoint complete remission
Clinical Outcomes
THC (n=11)
Placebo (n=10) P-value
Clinical remission
45% (5/11) 10% (1/10) 0.43
Clinical response (CDAI↓ >100)
90% (10/11) 40% (4/10) 0.028
Naftali T et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;11:1276-1280.
Controlled Trial of THC in CD: Objective data
Naftali T et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;11:1276-1280.
Controlled Trial of THC in CD: Objective data• No endoscopic data / objective evidence of
improvement in inflammation• No difference in objective parameters of disease
activity• No difference in CRP change
– 3 cannabis patients had a decrease in CRP > 0.5mg/dL– 2 placebo patients had a decrease in CRP > 0.5mg/dL
• 19/21 patients were able to tell which group they were in– Essentially not blinded
• More studies needed if convincing data desired!Naftali T et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;11:1276-1280.
Fish oil in CD• Two multinational multi-center randomized double-
blind placebo-controlled studies (EPIC-1, EPIC-2)• Patients with CD (CDAI <150) assigned 4g/d FFA or
PBO for 58 weeks
Feagan B et al 2008 JAMA
Outline:• Why CAM?• Alternative therapies in IBD
– Acupuncture and moxibustion– Aloe Vera– Andrographis panniculata extract– Wormwood – Curcumin– Trichuris suis– Cannabis– Fish oil
• Conclusion
Conclusion: summary of IBD CAM therapies(from today)
Compound Conclusion
Moxibustion/Acup Small superiority in UC activity indexSuperior in CD activity index
Aloe Vera Superior in UC activity index but no endoscopic change
Andrographis panniculata
Promising, RCT ongoing, perhaps first herbal backed by real clinical trial data
Wormwood No clear statistical comparisons, looked promising (but would you trust CAM from study with no stats)
Curcumin Improvement at 6 months for UC maintenanceSuperior for UC induction for those failing 2 weeks 5ASA, reasonable data
Trichuris suis Neg CD study, Study ongoing in UC
Cannabis Improves symptoms, not inflammation
Fish oil Not effective in maintaining remission in Crohn’s
Conclusion: how to integrate CAM• First, do no harm:
• Ensure no opportunity cost (ie, do not delay treating a serious illness for which there is known effective therapy);
• If the CAM therapy carries little risk of harm, then consider its use and follow the patient closely;
• If the CAM therapy carries serious risk of harm, advise the patient accordingly and follow the patient closely;
• Where possible, it is recommended to try to follow an evidence-based rationale for therapy
• Where the evidence is lacking, try to maintain an open mind and a balanced approach.
• Consider the patient’s reason for pursuing CAM…
Why do IBD patients pursue CAM?Existing therapies are not working Optimize therapy; refer if necessaryFear of side effects of current available therapies
Appropriate education about therapies and risks
Internet hype and misinformation You’re doing it now!Improvement in concomitant IBS If little harm, and improving IBS,
consider continuing CAM therapyDesire for greater control over their life and their IBD
Improve shared-decision makingRefer to resources
Value of treating the “whole person” Ask about quality of life and depression; consider appropriate referrals
Because we have not cured IBD yet! Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America
Thank you