Upload
clarence-welch
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Crohn’s DiseaseOverview
Etiology of Crohn’s Disease
Nonspecific inflammationNonspecific inflammationTissue injuryTissue injury
Restitution and repairRestitution and repair
Genetic Susceptibility
Environmental Factors
Host (Immune response)
Several Theories Exist
Elson CO et al. In: Proceedings of V International Symposium on Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. 1998. In Press.
Evidence of the Role of TNF in IBD
Mucosal production of TNF is greater in patients with IBD than in controls in most, but not all reports1,2
The number of cells producing TNF is greater
in patients with IBD than in controls2,3
TNF is increased throughout the intestinal mucosa in patients with UC and throughout both the mucosa and submucosa of patients with CD1
1. Murch SH et al. Gut. 1993;34:1705-1709.2. Reinecker H-C et al. Clin Exp Immunol. 1993;94:174-181.3. Breese ES et al. Gastroenterology. 1994;106:1455-1466.
Evidence of the Role of TNF in IBD
Increased concentrations of TNF have been detected in the stools of children with active disease1
Serum levels of soluble TNF receptors are increased in patients with CD as a result of T-cell activation2
1. Braegger CP et al. Lancet. 1992;339:89-91.2. Stronkhorst A et al. Gastroenterology. 1994;106(Suppl 4):A779. Abstract.
Yang H, Rotter JI. In: Inflammatory Bowel Disease. From Bench to Bedside. 1993:32-64.
Genetic Influence in IBD
Racial and ethnic differences in incidence
Increased incidence among monozygotic twins (primarily in patients with CD)
Association with certain genetic syndromes
Familial Patterns of Inheritance
Approximately 10% of patients have positive family history
2%–10% risk if first-degreerelatives affected
50–100-fold increase in prevalence for children of patients with IBD
Yang H, Rotter JI. In: Inflammatory Bowel Disease. From Bench to Bedside. 1993:32-64.
Microbial Mucosal Immune Interactions
Animal models support the view that IBD is caused by genetically determined dysregulation in mucosal immune response to normal gut microflora (luminal antigens)
Intestinal mucosa relatively free of adherent bacteria
Microbial Mucosal Immune Interactions
IBD patients have increased numbers of diverse bacterial antigens within the mucosa
– Farrell and LaMont Gastro Clin NA 2002;31:41.
Increased numbers of specific species (Bacteroides, Fusobacteria) may be a determinant of post-op recurrence
– Neut et al. Am JGastroenterol 2002;97:939.
Mucosa associated E coli strains alter permeability in IEC monlayers
– Rocha et al. Surgery 2001;130:65.
Pathogenesis of Crohn’s Disease
Podolsky, DK NEJM 2002;347:417-29.
C D 4
C D 4
IL-12IL-18
bacteria Lum en
antigenpresenting
cell
IFN
TNF
IL-10
C D 4
regulatory T ce ll
Tobacco Smoking and IBD
Smoking shown to be protective in UC and has adverse effect on clinical course of CD
Inverse association in UC and CD likely reflective of differences in pathogenesis
Natural History: What Do We Know ?
Complications increase with time and depend on location and behavior
Predictable post-operative recurrence
Negative impact of smoking and NSAIDs
Effect of Disease Location on Behavior of CD in Females
Freeman H. J. Clin Gastroenterology 2003:37, 3: 216-219
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Ileum Colon Ileocolon
Nu
mb
er o
f P
atie
nts
Nonstenosing / Nonpenetrating
Stenosing
Penetrating
Chron’s Disease Activity IndexCDAI
Chron’s Disease
Endoscopic Index Severity
CDEIS
Crohn’s Disease Activity Index
Scoring– Maximum score 600– Remission < 150– Moderate activity 200 – 450– Severe activity > 450
Best WR et al. Gastroenterology. 1976;70:439-444.
Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity: Variables
Disease location– Rectum– Sigmoid and left
colon– Transverse colon– Right colon– Ileum
Depth of lesion(s)– Superficial– Deep
Mary JY, Modigliani R. Gut. 1989;30:983-989.
Size of lesion(s)– Measured in
centimeters Presence of stenoses
– Ulcerated– Nonulcerated
Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity: CDEIS
Index construction and calculation
CDEIS = Sum of 12 x ISRCF (deep ulceration)
+ 6 x ISRCF (superficial ulceration)
+ ASSD (segmented surface disease)
+ ASSU (segmented surface ulcerated)
+ 3 x PRES (ulcerated stenosis)
+ 3 x PRES (nonulcerated stenosis)
Mary JY, Modigliani R. Gut. 1989;30:983-989.
ISRCF, individual segmental rectocolonic frequency; ASSD, average segmental surfaces involved by disease; ASSU, average segmental surfaces involved by ulceration;PRES, present.
Therapeutic Endpoints of Acute Therapy for CD
CDAI score < 150 (absence of inflammatory symptoms)
Endoscopic evidence of mucosal response (reduction in CDEIS score) – Highest score = 14.9 – Lowest score = 0
Corticosteroid withdrawal Improved quality of life
Goals of Therapy
Inducing remission Maintaining remission Healing mucosa Restore and maintain nutrition Maintain quality of life For those requiring surgery, select
optimal timing for surgical intervention
Current “Step-Up” Approach to Crohn’s Disease (CD) Therapy
AZA/6-MP/ MTX
Infliximab
Corticosteroids
Aminosalicylates
Surgery
Antibiotics
Bowel Rest
Severe
Moderate
Mild
Budesonide
Prednisone
??
“It’s not just inducing remission that
counts; the trick is holding on to it.”
Sachar DB. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2000;6:329.
Potential Maintenance of Remission Therapies for Crohn’s Disease
Sulfasalazine Mesalamine Antibiotics Corticosteroids Budesonide Azathioprine, 6-Mercaptopurine Methotrexate InfliximabInfliximab
±, questionable; +, weak; ++, moderate; +++, strong; –, none.
Long-term Maintenance of Remission in CD
Oral aminosalicylates ±
Topical aminosalicylates –
Systemic corticosteroids –
Corticosteroids with low systemic bioavailability (budesonide) +
Immunosuppressants
Cyclosporine –
Methotrexate –
Azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine +++
Risk Difference 95% CI
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Favors Treatment Favors Control
19957- Arber
199710- De Franchis
19979- Sutherland
19968- Modigliani
19956- Thomson
19945- Bresci
19934- Gendre
19923- Brignola
19922- Prantera
19901- Thomson
DateStudy
Overall: 1371
Mesalamine in Medically Induced Remission
Camma C et al. Gastroenterol 1997;113:1465-73.
Risk Difference 95% CI
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Favors Treatment Favors Control
19934- Sutherland
19923- Brignola
19922- McLeod
19901- Caprilli
DateStudy
OverallIncluding Lochs (2000), excluding Caprilli (1994, #1 above)
Overall : 411
Mesalamine in Surgically Induced Remission
Camma C et al. Gastroenterol 1997;113: 1465-73.Camma C et al. Gastroenterol 1997;113: 1465-73.
Azathioprine Maintenance of Steroid- Induced Remission for Crohn’s Disease
100
0
20
40
60
80
0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Duration of trial (months)
Azathioprine
Placebo
% O
n tr
ial
Candy S. et al. Gut 1995, 37:674-8.
63 patients with active disease
Prednisolone tapering schedule (1 mg/kg–0/12 weeks)
Randomized 2.5 mg/kg azathioprine vs placebo
Outcome treatment success (induction and maintenance of remission)
Six controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of AZA or 6-MP for maintenance of remission
Five of these studies were included in a meta-analysis*
– The overall rate of remission maintenance was higher in patients receiving AZA or 6-MP compared to placebo (67% vs. 52%)
– Maintenance of remission was dose-dependent
– In studies that evaluated steroid use, patients receiving 2.5 mg/kg/day AZA were significantly more likely to reduce steroid consumption (87% vs. 53%)
AZA & 6-MP: Maintenance of Remission
¨*Pearson et al. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123:132-42.
AZA and 6-MP: Questions ?
How long ?
Combined therapy with infliximab ?
Bouhnik et al. Lancet 1996;347:215-9.
Relapse Rate After Azathioprine Withdrawal According to Duration of Remission on
Azathioprine
0
20
40
60
80
0-1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 >5
% o
f R
elap
se a
t 2
yr
MaintainStopped
1501509999 5757 3535
24241212
77
1313
77
66
44
**
***
***
***
n.s.
n.s.
Duration of Remission on Azathioprine (years)
CH3
CH2
CH1
VH
VL
Ck
Mouse
Human IgG1 – Fc
CH2
CH3
Rh p75 TNFR
Human IgG1 – Fc
Rh p75 TNF Receptor
Infliximab: chimeric mouse monoclonal anti-TNF human
IgG1 protein
Etanercept: recombinant human p75 TNF receptor Fc
fusion protein.
TNF Neutralizing Drugs
Membranebound TNF
Soluble TNF
p75 TNF receptor
extracellular
intracellularTACE
p55 TNF receptor
Death domain(TRADD)
TRAF2
TNF Metabolism
Sandborn et al. Gastroenterology 2001
Infliximab but Not Etanercept Is Effective in Crohn’s Disease
0
20
40
60
0 2 4 8
Clin
ica
l Re
sp
on
se
(%
)
Placebo Etanercept
0
10
20
30
0 2 4 8
Clin
ica
l Re
mis
sio
n (
%)
Placebo Etanercept
Etanercept and Infliximab Neutralize Recombinant Human TNF Effectively
0
0
20
40
60
80
0.1 1 10 100
Infliximab (µg/ml)
NF
-kB
-dri
ven
GF
P E
xpre
ssio
n
(co
un
ts)
0
0
25
50
75
2525 x10 -5 25 x10 -3 25 x10 -1
NF
-kB
-dri
ven
GF
P E
xpre
ssio
n(c
ou
nts
)
Etanercept (µg/ml)
medium infliximab c17-1aetanercept
GaH-FITC
Co
un
ts
24
48
Only infliximab Binds memTNF on Activated Peripheral Lymphocytes
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Me
an
Flu
ore
sc
en
t In
ten
sit
y
Medium Infliximab Etanercept c17-1a
48
C17-1a
0 12 24 36
0
10
20
30
40
50 IMDM
Time (hrs)
Ap
oto
tic
cell
s (%
)
Only Infliximab Induces Apoptosis in Activated Lymphocytes
IMDMInfliximab
0 12 24 36 48
Time (hrs)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Ap
oto
tic
cell
s (%
) } p<0.01
0 12 24 36 48
0
10
20
30
40
50 IMDMEtanercept
Time (hrs)
Ap
oto
tic
cell
s (%
)
Infliximab Activates Caspase 3, Etanercept Does Not.
InfliximabEtanerceptC171A
- -- - - - -+ +- -- + + - -- -- -- - - + +- -
24 48 24 48 24 48 24 48
caspase3active
0
actin
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
24 48
Time (hrs)
Ca
sp
as
e 3
Ac
tiv
ati
on
(R
ela
tiv
e t
o 0
hrs
.)
Medium
Infliximab
Etanercept
c17-1A
ACCENT I & II: Baseline Patient Characteristics
ACCENT I ACCENT II
Group I Group II Group III Group I Group II
Patients 188 192 193 143 139
Age 36 35 35 38 38
Disease duration 7.5 7.5 8.7 12.0 10.7
Previous resection 51% 52% 50% 56% 55%
IBDQ 126 126 131 167 155
CRP mg/dL 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7
Steroids 51% 51% 51% 29% 29%
Immunomodulators 32% 21% 23% 35% 34%
All values are median
Baseline Patient Characteristics
Typical Crohn’s disease population with moderately to severely active disease
– Median CDAI (range): 297 (193 - 488)
– Median IBDQ (range): 127 (56 - 200)
– Patients receiving corticosteroids: 62%
– Patients receiving immunomodulators: 29%
Patients were well balanced for other parameters
ACCENT I & II Endpoint Definitions
ACCENT I Clinical response: reduction of 25% and 70 points in CDAI
Loss of response: CDAI 175, increased by 35%, 70 points higher than qualifying CDAI
Clinical remission: CDAI < 150
ACCENT II Fistula response: 50% reduction from baseline in the number of draining fistulas
Loss of fistula response: < 50% reduction in the number of draining fistula from baseline over 4 weeks
Complete fistula response: absence of any draining fistula
CDAI remission CDAI < 150
ACCENT I: Study Design
Infusion
All Patients (N=573)
Infliximab 5mg/kg
Responders at Week 2 N=335 (58%)
Non-Responders at Week 2 N=238 (42%)
Week 0
Single Dose Group Placebo
N=1885mg/kg
N=19210mg/kg
N=193
3 Dose Induction Group
Crossover to 5mg/kg
Crossover to 10mg/kg
Crossover to 15mg/kg
Evaluation
Week 46
Week 54
Week 38
Week 30
Week 22
Week 14
Week 6
Week 2
10 mg/kg
All Patients (N=573) Clinical Response Through Week 10
Single Dose vs 3-Dose Induction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 2 4 6 8 10
Pe
rcen
t o
f P
ati
ents
Single infusion (N=188) 3-Dose induction (N=385)
Infusions
Weeks
P=0.035
65
52
Response to Infliximab Therapy Among Randomized Patients
58.5%
22.5%18.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Rapid Responders(N=385)
DelayedResponders
(N=135)
Non-responders(N=103)
% o
f P
atie
nts
(N=573)
CSR: 1849.
Patients Who Crossed Over
49%
30%26%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Group I Group II Group III
% o
f P
atie
nts
(N=188) (N=192) (N=193)
MS: 10.
ACCENT I: Patients in Clinical Response Through Week 54
0
20
40
60
80
100
Weeks
Pe
rce
nt
in R
es
po
ns
e
Responders All Randomized
14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54
Group I (N=110)
Group II (N=113)
Group III (N=112)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Weeks
Pe
rce
nt
in R
es
po
ns
e
14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54
Group I (N=175)
Group II (N=183)
Group III (N=183)
ACCENT I: Patients in Clinical Remission
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Weeks
Pe
rce
nt
in R
em
iss
ion
Responders All Randomized
14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54
Group I (N=110)
Group II (N=113)
Group III (N=112)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Weeks
Pe
rce
nt
in R
em
iss
ion
14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54
Group I (N=175)
Group II (N=183)
Group III (N=183)
ACCENT I: CDAI Was Lower With Infliximab Maintenance Therapy
Responders All Randomized
0 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 5438 42 46 50 0 2 6 10 14 22 30 5438 46
Group I (n=110)
Group II (n=113)
Group III (n=112)
Med
ian
CD
AI
Med
ian
CD
AI
130
350
200
250
300
130
350
200
250
300
WeekWeek
Group I (n=188)
Group II (n=192)
Group III (n=193)
ACCENT I: Average Daily Corticosteroid Dose Through Week 54
0
5
10
15
20
0 6 10 14 22 30 38 46 54
Weeks
Med
ian
Co
rtic
ost
ero
id D
ose
Group I (N=89)Group II (N=95)Group III (N=95)
2 4
Rubenstein JH et al. J Clin Gastroenterol, 2002;35:151.
Reduction of Hospitalizations/ Surgeries with Infliximab
-11-9
-18
-38-40
-30
-20
-10
0Hospitalization* Hospitalized Days All Surgeries GI Surgeries
% In
cid
en
ce
s
P=0.14P=0.06
P<0.01
P<0.05
Rubenstein JH. J Clin Gastroenterol 2002;35(2):151-6.
Rubenstein JH et al. J Clin Gastroenterol, 2002;35:151.
Reduction in ER Visits/Procedures with Infliximab
-66
-43
-13-12
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0ER Visits Endoscopies
All RadiologyExams
Non-Plain FilmExams
% In
cid
en
ce
s
P≤0.01 for all endpoints
Rubenstein JH. J Clin Gastroenterol 2002;35(2):151-6.
ACCENT II: Study DesignAll Patients (N = 306)
Infliximab 5 mg/kg
PlaceboPlaceboMaintenance (N=143)Maintenance (N=143)
Infliximab Maintenance 5 mg/kg (N= 139)
Responders(N = 99)
Non-responders(N = 44)
Responders(N = 96)
Non-responders(N = 43)
Week 22
Week 30
Week 38
Week 46
Week 54Evaluation
Crossoverto 5 mg/kg
Crossoverto 5 mg/kg
Crossoverto 10 mg/kg
Crossoverto 10 mg/kg
NotRandomized
(N = 24)
InfusionWeek 0Week 2Week 6
Week 14
ACCENT II: Baseline Patient Characteristics
ACCENT IIGroup I Group II
Patients 143 139
Age 38 38
Disease duration 12.0 10.7
Previous resection 56% 55%
IBDQ 167 155
CRP mg/dL 0.7 0.7
Steroids 29% 29%
Immunomodulators 35% 34%
All values are median
ACCENT II Endpoint Definitions
ACCENT II Fistula response: 50% reduction from baseline in the
number of draining fistulas
Loss of fistula response: < 50% reduction in the number of draining fistula from baseline over 4 weeks
Complete fistula response: absence of any draining fistula
CDAI remission CDAI < 150
ACCENT II: Patients in Fistula Response & Complete Fistula Response
0
20
40
60
80
100
Weeks
Pe
rce
nt
of
Pa
tie
nts
Group I (N=99)Group II (N=96)
Fistula Response
14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54
0
20
40
60
80
100
Weeks
Pe
rce
nt
of
Pa
tie
nts
Placebo (N=99)Infliximab 5 mg/kg (N=96)
Complete Fistula Response
14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54
Duration of Infliximab Maintenance vs. Episodic Treatment
23.1
39.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Group I Group II
Du
rati
on
of
Re
sp
on
se
(W
ee
ks
)
(n=133) (n=125)
19
38
54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Group I Group II Group III
Du
rati
on
of
Re
sp
on
se
(W
ee
ks
)
(n=146) (n=154) (n=193)
ACCENT I ACCENT II
ACCENT I: Endoscopic Substudy
Patients– N=99– 25 European sites– 2-week responders and recipients of
episodic retreatment Endoscopic Assessment
– CDEIS Weeks 0,10, and 54 Definition of healing:
– Mucosal ulceration at Week 0 and no mucosal ulceration at follow-up colonoscopies
Evaluations CDAI scores were calculated at baseline and
Weeks 2, 6, 10, 14, 22, 30, 38, 46, 54 Data regarding lesions were calculated by endoscopic
examination of the rectum, sigmoid and left colon, transverse colon, right colon, cecum, and ileum at baseline, Week 10, and Week 54
Reduction of ulcerations was also assessed using the CDEIS (higher CDEIS scores indicate greater disease activity)
Mucosal healing was defined as presence of mucosal ulceration (aphthoid, superficial or shallow, deep, or ulcerated stenosis) at Week 0 and absence at follow-up visits
Rutgeerts et al, DDW 2002: Abstract W1367.
Patients Demonstrating Mucosal Healing
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Infliximab5 mg/kg
Infliximab10 mg/kg Placebo
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Combined Infliximab Placebo
CDEIS Median Chg from BL to Week 54CDEIS Median Chg from BL to Week 10
Rutgeerts et al, DDW 2002: Abstract W1367.
Maintenance Infliximab vs Episodic Therapy: Patients with Healed Mucosa
7%
46%
31%
53%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0%
P=0.01
P=0.026
P=0.007
Week 10 Week 54N=17 N=32 N=14 N=11 N=15
Single Infusion Infliximab 5 mg/kg Infliximab 10 mg/kg
Week 2 Responders
% o
f P
atie
nts
Rutgeerts et al, DDW 2002: Abstract W1367.
Endoscopic Findings for a 5 mg/kg Infliximab Maintenance Patient
Baseline Week 10 Week 54
Rutgeerts et al, DDW 2002: Abstract W1367.
Crohn’s-Related Hospitalization and Surgery Rates and ICU Days by Mucosal Healing
0
50
100
150
200 Hospitalizations/100 patients
ICU days/100 patients
Surgeries/100 patients
No Mucosal
healing
(N=74)
Mucosal healing
at one visit
Mucosal healing
at both visits
(N=16) (N=9)
Infliximab Safety
Infliximab Patient Exposure
PSUR 2 8/00 13,883 76,400
PSUR 3 2/01 26,959 135,693
PSUR 4 8/01 49,948 199,943
PSUR 5 2/02 75,853 271,152
PSUR 6 8/02 103,553 344,117
PSUR 7 2/03 127,577 432,648
Period Ending EU Worldwide
PSUR 1 2/00 4,975 22,032
Cumulative Exposure and Reporting Rates for Tuberculosis
PSUR Expos/ Expos Cases PRR* Cumul PRR*
period Cumul Cases Cumul
1 22,032 34,354 1 0.00% 2 0.01%
2 44,786 79,140 15 0.03% 17 0.02%
3 68,383 147,523 40 0.06% 57 0.04%
4 81,815 229,338 62 0.08% 119 0.05%
5 105,821 335,159 80 0.08% 199 0.06%
6 127,028 462,187 78 0.06% 277 0.06%
*Proportional report rate.
Most Infliximab Associated
Tuberculosis Occurs Early in Tx
PSUR 5: pg. 250.Baker et al. ACR 2001.PSUR 6: pg. 79.
Infusion Number
% o
f P
atie
nts
0
20
40
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Algorithm for TB Testing:European-Based Recommendations
New infliximab patient has office visit
PPD Test PositivePPD Test Positiveand active TBand active TB
Initiate latent TB Initiate latent TB treatmenttreatment
Treat active TB to Treat active TB to resolutionresolution
Initiate infliximabInitiate infliximabInitiate infliximabInitiate infliximab
Administer appropriate TB screening test(PPD skin test + chest x-ray + family history)
Evaluate test results
Test NegativeTest Negative
Initiate infliximabInitiate infliximab
PPD Test PositivePPD Test Positiveand normal CXRand normal CXR
Serious Infusion Reactions Infliximab
ATTRACT Study Report pg.288-289.ACCENT I Study Report pg.262-263. *Patients with evaluable samples.
0.0 0.0 0.00
10
20
30
40
50
Positive*0 / 329
Negative*0 / 1224
Inconclusive*0 / 3092
Antibody-to-Infliximab Status
No serious infusion reactionsNo serious infusion reactionsin ATTRACTin ATTRACT
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
fusi
on
s w
ith
Ser
iou
s In
fusi
on
Rea
cti
on
s
ATTRACT ATTRACT through week 102through week 10211
0.4 0.0 0.50
10
20
30
40
50
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
fusi
on
s w
ith
Ser
iou
s In
fusi
on
Rea
cti
on
s
Antibody-to-Infliximab Status
Positive*1 / 254
Negative*3 / 656
Inconclusive*0 / 1470
ACCENT I ACCENT I through week 54through week 5422
New Management Trend In Crohn’s Diseases
Inverting the Treatment Pyramid: “Step-Down” Therapy for CD
Corticosteroids 5-ASA
Early
Late
Surgery
AZA/6-MP/MTX
Biologics (eg, infliximab)
5-ASA5-ASA AntibioticsAntibiotics
PrednisonePrednisone BudesonideBudesonide
AZA/6-MPAZA/6-MP MTXMTX
InfliximabInfliximab
SurgerySurgery
DiseaseDisease
SeveritySeverity
Other TNF blockers
Inhibitors of leukocyte migration
The future… Beginning Today ?
Sequential management of
steroid-dependent patients
Chronically active CDChronically active CD
Oui
Failure (12 weeks)Failure (12 weeks)Failure (12 weeks)Failure (12 weeks)
AZA or MTXAZA or MTX
Other OptionsOther Options
Surgery ?Surgery ?
Add Infliximab and maintain Q8 weeksAdd Infliximab and maintain Q8 weeksAdd Infliximab and maintain Q8 weeksAdd Infliximab and maintain Q8 weeks
Reevaluation of Tx Reevaluation of Tx (Dose escalation or reduce frequency)(Dose escalation or reduce frequency)
Reevaluation of Tx Reevaluation of Tx (Dose escalation or reduce frequency)(Dose escalation or reduce frequency)