Can we move directly from 5-ASA to a biologic agent in ulcerative colitis?

Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2018 Feb-Apr:32-33:9-15. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2018.05.004. Epub 2018 Jun 20.

Abstract

European consensus guidelines and reimbursement policies position biologic drugs for ulcerative colitis (UC) as a third-line treatment, after failure of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) and corticosteroids/thiopurines. While 5-ASA have a very favorable safety profile, (prolonged) use of corticosteroids and thiopurines is associated with potentially serious adverse events. The therapeutic landscape of UC is rapidly evolving and selective biologic drugs with improved safety are being introduced. The first biosimilars have entered the market, leading to improved cost-effectiveness of older biologic drugs. In addition, new insights have been gained in the importance of stringent therapeutic targets such as mucosal and histological healing to improve the long-term outcome of UC patients, and in the role of therapeutic drug monitoring and treatment optimization in this regard. In this manuscript we tackle the question of whether we should move directly from 5-ASA treatment to biologic drugs to offer better and/or safer care to UC patients.

Keywords: Biologic drugs; Histological healing; Mucosal healing; Safety; Thiopurines; Treat-to-target; Ulcerative colitis.

Publication types

  • Review

MeSH terms

  • Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal / pharmacology
  • Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal / therapeutic use*
  • Biological Factors / pharmacology
  • Biological Factors / therapeutic use*
  • Colitis, Ulcerative / drug therapy*
  • Humans
  • Mesalamine / pharmacology
  • Mesalamine / therapeutic use*

Substances

  • Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
  • Biological Factors
  • Mesalamine