Strategic Use of Immunosuppressants and Anti-TNF in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Controlled trials and meta-analyses have shown that immunosuppressants are effective in steroid-dependent Crohn's disease (CD) and, although less well demonstrated, ulcerative colitis (UC). It has also been demonstrated that anti-TNF are effective in steroid-dependent and steroid-refractory CD and UC. Anti-TNF can also decrease hospitalization rate and the need for surgery. This seems also to be the case for immunosuppressants. The early use of anti-TNF seems more effective than later use, and early mucosal healing is associated with decreased rate of surgery. On the contrary, early use of purine analogues does not seem to improve outcome in CD. Anti-TNF therapies have been shown superior to immunosuppressants and combination therapy superior to anti-TNF monotherapy in inducing steroid-free remission and mucosal healing. The main strategic questions which remain at this stage include: When to start imnnunosuppressants or anti-TNF? Is there still a place for immunosuppressant monotherapy? How to optimize anti-TNF? Is it possible to stop anti-TNF? The main justification of innmunosuppressant monotherapy is the low cost of this treatment and the possibility of achieving a very stable and long-standing remission in a subset of patients. According to this and provided there is no rapid need for more effective therapy, this treatment could be tried in any inflammatory bowel disease patient not correctly maintained after a course of steroids and 5-aminosalicylic acid. However, the failure to respond to this treatment should be recognized early and a step up to anti-TNF considered. An anti-TNF treatment should be considered early in patients at risk of rapid evolution towards tissue damage and complications. The benefit/risk of the innmunosuppressant + anti-TNF combination therapy should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Anti-TNF treatment should always be fully optimized by adapting dosage and potentially adding an immunosuppressant before considering treatment failure. Treatment de-escalation should only be considered when a long-standing stable remission has been achieved both clinically and biologically. The cost sparing and theoretical decrease in complication risk should be put in perspective with the risk of relapse and disease progression. (C) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel