How Do You Get Diverticulitis Again

Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2013 Nov; 4(6): 277–286.

Preventing recurrent acute diverticulitis with pharmacological therapies

Abstract

Acute diverticulitis of the colon represents a significant burden for national health systems, in terms of direct and indirect costs. Past guidelines claimed that recurrent episodes (two or more) of diverticulitis need surgery, but revised guidelines recommend an individualized approach to patients after an attack of acute diverticulitis. For these reasons, conservative treatment has become the preferred choice after an episode of diverticulitis. Thus, significant efforts are now being focused to identify the correct therapeutic approach to prevent diverticulitis relapses. Nonabsorbable antibiotics, 5-aminosalicylic acid and probiotics are currently being investigated in this way. The effectiveness and the future perspectives of these treatments are discussed herein.

Keywords: 5-aminosalicylic acid, acute diverticulitis, high-fiber diet, nonabsorbable antibiotics, probiotics, recurrence

Introduction

Diverticular disease is characterized by the presence of sac-like protrusions (diverticula) which form when colonic mucosa and submucosa herniate through defects in the muscle layer of the colon wall [Tursi and Papagrigoriadis, 2009]. Diverticular disease is commonly found in developed countries, slightly more frequently in the USA than in Europe, and is a rare condition in Africa. However, some indication is available that the prevalence of colonic diverticulosis is increasing throughout the world, probably because of changes in lifestyle [Weizman and Nguyen, 2011].

Acute diverticulitis on the colon represents a significant burden for National Health Systems so far, in terms of direct and indirect costs [Sandler et al. 2002]. Moreover, this disease seems to relapse more frequently than previously thought. In fact, a recent study found that overall disease relapse during a 10-year follow up is up to 40% [Lahat et al. 2013].

Until recently the guideline was based on the assumption that recurrent episodes (two or more) of diverticulitis will lead to complicated diverticulitis and higher mortality [Stollman and Raskin, 1999]. However, multiple episodes of diverticulitis do not seem to be associated with increased mortality or an increased risk of complicated diverticulitis. The overall mortality rate for patients with a prior history of diverticulitis was 2.5%, comparing favorably with a mortality rate of 10% for patients with a first presentation of complicated diverticulitis [Chautems et al. 2002]. In addition, 78% of patients with perforated diverticulitis had no prior history of diverticulitis [Chapman et al. 2006]. Elective sigmoid resection for diverticulitis is associated with risks of mortality and colostomy as high as 2.3% and 14.2% respectively [Hart et al. 2002; Richards and Hammitt, 2002; Salem et al. 2004]. Furthermore, the risk of recurrent diverticulitis is not eliminated after sigmoid resection, with recurrence rates between 2.6% and 10.4% [Salem et al. 2004]. In this way, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons revised their recommendations in 2006 and recommended an individualized approach to patients after an attack of acute diverticulitis [Rafferty et al. 2006].

For all these reasons, conservative treatment has become the preferred choice after an episode of diverticulitis. So, significant effort is now being made to identify the correct therapeutic approach to prevent diverticulitis relapses.

Medical strategies in preventing diverticulitis recurrence

Specifics around the diagnosis and treatment of diverticular disease of the colon are based on single papers in most cases; few high-quality randomized trials, systematic reviews or meta-analyses have been published. Despite the lack of evidence from these high-quality studies, there is some evidence to support approaches to treatment.

High-fiber diet

Once the acute episode has resolved, patients are generally advised to maintain a high-fiber diet in order to optimize their bowel movements [Stollman and Raskin, 1999]. However, the collective literature investigating the role of dietary modification in preventing diverticular disease or a recurrence of diverticulitis is inconsistent. Looking at more recent studies, the results are conflicting [Crowe et al. 2011; Peery et al. 2012; Ünlü et al. 2012], and there is no consistent support for recommending a high-fiber diet (Table 1). Despite this lack of evidence, a high-fiber diet is still commonly recommended to reduce the likelihood of diverticulitis recurrence [Murphy et al. 2007].

Table 1.

Use of high-fiber diet in diverticulitis.

Authors [year]	Type of article	Endpoints	Results
Larson [1976]	Prospective, interventional study	Prevention of diverticulitis recurrence	Positive
Brodibb [1977]	Double-blind, controlled trial	1. Improvement of symptomatic diverticular disease 2. Prevention of diverticulitis recurrence	1. Positive 2. Unclear
EAES [1999]	Guidelines	Prevention of diverticulitis occurrence	Recommended
Rafferty (ASCRS) [2012]	Guidelines	Prevention of diverticulitis recurrence	Recommended
Crowe et al. [2011]	Prospective, cohort study	Prevention of diverticular disease occurrence	Positive
Peery et al. [2012]	Cross-sectional study	Prevention of diverticulosis occurrence	Negative
Ünlü et al. [2012]	Systematic review	1. Prevention of diverticular disease recurrence 2. Prevention of diverticulitis recurrence	1. Not recommended 2. Not recommended

Another interesting point is related to the classical advice to avoid consuming seeds, popcorn, and nuts, which is based on the assumption that such substances could theoretically enter, block or irritate a diverticulum and result in diverticulitis, and possibly increase the risk of perforation [Stollman et al. 1999]. There is, however, no evidence to date to support this practice [Strate et al. 2008].

Nonabsorbable antibiotics

Given the potential involvement of microbial imbalance in the pathogenesis of diverticular disease [Tursi, 2010], the literature is now proposing the use of nonabsorbable antibiotics, namely rifaximin. Cyclic treatment with rifaximin has been proposed as a therapeutic tool in preventing diverticulitis relapses and diverticulitis complications [Bianchi et al. 2011] (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Rifaximin in diverticulitis.

Authors [year]	Control group	Endpoints	Results
Papi [1992]	Fibers	Prevention of DD complications (diverticulitis included) (secondary endpoint)	p = NS
Papi et al. [1995]	Placebo	Prevention of DD complications (diverticulitis included) (secondary endpoint)	p = NS
Latella et al. [2003]	Fibers	Prevention of DD complications (diverticulitis included) (secondary endpoint)	p < 0.005
Colecchia [2007]	Fibers	Prevention of diverticulitis recurrence (secondary endpoint)	p = 0.041
Lanas et al. [2013]	Fibers	Prevention of diverticulitis recurrence (primary endpoint)	p = 0.025

A recent, proof-of concept multicentre, randomized, open controlled study in patients with a recent episode of colonic diverticulitis currently in remission investigated the role of the rifaximin in preventing diverticulitis recurrence [Lanas et al. 2013]. Patients received 3.5 g of high-fiber supplementation twice a day with or without 1 week per month of rifaximin 400 mg twice a day for 12 months. Diverticulitis recurrence occurred in 10.4% of patients given rifaximin plus fiber versus 19.3% of patients receiving fiber alone. After performing an adjusted statistical analysis, the authors found a significant treatment effect (odds ratio 3.20; 95% confidence interval 1.16–8.82; p = 0.025). Safety was similar in both groups [Lanas et al. 2013]. This study is very interesting because it was the first designed for this specific endpoint using rifaximin. Unfortunately the study was interrupted since the recruitment rate was largely below the minimum anticipated and it was therefore switched from evidence gathering to proof of concept. However, the main limitation of this study was probably the open-label design, which did not add anything to data already published. This confirmed the findings of three systematic reviews that found the current data on rifaximin use in preventing diverticulitis recurrence inconclusive [Ünlü et al. 2012; Zullo et al. 2010; Maconi et al. 2011].

From a pathophysiological perspective, repeated oral administration of an antibiotic, which reaches very high concentrations within the gastrointestinal lumen, may have profound influence on the intestinal flora [Scarpignato and Pelosini, 2006]. As expected, fecal bacterial counts fall down during oral treatment with rifaximin, but the effect is short lasting. In fact, the bacterial population (mostly Escherichia coli, Bacterioides spp. and anaerobic cocci) has been shown to recover within 1–2 weeks after the end of treatment [Scarpignato and Pelosini, 2006]. The recent proof-of-concept study from Lanas and colleagues found rifaximin plus fiber better than fiber alone in preventing diverticulitis recurrence [Lanas et al. 2013]. However, this study had a lot of limitations, ranging from its open design to the failure to enroll the planned number of patients to the absence of a placebo-controlled group. In this way, this study did not add anything than was already known from other older studies [Papi et al. 1995; Latella et al. 2003] (Table 2). Of course, some attempt may be performed to improve the efficacy of rifaximin in preventing diverticulitis relapses. One possibility may be to give rifaximin twice a month. For example, two 10-day courses with a 10-day interval between the two antibiotic courses may cover the entire month, preventing the bacterial population recovery. Another possibility may be to increase rifaximin dosage up to 1200 mg/day, as recently advised in treating irritable bowel syndrome [Jolley, 2011], or to give rifaximin for a longer period, as recently advised in treating Crohn's disease [Prantera et al. 2006; Shafran and Burgunder, 2010]. However, we do not know whether and how this profound modification of colonic microflora may alter the immune system, and all the cited hypotheses should be confirmed by well designed randomized studies.

5-Aminosalicylic acid

Another hypothesis is to try to control chronic inflammation arising from the acute episode. It is currently known that the mechanisms that underlie the development of inflammation in diverticulitis may be similar to those that drive the inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease [Lahat et al. 2013]. This hypothesis is based on five findings:

Diverticular disease shows an inflammatory infiltrate linked to the severity of the disease [Tursi et al. 2008a, 2010].
Diverticular disease shows an enhanced expression of proinflammatory cytokines as tumor necrosis factor α [Tursi et al. 2012a, 2012b; Humes et al. 2012].
Obesity is a risk factor for diverticulitis recurrence due to the proinflammatory effect of the adipokynes and chemokynes [Batra and Siegmund, 2012].
Both persisting endoscopic and histological inflammation have recently been identified as important risk factors for diverticulitis recurrence [Tursi et al. 2013].
Up to 20% of patients complain of persistent abdominal pain after surgical treatment of diverticulitis, and quality of life of those patients is significantly worse after surgery [Bargellini et al. 2013]. It has been hypothesized that persistent symptoms are linked to increased neuropeptides in mucosal biopsies, which may reflect resolved prior acute inflammation and persistent chronic inflammation [Scarpa et al. 2009].

So, all of these conditions may be considered proinflammatory situations at higher risk of diverticulitis recurrence. Using mesalazine may be an interesting therapeutic tool in this way. Mesalazine action in diverticular disease is strictly linked to control of the proinflammatory pathway (reducing inflammatory infiltrate [Tursi et al. 2008b], decreasing proinflammatory cytokine expression [Tursi et al. 2012], reducing important inflammatory and pain genes, including those involved in response to bacterial ligands [Smith et al. 2012]).

Mesalazine and its prodrug balsalazide, alone or in combination with an antibiotic or probiotics, have been found effective in preventing diverticulitis recurrence [Tursi et al. 2002, 2007]. Open-label studies also found mesalazine to be superior to rifaximin because mesalazine seems to be able to reduce endoscopic and histological inflammation after an attack of acute diverticulitis [Lombardo and Lapertosa, 1991; Tursi et al. 2013].

Recent double-blind, placebo-controlled studies found mesalazine promising in providing pain relief and reducing gastrointestinal symptoms both in symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease [Smith et al. 2012; Kruis et al. 2013] and after and an episode of acute diverticulitis (Gaman et al. 2011). Unfortunately, data from double-blind, placebo-controlled studies about the effectiveness of mesalazine in preventing diverticulitis recurrence are still inconclusive (Table 3).

Table 3.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled studies on mesalazine in diverticulitis.

Authors [year]	Mesalamine (type of release and dosage)	Endpoints	Results
Parente et al. [2011]	Eudragit L (DIV/01-04 trial) (pentacol 1.6 g/day × 10 days/months for 2 years)	1. Prevention of diverticulitis recurrence 2. Improvement of quality of life	p = NS p = 0.021
Gaman et al. [2011]	Granules (Granustix 500 mg/day × 2 years)	1. Prevention of diverticulitis occurrence 2. Prevention of diverticulitis recurrence 3. Prevention of surgery	p = 0.044 p = 0.001 p = 0.020
Raskin [2012]	MMX (PREVENT 1 trial) (Lialda 1.2 versus 2.4 versus 4.8 g/day for 2 years)	Prevention of diverticulitis recurrence	p = NS
Kamm [2013]	MMX (PREVENT 2 Trial) (Lialda 1.2 versus 2.4 versus 4.8 g/day for 2 years)	Prevention of diverticulitis recurrence	p = 0.047 (only for 4.8 g/day)
Stollman et al. [2013]	Eudragit L (DIVA trial) (asacol 2.4 g/day × 3 months)	1. Symptoms control after diverticulitis 2. Prevention of diverticulitis recurrence	p = 0.03 p = NS

The DIVA trial evaluated the efficacy of delayed-release mesalazine (Eudragit L enteric coating) in reducing gastrointestinal symptoms after an acute attack of diverticulitis (author: insert ref). During a 1-year double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, 117 patients with recent computed tomography (CT) scan confirmed acute diverticulitis received placebo, mesalamine or mesalamine plus Bifidobacterium infantis 35624 for 12 weeks and were followed for 9 additional months. Efficacy was assessed using a Global Symptom Score (GSS) of 10 symptoms (ranging from abdominal pain to dysuria), and in whom abdominal pain had to be scored over 2. GSS decreased in all groups during treatment, without a statistically significant difference between mesalazine and placebo (mesalazine versus placebo, p = 0.3781; combined mesalazine/probiotic versus placebo, p = 0.6285). However, scores were consistently lower for mesalazine at all timepoints. The rate of complete response (GSS = 0) was significantly higher with mesalazine than placebo at weeks 6 and 52 (p < 0.05), and was particularly high for rectosigmoid symptoms at weeks 6, 12, 26 and 52. Recurrence of diverticulitis was low and comparable across groups. Surprisingly, a probiotic in combination with mesalazine did not provide additional efficacy [Stollman et al. 2013].

The PREVENT 1 and 2 trials investigated the role of mesalazine MMX (Cosmo S.p.A., Milan, Italy) in preventing diverticulitis recurrence, enrolling about 600 patients for each trial and treating them with 1.2, 2.4, 4.8 g once daily or placebo during a 2-year follow-up. PREVENT 2 did not find mesalazine MMX effective in preventing diverticulitis recurrence (1.2, 2.4, 4.8 g versus placebo: p = 0.368, p = 0.159, p = 0.778 respectively) [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00545103","term_id":"NCT00545103"}}NCT00545103]. But, surprisingly, the PREVENT 1 trial found mesalazine MMX 4.8 g/day superior to placebo in preventing diverticulitis relapses (p = 0.047) [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00545740","term_id":"NCT00545740"}}NCT00545740].

Finally, two other trials published as abstracts investigated mesalazine in preventing diverticulitis. The first trial assessed mesalazine Eudragit L 2.4 g/day for 10 days/month in 105 patients with a recent attack of uncomplicated diverticulitis. The primary efficacy endpoints were diverticulitis recurrence at the intention-to-treat analysis and the time of relapse (TTR), and clinical evaluations were performed using the Therapy Impact Questionnaire (TIQ) for physical condition and quality of life at admission and at 3-month intervals. Treatment tolerability and use of additional gastrointestinal drugs were also evaluated at the baseline visit and every 6 and 3 months respectively. Relative risk (RR) of diverticulitis relapse in the mesalazine versus placebo group was 1.04, 0.87, 0.69 and 0.48 at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months respectively (p = not significant). The average TTR was 219 days for the mesalazine-treated group and 370 days for the placebo group (p = not significant). Mean values of TIQ for physical condition at 24 months were significantly better in the mesalazine group than in the placebo group (p = 0.021); average additional drug consumption was also significantly lower during mesalazine than placebo treatment (p = 0.028). No significant difference in the development of side effects or changes in the laboratory parameters were recorded in the two groups [Parente et al. 2011].

The second study assessed the role of mesalazine granules 514.7 ± 30.5 mg/day versus placebo in 120 patients with colonoscopy-confirmed diverticulosis in preventing diverticular disease complications during a follow up of 40.47 ± 1.28 months. At least one flare of diverticulitis occurred in 33.82% patients given mesalazine versus 53.84% from the placebo group (p = 0.044). Time to first flare was significantly higher in the mesalazine group versus the placebo group (mesalazine 37.39 ± 1.8 months; placebo 23.09 ± 1.75 month; p = 0.001). The estimated RR of diverticulitis occurring in the placebo group was 2.47 times higher than in the mesalazine group. The number of flares during follow up was also significantly lower in the mesalazine group (mesalazine 0.9 ± 0.17; placebo 3.25 ± 0.46; p = 0.001), while the need for surgery occurred in 14.7% of patients given mesalazine and in 34.6% of patients given placebo (p = 0.02) [Gaman et al. 2011].

A possible explanation of these disappointing results is linked to the trial design. If we consider inflammation as the key factor for disease relapse, it is advisable to take the drug every day rather than only for 3 months (as in the DIVA trial) [Stolman et al. 2013] or for 10 days/months (as in the DIV/09 trial) [Parente et al. 2011]. Another confounding factor may be that different endpoints may be used in these trials. For example, the PREVENT 1 and 2 trials used objective CT scan evidence of recurrent diverticulitis as an endpoint, whilst the DIVA trial used ongoing symptoms as response to treatment. In this regard, the results of the trials cannot be compared.

Finally, another confounding factor is that results seem to vary according to the different mesalazine formulation investigated. For example, mesalazine granules seem to be more effective than mesalazine Eudragit L [Parente et al. 2011; Gaman et al. 2011; Stollman et al. 2013], whilst mesalazine MMX seems to be ineffective [ClinicalTrial.gov, 2012]. Why this different behavior? It is hypothesized that the efficacy of the mesalazine granules may be linked to the extended release of 5-aminosalicylic acid and higher mucosal levels after discharging [Brunner et al. 2003]. But this cannot explain the failure of mesalazine MMX, which should be more effective in releasing mesalazine in the left colon [Prantera et al. 2005]. More probably, the choice of mesalazine in diverticular disease should be different to that performed in ulcerative colitis. In fact, inflammation significantly affects colonic motility in diverticular disease [Bassotti and Villanacci, 2012]; in this way, mesalazine formulations releasing drugs through the entire colon may be more effective than distal-releasing systems.

Probiotics

Probiotics are living microorganisms that, if consumed in sufficient numbers, can alter the host microflora and exert specific health benefits without increasing the risk of antibiotic resistance [Isolauri et al. 2001]. These microorganisms have been investigated for the treatment of various digestive disorders and prevention of antibiotic-related gastrointestinal side effects. They commonly include the bacteria Bifidobacterium spp., Lactobacillus spp. and certain strains of E. coli, and the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae [Isolauri et al. 2001]. Probiotic microorganisms appear to have multiple modes of action, including inhibition of pathogen adherence, improving mucosal defense by enhancing tight junction integrity, decreasing bacterial translocation, stimulation of immunoglobulin A secretion in Peyer's patches and enhancement of immune system activity by controlling the balance of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines [Gionchetti et al. 2002]. Moreover, probiotics may also interfere with pathogen metabolism [Gionchetti et al. 2002], and have the ability to restore balance to enteric flora, primarily by decreasing numbers of pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria [Bengmark, 1998; Sheth and Floch, 2006].

In the last few years, some open-label studies evaluated the role of probiotics in the treatment of diverticular disease (Table 4).

Table 4.

Probiotics in diverticulitis.

Authors [year]	Probiotic strain (dosage)	Endpoints	Results
Giaccari et al. [1993]	Lactobacillus spp. (5 billion/day × 7 days/months following rifaximin)	1. Prevention of diverticulitis recurrence 2. Improvement of symptoms	50% disease free 80% symptom free
Dughera et al. [2004]	E. coli strains 01,02, 055 and 0111; Proteus vulgaris (80 × 109 – 1 × 109) versus no treatment	Prevention of diverticulitis recurrence	p < 0.01
Tursi et al. [2007]	VSL#3 (450 billion) alone versus VSL#3 + balsalazide	Prevention of diverticulitis recurrence	p = NS

The first study was conducted more than 10 years ago. Giaccari and colleagues found that when the nonabsorbable antibiotic, rifaximin, followed by a Lactobacillus spp. probiotic was administered in patients with postdiverticulitis colonic stenosis, 88% of the 79 patients remained symptom free for a 12-month period [Giaccari et al. 1993]. No repeated episodes of diverticulitis occurred during the follow-up period, and stenoses improved or remained stable in 50% of patients [Giaccari et al. 1993]. Although this observational study lacks a placebo arm, it is significant because it was the first study to suggest that probiotics may play a role in preventing inflammatory complications of diverticular disease.

As stated above, a more recent study investigated the combination of balsalazide, a 5-aminosalicylic acid prodrug, with the high-potency, probiotic mixture VSL#3 (VSL Pharmaceuticals Inc., Towson, MD, USA). It is composed of eight different bacterial strains: L. casei, L. plantarum, L. acidophilus, L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, B. longum, B. breve, B. infantis, Streptococcus salivarius subsp. thermophilus in preventing recurrence of diverticulitis. The authors found that the combination of balsalazide and VSL#3 was better than VSL#3 alone in preventing relapse of uncomplicated diverticulitis of the colon, even if without statistical significance (73.33% versus 60%, p < 0.1) [Tursi et al. 2007].

Finally, an interesting approach in preventing diverticulitis may be the use of bacterial lysate. We know that the intestine is well known as the largest human lymphoepithelial organ and, each day, produces more antibodies, mainly secretory immunoglobulin A (IgA), than all other lymphoid tissues. IgA has different immune and anti-inflammatory properties [Mestecky et al. 1999]. In 2004 a study assessed the efficacy of an oral immunostimulant, highly purified polymicrobial lysate (containing 80 × 10⁹ E. coli strains 01, 02, 055 and 0111, and 1 × 10⁹ Proteus vulgaris) in the prevention of recurrent attacks of diverticulitis and in the improvement of symptoms. Eighty-three consecutive patients with recurrent symptomatic acute diverticulitis and with at least two attacks in the previous year were randomly assigned to receive an oral polybacterial lysate suspension (5 ml twice a day for 2 weeks every month) (group A) or to a no-treatment clinical follow up as controls (group B) for a 3-month follow up. Statistical differences of the sums of the scores between group A and group B were recorded after 1 month (p < 0.05) and 3 months (p < 0.01) of treatment with the oral polybacterial lysate suspension [Dughera et al. 2004].

The use of probiotics in preventing diverticulitis recurrence is therefore intriguing. However, current data are too preliminary to draw any conclusion.

Conclusion

After this literature review, an empirical therapeutic approach can be suggested in preventing diverticulitis relapses (Figure 1). However, some questions remain unanswered.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is 10.1177_2040622313498809-fig1.jpg

Proposed treatment algorithm after acute diverticulitis. CT, computed tomography.

Why have the studies assessing medical treatment in preventing diverticulitis recurrence given divergent results? And what research questions remain unanswered? One of the possible explanations for the disappointing results is that most of the trials assessing prevention of diverticulitis recurrence fail to enroll an adequate sampling size. The DIVA trial [Stollman et al. 2013], the DIV/09 trial [Parente et al. 2011] and the Lanas trial [Lanas et al. 2013] failed to enroll the planned number of patients. This led to disappointing results that affected the importance of the study and increased the number of unanswered questions. What factors affect the inadequate sampling size in that disease? Underevaluation of the complication of the disease? Underevaluation of the burden of the disease to patients and the particular health system? Or, more simply, an overall underevaluation of diverticulitis that is still considered a little bit more than a 'complex irritable bowel syndrome' by several physicians?

Other important points to investigate in the future is whether a different mesalazine formulation may influence the response to treatment, as well as whether probiotics may be advised in treatment because of their 'bacterial control' and immune stimulation.

Can these somewhat conflicting data currently be used to guide a patient? Despite the fact that most currently available data are inconclusive for many reasons (lack of controlled studies, preliminary data published as abstract but not as full paper, different primary and secondary endpoints, etc.), the following points have clearly been shown:

A high-fiber diet, as well as cyclic nonabsorbable antibiotics, is ineffective in preventing diverticulitis recurrence, even in the absence of any controlled study.
Data from double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are inconclusive about the effectiveness of mesalazine in preventing diverticulitis recurrence; however, it seems to be effective in controlling symptoms after an acute episode.
The use of probiotics cannot be advised due to a lack of controlled trials.

In conclusion, current studies about conservative prevention of diverticulitis relapses lead to more questions than answers. Much more investigation is required before answers to these questions are found.

Footnotes

Funding: The author declares that this research did not received a grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest statement: The author declares no conflict of interest in preparing this article.

References

Batra A., Siegmund B. (2012) The role of visceral fat. Dig Dis 30: 70–74 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bargellini T., Martellucci J., Tonelli P., Valeri A. (2013) Long-term results of treatment of acute diverticulitis: still lessons to be learned? Updates Surg 65: 125–130 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bassotti G., Villanacci V. (2012) Colonic diverticular disease: abnormalities of neuromuscular function. Dig Dis 30: 24–28 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bengmark S. (1998) Ecological control of the gastrointestinal tract. The role of probiotic flora. Gut 42: 2–7 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bianchi M., Festa V., Moretti A., Ciaco A., Mangone M., Tornatore V., et al. (2011) Meta-analysis: long-term therapy with rifaximin in the management of uncomplicated diverticular disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 33: 902–910 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Brodibb AJ. (1977) Treatment with symptomatic diverticular disease with a high-fiber diet. Lancet 1: 664–6 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Brunner M., Greinwald R., Kletter K., Kvaternik H., Corrado M., Eichler H., et al. (2003) Gastrointestinal transit and release of 5-aminosalicylic acid from 153Sm-labelled mesalazine pellets vs. tablets in male healthy volunteers. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 17: 1163–1169 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Colecchia A, Vestito A, Pasqui F, et al. (2007) Efficacy of long-term cyclic administration of the poorly absorbed antibiotic rifaximin in symptomatic, uncomplicated colonic diverticular disease. World J Gastroenterol; 13: 264–269 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Chapman J., Dozois E., Wolff B., Gullerud R., Larson D. (2006) Diverticulitis: a progressive disease? Do multiple recurrences predict less favorable outcomes? Ann Surg 243: 876–883 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Chautems R., Ambrosetti P., Ludwig A., Mermillod B., Morel P., Soravia C. (2002) Long term follow-up after first acute episode of sigmoid diverticulitis: is surgery mandatory? A prospective study of 118 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 45: 962–966 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Crowe F., Appleby P., Allen N., Key T. (2011) Diet and risk of diverticular disease in Oxford cohort of European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): prospective study of British vegetarians and non-vegetarians. BMJ 343: d4131. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Dughera L., Serra A., Battaglia E., Tibaudi D., Navino M., Emanuelli G. (2004) Acute recurrent diverticulitis is prevented by oral administration of a polybacterial lysate suspension. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol 50: 149–153 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Floch M. (2006) A hypothesis: is diverticulitis a type of inflammatory bowel disease? J Clin Gastroenterol 40(Suppl. 3): S121–S125 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gaman A., Teodorescu R., Georghescu E., Abagiu M. (2011) Diverticular disease: a fresh approach to a neglected disease. In: Folk Symposium 178, Cologne, Germany, 2–3 September 2011 [Google Scholar]
Giaccari S., Tronci S., Falconieri M., Ferrieri A. (1993) Long-term treatment with rifaximin and lactobacilli in post-diverticulitic stenoses of the colon. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 15: 29–34 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gionchetti P., Amadini C., Rizzello F., Venturi A., Palmonari V., Morselli C., et al. (2002) Probiotics – role in inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Liver Dis 34(Suppl. 2): S58–S62 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hart A., Kennedy H., Stebbings W., Day N. (2002) How frequently do large bowel diverticula perforate? An incidence and cross-sectional study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 12: 661–666 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Humes D., Simpson J., Smith J., Sutton P., Zaitoun A., Bush D., et al. (2012) Visceral hypersensitivity in symptomatic diverticular disease and the role of neuropeptides and low grade inflammation. Neurogastroenterol Motil 24: 318–e163 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Isolauri E., Sutas Y., Kankaanpaa P., Arvilommi H., Salminen S. (2001) Probiotics: effects on immunity. Am J Clin Nutr 73: 444S–450S [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Jolley J. (2011) High-dose rifaximin treatment alleviated global symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 4: 43–48 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kamm M. (2013). Prevention of Recurrence of Diverticulitis (PREVENT 1) (NCT00545740). Available at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/{"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00545740","term_id":"NCT00545740"}}NCT00545740
Köhler L, Sauerland S, Neugebauer E. (1999) Diagnosis and treatment of diverticular disease: results of a consensus development conference. The Scientific Committee of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc 13: 430–436 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kruis W., Meier E., Schumacher M., Mickisch O., Greinwald R., Mueller R.; the German SAG-20 Study Group (2013) Randomised clinical trial: mesalazine (Salofalk granules) for uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon – a placebo-controlled study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 37: 680–690 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lahat A., Avidan B., Sakhnini E., Katz L., Fidder H., Meir S. (2013) Acute diverticulitis: a decade of prospective follow-up. J Clin Gastroenterol 47: 415–419 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lanas A., Ponce J., Bignamini A., Mearin F. (2013) One year intermittent rifaximin plus fibre supplementation vs. fibre supplementation alone to prevent diverticulitis recurrence: a proof-of-concept study. Dig Liver Dis 45: 104–109 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Larson DM, Masters SS, Spiro HM. (1976). Medical and surgical therapy in diverticular disease: a comparative study. Gastroenterology 71: 734–737 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Latella G., Pimpo M., Sottili S., Zippi M., Viscido A., Chiaramonte M., Frieri G. (2003) Rifaximin improves symptoms of acquired uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon. Int J Colorectal Dis 18: 55–62 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lombardo L., Lapertosa G. (1991) The ambulatory medical treatment of colonic diverticulitis. An open clinico-endoscopic-histological study with rifaximin, a nonaminoglycoside enteric antibiotic. Recenti Prog Med 82: 300–304 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Maconi G., Barbara G., Bosetti C., Cuomo R., Annibale B. (2011) Treatment of diverticular disease of the colon and prevention of acute diverticulitis: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 54: 1326–1338 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mestecky J., Russell M., Elson C. (1999) Intestinal IgA: novel views on its function in the defence of the largest mucosal surface. Gut 44: 2–5 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Murphy T., Hunt R., Fried M., Krabshuis J. (2007) World Gastroenterology Organisation practice guidelines: diverticular disease. Milwaukee: WGO [Google Scholar]
Papi C., Ciaco A., Koch M., Capurso L. (1995) Efficacy of rifaximin in the treatment of symptomatic diverticular disease of the colon. A multicentre double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 9: 33–39 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Papi C, Ciaco A, Koch M, Capurso L. (1992) Efficacy of rifaximin on symptoms of uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon. A pilot multicentre open trial. Diverticular disease study group. Ital J Gastroenterol 24: 452–456 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Parente F., Bargiggia S., Prada A., Bortoli A., Giacosa A., Monti C., et al. (2011) Randomised multicentre pilot double-blind placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and safety of mesalazine in the prevention of recurrence of diverticulitis: interim analysis after 24-month follow-up. Dig Liver Dis 43(Suppl. 1): S135 [Google Scholar]
Peery A., Barrett P., Park D., Rogers A., Galanko J., Martin C., et al. (2012) A high-fiber diet does not protect against asymptomatic diverticulosis. Gastroenterology 142: 266–272 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Prantera C., Lochs H., Campieri M., Scribano M., Sturniolo G., Castiglione F., et al. (2006) Antibiotic treatment of Crohn's disease: results of a multicentre, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with rifaximin. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 23: 1117–1125 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Prantera C., Viscido A., Biancone L., Francavilla A., Giglio L., Campieri M. (2005) A new oral delivery system for 5-ASA: preliminary clinical findings for MMX. Inflamm Bowel Dis 11: 421–427 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Rafferty J., Shellito P., Hyman N., Buie W.; Standards Committee of American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (2006) Practice parameters for sigmoid diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum 49: 939–944 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Raskin JB. (2012) Prevention of Recurrence of Diverticulitis (PREVENT 2) (NCT00545103). Available at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/{"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00545103","term_id":"NCT00545103"}}NCT00545103
Richards R., Hammitt J. (2002) Timing of prophylactic surgery in prevention of diverticulitis recurrence: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Dig Dis Sci 47: 1903–1908 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Salem L., Veenstra D., Sullivan S., Flum D. (2004) The timing of elective colectomy in diverticulitis: a decision analysis. J Am Coll Surg 199: 904–912 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sandler R., Everhart J., Donowitz M., Adams E., Cronin K., Goodman C., et al. (2002) The burden of selected digestive diseases in the United States. Gastroenterology 122: 1500–1511 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Scarpa M., Pagano D., Ruffolo C., Pozza A., Polese L., Frego M., et al. (2009) Health-related quality of life after colonic resection for diverticular disease: long-term results. J Gastrointest Surg 13: 105–112 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Scarpignato C., Pelosini I. (2006) Experimental and clinical pharmacology of rifaximin, a gastrointestinal selective antibiotic. Digestion 73(Suppl. 1): 15–38 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Shafran I., Burgunder P. (2010) Adjunctive antibiotic therapy with rifaximin May help reduce Crohn's disease activity. Dig Dis Sci 55: 1079–1084 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sheth A., Floch M. (2009) Probiotics and diverticular disease. Nutr Clin Pract 24: 41–44 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Smith J., Humes D., Garsed K., Lam C., Zaitoun A., Bennett A., et al. (2012) Mechanistic randomised control trial of mesalazine in symptomatic diverticular disease. Gut 61: A51–A52 [Google Scholar]
Stollman N., Magowan S., Shanahan F., Quigley E.; for the DIVA Investigation Group (2013) A randomized controlled study of mesalamine after acute diverticulitis: results of the DIVA trial. J Clin Gastroenterol 18 February [Epub ahead of print]. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Stollman N., Raskin J. (1999) Diagnosis and management of diverticular disease of the colon in adults: Ad Hoc Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 94: 3110–3121 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Strate L., Liu Y., Syngal S., Aldoori W., Giovannucci E. (2008) Nut, corn, and popcorn consumption and the incidence of diverticular disease. JAMA 300: 907–914 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tursi A. (2010) Colonic microflora imbalance and diverticular disease. Dig Liver Dis 42: 458. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tursi A., Brandimarte G., Daffinaà R. (2002) Long-term treatment with mesalazine and rifaximin versus rifaximin alone for patients with recurrent attacks of acute diverticulitis of colon. Dig Liver Dis 34: 510–515 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tursi A., Brandimarte G., Elisei W., Giorgetti G., Inchingolo C., Danese S., et al. (2008a) Assessment and grading of mucosal inflammation in colonic diverticular disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 42: 699–703 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tursi A., Brandimarte G., Elisei W., Giorgetti G., Inchingolo C., Aiello F. (2008b) Effect of mesalazine on epithelial cell proliferation in colonic diverticular disease. Dig Liver Dis 40: 737–742 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tursi A., Brandimarte G., Giorgetti G., Elisei W., Aiello F. (2007) Balsalazide and/or high-potency probiotic mixture (VSL#3) in maintaining remission after attack of acute, uncomplicated diverticulitis of the colon. Int J Colorectal Dis 22: 1103–1108 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tursi A., Elisei W., Brandimarte G., Giorgetti G., Aiello F. (2010) Predictive value of serologic markers of degree of histologic damage in acute uncomplicated colonic diverticulitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 44: 702–706 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tursi A., Elisei W., Brandimarte G., Giorgetti G., Inchingolo C., Nenna R., et al. (2012a) Musosal tumour necrosis factor-alpha in diverticular disease of the colon is overexpressed with disease severity. Colorectal Dis 14: e258–e263 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tursi A., Elisei W., Brandimarte G., Giorgetti G., Inchingolo C., Nenna R., et al. (2012b) Mucosal expression of basic fibroblastic growth factor, Syndecan 1 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha in diverticular disease of the colon: a case-control study. Neurogastroenterol Motil 24: 836–e396 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tursi A., Elisei E., Giorgetti G., Inchingolo C., Nenna R., Picchio M., et al. (2013) Detection of endoscopic and histological inflammation after an attack of colonic diverticulitis is associated with higher diverticulitis recurrence. J Gastrointest Liver Dis 22: 12–17 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tursi A., Elisei W., Giorgetti G., Inchingolo C., Nenna R., Picchio M., et al. (2013) Effectiveness of different therapeutic strategies in preventing diverticulitis recurrence. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 17: 342–348 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tursi A., Papagrigoriadis S. (2009) Review article: the current and evolving treatment of colonic diverticular disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 30: 532–546 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ünlü Ç., Daniels L., Vrouenraets B., Boermeester M. (2012) Systematic review of medical therapy to prevent recurrent diverticulitis. Int J Colorectal Dis 27: 1131–1136 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Weizman A., Nguyen G. (2011) Diverticular disease: epidemiology and management. Can J Gastroenterol 25: 385–389 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Zullo A., Hassan C., Maconi G., Manes G., Tammaro G., De Francesco V., et al. (2010) Cyclic antibiotic therapy for diverticular disease: a critical reappraisal. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 19: 295–302 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

jonesexpries.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3807763/