Effect of once- or twice-daily MMX mesalamine (SPD476) for the induction of remission of mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative Colitis Remission Status After Induction With Mesalazine Predicts Maintenance Outcomes: the MOMENTUM Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study assessed the efficacy of maintenance treatment with multimatrix mesalazine following achievement of complete or partial remission after induction treatment with high-dose multimatrix mesalazine.

METHODS

In this phase 3b/4, open-label, multicentre, prospective, single-arm study, patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis were treated with multimatrix mesalazine 4.8g/day once daily for 8 weeks [induction phase]. At Week 8, those who achieved complete or partial remission, based on predefined clinical and endoscopic criteria, were eligible to receive 12 months of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4g/day once daily maintenance therapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in complete remission at Month 12.

RESULTS

A total of 717 patients received induction treatment; 25.9% and 39.3% of patients achieved complete and partial remission, respectively, at Week 8. A total of 461 patients entered the maintenance phase. The likelihood of remaining in/achieving complete remission at Month 12 was higher for patients who entered the maintenance phase in complete remission compared with those who began maintenance in partial remission [47.8% vs 26.0%; p < 0.001]. At Month 12, mucosal healing [endoscopy score ≤ 1] was demonstrated in 76.4% [139/182] and 63.5% [176/277] of those who were in complete and partial remission, respectively, at the end of induction.

CONCLUSION

Patients achieving complete remission before dose reduction were more likely to remain in remission at Month 12.

Timing for dose-down of 5-ASA depends on mucosal status with ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVE

Although aminosalicylic acid (ASA) preparations have been used as first-line drugs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC), no consistent view has been established regarding the ASA dose during the remission-maintenance phase of the disease. In this study, we examined whether the ASA dose should be reduced during the remission-maintenance phase.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 203 patients in the remission-maintenance phase of UC. The Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) was used to evaluate mucosa. Comparison and analysis were performed between patients whose ASA dose had been unchanged and whose dose had been reduced, between patients with endoscopic healing (EH) group and those without endoscopic healing (WEH) group, and between patients with an MES of 0 and 1.

RESULTS

Comparison between the unchanged-ASA and reduced-ASA groups revealed that the remission-maintenance rate was higher in the unchanged-ASA group (p < 0.001). Next, the remission-maintenance rate was higher in the EH/unchanged-ASA group than in the EH/reduced-ASA group (p = 0.042). Comparison between the MES 0 and 1 groups revealed that the remission-maintenance rate was higher in the MES 0 group (p = 0.007). In addition, no significant difference in remission-maintenance rates was observed between the MES 0/unchanged-ASA group and the MES 0/reduced-ASA group (p = 0.108).

CONCLUSION

When the same ASA dose is maintained regardless of the presence or absence of EH, remission is more likely to be maintained. If the ASA dose must be reduced, dose reduction is more advantageous after an MES of 0 is achieved.

Once daily vs multiple daily mesalamine therapy for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis

AIM

5-Aminosalicylic acid is the first-line drug for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). The most commonly used 5-aminosalicylic acid is mesalamine. Several systematic reviews have demonstrated that mesalamine is effective in inducing and maintaining remission. Efficacy, safety and adherence to once daily (OD) and multiple daily (MD) dosing of mesalamine for the induction and maintenance of remission in mild to moderate UC were systematically reviewed and compared.

METHOD

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to November 2014. Only randomized controlled trials were considered eligible. STATA software (version 12.0) was used to calculate the pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized studies containing 5439 patients were identified. No significant differences were noted in comparisons between OD and MD dosing for maintenance and induction of remission. No significant differences were noted in rates of medication adherence or adverse events between OD and MD dosing. With regard to mesalamine suppository, no significant differences were noted for comparisons between dosing regimens and adverse events for induction of remission.

CONCLUSION

OD dose of mesalamine is as effective and safe as MD doses for the induction and maintenance treatment of mild to moderate UC. OD mesalamine given as a suppository can attain the same effect and safety as MD mesalamine in inducing remission of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Placebo Rates in Induction and Maintenance Trials of Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Minimisation of the placebo responses in randomised controlled trials [RCTs] is essential for efficient evaluation of new interventions. Placebo rates have been high in ulcerative colitis [UC] clinical trials, and factors influencing this are poorly understood. We quantify placebo response and remission rates in UC RCTs and identify trial design factors influencing them.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception through April 2014 for placebo-controlled trials in adult patients with UC of a biological agent, corticosteroid, immunosuppressant, or aminosalicylate. Data were independently doubly extracted. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

In all, 51 trials [48 induction and 10 maintenance phases] were identified. Placebo response and remission rates were pooled according to random-effects models, and mixed-effects meta-regression models were used to evaluate effects of study-level characteristics on these rates. Pooled estimates of placebo remission and response rates for induction trials were 10% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7-13%) and 33% [95% CI 29-37%], respectively. Corresponding values for maintenance trials were 19% [95% CI 11-30%] and 22% [95% CI 17-28%]. Trials enrolling patients with more active disease confirmed by endoscopy [endoscopy subscore ≥ 2] were associated with lower placebo rates. Conversely, placebo rates increased with increasing trial duration and number of study visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Objective assessment of greater disease activity at trial entry by endoscopy lowered placebo rates, whereas increasing trial duration and more interactions with healthcare providers increased placebo rates. These findings have important implications for design and conduct of clinical trials.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs in doses of at least 2 g/day, were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP for inducing remission in ulcerative colitis. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for the treatment of mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis. A secondary objective of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy and safety of once daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

A computer-assisted literature search for relevant studies (inception to July 9, 2015) was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized controlled clinical trials of parallel design, with a minimum treatment duration of four weeks. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with active ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other formulations of 5-ASA were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA (two or three times daily) and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcomes of interest were the failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, adherence, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA versus comparator 5-ASA, and 5-ASA dose-ranging. Placebo-controlled trials were subgrouped by dosage. SASP-controlled trials were subgrouped by 5-ASA/SASP mass ratios. Once daily versus conventional dosing studies were subgrouped by formulation. 5-ASA-controlled trials were subgrouped by common 5-ASA comparators (e.g. Asacol, Claversal, Salofalk and Pentasa). Dose-ranging studies were subgrouped by 5-ASA formulation. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies (8548 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo with regard to all measured outcome variables. Seventy-one per cent of 5-ASA patients failed to enter clinical remission compared to 83% of placebo patients (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89). A dose-response trend for 5-ASA was also observed. No statistically significant differences in efficacy were found between 5-ASA and SASP. Fifty-four per cent of 5-ASA patients failed to enter remission compared to 58% of SASP patients (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04). No statistically significant differences in efficacy or adherence were found between once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Forty-five per cent of once daily patients failed to enter clinical remission compared to 48% of conventionally dosed patients (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07). Eight per cent of patients dosed once daily failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 6% of conventionally dosed patients (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.86). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Fifty per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group failed to enter remission compared to 52% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.02). A pooled analysis of 3 studies (n = 1459 patients) studies found no statistically significant difference in clinical improvement between Asacol 4.8 g/day and 2.4 g/day used for the treatment of moderately active ulcerative colitis. Thirty-seven per cent of patients in the 4.8 g/day group failed to improve clinically compared to 41% of patients in the 2.4 g/day group (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that patients with moderate disease may benefit from the higher dose of 4.8 g/day. One study compared (n = 123 patients) Pentasa 4 g/day to 2.25 g/day in patients with moderate disease. Twenty-five per cent of patients in the 4 g/day group failed to improve clinically compared to 57% of patients in the 2.25 g/day group (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71). A pooled analysis of two studies comparing MMX mesalamine 4.8 g/day to 2.4 g/day found no statistically significant difference in efficacy (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA, 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulation and 5-ASA dose ranging (high dose versus low dose) studies. Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache and worsening ulcerative colitis. SASP was not as well tolerated as 5-ASA. Twenty-nine percent of SASP patients experienced an adverse event compared to 15% of 5-ASA patients (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.63).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

5-ASA was superior to placebo and no more effective than SASP. Considering their relative costs, a clinical advantage to using oral 5-ASA in place of SASP appears unlikely. 5-ASA dosed once daily appears to be as efficacious and safe as conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Adherence does not appear to be enhanced by once daily dosing in the clinical trial setting. It is unknown if once daily dosing of 5-ASA improves adherence in a community-based setting. There do not appear to be any differences in efficacy or safety among the various 5-ASA formulations. A daily dosage of 2.4 g appears to be a safe and effective induction therapy for patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. Patients with moderate disease may benefit from an initial dose of 4.8 g/day.

Mesalazine Modified-Release Tablet in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis in the Active Phase: A Chinese, Multicenter, Single-Blind, Randomized Controlled Study

INTRODUCTION

This study compared the efficacy and safety of two mesalazine formulations in the treatment of Chinese patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

In this multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled study of 251 patients with active UC conducted from November 2010 to January 2012, subjects were randomized to treatment with mesalazine modified-release tablets (MR group, n = 123) or enteric-coated tablets (EC group, n = 128) at 800 mg three-times daily for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the decrease in UC Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) at final evaluation. If the 95% confidence interval (CI) lower limit of the difference of the decrease in UCDAI between groups was over -1.0, mesalazine modified-release tablets were considered non-inferior to mesalazine enteric-coated tablets. The change in UCDAI in patients with mild and moderate (UCDAI 3-5 and 6-8 at enrollment, respectively) UC was analyzed. Secondary efficacy measures were remission and efficacy rates. Incidences of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were calculated.

RESULTS

The decreases in UCDAI at final evaluation were 2.84 and 2.56 in the MR and EC groups, respectively, with a difference of 0.27 between groups (95% CI -0.34, 0.88). The remission rates were 48.33% (58/120) and 55.65% (69/124), and the efficacy rates were 63.33% (76/120) and 66.94% (83/124) in the MR and EC groups, respectively (all P > 0.05). In patients with mild UC, the decreases in UCDAI were 2.16 and 2.05 in the MR and EC groups, respectively, while in patients with moderate UC they were 3.49 and 3.03, respectively (all P > 0.05). The incidences of ADRs in the MR and EC groups were 6.61% (8/121) and 10.24% (13/127), respectively (P > 0.05). No serious ADRs were reported during the study.

CONCLUSION

Mesalazine modified-release tablets are non-inferior to enteric-coated tablets and are an effective and safe treatment option in Chinese patients with mildly to moderately active UC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01257386.

FUNDING

Tillotts Pharma AG.

Budesonide Multi-matrix for the Treatment of Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic idiopathic inflammatory disorder in which patients cycle between active disease and remission. Budesonide multi-matrix (MMX) is an oral second-generation corticosteroid designed to deliver active drug throughout the colon. In pharmacokinetic studies, the mean relative absorption of budesonide in the region between the ascending colon and the descending/sigmoid colon was 95.9 %. In 2 identically designed, phase 3 studies (CORE I and II), budesonide MMX 9 mg once daily was efficacious and well tolerated for induction of remission of mild to moderate UC. Clinical and endoscopic remission rates were 17.9 % (CORE I) and 17.4 % (CORE II) for budesonide MMX 9 mg compared with 7.4 and 4.5 %, respectively, with placebo (p < 0.05, budesonide MMX 9 mg vs. placebo in both studies), 12.1 % with mesalamine 2.4 g, and 12.6 % with budesonide controlled ileal release capsules 9 mg. A 12-month maintenance therapy study suggested that budesonide MMX 6 mg may prolong time to clinical relapse: Median time was >1 year with budesonide MMX 6 mg versus 181 days (p = 0.02) with placebo; however, further studies are needed. In the CORE studies, budesonide MMX exhibited a favorable safety profile; the majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity, and serious adverse events were uncommon. Furthermore, rates of potential glucocorticoid-related adverse events were comparable across treatment groups. The long-term (12-month) safety of budesonide MMX appears to be comparable with placebo. Data support budesonide MMX in the management algorithm of UC.

New Applications for Traditional Drugs in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: What Do Cochrane Reviews Tell Us?

Although multiple innovative treatments of inflammatory bowel disease have become available, research continues to refine the value of existing drug therapies for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. What can Cochrane reviews tell us about evolving applications for traditional agents in inflammatory bowel disease? A Cochrane Collaboration symposium held at the 2014 Digestive Diseases Week annual meeting addressed this question. This article reviews the data presented at that session.

The role of endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a group of chronic immune-mediated disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. It is often the result of the interaction of genetic and environmental factors. The role of endoscopy in disease surveillance is unprecedented. However, there is considerable debate in therapeutic goals in IBD patients, ranging from the resolution of clinical symptoms to mucosal healing. Furthermore, deep remission has recently been advocated for altering disease course in these patients. Additionally, neoplasia continues to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in IBD patients. This review discussed the role of several endoscopic techniques in assessing mucosal healing and neoplasia with emphasis on novel non-invasive endoscopic techniques.

5-Aminosalicylic acid, a specific drug for ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVE

The etiology of the inflammatory bowel diseases is unknown, although genetic factors play a role, and tobacco smoking has opposite effect on the two entities. Inflammation is central in the pathogenesis, and treatment is aiming to suppress it. The active part of salazopyrin, the oldest drug in use in the treatment of ulcerative colitis, is 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA). In the present paper, we wanted to discuss the etiology and pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis in relation to the beneficial effects of 5-ASA and particularly whether this compound has a specific effect on ulcerative colitis.

METHODS/RESULTS

5-ASA seems to have a selective positive effect on ulcerative colitis in inducing remission, preventing relapse and possibly reducing the risk of cancer. In contrast to other agents used in the treatment of ulcerative colitis, 5-ASA does not have any known anti-inflammatory effect on other organs or other colonic inflammatory diseases like diverticulitis. Moreover, the effect on experimental colitis in rodents is not convincing.

CONCLUSION

5-ASA seems to have a specific effect on the inflammation in ulcerative colitis. Research on the mechanism of its action may give information on the etiology of ulcerative colitis. 5-ASA is a first-line treatment that should be given once daily in high doses and for long term to reduce the possibility of recurrence and risk of colonic cancer. Side effects with 5-ASA are rare, and every patient with ulcerative colitis who tolerate this drug, should be treated with 5-ASA.

Induction of clinical and colonoscopic remission of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis with budesonide MMX 9 mg: pooled analysis of two phase 3 studies

BACKGROUND

Conventional oral corticosteroids are effective at reducing inflammation associated with ulcerative colitis (UC); however, systemic adverse effects limit their use. Budesonide MMX is an extended-release, second-generation corticosteroid that targets delivery of budesonide to the entire colon.

AIM

To analyse efficacy and safety outcomes from two phase 3 studies of budesonide MMX in patients with mild-to-moderate active UC.

METHODS

Patients were assigned to budesonide MMX 9 mg, budesonide MMX 6 mg, or placebo once daily in two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week studies (CORE I and II). Pooled data were analysed for pre-defined primary (combined clinical and colonoscopic remission), secondary and exploratory endpoints. Primary endpoint data were analysed to evaluate the potential influence of demographical and baseline disease characteristics on remission.

RESULTS

Modified intent-to-treat population (histological evidence of baseline inflammation) had 232, 230 and 210 patients in budesonide MMX 9 mg, budesonide MMX 6 mg and placebo groups respectively. Combined clinical and colonoscopic remission rates were significantly greater than placebo (6.2%) for the budesonide MMX 9 mg group (17.7%; P = 0.0002), but not the budesonide MMX 6 mg group (10.9%). The primary endpoint of remission with budesonide MMX 9 mg was significantly greater than placebo in most subgroups analysed. Symptom resolution and colonoscopic improvement rates were significantly greater with budesonide MMX 9 mg vs. placebo. Budesonide MMX was safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This pooled analysis showed that budesonide MMX 9 mg is efficacious, safe and well tolerated for inducing remission of mild-to-moderate UC.

Accuracy of Rapid Fecal Calprotectin Test in Monitoring Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Under Treatment with TNFα Antagonists

BACKGROUND

Anti-TNFα antibodies are effective in treating inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) unresponsive to the standard treatments. Information about the role of rapid fecal calprotectin (FC) in monitoring ambulatory IBD patients under treatment with anti-TNFα is lacking. Our aim was to assess the accuracy of rapid FC in monitoring those patients.

METHODS

Seventy-two patients (38 males, 34 females, mean age 42.5 years, range 23-57 years), affected by ulcerative colitis (UC) (20 patients) or by Crohn's disease (CD) (52 patients) were treated with anti-TNFα antibodies. FC was assessed by a rapid semiquantitative test.

RESULTS

With respect to the absence of clinical remission, FC test showed sensitivity of 71.8 %, specificity of 65.2 %, PPV of 41.8 %, and NPV of 86.9 %. In UC patients, FC test showed a sensitivity of 66.7 %, a specificity of 56.1 %, a PPV of 18.2 %, and a NPV of 92.0 %. In CD patients, FC test showed sensitivity of 70.6 %, specificity of 65.2 %, PPV of 50.0 %, and NPV of 81.8 %. With respect to the presence of endoscopic lesions, FC test showed sensitivity of 73.5 %, specificity of 96.0 %, PPV of 96.2 %, and NPV of 72.7 %. In UC patients, FC test showed sensitivity of 47.2 %, specificity of 84.6 %, PPV of 89.5 %, and NPV of 36.7 %. In CD patients, FC test showed sensitivity of 90.1 %, specificity of 79.7 %, PPV of 71.9 %, and NPV of 93.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid FC seems better in predicting persistence of endoscopic lesions than clinical remission in IBD patients under treatment with anti-TNFα.

eHealth: individualization of mesalazine treatment through a self-managed web-based solution in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

To individualize treatment with mesalazine for ulcerative colitis relapses through a self-managed, web-based solution to optimize the short-term disease course.

METHODS

Prospective, open-label, web-guided study with 3 months mesalazine therapy among patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Once a week, patients completed the simple clinical colitis activity index (SCCAI) and registered fecal calprotectin (FC) on the web application: www.meza.constant-care.dk. SCCAI and FC were summed and resulted in a total inflammatory burden score (TIBS). Deep remission was defined as SCCAI ≤1; FC = 0, and TIBS ≤1.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients (62% females; median age 45 yr) were included in the study and allocated 4.8 g mesalazine per day. Of these, 82 (86%) patients were adherent to web therapy, completing 3 months of web-guided mesalazine therapy. Of the 82 adherent patients, 72 (88%) continued mesalazine and 10 (12%) needed rescue therapy. From weeks 0 to 12, patients had experienced a significant reduction in mean SCCAI (4.6 versus 1.6, P < 0.001), mean FC (437 versus 195, P < 0.001), and mean TIBS (6.7 versus 2.4, P < 0.001). Based on TIBS values (≤1), the dose of mesalazine was reduced to 2.4 g in 25% of patients at week 3 in 50% of subjects at week 5 and in 88% of patients at week 12.

CONCLUSIONS

Web-guided therapy with mesalazine in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis helps to individualize the dose and improve adherence to therapy. The study confirms mesalazine efficacy in mild-to-moderate UC, significantly improving TIBS values in majority of the patients.

Long-term efficacy and safety of once-daily mesalazine granules for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis

In 1977, 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) was discovered as a therapeutically active moiety of sulfasalazine (SASP) and was launched for topical and oral therapy of ulcerative colitis (UC) in 1984. As a first-step, delivery systems had to be developed to protect 5-ASA against absorption in the upper gastrointestinal tract, resulting in different and competing strategies (azo compounds, controlled release, and pH-dependent release). In a second step, at the beginning of the new century, coinciding with the expiration of patent protection for the first 5-ASA formulations, two component composite release mechanisms (pH-dependent and controlled release) were developed. Furthermore, the drug was formulated as granules instead of tablets, allowing higher unit strengths compared with tablets. Neither Salofalk Granu-Stix^®, nor MMX 5-ASA, nor Pentasa^® granules have initially been developed for once-daily (OD) dosing. A review of the achievements of 20 years of 5-ASA development has demonstrated that 5-ASA has equal efficacy compared with SASP at best, that there are no measurable differences in efficacy between various 5-ASA preparations, and that in a group of patients tolerating SASP, adverse event profiles of SASP and 5-ASA did not differ significantly, with SASP being the far cheaper substance. Therefore, drug adherence came into focus as a new goal for improving UC therapy. Although adherence is a complex and multifactorial construct, a simple dosing schedule may contribute to higher drug adherence and better efficacy of treatment. Simultaneously, the US 5-ASA market, estimated to be worth US$1.4 billion, is expected to grow continuously. Naturally, this very competitive market is not only driven by scientific progress but also by commercial interests. Thus, patents for minor changes to the formulation may serve as protection against drug companies trying to launch generic versions. Randomized controlled trials performed on OD dosing in induction of remission have demonstrated that OD administration of 5-ASA is as effective as conventional dosing in mild to moderate active UC. The three 5-ASA products MMX, Salofalk^®, and Pentasa^® employed in those studies so far have not shown differences in efficacy between OD and conventional dosing. No differences regarding safety outcomes have been detected between OD and conventional dosing, including incidence of adverse events, serious adverse events, or withdrawal from treatment due to an adverse event. Although the majority of patients prefer OD dosing to conventional dosing, it was not possible to detect differences in adherence between OD and multiple dose regimens in the clinical trial setting. Well-designed and controlled large-scale community-based studies are necessary to further investigate and prove the point of improved long-term adherence and treatment efficacy in OD dosing.

Long-term safety and tolerability of once-daily mesalamine granules in the maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative colitis (UC), a chronic, relapsing, and remitting inflammatory bowel disease, requires long-term treatment to maintain remission. In this study, the long-term safety and tolerability of mesalamine granules (MG) therapy was evaluated in the maintenance of UC remission. Previous prospective studies evaluating different oral mesalamine formulations have not exceeded a duration of 14 months.

METHODS

A phase 3, multicenter, 24-month, open-label extension study evaluating MG 1.5 g once daily in patients who achieved previous remission from mild to moderate UC was performed. Eligible patients had successfully participated in 1 of 2 previous 6-month double-blind, placebo-controlled trials or were new patients in remission. Safety assessments included monitoring of adverse events (AEs) and clinical laboratory tests. Risk of UC recurrence was assessed by the occurrence of UC-related AEs.

RESULTS

Of the 393 patients enrolled (280 from the double-blind studies; 113 new patients), 388 were included in the safety population. The most common AEs included nasopharyngitis (13.9%), headache (11.6%), and diarrhea (10.8%), and the incidence of these events was generally lower in the MG group versus historical placebo group from the double-blind studies. Pancreatic, renal, and hepatic AEs occurred in 23 patients (5.9%). The risk of UC-related AEs was low and was maintained for 24 months during the open-label study.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily MG has a favorable safety profile for the maintenance of remission for up to 2 years in patients with UC.

Toward a personalized medicine approach to the management of inflammatory bowel disease

The medical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is evolving toward a personalized medicine-based model. Modern therapeutic algorithms that feature use of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists in combination with immunosuppressive are highly effective when initiated in high-risk patients early in the course of disease. Defined targets that guide intensification of therapy are critical interventions. In this model, therapy is optimized through appropriate pretreatment testing, therapeutic drug monitoring, and patient-based monitoring strategies. This review discusses the current application of personalized medicine to the management of IBD.

Review article: integrating budesonide-MMX into treatment algorithms for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

5-Aminosalicylates (5-ASA) are first-line treatment for mild-moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC). When 5-ASAs fail, systemic corticosteroids have been the standard next step. Due to the significant side effect profile of systemic corticosteroids, alternative options in the treatment algorithm after 5-ASA failures are needed. Budesonide-Multi-Matrix System (MMX) is a novel oral formulation of budesonide that uses colonic release MMX technology to extend release of the drug to the colon. Now that budesonide-MMX has been approved for use in some countries, and pending in others we need to understand its position in the treatment algorithm for UC.

AIM

To review the available literature for budesonide-MMX and incorporate it into the treatment algorithm for mild-moderate UC.

METHODS

The available efficacy and safety literature regarding budesonide-MMX was reviewed, and compared to 5-ASAs and systemic corticosteroids.

RESULTS

In two large studies referred to as CORE (Colonic Release Budesonide trial), budesonide-MMX 9 mg daily was significantly more effective in achieving a combined end point of clinical and endoscopic remission than placebo in patients with mild-moderately active UC. Safety data are reassuring, with no clinically relevant differences between budesonide-MMX and placebo, including steroid-related side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide-MMX 9 mg daily is an effective and safe treatment for induction in patients with mild-moderately active UC. At the current time, it should be considered in patients after 5-ASA failure and before systemic corticosteroids. Data are still needed to understand its role and dose beyond 8 weeks, and if it should be considered first line before 5-ASAs.

Aligning oral mesalazine treatment to health service priorities: guidance for nurses

Oral mesalazine represents a crucial front-line agent for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis (UC) and the maintenance of remission. Clinical aspects of mesalazine therapy are guided by robust evidence-based guidelines, although there is a relative paucity of guidance examining the specific administrative and professional issues faced by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) nurses. As IBD nurses frequently influence treatment decisions in UC, this article was written to provide a practical review of the key evidence and issues affecting mesalazine treatment. Therefore, it may act as an additional resource for IBD nurses, to enhance prescribing decisions. Using the UK's Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention (QIPP) agenda as a framework, it considers clinical and health service priorities affecting treatment decisions. The quality of care perspective naturally focuses on efficacy; recent interest in specific aspects of efficacy, such as the speed of symptom resolution allows targeting of mesalazine treatment to individual needs. Furthermore, innovative adherence programmes build on the latest evidence to develop robust, integrated patient support approaches. In terms of productivity, nurse-led activities and more sophisticated management strategies may offer the best routes towards reducing the costs of care. Key opportunities for preventing ill health include improving adherence to maintenance therapy and achieving mucosal healing. The principles and approaches highlighted by the QIPP agenda emphasise that prescribing decisions for mesalazine in UC must take account of the full spectrum of clinical and health service needs, and cannot focus on any one element in isolation.

The role of Budesonide-MMX in active ulcerative colitis

Traditional corticosteroids represent a well-established and effective treatment for active ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the severity of their systemic side effects, led in recent years to look for new steroid molecules that could reduce them, maximizing the anti-inflammatory activity. Budesonide has been one of the most studied steroid compounds and it has been approved for the treatment of mild to moderate active Crohn's disease (CD). In order to extend the release until the distally located inflammation, budesonide has been coupled with a controlled delivery system, called Multi-Matrix system (MMX), already successfully tested with oral mesalazine for the treatment of distal UC. After in vitro and in vivo models, the efficacy of Budesonide-MMX has been investigated in active UC with a first small phase II study, and partially encouraging results. This article will review the evidences on the use of budesonide in inflammatory bowel diseases and will discuss the role of Budesonide-MMX in active UC nowadays.

Once-daily budesonide MMX in active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: results from the randomised CORE II study

OBJECTIVE

Budesonide MMX is a novel oral formulation of budesonide that uses Multi-Matrix System (MMX) technology to extend release to the colon. This study compared the efficacy of budesonide MMX with placebo in patients with active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC).

DESIGN

Patients were randomised 1:1:1:1 to receive budesonide MMX 9 mg or 6 mg, or Entocort EC 9 mg (budesonide controlled ileal-release capsules; reference arm) or placebo once daily for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was combined clinical and endoscopic remission, defined as UC Disease Activity Index score ≤1 with a score of 0 for rectal bleeding and stool frequency, no mucosal friability on colonoscopy, and a ≥1-point reduction in endoscopic index score from baseline.

RESULTS

410 patients were evaluated for efficacy. Combined clinical and endoscopic remission rates with budesonide MMX 9 mg or 6 mg, Entocort EC and placebo were 17.4%, 8.3%, 12.6% and 4.5%, respectively. The difference between budesonide MMX 9 mg and placebo was significant (OR 4.49; 95% CI 1.47 to 13.72; p=0.0047). Budesonide MMX 9 mg was associated with numerically higher rates of clinical (42.2% vs 33.7%) and endoscopic improvement (42.2% vs 31.5%) versus placebo. The rate of histological healing (16.5% vs 6.7%; p=0.0361) and proportion of patients with symptom resolution (23.9% vs 11.2%; p=0.0220) were significantly higher for budesonide MMX 9 mg than placebo. Adverse event profiles were similar across groups.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide MMX 9 mg was safe and more effective than placebo at inducing combined clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with active, mild-to-moderate UC.

The role of mucosal healing in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease

OPINION STATEMENT

Mucosal healing is a promising therapeutic endpoint in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Currently, the treatment of IBD focuses predominantly on clinical remission, without requiring a demonstration of mucosal healing. However, recent studies suggest that achieving mucosal healing engenders better outcomes. In this review, we will examine the concept of mucosal healing, including its definitions and assessment techniques, and will evaluate the data regarding the potential benefits of achieving mucosal healing in the treatment of IBD. Furthermore, we will discuss how often mucosal healing can be expected with each of the therapies for IBD. While achieving mucosal healing is an ideal outcome, it may not be practical or feasible in any given patient. Although we suggest that mucosal healing be discussed with all patients, the practicing physician should realize that this goal may not be possible and should manage the patient accordingly.

Drug advances in inflammatory bowel disease

The pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains incompletely understood, but is thought to be a consequence of immune dysregulation, impaired mucosal integrity, enteric bacterial dysbiosis and genetic susceptibility factors. Recent drug advances in the treatment of IBD have clarified the role of existing medication, including 5-amino-salicylic acids (5-ASAs) and has seen a burgeoning use of treatment with biologicals. With recent advances in our understanding of these debilitating diseases, it is hoped that novel therapeutic targets can be identified.

Are there any differences in the efficacy and safety of different formulations of Oral 5-ASA used for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis? evidence from cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

We systematically reviewed and compared the efficacy and safety of oral mesalamine formulations (sustained release, delayed release, and prodrugs) used for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. The main objective of this review was to determine if there are any differences in efficacy or safety among the oral 5-ASA drugs.

METHODS

A literature search in February 2013 identified all applicable randomized trials. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria were used to assess the overall quality of the evidence. Studies were subgrouped by common mesalamine comparators for meta-analysis. Studies were pooled for analysis if they compared equimolar doses of oral 5-ASA.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies that evaluated 2925 patients were identified. The risk of bias was low for most factors, although 1 study was single blind and 3 were open label. No difference was observed between oral 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulations in the proportion of patients with clinical remission (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.02), clinical improvement (relative risk, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.01), or relapse at 12 months (relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.28). Subgroup analyses showed no important differences in efficacy. No significant difference was demonstrated in rates of adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

There does not seem to be any difference in efficacy or safety among the various formulations of oral 5-ASA. Oral mesalamine is an effective and safe treatment of mild-to-moderate or quiescent ulcerative colitis regardless of the chosen formulation.

The role of centralized reading of endoscopy in a randomized controlled trial of mesalamine for ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Interobserver differences in endoscopic assessments contribute to variations in rates of response to placebo in ulcerative colitis (UC) trials. We investigated whether centralized review of images could reduce these variations.

METHODS

We performed a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 281 patients with mildly to moderately active UC, defined by an Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) sigmoidoscopy score ≥2, that evaluated the efficacy of delayed-release mesalamine (Asacol 800-mg tablet) 4.8 g/day. Endoscopic images were reviewed by a single expert central reader. The primary outcome was clinical remission (UCDAI, stool frequency and bleeding scores of 0, and no fecal urgency) at week 6.

RESULTS

The primary outcome was achieved by 30.0% of patients treated with mesalamine and 20.6% of those given placebo, a difference of 9.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7% to 19.4%; P = .069). Significant differences in results from secondary analyses indicated the efficacy of mesalamine. Thirty-one percent of participants, all of whom had a UCDAI sigmoidoscopy score ≥2 as read by the site investigator, were considered ineligible by the central reader. After exclusion of these patients, the remission rates were 29.0% and 13.8% in the mesalamine and placebo groups, respectively (difference of 15%; 95% CI, 3.5%-26.0%; P = .011).

CONCLUSIONS

Although mesalamine 4.8 g/day was not statistically different from placebo for induction of remission in patients with mildly to moderately active UC, based on an intent-to-treat analysis, the totality of the data supports a benefit of treatment. Central review of endoscopic images is critical to the conduct of induction studies in UC; ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT01059344.

Mesalazine for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) represent a chronic inflammatory condition of the bowel that often require lifelong medical therapy for the induction and maintenance of the remission. Mesalazine therapies are available both as oral delayed-release and sustained-release formulation, topical formulations and as prodrug.

AREAS COVERED

Available literature regarding mesalazine is extensively reviewed in this article, covering its mechanism of action, pharmaceutics and pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability in different settings.

EXPERT OPINION

Mesalazine has a well-established role in the management of UC. It is the treatment of choice in active and inactive mild-to-moderate UC combining oral and topical drug. No clear role of mesalazine in prevention of colon cancer has been demonstrated because of the contradictory results coming from case-control and prospective studies. The role of mesalazine in the management of CD is less clear; some studies suggest a potential efficacy of 5-ASA in preventing relapse of CD after surgical resection but more convincing results are needed.

Recent developments in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are chronic inflammatory bowel diseases that have been treated with corticosteroids, 5-aminosalicates and thiopurines, but therapeutic options have been broadened with the arrival of anti-tumor necrosis factor antibodies. In this article we reviewed the current evidence-based approach to inflammatory bowel disease, the modifications that have been made to existing therapies and discussed new drugs that have shown success in clinical trials. The new drugs discussed here are those that disturb lymphocyte homing to the gut (natalizumab, vedolizumab and anti-mucosal addressin cellular adhesion molecule); one that blocks interleukin (IL)-12 as well as the IL-23/T helper 17 (Th17) axis (ustekinumab) and one that blocks the signaling of multiple cytokines (tofacitinib).

Randomised clinical trial: once- vs. twice-daily prolonged-release mesalazine for active ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Aminosalicylates are first-choice treatment for mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC); however, multi-dosing regimens are inconvenient.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of once- (OD) vs. twice- (BD) daily prolonged-release mesalazine (Pentasa, Ferring, Saint-Prex, Switzerland) for active mild-to-moderate UC in a non-inferiority study.

METHODS

Eligible patients (n = 206) were randomised to 8 weeks of mesalazine (4 g/day), either OD with two sachets of 2 g mesalazine granules in the morning (n = 102) or BD with one 2 g sachet in the morning and one in the evening (n = 104). Patients also received 4 weeks of mesalazine enema 1 g/day. Disease activity was assessed at randomisation, weeks 4, 8 and 12 using the UC Disease Activity Index (UC-DAI). Clinical and endoscopic remission (primary endpoint) was assessed after 8 weeks. Patients recorded stool frequency and rectal bleeding in a daily diary.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint, non-inferiority in clinical and endoscopic remission with OD vs. BD mesalazine at 8 weeks, was met (intent-to-treat population: 52.1% vs. 41.8%, respectively, 95% confidence interval -3.4, 24.1; P = 0.14). Improvement of UC-DAI score (92% vs. 79%; P = 0.01) and mucosal healing (87.5% vs. 71.1%; P = 0.007) were significantly better, time to remission significantly shorter (26 vs. 28 days; P = 0.04) and safety similar with OD vs. BD dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

When combined with mesalazine enema, prolonged-release mesalazine once-daily 4 g is as effective and well tolerated as 2 g twice-daily for inducing remission in patients with mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00737789).

Mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease

It is becoming increasingly recognized that purely clinical endpoints may not be sufficient in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. As such, mucosal disease assessment has become a prominent component of the majority of recent clinical trials in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. There is mounting evidence that the attainment of mucosal healing leads to improved clinical outcomes in both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. However, the use of mucosal healing as a therapeutic endpoint in inflammatory bowel disease is in its early stages, as a number of issues limit its application to routine clinical practice.

Impact of MMX® mesalamine on improvement and maintenance of health-related quality of life in patients with ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative colitis (UC) substantially reduces patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The current study examined the burden of disease and the impact of daily multimatrix (MMX®) mesalamine treatment on HRQoL for patients with active or quiescent mild-to-moderate UC.

METHODS

Data were from a two-phase, multicenter, open-label study with mild-to-moderate UC patients. In the acute phase, 132 patients with active disease received MMX mesalamine 2.4-4.8 g/day QD for 8 weeks. In the maintenance phase, 207 patients with quiescent disease received MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day QD for 12 months. The Short Form-12 (version 2) (SF-12v2) measured HRQoL during each phase. Disease burden was examined by comparing acute-phase baseline scores with a U.S. general population sample. Repeated-measures analyses assessed change in SF-12v2 scores for each phase. Correspondence between HRQoL and disease activity was examined through correlations between SF-12v2 scores with patient-reported symptom measures.

RESULTS

Baseline SF-12v2 scores for patients with UC were generally much lower than for the general population sample, indicating a broad disease burden. In the acute phase, significant improvement was observed for most SF-12v2 scores at week 8; a comparison with the matched norms showed a complete elimination of burden. No changes in SF-12v2 scores were observed during the maintenance phase. Changes in symptom measures and SF-12v2 scores were moderately correlated.

CONCLUSIONS

The sizeable burden of active mild-to-moderate UC on HRQoL was eliminated following 8 weeks' treatment with MMX mesalamine 2.4-4.8 g/day. HRQoL remained stable over 12 months of maintenance treatment in patients with quiescent UC.

Steroids and 5-aminosalicylic acids in moderate ulcerative colitis: addressing the dilemma

Steroids have been a mainstay of ulcerative colitis (UC) therapy for many years, based on a thoroughly established efficacy profile for the induction of remission. However, in light of the considerable side effects and negative perceptions they carry, it is important to ensure such treatments are used as effectively as possible. For severe UC, the need for steroids is rarely questioned, and rightly so; it is for moderate UC that the role of steroids should be considered. Both patients and clinicians place a high importance on rapid, effective resolution of symptoms, yet at the same time wish to avoid unnecessary side effects. Through consideration of the available evidence, it becomes clear that both steroids and high-dose 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) are supported by robust trials demonstrating their efficacy. Indeed, both therapies have been shown to give rise to resolution of symptoms after 2 weeks in many patients. However, a paucity of head-to-head comparisons makes conclusive interpretation challenging. This paper therefore presents a practical approach, which builds on the available evidence and is developed from informed discussions with patients. This approach involves initiating therapy with high-dose 5-ASA, followed by a review of symptom improvements after 2-3 weeks. Steroids can then be introduced, when needed, with minimal delay. In this way, symptoms can be resolved rapidly, yet many patients may avoid unpleasant side effects.

Once-daily budesonide MMX® extended-release tablets induce remission in patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis: results from the CORE I study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Budesonide is a corticosteroid with minimal systemic corticosteroid activity due to first-pass hepatic metabolism. Budesonide MMX® is a once-daily oral formulation of budesonide that extends budesonide release throughout the colon using multi-matrix system (MMX) technology.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of budesonide MMX for induction of remission in 509 patients with active, mild to moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). Patients were randomly assigned to groups that were given budesonide MMX (9 mg or 6 mg), mesalamine (2.4 g, as reference), or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary end point was remission at week 8.

RESULTS

The rates of remission at week 8 among subjects given 9 mg or 6 mg budesonide MMX or mesalamine were 17.9%, 13.2%, and 12.1%, respectively, compared with 7.4% for placebo (P = .0143, P = .1393, and P = .2200). The rates of clinical improvement at week 8 among patients given 9 mg or 6 mg budesonide MMX or mesalamine were 33.3%, 30.6%, and 33.9%, respectively, compared with 24.8% for placebo (P = .1420, P = .3146, and P = .1189). The rates of endoscopic improvement at week 8 among subjects given 9 mg or 6 mg budesonide MMX or mesalamine were 41.5%, 35.5%, and 33.1%, respectively, compared with 33.1% for placebo. The rates of symptom resolution at week 8 among subjects given 9 mg or 6 mg budesonide MMX or mesalamine were 28.5%, 28.9%, and 25.0%, respectively, compared with 16.5% for placebo (P = .0258, P = .0214, and P = .1025). Adverse events occurred at similar frequencies among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide MMX (9 mg) was safe and more effective than placebo in inducing remission in patients with active, mild to moderate UC.

High mucosal healing rates in 5-ASA-treated ulcerative colitis patients: results of a meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Recently, mucosal healing (MH) is regarded as an important treatment goal in ulcerative colitis (UC). 5-Aminosalicylates (5-ASA) are the standard treatment in mild-to-moderate UC, but the effect on MH is less known. The aim of this study was to systematically review the medical literature in order to compare different preparations of 5-ASA for the effect on MH.

METHODS

We conducted a structured search of PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled clinical trials with 5-ASA in UC providing data about MH. We calculated the sample size-weighted pooled proportion of patients with MH, and performed meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons.

RESULTS

Out of 645 hits, we included 90 treatment arms, involving 3977 patients using oral 5-ASA (granulate and tablets) and 2513 patients using rectal 5-ASA (suppositories, enema, and foam). Overall, 43,7% of 5-ASA treated patients achieved MH (oral 36,9%; rectal 50,3%). In oral studies, 49% of patients using granulate (7 treatment-arms) achieved MH compared to 34,9% using tablets (43 treatment-arms). In rectal studies the proportion of MH was 62% for suppositories (eight treatment arms), 51% for foam (nine treatment arms), and 46% for enema (23 treatment arms), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

5-ASA preparations achieved MH in nearly 50% of UC patients. There were no significant differences in MH between the various 5-ASA agents, either in the oral or the rectal treatment groups.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs in doses of at least 2 g/day, were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP for inducing remission in ulcerative colitis. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for the treatment of mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis. A secondary objective of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy and safety of once daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

A computer-assisted literature search for relevant studies (inception to January 20, 2012) was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized controlled clinical trials of parallel design, with a minimum treatment duration of four weeks. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with active ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other formulations of 5-ASA were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA (two or three times daily) and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcomes of interest were the failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, adherence, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA versus comparator 5-ASA, and 5-ASA dose-ranging. Placebo-controlled trials were subgrouped by dosage. SASP-controlled trials were subgrouped by 5-ASA/SASP mass ratios. Once daily versus conventional dosing studies were subgrouped by formulation. 5-ASA-controlled trials were subgrouped by common 5-ASA comparators (e.g. Asacol, Claversal, Salofalk and Pentasa). Dose-ranging studies were subgrouped by 5-ASA formulation. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention to treat basis.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-eight studies (7776 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo with regard to all measured outcome variables. Seventy-two per cent of 5-ASA patients failed to enter clinical remission compared to 85% of placebo patients (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.91). A dose-response trend for 5-ASA was also observed. No statistically significant differences in efficacy were found between 5-ASA and SASP. Fifty-four per cent of 5-ASA patients failed to enter remission compared to 58% of SASP patients (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04). No statistically significant differences in efficacy or adherence were found between once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Forty-two per cent of once daily patients failed to enter clinical remission compared to 44% of conventionally dosed patients (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10). Eight per cent of patients dosed once daily failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 6% of conventionally dosed patients (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.86). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Forty-eight per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group failed to enter remission compared to 50% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.03). A pooled analysis of the ASCEND (I, II and III, n = 1459 patients) studies found no statistically significant difference in clinical improvement between Asacol 4.8 g/day and 2.4 g/day used for the treatment of moderately active ulcerative colitis. Thirty-seven per cent of patients in the 4.8 g/day group failed to improve clinically compared to 41% of patients in the 2.4 g/day group (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that patients with moderate disease may benefit from the higher dose of 4.8 g/day. One study compared (n = 123 patients) Pentasa 4 g/day to 2.25 g/day in patients with moderate disease. Twenty-five per cent of patients in the 4 g/day group failed to improve clinically compared to 57% of patients in the 2.25 g/day group (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71). A pooled analysis of two studies comparing MMX mesalamine 4.8 g/day to 2.4 g/day found no statistically significant difference in efficacy (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29). 5-ASA was generally safe and common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache and worsening ulcerative colitis. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA, 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulation and 5-ASA dose ranging (high dose versus low dose) studies. SASP was not as well tolerated as 5-ASA. Twenty-nine percent of SASP patients experienced an adverse event compared to 15% of 5-ASA patients (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.63).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

5-ASA was superior to placebo and no more effective than SASP. Considering their relative costs, a clinical advantage to using oral 5-ASA in place of SASP appears unlikely. 5-ASA dosed once daily appears to be as efficacious and safe as conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Adherence does not appear to be enhanced by once daily dosing in the clinical trial setting. It is unknown if once daily dosing of 5-ASA improves adherence in a community-based setting. There do not appear to be any differences in efficacy or safety among the various 5-ASA formulations. A daily dosage of 2.4 g appears to be a safe and effective induction therapy for patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. Patients with moderate disease may benefit from an initial dose of 4.8 g/day.

Multi-Matrix System (MMX®) mesalamine for the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory disease of the colon characterized by periods of active disease and remission. The pathogenesis of this disease is likely a complex interaction of genetic predisposition, environmental factors, and immune system dysregulation, and is not completely understood. A Multi-MatriX (MMX®) system formulation of mesalamine, MMX mesalamine (SPD476; Lialda®; Mesavancol®; Mezavant®), allows for high-dose, once-daily dosing for patients with mild-to-moderate UC. Mesalamine is a topically active agent with anti-inflammatory properties.

AREAS COVERED

Available literature regarding MMX mesalamine is extensively reviewed in this article, covering its chemical makeup, mechanism of action, pharmaceutics and pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and safety and tolerability.

EXPERT OPINION

A dose of 2.4 and 4.8 g was used in large Phase III clinical trials and was efficacious for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission in UC. MMX mesalamine was also efficacious in large multicenter maintenance studies for the maintenance of clinical and endoscopic remission. The introduction of the first once-daily mesalamine has given practitioners and patients more flexibility in dosing administration, which will ultimately lead to higher satisfaction and improved clinical outcomes.

Once daily oral mesalamine compared to conventional dosing for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We systematically reviewed and compared the efficacy and safety of once daily (OD) mesalamine to conventional dosing for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis (UC). A literature search to January 2012 identified all applicable randomized trials. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The GRADE criteria were used to assess the overall quality of the evidence. Studies were subgrouped by formulation for meta-analysis. Eleven studies that evaluated 4070 patients were identified. The risk of bias was low for most factors, although five studies were single-blind and one was open-label. No difference was observed between the dosing strategies in the proportion of patients with clinical remission (relative risk [RR] 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.10), clinical improvement (RR 0.87 95% CI 0.68-1.10), or relapse at 6 (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.83-1.46) or 12 months (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.83-1.03). Subgroup analyses showed no important differences in efficacy. No significant difference was demonstrated in rates of medication adherence or adverse events between OD and conventional dosing. OD mesalamine appears to be as effective and safe as conventional dosing for both the treatment of mild to moderately active UC and for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC. The failure to demonstrate a superior rate of adherence to OD dosing may be due to the high rate of adherence observed in the clinical trials environment. Future research should assess the value of OD dosing in community settings.

Update on the management of ulcerative colitis: treatment and maintenance approaches focused on MMX(®) mesalamine

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the colon that typically manifests as diarrhea, abdominal pain, and bloody stool. Complications, such as colorectal cancer and extraintestinal manifestations, may also develop. The goals of management are to induce and maintain clinical remission and to screen for complications of this disease. Mesalamine is a 5-aminosalicylic acid compound that is the first-line therapy to induce and maintain clinical remission in patients with mild-to-moderate UC. For patients who are refractory to mesalamine or have more severe disease, steroids, azathioprine/mercaptopurine, cyclosporine, or infliximab may be used, induce and/or maintain remission. The various formulations of mesalamine available are primarily differentiated by the methods of delivery of the active compound of the drug to the colon. Mesalamine with Multi-Matrix System^® (MMX) technology (Cosmo SpA, Milan, Italy) is an oral (1.2 g), once-daily tablet formulation of mesalamine used for the treatment of UC (Lialda^® or Mezavant^®, Shire Pharmaceuticals Inc, Wayne, PA). In clinical studies, MMX mesalamine (taken as a once-daily dose of 2.4 or 4.8 g) effectively induced and maintained clinical remission in patients with active mild-to-moderate UC. The overall safety profile of MMX mesalamine is similar to other oral mesalamine formulations. The use of such once-daily formulations has led to intense interest in whether simplified pill regimens can improve patient adherence to mesalamine therapy.

[Guidelines for the management of ulcerative colitis]

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disorder characterized by a relapsing and remitting course. The quality of life can decreases significantly during exacerbations of the disease. The incidence and prevalence of UC in Korea are still lower than those of Western countries, but have been rapidly increasing during the past decades. Various medical and surgical therapies are currently used for the management of UC. However, many challenging issues exist and sometimes these lead to differences in practice between clinicians. Therefore, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) Study Group of Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID) set out the Korean guidelines for the management of UC. These guidelines are made by the adaptation using several foreign guidelines and encompass treatment of active colitis, maintenance of remission and indication for surgery in UC. The specific recommendations are presented with the quality of evidence. These are the first Korean treatment guidelines for UC and will be revised with new evidences on treatment of UC.

Once-daily MMX(®) mesalamine for endoscopic maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVES

Treatment with mesalamine to maintain endoscopic remission (mucosal healing) of ulcerative colitis (UC) has been shown to reduce the risk of relapse and is the recommended first-line maintenance therapy. To improve treatment adherence, a mesalamine formulation that can be administered once-daily, MMX(®) mesalamine (Lialda; Shire Pharmaceuticals LLC, Wayne, PA), was developed. This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of once-daily MMX mesalamine compared with twice-daily delayed-release mesalamine (Asacol; Warner Chilcott, Dublin, Ireland) for maintaining endoscopic remission in patients with UC.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 6-month, active-control trial was conducted to assess the non-inferiority of once-daily MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day compared with twice-daily delayed-release mesalamine at a total daily dose of 1.6 g/day in patients with UC in endoscopic remission. The primary end point was maintenance of endoscopic remission at month 6 in the per-protocol (PP) population.

RESULTS

Overall, 826 patients were randomized and dosed. The primary objective (non-inferiority) was met. At month 6, 83.7 and 77.8% of patients receiving MMX mesalamine in the PP and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, respectively, had maintained endoscopic remission compared with 81.5% (PP) and 76.9% (ITT) of patients receiving delayed-release mesalamine (95% confidence interval for difference: -3.9%, 8.1% (PP); -5.0%, 6.9% (ITT)). Time to relapse was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (log-rank test, P=0.5116 (PP); P=0.5455 (ITT)). The proportion of patients with adverse events was 37.1 and 36.0% in patients receiving MMX mesalamine and delayed-release mesalamine, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily dosing of MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day was shown to be well tolerated and non-inferior to twice-daily dosing with delayed-release mesalamine 1.6 g/day for maintenance of endoscopic remission in patients with UC.

Strategies in maintenance for patients receiving long-term therapy (SIMPLE): a study of MMX mesalamine for the long-term maintenance of quiescent ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

This was a phase IV, multicenter, open-label, 12-14-month study to assess clinical recurrence in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who received maintenance treatment with MMX Multi Matrix System (MMX) mesalamine. A secondary outcome was the relationship between long-term efficacy and adherence.

METHODS

Patients with quiescent UC (no rectal bleeding; 0-1 bowel movements more than normal per day) were enrolled directly into a 12-month maintenance phase of the study during which they received MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day given once daily (QD). Patients with active, mild-to-moderate UC at screening were enrolled into a 2-month acute phase; those who achieved quiescence could continue into the maintenance phase. The primary endpoint was clinical recurrence at Month 6.

RESULTS

Of the 290 patients enrolled, 208 entered the maintenance phase; 152 directly and 56 via the acute phase. Following 6 and 12 months of treatment, 76.5% and 64.4% of evaluable patients, respectively, were recurrence-free. The majority of evaluable patients at Month 6 (81.6%) and Month 12 (79.4%) in the maintenance phase were ≥ 80% adherent to MMX mesalamine. At Month 6, clinical recurrence was observed in 20.6% of patients who were ≥ 80% adherent and 36.1% of patients with <80% adherence (P = 0.05 [post-hoc chi-square analysis]); 31.2% and 52.5% at Month 12 (P = 0.01 [post-hoc chi-square analysis]).

CONCLUSIONS

MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day QD is effective for maintaining quiescence in patients with UC. Furthermore, adherence to prescribed treatment yielded lower rates of clinical recurrence. Continued education regarding the importance of long-term 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy is warranted.

Prognostic significance of endoscopic remission in patients with active ulcerative colitis treated with oral and topical mesalazine: a prospective, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

It has been recommended that the treatment of active ulcerative colitis (UC) should be continued until complete healing of endoscopic lesions. However, the evidence supporting this recommendation is scanty. Aims of the present study were to assess the rate of patients with active UC who achieve clinical but not endoscopic remission after treatment with oral plus topical mesalazine and to compare the rate of relapse in patients with clinical/endoscopic remission and those with only clinical remission.

METHODS

Patients with active mild or moderate UC were eligible. All patients received mesalazine, 4 g/day orally and 2 g/day per rectum for 6 weeks. Those achieving clinical remission underwent colonoscopy: afterwards, all received maintenance treatment with oral mesalazine, 2 g/day orally for 1 year. Clinical remission was defined as normal frequency of bowel movements with formed stools, no abdominal pain, and no blood in the stools. Endoscopic remission was defined as normal-appearing mucosa or only mild redness and/or friability, without either ulcers or erosions.

RESULTS

In all, 81 patients were enrolled. Sixty-one (75%) achieved clinical remission. Endoscopic activity was still present in five (8%). The cumulative rate of relapse at 1 year was 23% in patients with clinical and endoscopic remission and 80% in patients with only clinical remission (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Persistence of endoscopic activity is quite infrequent in patients with active UC achieving clinical remission after a 6-week treatment with oral plus topical mesalazine, but is a very strong predictor of early relapse.

The impact of MMX mesalazine on disease-specific health-related quality of life in ulcerative colitis patients

BACKGROUND

Past studies with ulcerative colitis (UC) patients indicate that disease activity strongly predicts health-related quality of life (HRQL).

AIM

To examine the degree to which daily treatment with MMX mesalazine predicts improved HRQL for patients with active UC and with stable HRQL for patients with quiescent UC.

METHODS

Data from two phases of a multicentre open-label trial were examined. In the acute phase, 132 patients with mild-to-moderate active UC received MMX mesalazine 2.4-4.8 g/day for 8 weeks, while 206 patients with quiescent UC received MMX mesalazine 2.4 g/day for a 12-month maintenance phase. Disease-specific HRQL was measured at baseline and endpoint of each phase using the Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (SIBDQ). Repeated-measures anova models examined baseline-endpoint changes in SIBDQ, stool frequency (SF), and rectal bleeding severity (RBS). Correlations assessed the associations between SIBDQ and SF/RBS scores, while ancova techniques tested the sensitivity of SIBDQ to disease recurrence.

RESULTS

SIBDQ scores significantly increased for active mild-to-moderate UC patients following 8 weeks of treatment, while SIBDQ scores remained stable for quiescent UC patients following 12 months of treatment. Changes in SIBDQ scores correlated significantly with changes in SF and RBS scores. Patients with recurrent UC at maintenance phase endpoint had significantly lower SIBDQ scores than nonrecurrent patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily MMX mesalazine therapy was associated with significant improvement in disease-specific HRQL for patients with mild-to-moderate active UC and with the maintenance of HRQL for patients with quiescent UC. In both patient groups, HRQL was significantly associated with disease activity.

Can oral 5-aminosalicylic acid be administered once daily in the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis? A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Several trials have demonstrated that oral delayed-release mesalamine might be administered once daily. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to investigate this.

METHODS

A comprehensive and multiple-source literature search was carried out. Only randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) were investigated by comparing a once daily-dosing regime with a divided (twice or thrice daily)-dosing regime of oral delayed-release mesalamine formulations for induction or maintenance of remission in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. The quality of RCTs was assessed using the Jadad scores. Meta-analysis of pooled odds ratios was carried out using Review Manager 5.1.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs were finally included. With regard to meta-analyses for induction trials, there were no significant differences for all comparisons between the once daily and the divided groups, including maintenance of just clinical remission (P=0.52) and just endoscopic remission (P=0.23), maintenance of combined clinical and endoscopic remission (P=0.78), and the overall incidence of adverse events (P=0.61). With regard to meta-analyses for maintenance trials, there were also no significant differences for all comparisons between once daily and divided groups, including maintenance of just clinical remission (P=0.73) and just endoscopic remission (P=0.43), maintenance of combined clinical and endoscopic remission (P=0.43), the overall incidence of adverse events (P=0.12) as well as compliance with the prescribed medication (P=0.34).

CONCLUSION

The present work showed that oral delayed-release mesalazine administered as a single or a divided dose demonstrated a good safety profile, which was well tolerated and effective as either maintenance or induction treatment. High clinical and/or endoscopic remission rates can be achieved with once-daily dosing.

Mesalazine in left-sided ulcerative colitis: efficacy analyses from the PODIUM trial on maintenance of remission and mucosal healing

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Left-sided colitis is the most prevalent subtype of ulcerative colitis, a chronic inflammatory disease of the colon. The standard of care for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis is mesalazine. The PODIUM study compared a once daily to a twice daily dosing regimen of a slow-release mesalazine (Pentasa®); here we assess the efficacy, in terms of maintenance of remission and mucosal healing, of both regimens in patients with left-sided disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients were randomised to once daily (1×2 g) or twice daily (2×1 g) oral treatment with mesalazine, for 12 months. Disease activity was assessed clinically and endoscopically at baseline and at 12 months using the Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index, without endoscopic assessment at months 4 and 8.

RESULTS

The study met the primary endpoint of non-inferiority in terms of remission, for once daily versus twice daily dosing, in patients with left-sided ulcerative colitis; an 8% difference was reported in the 12-month clinical and endoscopic remission rates (69% [95% CI: 59.5-76.5] and 61% [95% CI: 51.4-69.6] with once daily and twice daily dosing, respectively; p=0.310). Mucosal healing scores after 12 months were 0 or 1 for 84.4% of the once daily and 78.8% of the twice daily population. Slow-release mesalazine was well tolerated in both dosing regimens, with no difference in reported adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Once daily slow-release mesalazine is similarly effective to the standard twice daily schedule in patients with left-sided ulcerative colitis for the maintenance of remission in mild-to-moderate disease.