Once-daily, high-concentration MMX mesalamine in active ulcerative colitis

Placebo response and remission rates in randomised trials of induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

It is important to minimize placebo rates in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to efficiently detect treatment differences between interventions. Historically, high placebo rates have been observed in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis (UC). A better understanding of factors influencing placebo rates may lead to more informed clinical trial design.

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate placebo response and remission rates in RCTs evaluating UC treatments in adult patients.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic databases (i.e. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) were searched from inception to 1 March 2017 with no language restrictions applied. Reference lists and conference proceedings of major gastroenterology meetings were also handsearched to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Placebo-controlled RCTs of adult patients with UC treated with corticosteroids, aminosalicylates, immunosuppressives or biologics were eligible, provided enrolment and outcome assessment was conducted using the Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) or the Mayo Clinic Score. The minimum trial duration was two weeks for induction trials and four months maintenance trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently determined study eligibility and extracted data with any disagreements resolved through consensus. Outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients with clinical response and remission. Trial characteristics such as the design, participant demographics and disease history, interventions, and enrolment and assessment criteria were also recorded. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Pooled placebo response and remission rates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using a binomial normal model for proportions. Induction of remission and maintenance studies were pooled separately. The impact of study-level characteristics on placebo response and remission rates was investigated using mixed-effects meta-regression analyses with logits of event rates as the outcome variables. An assessment of pooled placebo rates over time was conducted using a cumulative meta-analysis based on date of publication. Publication bias was examined using funnel plots.

MAIN RESULTS

The screening process identified 61 included studies which encompass 58 induction phases (5111 patients randomised to placebo) and 12 maintenance phases (1579 patients randomised to placebo). For induction trials, the pooled estimate of placebo response was 33% (95% CI 30% to 36%) while the pooled estimate of placebo remission was 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%). For maintenance trials, the pooled estimate of placebo response was 23% (95% CI 19% to 28%) while the pooled estimate of placebo remission was 17% (95% CI 10% to 27%).Studies enrolling patients with more active disease confirmed objectively by endoscopy were associated with significantly lower placebo remission and response rates than trials enrolling patients with less active disease (27% versus 4%, OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.42, P = 0.01 for UCDAI endoscopy sub score ≥1 versus ≥ 2 for remission; and 27% versus 4%, OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.82, P = 0.02 for UCDAI endoscopy sub score greater than or equal to one versus greater than or equal to two for response). With respect to drug class, the lowest placebo response and remission rates were observed in trials evaluating corticosteroids (23%; 95% CI 19 to 29%, and 5%; 95% CI 2 to 11%, respectively). Trials of biologics had the highest placebo response rate (35%; 95% CI 30 to 41%), while trials evaluating aminosalicylates had the highest placebo remission rate (18%; 95% CI 12 to 24%). Disease duration of greater than five years prior to enrolment was associated with a significantly lower placebo response rate compared to disease duration of less than or equal to five years (29% versus 47%, respectively; OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.92, P = 0.02). The requirement of a minimum rectal bleeding score for study eligibility was associated with an increased placebo response rate compared to studies that did not use rectal bleeding for trial eligibility (37% versus 32%, respectively; OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.82, P = 0.02). Finally, the time point of primary outcome assessment was found to be significantly associated with placebo remission rates such that every one week increment in endpoint assessment was associated with a 6% increase in the placebo remission rate (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10, P = 0.01).Cumulative meta-analysis indicated a consistent increase in the placebo response rate from 1987 to 2007 (from 13% to 33%), although rates have remained constant from 2008 to 2015 (32% to 34%). Similarly, placebo remission rates increased from 1987 to 2007 (5% to 14%) but have remained constant from 2008 to 2015 (12 to 14%). On meta-regression, there were no statistically significant differences between the 1987-2007 and 2008-2015 point estimates for both response (P = 0.81) and remission (P = 0.32).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Placebo response and remission rates vary according to endoscopic disease severity and rectal bleeding score at trial entry, class of agent, disease duration, and the time point at which the primary outcome was measured. These observations have important implications for the design and conduct of future clinical trials in UC and will help researchers design trials, determine required sample sizes and also provide useful information about trial design features which should be considered when planning new trials.

Remission endpoints in ulcerative colitis: A systematic review

AIM

To summarize the current consensus on the definition of remission and the endpoints employed in clinical trials.

METHODS

A bibliogragraphic search was performed from 1946 to 2016 sing online databases (National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central Medline, OVID SP MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Conference Abstracts) with key words: (“ulcerative colitis”) AND (“ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity” OR “UCEIS”) AND (“remission”) as well as (“ulcerative colitis”) AND (“ulcerative colitis disease activity index”) OR “UCDAI” OR “UC disease activity index” OR “Sutherland index”) AND (“remission”).

RESULTS

The search returned 37 and 116 articles for the UCEIS and UCDAI respectively. For the UCEIS, 12 articles were cited in the final analysis of which 9 validation studies have been identified. Despite the UCEIS has been more extensively validated in all three aspects (validity, responsiveness and reliability), it has been little employed to monitor disease in randomised clinical trials. For the UCDAI, 37 articles were considered for the final analysis. Although the UCDAI is only partially validated, 29 randomised clinical trials were acknowledged to use the UCDAI to determine endpoints and disease remission, though no clear protocol was identified.

CONCLUSION

Although the UCEIS has been more widely validated than the UCDAI, it has not been reflected in the monitoring of disease activity in clinical trials. Conversely, the UCDAI has been used in numerous large clinical trials to define their endpoints and disease remission, however, it is challenging to determine the best possible outcomes due to a lack of homogeneity of the clinical trial protocols. Before determining a gold standard index, international agreement on remission is urgently needed to advance patient care.

Randomised non-inferiority trial: 1600 mg versus 400 mg tablets of mesalazine for the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

High concentration mesalazine formulations are more convenient than conventional low concentration formulations for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC).

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of 1600 mg and 400 mg tablet mesalazine formulations.

METHODS

Patients with mild-to-moderate active UC (Mayo Clinic Score >5; N=817) were randomised to 3.2 g of oral mesalazine, administered as two 1600 mg tablets once, or four 400 mg tablets twice daily. We hypothesised that treatment with the 1600 mg tablet was non-inferior (within a 10% margin) to the 400 mg tablet for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission at week 8. Open-label treatment with the 1600 mg tablet continued for 26-30 weeks based on induction response. Predictors of treatment response were also explored.

RESULTS

At week 8, remission occurred in 22.4% and 24.6% of patients receiving the 1600 mg and 400 mg tablets, respectively (absolute difference -2.2%, 95% CI: -8.1% to 3.8%, non-inferiority P=.005). Endoscopic and histopathologic disease activity, leucocyte concentration and age were significantly associated with clinical remission (P=.022, .042, .014 and .023, respectively). At week 38, 43.9% (296/675) of patients who continued treatment with the 1600 mg formulation were in remission, including 70.3% (142/202) of patients who received a reduced dose of mesalazine (1.6 g/d). The overall incidence of serious adverse events was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Induction therapy with 3.2 mg mesalazine using two 1600 mg tablets once-daily was statistically and clinically non-inferior to a twice-daily regimen using four 400 mg tablets (NCT01903252).

Regulatory framework on bioequivalence criteria for locally acting gastrointestinal drugs: the case for oral modified release mesalamine formulations

INTRODUCTION

Bioequivalence testing for locally acting gastrointestinal drugs is a challenging issue for both regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical industries. The international regulatory framework has been characterized by the lack of specific bioequivalence tests that has generated a negative impact on the market competition and drug use in clinical practice. Areas covered: This review article provides an overview of the European Union and United States regulatory frameworks on bioequivalence criteria for locally acting gastrointestinal drugs, also discussing the most prominent scientific issues and advances that has been made in this field. A focus on oral modified release mesalamine formulations will be also provided, with practical examples of the regulatory pathways followed by pharmaceutical companies to determine bioequivalence. Expert commentary: The development of a scientific rationale to demonstrate bioequivalence in this field has been complex and often associated with uncertainties related to scientific and regulatory aspects. Only in recent years, thanks to advanced knowledge in this field, the criteria for bioequivalence assessment are undergoing substantial changes. This new scenario will likely result in a significant impact on pharmaceutical companies, promoting more competition through a clearer regulatory approach, conceived for streamlining the demonstration of therapeutic equivalence for locally acting gastrointestinal drugs.

MMX® technology and its applications in gastrointestinal diseases

The Multimatrix^® (MMX^®) preparation MMX^® is a recently obtained drug formulation developed to facilitate release of high concentrations of active drugs into the colon, with a homogeneous distribution along all colonic segments, particularly the most distal ones; the distal colonic tracts, indeed, are the most difficult to reach in significant amounts when a drug is given orally. The MMX^® formulation is characterized by a lipophilic matrix dispersed in a hydrophilic structure. Indeed, in the last few years, MMX^® technology has been widely used in the development of various drugs for the treatment of inflammatory and infectious gastrointestinal diseases localized in the colon. In particular, MMX^® mesalamine, budesonide and parnaparin formulations have been investigated in patients with ulcerative colitis, and the first two have reached worldwide registration for the treatment of this disease. Moreover, MMX^®-rifamycin is being positively tested in the treatment of colonic bacterial infections, including traveler's diarrhea. MMX^® technology is, thus, proving to be a very effective formulation for the treatment of various colonic diseases. This effectiveness has been related not only to specific colonic delivery, but also to its ability to act in a once-daily dosage, thus favouring patients' adherence to prescribed schedules of treatment. The effective delivery of the active molecule to the site of need in the colon is also associated with very low systemic absorption and very low rates of adverse events (AEs). In this paper, we have reviewed all clinical trials performed with an MMX^®-bound drug and all possible real-life reports, in order to give an overall evaluation of MMX^®.

Management of ulcerative colitis in Taiwan: consensus guideline of the Taiwan Society of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory bowel disease characterized by chronic mucosal inflammation of the colon, and the prevalence and incidence of UC have been steadily increasing in Taiwan. A steering committee was established by the Taiwan Society of Inflammatory Bowel Disease to formulate statements on the diagnosis and management of UC taking into account currently available evidence and the expert opinion of the committee. Accurate diagnosis of UC requires thorough clinical, endoscopic, and histological assessment and careful exclusion of differential diagnoses, particularly infectious colitis. The goals of UC therapy are to induce and maintain remission, reduce the risk of complications, and improve quality of life. As outlined in the recommended treatment algorithm, choice of treatment is dictated by severity, extent, and course of disease. Patients should be evaluated for hepatitis B virus and tuberculosis infection prior to immunosuppressive treatment, especially with steroids and biologic agents, and should be regularly monitored for reactivation of latent infection. These consensus statements are also based on current local evidence with consideration of factors, and could be serve as concise and practical guidelines for supporting clinicians in the management of UC in Taiwan.

Comparison of efficacy of multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day once-daily with other high-dose mesalazine in active ulcerative colitis: a randomized, double-blind study

Background/Aims

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of high-dose multimatrix mesalazine once-daily (QD) compared to another form of high-dose mesalazine.

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 280 patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC) received multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day QD or pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day three times daily for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in the UC-Disease Activity Index (UC-DAI) at the end of the treatment period.

Results

The change in the UC-DAI (mean±standard deviation) in the per-protocol set was −2.6±2.47 in the multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day group (n=134) and −1.8±2.64 in the pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day group (n=129). The difference in the mean change between the 2 groups was −0.7 (two-sided 95% confidence interval, −1.3 to −0.1). The noninferiority of multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day to pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day was verified within the noninferiority margin (1.1). The superiority of multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day to pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day was also investigated and confirmed in the full analysis set, according to the study protocol. In subgroup analyses, the effectiveness of multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day was consistent in all subgroups. There was no difference in safety between the 2 treatment groups.

Conclusions

Multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day has higher efficacy and shows no difference in safety in mildly to moderately active UC, in comparison with pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day.

Safety of treatments for inflammatory bowel disease: Clinical practice guidelines of the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IG-IBD)

Inflammatory bowel diseases are chronic conditions of unknown etiology, showing a growing incidence and prevalence in several countries, including Italy. Although the etiology of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis is unknown, due to the current knowledge regarding their pathogenesis, effective treatment strategies have been developed. Several guidelines are available regarding the efficacy and safety of available drug treatments for inflammatory bowel diseases. Nevertheless, national guidelines provide additional information adapted to local feasibility, costs and legal issues related to the use of the same drugs. These observations prompted the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IG-IBD) to establish Italian guidelines on the safety of currently available treatments for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. These guidelines discuss the use of aminosalicylates, systemic and low bioavailability corticosteroids, antibiotics (metronidazole, ciprofloxacin, rifaximin), thiopurines, methotrexate, cyclosporine A, TNFα antagonists, vedolizumab, and combination therapies. These guidelines are based on current knowledge derived from evidence-based medicine coupled with clinical experience of a national working group.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: New Data

Patient reported outcome measures [PROMs] are standardized, validated questionnaires intended for completion by patients in order to measure their perceptions of their own health condition or its treatment without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else. Mayo Clinic Score [MCS] or Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI], most frequently used as end points in conventional clinical trials, are composite instruments that are not fully objective nor capture the impact of disease from the patient's perspective. They are difficult to apply to routine clinical practice because they are complex and time consuming. The European Medicines Agency and Food and Drug Administration are re-evaluating composite indices in clinical trials and product development guidelines. The ultimate goal is to support labelling claims to improve safety and effectiveness of medical products through PROMs allied to an objective measure of inflammation, as happens informally in clinical practice. PROMs, developed and validated according to rigorous criteria, are set to become a co-primary end point for clinical trials of therapy, together with objective measure[s] of inflammation. This will affect future trials' design and their results. To find a place in routine care, PROMs should be easy to use, acceptable to patients and healthcare teams, and able to demonstrate added value to normal practice, supporting decision-making at the level of individual patients. Ideally, the same PROMs should be used in clinical trials and practice, to avoid the current disconnect when interpreting the results of clinical trials and translating them into routine clinical practice.

Second Korean guidelines for the management of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease characterized by a relapsing and remitting course. The direct and indirect costs of the treatment of UC are high, and the quality of life of patients is reduced, especially during exacerbation 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, including biologics, are currently used for the management of UC. However, many challenging issues exist, which sometimes lead to differences in practice between clinicians. Therefore, the IBD study group of the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases established the first Korean guidelines for the management of UC in 2012. This is an update of the first guidelines. It was generally made by the adaptation of several foreign guidelines as was the first edition, and encompasses treatment of active colitis, maintenance of remission, and indication of surgery for UC. The specific recommendations are presented with the quality of evidence and classification of recommendations.

The problem of adherence to therapy in ulcerative colitis and the potential utility of multi-matrix system (MMX) technology

Ulcerative colitis (uc) is a chronic condition and for the vast majority of patients, life-long treatment is required. low adherence to therapy is an emerging issue. since low adherence is associated with poor clinical outcomes and increased costs, it is becoming crucial to identify strategies in order to improve it. Areas covered: We performed literature searches in PubMed using the terms 'adherence', 'mesalamine', 'budesonide MMX', 'MMX technology' in combination with 'ulcerative colitis'. Firstly, we present the key-concepts of therapy for UC and discuss the problem of the adherence and how to measure it. Then, we provide data on the extent of the problem and the causes and consequences from clinical and economic point of views. Finally, we focus on treatment-related variables associated with non-adherence and treatment-related strategies to improve adherence, paying particular attention to Multi Matrix system (MMX) technology applied to mesalazine and budesonide. Expert commentary: The pharmaceutical industry and scientific community are making efforts to simplify treatments for UC. MMX technology, which allows a reduction in the number of pills to be taken and daily administrations, may facilitate adherence to treatment and carry further clinical benefits.

Measurement of in vivo Gastrointestinal Release and Dissolution of Three Locally Acting Mesalamine Formulations in Regions of the Human Gastrointestinal Tract

As an orally administered, locally acting gastrointestinal drug, mesalamine products are designed to achieve high local drug concentration in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. The aim of this study was to directly measure and compare drug dissolution of three mesalamine formulations in human GI tract and to correlate their GI concentration with drug concentration in plasma. Healthy human subjects were orally administered Pentasa, Apriso, or Lialda. GI fluids were aspirated from stomach, duodenum, proximal jejunum, mid jejunum, and distal jejunum regions. Mesalamine (5-ASA) and its primary metabolite acetyl-5-mesalamine (Ac-5-ASA) were measured using LC-MS/MS. GI tract pH was measured from each GI fluid sample, which averaged 1.82, 4.97, 5.67, 6.17, and 6.62 in the stomach, duodenum, proximal jejunum, middle jejunum, and distal jejunum, respectively. For Pentasa, high levels of 5-ASA in solution were observed in the stomach, duodenum, proximal jejunum, mid jejunum, and distal jejunum from 1 to 7 h. Apriso had minimal 5-ASA levels in stomach, low to medium levels of 5-ASA in duodenum and proximal jejunum from 4 to 7 h, and high levels of 5-ASA in distal jejunum from 3 to 7 h. In contrast, Lialda had minimal 5-ASA levels from stomach and early small intestine. A composite appearance rate (CAR) was calculated from the deconvolution of individual plasma concentration to reflect drug release, dissolution, transit, and absorption in the GI tract. Individuals dosed with Pentasa had high levels of CAR from 1 to 10 h; individuals dosed with Apriso had low levels of CAR from 1 to 4 h and high levels of CAR from 5 to 10 h; Lialda showed minimal levels of CAR from 0 to 5 h, then increased to medium levels from 5 to 12 h, and then decreased to further lower levels after 12 h. In the colon region, Pentasa and Apriso showed similar levels of accumulated 5-ASA excreted in the feces, while Lialda showed slightly higher 5-ASA accumulation in feces. However, all three formulations showed similar levels of metabolite Ac-5-ASA in the feces. These results provide direct measurement of drug dissolution in the GI tract, which can serve as a basis for investigation of bioequivalence for locally acting drug products.

Mucosal Healing Is Associated With Improved Long-term Outcomes of Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The paradigm for treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC) is shifting from resolving symptoms toward objective measures such as mucosal healing (MH). However, it is unclear whether MH is associated with improved long-term outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and analyze studies comparing long-term outcomes of patients with MH with those without MH.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of 3 large databases to identify prospective studies of patients with active UC that included outcomes of patients found to have MH at the first endoscopic evaluation after initiation of UC therapy (MH1) compared with those without MH1. The primary outcome was clinical remission after at least 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included proportions of patients who were free of colectomy or corticosteroids and rate of MH after at least 52 weeks.

RESULTS

We analyzed 13 studies comprising 2073 patients with active UC. Patients with MH1 had pooled odds ratio of 4.50 for achieving long-term (after at least 52 weeks) clinical remission (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.12-9.52), 4.15 for remaining free of colectomy (95% CI, 2.53-6.81), 8.40 for achieving long-term MH (95% CI, 3.13-22.53), and 9.70 for achieving long-term corticosteroid-free clinical remission (95% CI, 0.94-99.67), compared with patients without MH1. We found no difference in outcomes if patients achieved MH1 while receiving biologic versus non-biologic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis, we associated MH with long-term clinical remission, avoidance of colectomy, and corticosteroid-free clinical remission. MH is therefore appropriate goal of UC therapy.

Current evidence supporting mucosal healing and deep remission as important treatment goals for inflammatory bowel disease

Mucosal healing (MH) is now considered as a major treatment goal in clinical trials and clinical practice for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). MH is associated with sustained clinical remission, steroid-free remission, and reduced rates of hospitalization and surgery. There is a well-known disconnect between clinical symptoms and mucosal lesions that is more pronounced in CD. More stringent therapeutic goals have been discussed recently such as deep remission defined as clinical remission associated with MH. Recent international guidelines from the IOIBD recommended deep remission as a treatment goal in clinical practice. However there is no validated definition of deep remission in IBD. Also, the efficacy of available drugs to induce and maintain deep remission in IBD is poorly known. Finally, whether deep remission is the best way to modify the course of IBD and whether it should be achieved before considering drug de-escalation have to be formally evaluated in upcoming disease-modification trials.

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.

Hypoxia-dependent regulation of inflammatory pathways in immune cells

Uncontrolled inflammation underpins a diverse range of diseases where effective therapy remains an unmet clinical need. Hypoxia is a prominent feature of the inflammatory microenvironment that regulates key transcription factors including HIF and NF-κB in both innate and adaptive immune cells. In turn, altered activity of the pathways controlled by these factors can affect the course of inflammation through the regulation of immune cell development and function. In this review, we will discuss these pathways and the oxygen sensors that confer hypoxic sensitivity in immune cells. Furthermore, we will describe how hypoxia-dependent pathways contribute to immunity and discuss their potential as therapeutic targets in inflammatory and infectious disease.

Progress in medical treatment of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a kind of chronic inflammatory disease and its etiology and pathogenesis are not clear. Accumulating evidence has indicated that the interactions among genotype, immune system and intestinal microbiota of patients play a significant role in the pathogenesis of UC. At present, it is difficult to cure UC. The main goals of UC treatment include inducing remission rapidly, maintaining the remission stage for a long time and preventing the occurrence of complications. As the incidence of UC keeps rising sharply in the recent 20 years, and a portion of patients have no response to the treatments or the effects are not satisfying, it is necessary to make further research for the treatment of UC. There are some main medical treatments for UC, such as 5-ASA, immune inhibitors, biological agents, Chinese herbal medicine, antibiotics and probiotics. In recent years, some new treatments such as stem cell transplantation, fecal bacteria transplantation and CO enema treatment are becoming the hot spot of research. This article will make a summary of the progress in medical treatment of UC in recent years.

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.

Mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease: Maintain or de-escalate therapy

In the past decade, thanks to the introduction of biologic therapies, a new therapeutic goal, mucosal healing (MH), has been introduced. MH is the expression of an arrest of disease progression, resulting in minor hospitalizations, surgeries, and prolonged clinical remission. MH may be achieved with several therapeutic strategies reaching success rates up to 80% for both, ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD). Various scoring systems for UC and for the transmural CD, have been proposed to standardize the definition of MH. Several attempts have been undertaken to de-escalate therapy once MH is achieved, thus, reducing the risk of adverse events. In this review, we analysed the available studies regarding the achievement of MH and the subsequent treatment de-escalation according to disease type and administered therapy, together with non-invasive markers proposed as predictors for relapse. The available data are not encouraging since de-escalation after the achievement of MH is followed by a high number of clinical relapses reaching up to 50% within one year. Unclear is also another question, in case of combination therapies, which drug is more appropriate to stop, in order to guarantee a durable remission. Predictors of unfavourable outcome such as disease extension, perianal disease, or early onset disease appear to be inadequate to foresee behaviour of disease. Further studies are warranted to investigate the role of histologic healing for the further course of disease.

Pharmacological- and non-pharmacological therapeutic approaches in inflammatory bowel disease in adults

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are a group of chronic inflammatory conditions mainly of the colon and small intestine. Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are the most frequent types of IBD. IBD is a complex disease which arises as a result of the interaction of environmental, genetic and immunological factors. It is increasingly thought that alterations of immunological reactions of the patients to their own enterable bacteria (microfilm) may contribute to inflammation. It is characterized by mucosal and sub mucosal inflammation, perpetuated by infiltration of activated leukocytes. CD may affect the whole gastrointestinal tract while UC only attacks the large intestine. The therapeutic goal is to achieve a steroid-free long lasting remission in both entities. UC has the possibility to be cured by a total colectomy, while CD never can be cured by any operation. A lifelong intake of drugs is mostly necessary and essential. Medical treatment of IBD has to be individualized to each patient and usually starts with anti-inflammatory drugs. The choice what kind of drugs and what route administered (oral, rectal, intravenous) depends on factors including the type, the localization, and severity of the patient's disease. IBD may require immune-suppression to control symptoms such as prednisolone, thiopurines, calcineurin or sometimes folic acid inhibitors or biologics like TNF-α inhibitors or anti-integrin antibodies. For both types of disease (CD, UC) the same drugs are available but they differ in their preference in efficacy between CD and UC as 5-aminosalicylic acid for UC or budesonide for ileocecal CD. As therapeutic alternative the main mediators of the disease, namely the activated pro-inflammatory cytokine producing leukocytes can be selectively removed via two apheresis systems (Adacolumn and Cellsorba) in steroid-refractory or dependent cases. Extracorporeal photopheresis results in an increase of regulatory B cells, regulatory CD8(+) T cells and T-regs Type 1. Both types of apheresis were able to induce clinical remission and mucosal healing accompanied by tapering of steroids.

Understanding Endoscopic Disease Activity in IBD: How to Incorporate It into Practice

Endoscopic assessment of disease activity is an essential part of clinical practice in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and is used for diagnosis, prognosis, monitoring for dysplasia and increasingly for the evaluation of mucosal or endoscopic response to therapy. Recently, mucosal or endoscopic healing has emerged as a key goal of therapy as it has been found that patients who achieve endoscopic remission have improved outcomes compared to those who do not, and this may be independent of their clinical disease activity. However, there is currently no validated definition of mucosal healing and there are numerous endoscopic scoring systems proposed to define endoscopic activity and response to therapy in both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. This article will discuss the most common endoscopic scores used to measure endoscopic disease activity in IBD, the pros and cons of each of these scoring systems and proposed definitions for endoscopic response or remission that exist for each. In addition, the role of endoscopy in prognosticating the disease course is discussed and how endoscopy can be utilized as part of a "treat-to-target" treatment strategy where endoscopy results direct decisions regarding medical strategies in clinical practice is highlighted.

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.

Mesalazine preparations for the treatment of ulcerative colitis: Are all created equal?

Oral mesalazine (also known as mesalamine) is a 5-aminosalicylic acid compound used in the treatment of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, with high rates of efficacy in induction and maintenance of remission. The therapeutic effect of mesalazine occurs topically at the site of diseased colonic mucosa. A myriad of oral mesalazine preparations have been formulated with various drug delivery methods to minimize systemic absorption and maximise drug availability at the inflamed colonic epithelium. It remains unclear whether different oral mesalazine formulations are bioequivalent. This review aims to evaluate the differences between mesalazine formulations based on the currently available literature and explore factors which may influence the selection of one agent above another.

Development of interim patient-reported outcome measures for the assessment of ulcerative colitis disease activity in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have an increasingly important role in the evaluation of new therapies for inflammatory bowel disease. The US Food and Drug Administration has issued formal guidance to describe the role of PRO instruments in evaluation of claims for product labelling. However, no validated PRO exists for ulcerative colitis.

AIM

To investigate whether the PROs from the Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) for UC can be modified, to develop an interim PRO for use in clinical trials, alone or in combination with endoscopy.

METHODS

Data from an induction trial of a mesalazine (mesalamine) formulation were used to compare effect sizes between mesalazine and placebo for PRO items (stool frequency and rectal bleeding) alone and in combination with endoscopy. The operating properties of the PRO were validated using data from a phase 2 trial of MLN02, a humanised antibody to the α4β7 integrin in patients with UC.

RESULTS

A two-item PRO (PRO2) consisting of rectal bleeding = 0 and stool frequency ≤1 or ≤2, combined with an endoscopy subscore ≤1 yielded statistically significant differences between active drug and placebo. This combination yielded the most similar effect sizes and placebo rates for remission, compared to the primary trials. Use of PRO items alone yielded high placebo remission rates in both data sets, although rates were lower when the items were combined and remission defined as PRO2 = 0.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported outcomes items derived from the Mayo Clinic Score combined with endoscopy as a co-primary endpoint may be an appropriate interim outcome measure for ulcerative colitis trials.

The Modified Mayo Endoscopic Score (MMES): A New Index for the Assessment of Extension and Severity of Endoscopic Activity in Ulcerative Colitis Patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current endoscopic activity scores for ulcerative colitis (UC) do not take into account the extent of mucosal inflammation. We have developed a simple endoscopic index for UC that takes into account the severity and distribution of mucosal inflammation.

METHODS

In this multicentre trial, UC patients undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled. For the Modified Score (MS), the sum of Mayo Endoscopic Subscores (MESs) for five colon segments (ascending, transverse, descending, sigmoid and rectum) was calculated. The Extended Modified Score (EMS) was obtained by multiplying the MS by the maximal extent of inflammation. The Modified Mayo Endoscopic Score (MMES) was obtained by dividing the EMS by the number of segments with active inflammation. Colon biopsies were obtained from the rectum and sigmoid, as well as from all inflamed segments, by standard methods. Clinical activity was scored according to the Partial Mayo Score (PMS). Biological activity was scored according to C-reactive protein (CRP) and faecal calprotectin (FC) levels. Histological activity was scored according to the Geboes Score (GS).

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-one UC patients (38% female, median age 47 years, median disease duration 13 years) were included. The MMES correlated significantly with the PMS (r = 0.535), CRP (r = 0.238), FC (r = 0.730) and GS (r = 0.615) (all p < 0.001). Median MMES scores were significantly higher in patients with clinical, biological or histological activity (all p ≤ 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: The MMES is an easy to use endoscopic index for UC that combines the severity analysis of the MES with disease extent, and correlates very well with clinical, biological and histological disease activity.

Advances in refractory ulcerative colitis treatment: A new therapeutic target, Annexin A2

Medical treatment has progressed significantly over the past decade towards achieving and maintaining clinical remission in patients with refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). Proposed mediators of inflammation in UC include pro-inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-2, and the cell-surface adhesive molecule integrin α4β7. Conventional therapeutics for active UC include 5-aminosalicylic acid, corticosteroids and purine analogues (azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine). Patients who fail to respond to conventional therapy are treated with agents such as the calicineurin inhibitors cyclosporine and tacrolimus, the TNF-α inhibitors infliximab or adalimumab, or a neutralizing antibody (vedolizumab) directed against integrin α4β7. These therapeutic agents are of benefit for patients with refractory UC, but are not universally effective. Our recent research on TNF-α shedding demonstrated that inhibition of annexin (ANX) A2 may be a new therapeutic strategy for the prevention of TNF-α shedding during inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) inflammation. In this review, we provide an overview of therapeutic treatments that are effective and currently available for UC patients, as well as some that are likely to be available in the near future. We also propose the potential of ANX A2 as a new molecular target for IBD treatment.

Medical Therapy of Active Ulcerative Colitis

Background

Medical therapy of mild and moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) of any extent is evidence-based and standardized by national and international guidelines. However, patients with steroid-refractory UC still represent a challenge.

Methods

A literature search using PubMed (search terms: ulcerative colitis, therapy, new, 1-2008-2015) resulted in 821 publications. For the current article, 88 citations were extracted including 36 randomized controlled studies, 18 reviews, and 8 meta-analyses.

Results

In steroid-refractory UC, early intensive therapy using anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antibodies or the calcineurin inhibitors cyclosporine and tacrolimus is indicated in any case to prevent progression to a toxic megacolon and/or to avoid proctocolectomy. In patients with chronic disease activity, treatment with anti-TNF antibodies has a higher level of evidence than azathioprine therapy and should therefore be preferred. However, there is a subgroup of UC patients who may achieve prolonged steroid-free remission on azathioprine monotherapy. The importance of vedolizumab, a newly registered inhibiting antibody against integrin, has not yet been fully clarified since direct comparison studies are lacking, in particular in relation to anti-TNF antibodies.

Conclusion

There is a great need for additional innovative therapies, especially in cases of primary non-response or secondary loss of response to anti-TNF antibodies. New small molecules (Janus kinase inhibitors) are promising with an acceptable safety profile and efficacy in UC. Further, strategies that target the intestinal microbiome are currently considered for patients with active or relapsing UC, and may in the future open up new therapeutic options.

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.

The immunologic effects of mesalamine in treated HIV-infected individuals with incomplete CD4+ T cell recovery: a randomized crossover trial

The anti-inflammatory agent, mesalamine (5-aminosalicylic acid) has been shown to decrease mucosal inflammation in ulcerative colitis. The effect of mesalamine in HIV-infected individuals, who exhibit abnormal mucosal immune activation and microbial translocation (MT), has not been established in a placebo-controlled trial. We randomized 33 HIV-infected subjects with CD4 counts <350 cells/mm3 and plasma HIV RNA levels <40 copies/ml on antiretroviral therapy (ART) to add mesalamine vs. placebo to their existing regimen for 12 weeks followed by a 12 week crossover to the other arm. Compared to placebo-treated subjects, mesalamine-treated subjects did not experience any significant change in the percent CD38+HLA-DR+ peripheral blood CD4+ and CD8+ T cells at week 12 (P = 0.38 and P = 0.63, respectively), or in the CD4+ T cell count at week 12 (P = 0.83). The percent CD38+HLA-DR+ CD4+ and CD8+ T cells also did not change significantly in rectal tissue (P = 0.86, P = 0.84, respectively). During the period of mesalamine administration, plasma sCD14, IL-6, D-dimer, and kynurenine to tryptophan ratio were not changed significantly at week 12 and were similarly unchanged at week 24. This study suggests that, at least under the conditions studied, the persistent immune activation associated with HIV infection is not impacted by the anti-inflammatory effects of mesalamine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01090102.

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.

Mucosal healing as a target of therapy for colonic inflammatory bowel disease and methods to score disease activity

Mucosal healing is an important therapeutic end point in clinical trials and clinical practice. There is no validated definition of mucosal healing in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, although the benefits of achieving mucosal healing include decreased need for corticosteroids, sustained clinical remission, decreased colectomy, and bowel resection. The Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity is the only validated endoscopic index in ulcerative colitis. The Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity and the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease are validated for Crohn disease, and the Rutgeerts Postoperative Endoscopic Index is used to predict recurrence after an ileocolic resection.

“Mucosal healing” in ulcerative colitis: Between clinical evidence and market suggestion

In recent decades, the prominent role of endoscopy in the management of ulcerative colitis (UC) has been translated into the concept of mucosal healing (MH) as a fundamental therapeutic end-point. This is partially the consequence of growing evidence of a positive prognostic role of MH on the disease course and partially due to market cues indicating a higher rate of MH in patients treated by novel potent biologic agents. The aim of the present review is to clarify the current knowledge of MH in UC, analyzing the definition, the putative prognostic role and the association of MH with the current drugs used to treat UC patients. Because solid data about the management of UC patients based solely on the healing of the mucosa are not yet available, a tailored approach for individual patients thatconsiders the natural history of UC and the presence of prognostic indicators of aggressive disease is desirable. Consequently, unnecessary examinations and treatment would be avoided and restricted to UC patients who require the maximum amount of effort to affect the disease course in the short and long term.

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.

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.