Direct comparison of two different mesalamine formulations for the induction of remission in patients with ulcerative colitis: a double-blind, randomized study

Systematic review with meta-analysis: Medical therapies for treatment of ulcerative proctitis

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative proctitis (UP) is a common highly symptomatic form of ulcerative colitis that can be difficult to treat.

AIM

To assess the efficacy of medical treatments for UP.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL on 23 November 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medical therapy for adults with UP. Primary outcomes included induction and maintenance of clinical remission. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each outcome.

RESULTS

We included 53 RCTs (n = 4096) including 46 induction studies (n = 3731) and seven maintenance studies (n = 365). First-line therapies included topical 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), conventional corticosteroids, budesonide, and oral 5-ASA. Therapy for refractory UP included topical tacrolimus and small molecules. Topical 5-ASA was superior to placebo for induction (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.94-3.82) and maintenance of remission (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.26-3.46). Topical corticosteroids were superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.62-4.92). Topical budesonide was superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.44-3.81). Combination therapy with topical 5-ASA and topical corticosteroids was superior to topical monotherapy with either agent. Topical tacrolimus was superior to placebo. Etrasimod was superior to placebo for induction (RR 4.71, 95% CI 1.2-18.49) and maintenance of remission (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.31-3.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical 5-ASA and corticosteroids are effective for active UP. Topical 5-ASA may be effective for maintenance of remission. Tacrolimus may be effective for induction of remission. Etrasimod may be effective for induction and for maintenance of remission. Trials should include UP to expand the evidence base for this under-represented population.

Efficacy of oral prolonged-release mesalazine in moderately active ulcerative colitis

New meta-analyses are presented that provide further evidence supporting the effectiveness of oral prolonged-release mesalazine compared to other oral mesalazines as induction therapy in patients with moderately active ulcerative colitis.

Guidelines for the management of ulcerative colitis. Recommendations of the Polish Society of Gastroenterology and the Polish National Consultant in Gastroenterology

This paper is an update of the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of the National Consultant for Gastroenterology and the Polish Society of Gastroenterology from 2013. It contains 49 recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment, both pharmacological and surgical, of ulcerative colitis in adults. The guidelines were developed by a group of experts appointed by the Polish Society of Gastroenterology and the National Consultant in the field of Gastroenterology. The methodology related to the GRADE methodology was used to assess the quality of available evidence and the strength of therapeutic recommendations. The degree of expert support for the proposed statements was assessed on a 6-point Likert scale. Voting results, together with comments, are included with each statement.

Definition of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis in clinical trials: A systematic literature review

We performed a systematic review to investigate the definition of mild to moderate active ulcerative colitis (UC), and to describe predictors of good response to treatment in clinical trials assessing 5-ASA and/or budesonide. Thirty-nine randomized controlled trials were included. The UC Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) was the most frequent score used for defining mild to moderate active UC (16 studies, 41%), followed by Clinical Activity Index in 11 studies (28.2%). Four different cut-offs were used to define mild to moderate active UC using the UCDAI. The most frequently reported predictors of good response to treatment was a mild and moderate disease activity. There is heterogeneity in the definition of mild to moderate active UC in randomized clinical trials. A standardized definition of mild to moderate active UC used for inclusion of patients in clinical trials is needed.

Therapeutics in Radiation-induced Proctopathy: A Systematic Review

Malignant neoplasms are increasingly prevalent in the daily clinical practice. Up to 61% of patients with pelvic malignancies undergo pelvic radiotherapy in different doses, which may cause intestinal damage, and the rectum is the segment most frequently affected due to its fixed position in the pelvis. Currently, there are several strategies to minimize the effects of radiation on the tissues surrounding the neoplastic site; despite those strategies, radiotherapy can still result in serious damage to organs and structures, and these injuries accompany patients throughout their lives. One of the most common damages resulting from pelvic radiotherapy is acute proctitis.The diagnosis is confirmed by visualizing the rectal mucosa through rigid or flexible rectosigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. The objective of the present study was to review the forms of radiation-induced proctopathytherapy, and to evaluate the results of each method to propose a standardization for the treatment of this pathology. Despite the prevalence of radiation-induced proctopathy, there is no definitive standardized treatment strategy so far. The first approach can be tried with local agents, such as mesalazine and formalin. For refractory cases, control can usually be achieved with argon plasma coagulation, hyperbaric oxygen, and radiofrequency ablation therapies. Regarding the study of radiation-induced proctopathy, there is a lack of robust studies with large samples and standardized therapies to be compared. There is a lack of double-blinded, randomized controlled studies to determine a definitive standard treatment algorithm.

Classification and clinical features of adverse drug reactions in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with 5-aminosalicylate acid: a single-center, observational study

BACKGROUND

5-Aminosalicylate acid (5-ASA) is a crucial drug for ulcerative colitis (UC) patients. 5-ASA has several side effects. However, the types of side effects vary and are sometimes severe.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted from September 2001 to June 2020. We surveyed consecutive UC patients who visited our hospital and investigated adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to 5-ASA formulations. We grouped patients into four subgroups: (1) lupus-like symptoms, (2) blood test abnormalities, (3) mimicking IBD exacerbation and (4) others. Their clinical courses were evaluated.

RESULTS

We surveyed 288 consecutive UC patients, 35 of whom developed ADRs of any grade (12.9%), and analyzed 27 patients. The median age and 5-ASA doses were 43 years and 4000 mg, respectively, and 48% were male. The ADR triggers were the first use of 5-ASA (n = 17, 63%), 5-ASA switch (n = 9, 33%) and 5-ASA dose escalation (n = 1, 3.7%). The median time to ADR was 15 days (IQR: 7, 63). Ten patients (37%) had grade 3/4 ADRs. Fever was the most common ADR (n = 6, 23%), followed by hyperamylasemia and headache (n = 4, 15%). Lupus-like symptoms accounted for 56% (n = 15), blood test abnormalities for 26% (n = 7), mimicking IBD exacerbation for 15% (n = 4) and others for 3.7% (n = 1). The time to ADR was shorter in the mimicking IBD exacerbation group (median 11 days) than in the lupus-like symptoms (22 days) and blood test abnormalities (55 days) groups.

CONCLUSION

Classification of ADRs related to 5-ASA into four groups might lead to early recognition of ADRs.

Efficacy and safety of oral Pentasa (prolonged-release mesalazine) in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pentasa (prolonged-release mesalazine [5-ASA]) has been available for >30 years as an effective treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was undertaken to provide an up-to-date evaluation of oral Pentasa efficacy and safety for induction and maintenance of remission.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, from inception to 02 December 2020. Unpublished studies were also sourced. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model and Bayesian inference compared Pentasa (tablets, granules, capsules) against placebo and other 5-ASAs.

RESULTS

Twelve studies involving 3674 patients treated with Pentasa were identified. Pentasa 2-4 g/day was superior to placebo at inducing (absolute risk difference [ARD] at 8 weeks 0.14, 95% CI 0.07‒0.21; p < .001) and maintaining (ARD 6-12 months 0.18, 95% CI 0.04‒0.33; p < .05) remission (clinical/endoscopic). Against other 5-ASAs, Pentasa had similar efficacy for induction (ARD <0.001, 95% CI -0.05‒0.05) and maintenance (ARD 0.01, 95% CI -0.07‒0.08) treatment using randomized controlled trial data. Upon inclusion of real-world study data, Pentasa was significantly better at maintaining remission compared both to Eudragit-S mesalazine and sulfasalazine (ARD 0.04, 95% CI 0.02‒0.06; p < .001). Pentasa (1-4 g/day) had similar treatment-related adverse event rates to placebo (ARD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03‒0.06) and Eudragit-L/S mesalazines (2.25-3 vs 2.4-3 g/day, respectively; ARD -0.03, 95% CI -0.12‒0.05), but was better tolerated than sulfasalazine (3 g/day) (ARD 0.07, 95% CI 0.003‒0.14; p < .05).

CONCLUSION

This study confirms oral Pentasa is efficacious and well-tolerated in treating active UC and maintaining remission. The availability of multiple forms of Pentasa supports physicians' ability to individualize treatment and optimize dosing to improve outcomes.

pH-dependent vs. constant release of mesalazine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis: Do drug delivery concepts determine therapeutic efficacy? (Review)

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) have developed to become a major global health problem. Ulcerative colitis (UC) is one of two main types of IBD, and >90% of patients suffering from mild or moderate forms of UC are treated with mesalazine, a well-tolerated and cost-effective drug. To allow oral administration, the drug has to be protected from resorption before it can reach the affected sites in the colon. The drug is therefore released from most currently used medications either constantly slow (time-dependent) or triggered by an increased pH during gastrointestinal transition. Both variants are widely used in clinical practice and it is surprising that they have not yet been compared directly in a large clinical study. In this overview, the evidence that may suggest preferential use of one type of mesalazine formulation over the other in general or for defined subgroups of patients is summarized and evaluated. Data from in vitro modelling of drug release and measurements of drug concentrations in colonic mucosa suggest that in many cases, constant release and pH-dependent formulations are of similar therapeutic efficiency; however, pH-triggered release may be superior in patients with proctitis-type UC or sites of inflammation in the proximal colon. Additionally, patients with a long gastric residence time, slow small intestinal transition, disease-related diarrhea or sensitivity to systemic adverse effects may benefit more from pH-dependent release formulations. In general, medications based on both concepts show similar efficacies, but the pH-dependent release formulations seem to be more robust in the treatment of a not further classified group of patients with UC. Future comparative clinical studies are required to clearly define the subgroups of patients that should be treated preferably with constant or pH-dependent release formulations of mesalazine.

Differential effects of mesalazine formulations on thiopurine metabolism through thiopurine S-methyltransferase inhibition

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Thiopurines are often used in combination with mesalazine for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). Mesalazine formulations are delivered to the digestive tract by various delivery systems and absorbed as 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA). 5-ASA is known to inhibit thiopurine S-methyltransferase (TPMT) activity and to affect thiopurine metabolism. There have been no studies comparing TPMT inhibition by multimatrix mesalazine (MMX) with other formulations. We investigated the difference in TPMT inhibition by different mesalazine formulations and prospectively confirmed the clinical relevance.

METHODS

Plasma concentrations of 5-ASA, N-acetyl-5-aminosalicylic acid (N-Ac-5-ASA), and TPMT activities were measured in UC patients receiving various mesalazine formulations (time-dependent or pH-dependent mesalazine or MMX) as monotherapy. Patients already on both time-dependent or pH-dependent mesalazine and thiopurines switched their mesalazine to MMX, examining 6-thioguanine nucleotide (6-TGN) and 6-methylmercaptopurine (6-MMP) 0 and 8 weeks after switching. Clinical relapse after switching was also monitored for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Plasma 5-ASA and N-Ac-5-ASA levels were significantly higher in patients receiving time-dependent mesalazine (n = 12) compared with pH-dependent mesalazine (n = 12) and MMX (n = 15), accompanied by greater TPMT inhibition. Prospective switching from time-dependent mesalazine to MMX decreased 6-TGN levels, increased those of 6-MMP, and increased 6-MMP/6-TGN ratios. Furthermore, this resulted in significantly more relapses than switching from pH-dependent mesalazine to MMX.

CONCLUSIONS

Time-dependent mesalazine has higher plasma 5-ASA and N-Ac-5-ASA levels and greater TPMT inhibition than MMX. Therefore, switching from time-dependent mesalazine to MMX may lead to an increase of 6-MMP/6-TGN, which may reduce the clinical effectiveness of thiopurines, warranting close monitoring after switch.

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. It was previously 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 (UC). This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators (i.e. other formulations of 5-ASA) for induction of remission in active UC. A secondary objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA versus conventional dosing regimens (two or three times daily).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library on 11 June 2019. We also searched references, conference proceedings and study registers to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (aged 18 years or more) with active UC for inclusion. We included studies that compared oral 5-ASA therapy with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily to conventional dosing as well as dose-ranging studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Outcomes include failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, adherence, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. We analyzed five comparisons: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (e.g. MMX mesalamine, Ipocol, Balsalazide, Pentasa, Olsalazine and 5-ASA micropellets) versus comparator 5-ASA (e.g. Asacol, Claversal, Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for each outcome. We analyzed data on an intention-to-treat basis, and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 54 studies (9612 participants). We rated most studies at low risk of bias. Seventy-one per cent (1107/1550) of 5-ASA participants failed to enter clinical remission compared to 83% (695/837) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89; 2387 participants, 11 studies; high-certainty evidence). We also observed a dose-response trend for 5-ASA. There was no difference in clinical remission rates between 5-ASA and SASP. Fifty-four per cent (150/279) of 5-ASA participants failed to enter remission compared to 58% (144/247) of SASP participants (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04; 526 participants, 8 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference in remission rates between once-daily dosing and conventional dosing. Sixty per cent (533/881) of once-daily participants failed to enter clinical remission compared to 61% (538/880) of conventionally-dosed participants (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 1761 participants, 5 studies; high-certainty evidence). Eight per cent (15/179) of participants dosed once daily failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 6% (11/179) of conventionally-dosed participants (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.86; 358 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Fifty per cent (507/1022) of participants in the 5-ASA group failed to enter remission compared to 52% (491/946) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.02; 1968 participants, 11 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, once-daily and conventionally-dosed 5-ASA, and 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulation studies. Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache and worsening UC. SASP was not as well tolerated as 5-ASA. Twenty-nine per cent (118/411) of SASP participants experienced an AE compared to 15% (72/498) of 5-ASA participants (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.63; 909 participants, 12 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo, and moderate-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is not more effective than SASP. Considering relative costs, a clinical advantage to using oral 5-ASA in place of SASP appears unlikely. High-certainty evidence suggests 5-ASA dosed once daily appears to be as efficacious as conventionally-dosed 5-ASA. There may be little or no difference in efficacy or safety among the various 5-ASA formulations.

Modified Sijunzi decoction in the treatment of ulcerative colitis in the remission phase: study protocol for a series of N-of-1 double-blind, randomised controlled trials

Background

Modified Sijunzi decoction (SJZD) has been used to treat ulcerative colitis (UC) in remission. However, more rigorous clinical trials are necessary to evaluate its effectiveness. Therefore, a series of single-case randomised controlled trials (N-of-1 trials) is proposed to compare the efficacy of modified SJZD with mesalazine for treating UC in remission.

Methods

This is a single-site, hospital-based, double-blind N-of-1 trial for 10 single subjects. Three cycles of N-of-1 trials are planned. There are two treatment periods in each cycle. Modified SJZD combined with mesalazine placebo or mesalazine combined with modified SJZD placebo will be randomised during each 8-week treatment period. There is no washout period in the study. Subjects will be selected by the researcher strictly in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Discussion

Paired t tests and mixed-effect models will be used to analyse the visual analogue scale (VAS) for clinical symptoms and the quality of life questionnaire responses. The findings will be interpreted with caution. We anticipate that the results will show that modified SJZD is effective for patients with UC in remission.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Register, ID: ChiCTR1900024086. Registered on 24 June 2019.

Switching between Three Types of Mesalazine Formulation and Sulfasalazine in Patients with Active Ulcerative Colitis Who Have Already Received High-Dose Treatment with These Agents

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Oral mesalazine and sulfasalazine (SASP) are key drugs for treating ulcerative colitis (UC). The efficacy of switching from one of the several mesalazine formulations to another is largely unknown. This study assessed the efficacy of switching among three types of mesalazine formulation and SASP for UC therapy.

METHODS

UC patients receiving high-dose mesalazine/SASP who switched to other formulations due to disease activity were considered eligible. Efficacy was evaluated 2, 6, and 12 months after switching.

RESULTS

A total of 106 switches in 88 UC patients were analyzed. The efficacy at 2 months after switching was observed in 23/39 (59%) cases from any mesalazine formulation to SASP, in 18/55 (33%) cases from one mesalazine to another, and in 2/12 (17%) cases from SASP to any mesalazine formulation. Nine of 43 effective cases showed inefficacy or became intolerant post-switching. Delayed efficacy more than two months after switching was observed in four cases. Steroid-free remission was achieved in 42/106 (39%) cases-within 100 days in 35 of these cases (83%).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from mesalazine to SASP was effective in more than half of cases. The efficacy of switching between mesalazine formulations was lower but may be worth attempting in clinical practice from a safety perspective.

Comparative assessment of budesonide-MMX and mesalamine in active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS

The comparative efficacy, safety and tolerability of budesonide-MMX and oral mesalamine in active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) are unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis to fill this evidence gap.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries, regulatory agencies' websites and international conference proceedings, up to July 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adult patients with active, mild-to-moderate UC, comparing budesonide-MMX or mesalamine against placebo, or against each other, or different dosing strategies, for induction of remission. Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and outcomes, and assessed each trial's risk-of-bias.

RESULTS

We identified and synthesized evidence from 15 eligible trials including 4083 participants. Budesonide-MMX 9 mg/day and mesalamine >2.4 g/day had similar efficacy for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission (OR = 0.97; 0.59-1.60), both showing superiority over placebo (OR = 2.68; 1.75-4.10, and OR = 2.75; 1.94-3.90, respectively). Furthermore, mesalamine >2.4 g/day was more efficacious than mesalamine 1.6-2.4 g/day (odds ratio = 1.27; 1.03-1.56). Secondary analyses showed that mesalamine >2.4 g/day ranks at the top among comparator treatments regarding safety (serious adverse events; surface under the cumulative ranking area [SUCRA] 79.2%) and tolerability (treatment discontinuations or withdrawals from the study due to adverse events; SUCRA 96.7%). There was no evidence of inconsistency, while heterogeneity between studies and risk of publication bias were low.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide-MMX and mesalamine >2.4 g/day had similar efficacy for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission in active, mild-to-moderate UC; however, mesalamine >2.4 g/day showed better tolerability. Further high-quality research is warranted.

Systematic review: safety of mesalazine in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Mesalazine is the most commonly prescribed medication for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. It is generally well tolerated with some reported side effects.

AIM

To summarise adverse drug events to mesalazine and recommend techniques for management. Furthermore, to determine if there is a dose-dependent relationship between high (>2.4 g/day) vs low dosing (≤2.4 g/day) and occurrence of adverse drug events.

METHODS

A literature search for relevant studies from inception to 1 December 2017 of the MEDLINE database was conducted. Two reviewers screened all titles identified. Data obtained from randomised controlled trials was used to estimate incidence rates of each adverse event. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological risk of bias and performed data extraction.

RESULTS

3581 articles were initially considered. Of these, 3573 were screened, 622 reviewed and 91 included. Adverse events attributed to mesalazine included inflammatory reactions, pancreatitis, cardiotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, musculoskeletal complaints, respiratory symptoms, nephropathies and sexual dysfunction. There does not appear to be a dose-dependent relationship of mesalazine and occurrence of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Patients on mesalazine should be monitored for worsening of ulcerative colitis and development of new onset organ dysfunction. High-dose mesalazine appears to have similar safety profile as low dose, and is not associated with greater risk of adverse events. Prior to placing a patient on mesalazine, baseline liver and renal function should be evaluated. Renal function should be periodically assessed, whereas other testing should be performed depending on development of symptoms.

The treatment of refractory ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative proctitis is defined as a mucosal inflammation limited to the rectum. Ulcerative proctitis is responsible for distressing symptoms and alteration of patient quality of life. Effective treatment is important to prevent or delay proximal extension of the disease and to improve quality of life. Refractory ulcerative proctitis is defined as the failure of topical and oral 5-aminosalicylic acid and corticosteroids. Medical management of refractory ulcerative proctitis may be challenging as there is little evidence regarding drug efficacy in this clinical situation. Data are currently available for azathioprine, topical tacrolimus and anti-TNF monoclonal antibodies as rescue treatment for refractory ulcerative proctitis. Other biologics may be of benefit despite a lack of dedicated clinical trials. Ultimately, experimental therapies such as epidermal growth factor enemas, appendectomy or fecal transplantation may be tried before restorative proctocolectomy with J pouch anastomosis, which has demonstrated good results with regards to clinical remission and quality of life.

Comparison of efficacy of once daily multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day and 4.8 g/day with other 5-aminosalicylic acid preparation in active ulcerative colitis: a randomized, double-blind study

Background/Aims

This study compared the efficacy of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day and 4.8 g/day with controlled-release mesalazine 2.25 g/day.

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 251 patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis received multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day once daily (Multimatrix-2.4), 4.8 g/day once daily (Multimatrix-4.8), or controlled-release (time-dependent) mesalazine 2.25 g/day 3 times daily (Time-2.25) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the ulcerative colitis-disease activity index (UC-DAI) score.

Results

The mean change in the UC-DAI score and standard deviation in the per protocol set was -1.9±2.5 for Multimatrix-2.4 and -2.4±2.8 for Time-2.25. The difference between Multimatrix-2.4 and Time-2.25 was 0.3 (two-sided 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5 to 1.1), thus non-inferiority was not demonstrated based on the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (1.0). In the full analysis set, the difference between Multimatrix-4.8 and Time-2.25 was -1.2 (two-sided 95% CI, -2.0 to -0.5), and the mean change in UC-DAI score in the FAS was -3.3 (two-sided 95% CI, -3.9 to -2.8) for Multimatrix-4.8 and -1.9 (two-sided 95% CI, -2.5 to -1.3) for Multimatrix-2.4, indicating that Multimatrix-4.8 was more effective than Time-2.25 and Multimatrix-2.4. There was no difference among the treatment groups in terms of safety.

Conclusions

This study showed that the efficacy of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day was comparable to controlled release mesalazine 2.25 g/day, although non-inferiority was not demonstrated. Importantly, this was the first study to indicate that multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day was more effective than 2.4g/day with no associated safety concerns.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic disorder involving mainly the intestinal tract, but possibly other gastrointestinal and extraintestinal organs. Although etiology is still uncertain, recent knowledge in pathogenesis has accumulated, and novel diagnostic and therapeutic modalities have become available for clinical use. Therefore, the previous guidelines were urged to be updated. In 2016, the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology revised the previous versions of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) in Japanese. A total of 59 clinical questions for 9 categories (1. clinical features of IBD; 2. diagnosis; 3. general consideration in treatment; 4. therapeutic interventions for IBD; 5. treatment of UC; 6. treatment of CD; 7. extraintestinal complications; 8. cancer surveillance; 9. IBD in special situation) were selected, and a literature search was performed for the clinical questions with use of the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases. The guidelines were developed with the basic concept of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made using Delphi rounds. This English version was produced and edited based on the existing updated guidelines in Japanese.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of two pH-dependent-release mesalamine doses in moderately active ulcerative colitis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The therapeutic effect of mesalamine is considered to be dose-dependent; however, no consensus has been reached regarding the optimal doses for individual patients. This study aimed to provide new insight for dose optimization using two doses of pH-dependent release mesalamine for induction of remission of moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study, 110 patients with moderately active UC were assigned to two groups after treatment with a constant dose of mesalamine. Fifty-five patients were treated with a pH-dependent release formulation of 3.6 or 4.8 g/day for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was a decrease in the UC disease activity index (UCDAI) adjusted by covariates.

RESULTS

In the full analysis set (n=110), the mean decrease in UCDAI was 3.1 in the 3.6 g/day group and 3.4 in the 4.8 g/day group (P>0.05). In a subgroup analysis, the effectiveness of the 4.8 g/day dose was greater in particular populations, such as those who had been previously treated with a lower dose of mesalamine and those with more severe disease. The safety was comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that treatment with pH-dependent release mesalamine at either 3.6 or 4.8 g/day was effective and safe for the induction of remission in patients with moderately active UC. However, the patients receiving mesalamine at 2.4 g/day but in whom the therapeutic effect is not sufficient and having more severe symptoms (UCDAI 9-10), benefit from higher doses of mesalamine compared to others.

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.

Efficacy of a pH-dependent controlled-release mesalazine based on clinical and endoscopic assessment for ulcerative colitis: a retrospective cohort study

Background

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to clinically and endoscopically assess the efficacy of delayed-release mesalazine for ulcerative colitis.

Methods

The study included 104 ulcerative colitis patients (52 men, 52 women) initiated on treatment with delayed-release mesalazine between 2009 and 2012. The clinical symptoms at months 0, 1, and 12 were scored using the clinical activity index. An endoscopic index was also used to determine disease activity in 72 patients who underwent total colonoscopy before and after mesalazine treatment.

Results

The clinical activity index at months 0, 1, and 12 were 4.6±2.8, 3.4±1.8, and 2.8±1.4, respectively, decreasing with time after the start of mesalazine treatment (P<0.001). The endoscopic index decreased significantly from 4.5±3.2 before to 3.1±2.8 after the start of delayed-release mesalazine treatment in the mean follow-up period of 1.0±0.4 years (P<0.001).

Conclusion

Delayed-release mesalazine was confirmed to be effective both clinically and endoscopically.

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.

A randomized clinical trial of mesalazine suppository: the usefulness and problems of central review of evaluations of colonic mucosal findings

BACKGROUND

The methods of evaluating endoscopic mucosal findings and the definition of mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease have not been standardized.

AIM

To examine a third-party central review of colonic mucosal evaluations.

METHODS

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial was performed for 4weeks, which involved continuous administration of a 1-g mesalazine suppository to 129 patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis and active rectal inflammatory findings. Mucosal findings were evaluated by using a 4-grade score (0, 1, 2, 3). Reviews by attending physicians were considered the primary evaluations. Concurrently, a central review committee of 7 gastroenterologists served as the third party.

RESULTS

The endoscopic remission induction rate from the attending physicians' evaluations was 82.8% in the mesalazine suppository group and 31.1% in the placebo suppository group, whereas the respective rates from the central review committee were 90.6% and 59.0%. However, there was a difference of 27.9 percentage points between the remission induction rates of the placebo group found by the two groups of raters. Differences in the evaluations of mucosal finding scores were also found among the third-party reviewers.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluations of the attending physicians were consistent with those of the central review committee in showing the effectiveness of mesalazine suppository through the index of mucosal healing. However, differences were observed among the raters in their evaluations of mucosal finding scores. Therefore, standardizing evaluation criteria and improving review methods for mucosal findings would enable the more effective use of third-party central reviews in clinical drug trials.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of Fufangkushen colon-coated capsule in the treatment of ulcerative colitis compared with mesalazine: a double-blinded and randomized study

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Fufangkushen colon-coated capsule (FCC) was a newly developed herbal drug for treating ulcerative colitis (UC) patients with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) pattern of damp-heat accumulating in the interior.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the efficacy and safety of FCC in the treatment of active UC compared with Huidi (HD, mesalazine enteric-coated tablets) were evaluated in a double-blinded and randomized clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, randomized and controlled study, 320 active UC patients with TCM pattern of damp-heat accumulating in the interior were assigned to two groups: 240 treated with FCC plus HD placebo treatment, 80 with HD plus FCC placebo. The drugs and their corresponding placebos were administrated at advised dosage for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was a positive clinical response at week 8, and Mayo scoring system was employed for assessment of UC activity.

RESULTS

At the 8th week, 72.50% of patients in FCC group (170 of 234) and 65.00% of patients in HD group (52 of 80) had achieved a clinical response. There was no statistically significance between the 2 groups (P>0.05). The proportions of patients who had a clinical remission was similar in 2 groups (41.50% in FCC group, 41.25% in HD group, P>0.05), mucosal healing rate at week 8 in the two groups were also without significant difference (55.13% in FCC group, 55.00% in HD group, P>0.05). Mayo scores at week 8 showed no statistically difference in the two groups. No significant differences were observed between the safety profiles of the 2 groups (P>0.05). No severe AEs were reported in either group. The latent class analysis indicated that FCC was superior applicable for the left hemicolon involved patients than HD.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with HD, a mesalamine enteric-coated tablet, FCC is similarly effective and safe in the treatment of active UC with TCM pattern of damp-heat accumulation interior pattern. In addition, FCC indicates superior effect in the treatment of UC with inflamed area of the left hemicolon than HD.

Mesalamine in the treatment and maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic disease of the GI tract that is characterized by mucosal inflammation in the colon. Mesalamine (mesalazine) is a 5-aminosalicylic acid compound that is the first-line treatment for patients with mild-to-moderate UC. There are multiple formulations of mesalamine available, primarily differentiated by their means of delivering active mesalamine to the colon. Mesalamine has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials to induce both clinical response and remission, and maintain clinical remission, in these patients. It has few serious adverse effects and is generally well tolerated by patients. The main areas of uncertainty with use of mesalamine in patients with UC center on the optimal dose for induction of response, how to maintain patient adherence and the role of mesalamine in cancer chemoprophylaxis. Generic forms of mesalamine have yet to be approved by regulatory bodies in the USA.

Efficacy of 5-aminosalicylates in ulcerative colitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The efficacy of 5-aminosalicylic acids (5-ASAs) in ulcerative colitis (UC) has been studied previously in meta-analyses. However, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published recently, and no previous meta-analysis has studied the effect of 5-ASA dosage used.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched (through December 2010). Eligible trials recruited adults with active or quiescent UC, comparing different doses of 5-ASAs with themselves or placebo. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain relative risk (RR) of failure to achieve remission in active UC, and RR of relapse of disease activity in quiescent UC, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated from the reciprocal of the risk difference.

RESULTS

The search identified 3,061 citations, and 37 RCTs were eligible. Of these, 11 compared 5-ASA with placebo in active UC remission, with the RR of no remission with 5-ASAs of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73-0.85; NNT=6). Doses of ≥ 2.0 g/day were more effective than <2.0 g/day for remission (RR=0.91; 95% CI 0.85-0.98). There were 11 RCTs comparing 5-ASAs with placebo in preventing relapse of quiescent UC, with the RR of relapse of 0.65 (95% CI 0.55-0.76; NNT=4). Doses of ≥ 2.0 g/day appeared more effective than <2.0 g/day for preventing relapse (RR=0.79; 95% CI 0.64-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

5-ASAs are highly effective for inducing remission and preventing relapse in UC. Evidence suggests that doses of ≥ 2.0 g/day have greater efficacy, although doses >2.5 g/day do not appear to lead to higher remission rates.

Clinical pharmacology of 5-ASA compounds in inflammatory bowel disease

Mesalamine has been the first-line of therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) since the 1960s. This article serves as a review of the different 5-aminosalicylic acid compounds, release formulations, use and dosing in the treatment of IBD, in particular ulcerative colitis.