New developments in the pharmacotherapy of inflammatory bowel disease

Efficacy and Safety of Oral Beclomethasone Dipropionate in Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Aim

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the available evidence comparing efficacy and safety of oral prolonged released beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) to active oral controls in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). A subgroup-analysis compared the effectiveness of BDP and 5-ASA.

Methods

Literature research was performed in different databases, as well as manual search to identify abstracts from international meetings with data not included in extensive publications. Experts in the field and companies involved in BDP development and manufacture were contacted to identify unpublished studies used for registration purposes. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain odds ratio meta-analysis.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials that compared oral BDP 5mg/day vs. all oral active controls in treating UC were identified as eligible. Efficacy and safety have been addressed after 4-week treatment period. One study evaluated efficacy and safety of BDP vs. prednisone and 4 of BDP vs. 5-ASA. Treatment with oral BDP 5 mg/day induces a significant better clinical response compared to oral 5-ASA (OR 1.86, 95% CI = 1.23–2.82, P = 0.003). The effect is detectable even when the comparison to prednisone is added (OR 1.41, 95% CI = 1.03–1.93, P = 0.03). Data on remission indicate that the potential clinical efficacy of BDP may be better than 5-ASA (OR 1.55, 95% CI = 1.00–2.40, P = 0.05). This difference is lost when the comparison with prednisone is added (OR 1.30, 95% CI = 0.76–2.23, P = 0.34). The safety analysis showed no differences between BDP and 5-ASA (OR 0.55, 95% CI = 0.24–1.27, P = 0.16). The lack of difference is maintained even when the study with prednisone is added (OR 0.67, 95% CI = 0.44–1.01, P = 0.06). However, the trend of difference is clear and indicates a more favourable safety profile of BDP compared to 5-ASA and PD.

Conclusions

Oral prolonged release BDP showed a superior efficacy vs. oral 5-ASA in inducing clinical improvement of mild-to-moderate UC with a similar safety profile.

Prolonged-release mesalazine: a review of its therapeutic potential in ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease

Prolonged-release mesalazine (Pentasa) consists of ethylcellulose-coated microgranules from which mesalazine (known in the US as mesalamine) is released in the small and large intestine in a diffusion-dependent manner. Dose-dependent improvements in clinical and endoscopic parameters have been reported with prolonged-release mesalazine 2 and 4 g/day in clinical trials in patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. Induction of clinical and endoscopic remission was achieved in more patients receiving a daily dosage of 4 g/day than in those receiving placebo. In patients with ulcerative colitis in remission, prolonged-release mesalazine is effective in reducing the rate of relapse. Higher dosages tend to be more effective, and a 12-month remission rate of 64% has been reported for patients treated with a 4 g daily dosage of this formulation. Comparative data indicate that prolonged-release mesalazine has similar efficacy in maintaining remission to molar equivalent doses of sulfasalazine. Data from a study in patients with mild to moderately active Crohn's disease indicates that higher dosages (4 g/day) of prolonged-release mesalazine are more effective than placebo in reducing disease activity. After 16 weeks' treatment, 64% of patients receiving a 4 g/day dosage experienced clinical improvement and 43% attained remission. In studies of patients in remission of Crohn's disease, the formulation appears to be more effective in preventing relapse in patients with isolated small bowel disease than in those with colonic involvement. The tolerability profile of oral prolonged-release mesalazine is similar to that of placebo and the incidence of adverse events does not appear to be dose-related. Nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal pain and dyspepsia occur most frequently, although their incidence is low. Reports of nephrotoxicity during prolonged-release mesalazine treatment are rare.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral prolonged-release mesalazine is effective for maintenance and induction of remission of mild to moderately active colitis, both in patients with distal disease and in those with pancolitis. The formulation has similar efficacy to that of equimolar concentrations of sulfasalazine. Prolonged-release mesalazine also appears to be effective in the treatment of Crohn's disease, and maintenance therapy is of particular value in patients with isolated small bowel involvement. Evidence suggests that higher dosages (3 to 4 g/day) of prolonged-release mesalazine have additional therapeutic benefits over lower dosages in patients with inflammatory bowel disease without increasing the incidence of adverse events.

Oral delayed-release mesalazine: a review of its use in ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease

Oral delayed-release mesalazine is an enteric-coated formulation which releases mesalazine in the terminal ileum and colon. Up to 74% of patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis experience endoscopic or symptomatic improvement (including remission) or both when treated with oral delayed-release mesalazine 2.4 to 4.8 g/day. There is a trend towards a better response in patients receiving higher daily dosages of oral delayed-release mesalazine, especially in patients with active distal disease. In patients with left-sided ulcerative colitis, oral balsalazide 6.75 g/day appears to be more effective than oral delayed-release mesalazine 2.4 g/day, but a higher dosage of oral delayed-release mesalazine 4.8 g/day may provide additional benefit in these patients. Oral delayed-release mesalazine 0.8 to 4.4 g/day appears to be as effective as sulfasalazine 2 to 4 g/day, prolonged-release mesalazine 1.5 g/day or balsalazide 3 g/day in maintaining remission in patients with ulcerative colitis. The optimal dosage of oral delayed-release mesalazine for the maintenance of remission is unclear. However, oral delayed-release mesalazine 1.6 g/day with rectal mesalazine 4g, administered twice weekly, was more effective than oral drug alone in maintaining remission in patients at high risk of relapse. In patients with left-sided or distal disease oral olsalazine 1 g/day appeared to be superior to oral delayed-release mesalazine 1.2 g/day for maintenance of symptomatic remission. Limited data in patients with Crohn's disease have shown oral delayed-release mesalazine 0.4 to 4.8 g/day to be an effective therapy for active disease (remission in up to 45% of patients) and for quiescent disease (relapse in 34% of recipients over a duration of up to 12 months). Preliminary data indicate that oral delayed-release mesalazine 2.4 g/day is effective in preventing postoperative recurrence of Crohn's disease. Oral delayed-release mesalazine is effective and well tolerated in sulfasalazine-intolerant patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral delayed-release mesalazine is effective in patients with mild to moderately active or quiescent ulcerative colitis. Available data suggest that patients with left-sided or distal ulcerative colitis are likely to require higher daily dosages of oral delayed-release mesalazine or supplementation with rectal mesalazine. Oral delayed-release mesalazine also appears to be effective in active and quiescent Crohn's disease. The drug is well tolerated and it appears to be effective in sulfasalazine-intolerant patients.