Budesonide MMX(®): a review of its use in patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. Drugs. 2015;75:879-886. [PMID: 25920500 DOI: 10.1007/s40265-015-0396-8]

Pharmacological Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Narrative Review of the Past 90 Years

Inflammatory Bowel Diseases had their first peak in incidence in countries in North America, Europe, and Oceania and are currently experiencing a new acceleration in incidence, especially in Latin America and Asia. Despite technological advances, 90 years after the development of the first molecule for the treatment of IBD, we still do not have drugs that promote disease remission in a generalized way. We carried out a narrative review on therapeutic advances in the treatment of IBD, the mechanisms of action, and the challenges facing the therapeutic goals in the treatment of IBD. Salicylates are still used in the treatment of Ulcerative Colitis. Corticosteroids have an indication restricted to the period of therapeutic induction due to frequent adverse events, while technologies with less systemic action have been developed. Most immunomodulators showed a late onset of action, requiring a differentiated initial strategy to control the disease. New therapeutic perspectives emerged with biological therapy, initially with anti-TNF, followed by anti-integrins and anti-interleukins. Despite the different mechanisms of action, there are similarities between the general rates of effectiveness. These similar results were also evidenced in JAK inhibitors and S1p modulators, the last therapeutic classes approved for the treatment of IBD.

Medical Treatment Options for Ulcerative Colitis

The landscape of management of ulcerative colitis, a type of inflammatory bowel disease, continues to change with advancement in pharmaceutical options as well as clinical treatment targets. Ulcerative colitis primarily involves the superficial layers of the large bowel, and cause active inflammation that can affect the colon from the rectum to the cecum in a relapsing and a remitting course. In this review, we provide evidence-based guidance on the selection of appropriate medical therapies based on individual patient and disease characteristics, with a focus on biologics and small molecules. We also review the role of surgery and management of acute severe ulcerative colitis.

Key Strategies to Optimize Outcomes in Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis

Mesalamine (5-ASA) is the mainstay therapy in patients with mild-to-moderate active ulcerative colitis (UC). However, non-adherence to therapy and practice variability among gastroenterologists represent long-standing barriers, leading to poor outcomes. Additionally, targets to treat in UC are increasingly evolving from focusing on clinical remission to achieving endoscopic and histological healing. To date, systemic steroids are still recommended in non-responders to 5-ASA, despite their well-known side effects. Importantly, with the advent of new therapeutic options such as oral corticosteroids with topical activity (e.g., budesonide multimatrix system (MMX)), biologics, and small molecules, some issues need to be addressed for the optimal management of these patients in daily clinical practice. The specific positioning of these drugs in patients with mild-to-moderate disease remains unclear. This review aims to identify current challenges in clinical practice and to provide physicians with key strategies to optimize treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate UC, and ultimately achieve more ambitious therapeutic goals.

Clinical Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Considerations in the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

According to recent clinical consensus, pharmacotherapy of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is, or should be, personalized medicine. IBD treatment is complex, with highly different treatment classes and relatively few data on treatment strategy. Although thorough evidence-based international IBD guidelines currently exist, appropriate drug and dose choice remains challenging as many disease (disease type, location of disease, disease activity and course, extraintestinal manifestations, complications) and patient characteristics [(pharmaco-)genetic predisposition, response to previous medications, side-effect profile, necessary onset of response, convenience, concurrent therapy, adherence to (maintenance) therapy] are involved. Detailed pharmacological knowledge of the IBD drug arsenal is essential for choosing the right drug, in the right dose, in the right administration form, at the right time, for each individual patient. In this in-depth review, clinical pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic considerations are provided for tailoring treatment with the most common IBD drugs. Development (with consequent prospective validation) of easy-to-use treatment algorithms based on these considerations and new pharmacological data may facilitate optimal and effective IBD treatment, preferably corroborated by effectiveness and safety registries.

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.

Drying technology strategies for colon-targeted oral delivery of biopharmaceuticals

In chronic intestinal diseases like inflammatory bowel disease, parenteral administration of biopharmaceuticals is associated with numerous disadvantages including immune reactions, infections, low patient compliance, and toxicity caused by high systemic bioavailability. One alternative that can potentially overcome these limitations is oral administration of biopharmaceuticals, where the local delivery will reduce the systemic exposure and furthermore the manufacturing costs will be lower. However, the development of oral dosage forms that deliver the biologically active form to the intestines is one of the greatest challenges for pharmaceutical technologists due to the sensitive nature of biopharmaceuticals. The present article discusses the various drug delivery technologies used to produce orally administered solid dosage forms of biopharmaceuticals with an emphasis on colon-targeted delivery. Solid oral dosage compositions containing different types of colon-targeting biopharmaceuticals are compiled followed by a review of currently applied and emerging drying technologies for biopharmaceuticals. The different drying technologies are compared in terms of their advantages, limitations, costs and their effect on product stability.

Pregnancy outcome in four women with inflammatory bowel disease treated with budesonide MMX

BACKGROUND

Maintaining disease remission throughout pregnancy in women with inflammatory bowel disease is of the utmost importance to decrease the risk of adverse outcome. In general, corticosteroids are safe to use during pregnancy, but no data exist in the specific use of budesonide MMX. We report four cases of budesonide MMX in pregnancy and pregnancy outcome.

METHODS

Four women with inflammatory bowel disease experienced disease activity during pregnancy. They were treated with budesonide MMX in an attempt to obtain clinical remission. Disease activity was assessed through physician's global assessment as well as lower endoscopy.

RESULTS

Budesonide MMX proved effective in achieving remission in three out of four women. One woman had an uncomplicated colectomy in the second trimester. All children were born normal for gestational age, with no congenital abnormalities and have reached all their developmental milestones. The four children have received vaccines according to the national immunization program without complications.

CONCLUSION

No adverse pregnancy outcomes were reported after the use of budesonide MMX. To our knowledge, this is the first report on the safety of budesonide MMX treatment in pregnant women with inflammatory bowel disease.

Solid lipid nanoparticles delivering anti-inflammatory drugs to treat inflammatory bowel disease: Effects in an in vivo model

AIM

To improve anti-inflammatory activity while reducing drug doses, we developed a nanoformulation carrying dexamethasone and butyrate.

METHODS

Dexamethasone cholesteryl butyrate-solid lipid nanoparticles (DxCb-SLN) were obtained with the warm microemulsion method. The anti-inflammatory activity of this novel nanoformulation has been investigated in vitro (cell adhesion to human vascular endothelial cells and pro-inflammatory cytokine release by lipopolysaccharide-induced polymorphonuclear cells) and in vivo (disease activity index and cytokine plasma concentrations in a dextran sulfate sodium-induced mouse colitis) models. Each drug was also administered separately to compare its effects with those induced by their co-administration in SLN at the same concentrations.

RESULTS

DxCb-SLN at the lowest concentration tested (Dx 2.5 nmol/L and Cb 0.1 μmol/L) were able to exert a more than additive effect compared to the sum of the individual effects of each drug, inducing a significant in vitro inhibition of cell adhesion and a significant decrease of pro-inflammatory cytokine (IL-1β and TNF-α) in both in vitro and in vivo models. Notably, only the DxCb nanoformulation administration was able to achieve a significant cytokine decrease compared to the cytokine plasma concentration of the untreated mice with dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis. Specifically, DxCb-SLN induced a IL-1β plasma concentration of 61.77% ± 3.19%, whereas Dx or Cb used separately induced a concentration of 90.0% ± 2.8% and 91.40% ± 7.5%, respectively; DxCb-SLN induced a TNF-α plasma concentration of 30.8% ± 8.9%, whereas Dx or Cb used separately induced ones of 99.5% ± 4.9% and 71.1% ± 10.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that the co-administration of dexamethasone and butyrate by nanoparticles may be beneficial for inflammatory bowel disease treatment.

Mucosal Healing in Ulcerative Colitis: A Comprehensive Review

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease characterized by periods of remission and periods of relapse. Patients often present with symptoms such as rectal bleeding, diarrhea and weight loss, and may require hospitalization and even colectomy. Long-term complications of UC include decreased quality of life and productivity and an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Mucosal healing (MH) has gained progressive importance in the management of UC patients. In this article, we review the endoscopic findings that define both mucosal injury and MH, and the strengths and limitations of the scoring systems currently available in clinical practice. The basic mechanisms behind colonic injury and MH are covered, highlighting the pathways through which different drugs exert their effect towards reducing inflammation and promoting epithelial repair. A comprehensive review of the evidence for approved drugs for UC to achieve and maintain MH is provided, including a section on the pharmacokinetics of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α drugs. Currently approved drugs with proven efficacy in achieving MH in UC include salicylates, corticosteroids (induction only), calcineurin inhibitors (induction only), thiopurines, vedolizumab and anti-TNFα drugs (infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab). MH is of crucial relevance in the outcomes of UC, resulting in lower incidences of clinical relapse, the need for hospitalization and surgery, as well as reduced rates of dysplasia and colorectal cancer. Finally, we present recent evidence towards the need for a more strict definition of complete MH as the preferred endpoint for UC patients, using a combination of both endoscopic and histological findings.

Recent progress in drug therapy of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease of unknown etiology. Current common medical treatments for UC are mainly composed of anti-inflammatory and immune-regulatory medications, such as aminosalicylic acid and glucocorticoids. New biological agents as well as probiotics have also emerged as recommended drugs for clinical treatment of UC. The advances in research and the rapid development of pharmaceutical technology have resulted in new progress in treatments for UC. This article will review recent progress in drug therapy of ulcerative colitis.

Oral budesonide for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are first-line therapy for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis. Although corticosteroids may improve symptoms, they have significant adverse effects. Steroids which act topically, with less systemic side-effects may be more desirable. Budesonide is a topically acting corticosteroid with extensive first pass hepatic metabolism. There are currently three formulations of budesonide: two standard formulations including a controlled-ileal release capsule and a pH-dependent capsule both designed to release the drug in the distal small intestine and right colon; and the newer Budesonide-MMX® capsule designed to release the drug throughout the entire colon.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for the induction of remission in ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialised Register from inception to April 2015. We also searched reference lists of articles, conference proceedings and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing oral budesonide to placebo or another active therapy for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis were considered eligible. There were no exclusions based on patient age or the type, dose, duration or formulation of budesonide therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. The primary outcome was induction of remission (as defined by the primary studies) at week eight. Secondary outcomes included clinical, endoscopic and histologic improvement, adverse events and early withdrawal. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each dichotomous outcome and the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI for each continuous outcome. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies (1808 participants) were included. Four studies compared budesonide-MMX® with placebo, one small pilot study looked at clinical remission at week four, and was subsequently followed by three large, studies that assessed combined clinical and endoscopic remission at week eight. Although two placebo-controlled studies had mesalamine and Entocort (standard budesonide) treatment arms, these studies were not sufficiently powered to compare Budesonide-MMX® with these active comparators. One small study compared standard budesonide with prednisolone and one study compared standard budesonide to mesalamine. Four studies were rated as low risk of bias and two studies had an unclear risk of bias. A pooled analysis of three studies (900 participants) showed that budesonide-MMX® 9 mg was significantly superior to placebo for inducing remission (combined clinical and endoscopic remission) at 8 weeks. Fifteen per cent (71/462) of budesonide-MMX® 9 mg patients achieved remission compared to 7% (30/438) of placebo patients (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.50 to 3.39). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (101 events). A subgroup analysis by concurrent mesalamine use suggests higher efficacy in the 442 patients who were not considered to be mesalamine-refractory (RR 2.89, 95% CI 1.59 to 5.25). A subgroup analysis by disease location suggests budesonide is most effective in patients with left-sided disease (RR 2.98, 95% CI 1.56 to 5.67; 289 patients). A small pilot study reported no statistically significant difference in endoscopic remission between budesonide and prednisolone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.42; 72 patients). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to unclear risk of bias and very sparse data (10 events). Standard oral budesonide was significantly less likely to induce clinical remission than oral mesalamine after 8 weeks of therapy (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 1 study, 343 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (161 events). Another study found no difference in remission rates between budesonide-MMX® 9 mg and mesalamine (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.71; 247 patients). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (37 events). One study found no difference in remission rates between budesonide-MMX® 9 mg and standard budesonide 9 mg (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.65; 212 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (32 events). Suppression of plasma cortisol was more common in prednisolone-treated patients (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.33). While budesonide does appear to suppress morning cortisol to some extent, mean morning cortisol values remained within the normal range in 2 large studies (n = 899) and there was no difference in glucocorticoid-related side-effects across different treatment groups. Further, study withdrawal due to adverse events was not more common in budesonide compared with placebo treated patients (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.38). Common adverse events included worsening ulcerative colitis, headache, pyrexia, insomnia, back pain, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, flatulence and nasopharyngitis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality evidence to supports the use of oral budesonide-MMX® at a 9 mg daily dose for induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis, particularly in patients with left-sided colitis. Budesonide-MMX® 9 mg daily is effective for induction of remission in the presence or absence of concurrent 5-ASA therapy. Further, budesonide-MMX® appears to be safe, and does not lead to significant impairment of adrenocorticoid function compared to placebo. Moderate quality evidence from a single study suggests that mesalamine may be superior to standard budesonide for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis. Low quality evidence from one study found no difference in remission rates between budesonide MMX® and mesalamine. Very low quality evidence from one small study showed no difference in endoscopic remission rates between standard budesonide and prednisolone. Low quality evidence from one study showed no difference in remission rates between budesonide-MMX® and standard budesonide. Adequately powered studies are needed to allow conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of budesonide versus prednisolone, budesonide-MMX® versus standard budesonide and budesonide versus mesalamine.