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

MMX mesalamine in ulcerative colitis: Major advantages towards classical mesalamine formulations

Medical therapy is the cornerstone of ulcerative colitis (UC) management and aims to induce and maintain remission. In case of mild-to-moderate UC, mesalamine (5-ASA) is the first-line option. 5-ASA requires local release at the level of the inflamed mucosa to exert its therapeutic action. While rectal preparations are useful in distal colitis, in cases of UC of at least rectosigmoid extent, guidelines suggest the association of oral and rectal 5-ASA. Mesalamine with Multi Matrix System® technology (MMX mesalamine) is an oral, high-strength (1.2 g/tablet), once-daily formulation of 5-ASA, designed to provide delayed and prolonged release throughout the entire colon. Clinical trials demonstrated a strong efficacy in inducing and maintaining clinical and endoscopic remission in active mild-to-moderate UC. The efficacy is related to specific colonic drug-delivery, to its high-dosage and once-daily administration, thus improving patients' adherence and outcomes. The specific colonic-delivery is also associated with very low rates of systemic absorption and adverse events (AEs). With this comprehensive review we aimed to summarize current knowledge on MMX mesalamine in mild-to-moderate UC, in terms of clinical pharmacology, efficacy and safety, also compared to other 5-ASA products. In addition we provided an expert opinion on the topic, examining the implications on clinical practice.

Management and treatment optimization of patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease with a significant health-care burden worldwide. While medical therapy aims to induce and maintain remission, optimal management of mild to moderate UC remains challenging due to heterogeneity in severity classifications and non-standardized approaches. This comprehensive review summarizes current evidence and knowledge gaps to optimize clinical decision-making in patients with mild to moderate UC.

AREAS COVERED

After an extensive literature search of PubMed, Medline, and Embase through August 2023, we provide an overview of definitions utilized to characterize mild to moderate UC severity and established therapeutic targets. Current medical treatments including mesalazine formulations, corticosteroids, and their combinations are surveyed. The role of emerging intestinal ultrasound, telemedicine, and home testing is explored. Individualized, patient-centered paradigms aiming to streamline care delivery through proactive identification of relapses are also examined.

EXPERT OPINION

Addressing inconsistencies in disease activity stratification will better align tailored regimens with each patient's profile. Advancing noninvasive technologies like ultrasound criteria and home testing could improve UC management by enabling personalized models. Realizing individualized plans through informed shared-decision making between health-care providers and fully engaged patients holds promise to maximize quality of life outcomes. Continuous improvement relies on innovation bridging different domains to overcome current limitations and push the field toward more predictive and tailored care.

Most Placebo-Controlled Trials in Inflammatory Bowel Disease were Underpowered Because of Overestimated Drug Efficacy Rates: Results from a Systematic Review of Induction Studies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Most pharmaceutical clinical trials for inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] are placebo-controlled and require effect size estimation for a drug relative to placebo. We compared expected effect sizes in sample size calculations [SSCs] to actual effect sizes in IBD clinical trials.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and the Cochrane library were searched from inception to March 26, 2021, to identify placebo-controlled induction studies for luminal Crohn's disease [CD] and ulcerative colitis [UC] that reported an SSC and a primary endpoint of clinical remission/response. Expected effects were subtracted from actual effects, and interquartile ranges [IQRs] for each corresponding median difference were calculated. Linear regression was used to assess whether placebo or drug event rate misspecifications were responsible for these differences.

RESULTS

Of eligible studies, 36.9% [55/149] were excluded because of incomplete SSC reporting, yielding 94 studies [46 CD, 48 UC]. Treatment effects were overestimated in CD for remission (-12.6% [IQR: -16.3 to -1.6%]), in UC for remission (-10.2% [IQR: -16.5 to -5.6%]) and in CD for response (-15.3% [IQR: -27.1 to -5.8%]). Differences observed were due to overestimated drug event rates, whereas expected and actual placebo event rates were similar. A meta-regression demonstrated associations between overestimated treatment effect sizes and several trial characteristics: isolated ileal disease, longer CD duration, extensive colitis [UC], single-centre, phase 2 and no endoscopic endpoint component [UC].

CONCLUSION

Overestimation of IBD therapy efficacy rates resulted in smaller-than-expected treatment effects. These results should be used to inform SSCs and trial design for IBD drug development.

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.

Is it time to include older adults in inflammatory bowel disease trials? A call for action

The therapeutic management of older patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is challenging, particularly because of the absence of evidence-based guidelines for these patients, who seem to frequently be excluded from clinical trials. In this systematic review we investigated the exclusion of older patients with IBD from phase 3 studies registered on PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov, by assessing the upper limit of age exclusion criteria and the percentage of patients older than 65 years included in the trials. Exclusion criteria other than age were also recorded, and comorbidities were analysed separately. Our review of 222 phase 3 studies shows that older patients are frequently excluded from IBD clinical trials because of their age, which was used as an exclusion criterion in 129 (58%) of the 222 assessed trials. Of the 32 trials that detailed the percentage of included patients who were 65 years or older, only 763 (5·4%) patients of the 14 124 patients included were older than 65 years. In addition to age, patients were also excluded because of comorbidities (mainly renal, hepatic, and cardiovascular, and used as an exclusion criterion in 76% of trials), a history of dysplasia (45% of trials), and previous treatment for IBD (19% of trials). We propose a three-step process that should enable the inclusion of all older patients in IBD clinical trials, regardless of their age, comorbidities, and frailty.

Budding Multi-matrix Technology-a Retrospective Approach, Deep Insights, and Future Perspectives

The human race is consistently striving for achieving good health and eliminate disease-causing factors. For the last few decades, scientists have been endeavoring to invent and innovate technologies that can substitute the conventional dosage forms and enable targeted and prolonged drug release at a particular site. The novel multi-matrix technology is a type of matrix formulation where the formulation is embraced to have a matrix system with multiple number of matrices. The MMX technology embraces with a combination of outer hydrophilic layer and amphiphilic/lipophilic core layer, within which drug is encapsulated followed by enteric coating for extended/targeted release at the required site. In comparison to conventional oral drug delivery systems and other drug delivery systems, multi-matrix (MMX) technology formulations afford many advantages. Additionally, it attributes for targeting strategy aimed at the colon and offers modified prolonged drug release. Thus, it has emerged rapidly as a potential alternative option in targeted oral drug delivery. However, the development of this MMX technology formulations is a exigent task and also has its own set of limitations. Due to its promising advantages and colon targeting strategy over the other colon targeted drug delivery systems, premier global companies are exploiting its potential. This article review deep insights into the formulation procedures, drug delivery mechanism, advantages, limitations, safety and efficacy studies of various marketed drug formulations of MMX technology including regulatory perspectives and future perspectives.

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.

Efficacy of Oral, Topical, or Combined Oral and Topical 5-Aminosalicylates, in Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

5-Aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] are the mainstay of treatment for ulcerative colitis [UC]. The optimum preparation, dose, and route of administration for UC remain unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis to examine this issue.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from inception to December 2020. We included randomised controlled trials [RCTs] comparing oral, topical, or combined oral and topical 5-ASAs, with each other or placebo for induction of remission or prevention of relapse of UC. Results were reported as pooled relative risks [RRs] with 95% confidence intervals [CIs] to summarise effect of each comparison tested, with treatments ranked according to P-score.

RESULTS

We identified 40 RCTs for induction of remission and 23 for prevention of relapse. Topical mesalazine [P-score 0.99], or oral and topical mesalazine combined [P-score 0.87] ranked first and second for clinical and endoscopic remission combined. Combined therapy ranked first in trials where ≥50% of patients had left-sided/extensive disease, and topical mesalazine first in trials where ≥50% of patients had proctitis/proctosigmoiditis. High-dose [≥3.3 g/day] oral mesalazine ranked third in most analyses, with the most trials and most patients. For relapse of disease activity, combined therapy and high-dose oral mesalazine ranked first and second, with topical mesalazine third. 5-ASAs were safe and well tolerated, regardless of regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support previous evidence; however, higher doses of oral mesalazine had more evidence for induction of remission than combined therapy and were significantly more efficacious than lower doses. Future RCTs should better establish the role of combined therapy for induction of remission, as well as optimal doses of oral 5-ASAs to prevent relapse.

Asian Organization for Crohn's and Colitis and Asia Pacific Association of Gastroenterology practice recommendations for medical management and monitoring of inflammatory bowel disease in Asia

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has increased in incidence and prevalence in Asian countries since the end of the 20th century. Moreover, differences in the cause, phenotypes, and natural history of IBD between the East and West have been recognized. Therefore, the Asian Organization for Crohn's and Colitis and the Asia Pacific Association of Gastroenterology have established recommendations on medical management of IBD in Asia. Initially, the committee members drafted 40 recommendations, which were then assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Eight statements were rejected as this indicated that consensus had not been reached. The recommendations encompass pretreatment evaluation; medical management of active IBD; medical management of IBD in remission; management of IBD during the periconception period and pregnancy; surveillance strategies for colitis-associated cancer; monitoring side effects of thiopurines and methotrexate; and infections in IBD.

'Treat to Target' in Mild to Moderate Ulcerative Colitis: Evidence to Support this Strategy

BACKGROUND

The management of chronic conditions, above all rheumatic disease and diabetes, now incorporates a "treat to target" strategy where treatment aims to achieve objective outcomes. This is applicable in ulcerative colitis (UC) as well. Targets are demonstrated to prevent endorgan dysfunction, specifically bowel damage and its complications, and lastly colorectal cancer. Recently, the scientific community has tried to define further targets beyond those currently recommended, namely mucosal healing and clinical remission. Studies that prospectively investigated this approach in UC are scanty and a treat-to-target (T2T) algorithm is not routinely used in daily clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to review current evidence on T2T in UC and discuss its adoption in routine clinical practice as well as in clinical trials.

METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted in February 2020 to identify published papers investigating targets' achievement rates in UC.

RESULTS

Different targets can be achieved through approved drugs for mild to moderate UC; histological remission is emerging as a robust target with respect to long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Further studies to compare a T2T strategy with the traditional care are needed, particularly in the mild to moderate spectrum of disease.

Mesalamine in the Initial Therapy of Ulcerative Colitis

Inflammatory bowel disease is a chronic disorder of intestinal inflammation and includes Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. The goal of therapy is to induce and maintain remission, which is achieved with conventional therapies. Mesalamine is considered a first-line therapy for ulcerative colitis. Clinical trials have confirmed its efficacy and safety in patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. Doses of more than 2.4 g/d achieve significantly higher rates of clinical and endoscopic remission, with a decreased risk of relapse. Serious adverse effects are rare, but nonadherence is common. Mesalamine is considered safe in pregnancy, excluding formulations with dibutyl phthalate.

First United Arab Emirates consensus on diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel diseases: A 2020 Delphi consensus

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the main entities of inflammatory bowel disease characterized by chronic remittent inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. The incidence and prevalence are on the rise worldwide, and the heterogeneity between patients and within individuals over time is striking. The progressive advance in our understanding of the etiopathogenesis coupled with an unprecedented increase in therapeutic options have changed the management towards evidence-based interventions by clinicians with patients. This guideline was stimulated and supported by the Emirates Gastroenterology and Hepatology Society following a systematic review and a Delphi consensus process that provided evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding diagnosis, evaluation of disease severity, appropriate and timely use of different investigations, choice of appropriate therapy for induction and remission phase according to disease severity, and management of main complications.

Time to Symptom Resolution in Ulcerative Colitis With Multimatrix Mesalazine Treatment: A Pooled Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with ulcerative colitis [UC] require rapid and complete relief of symptoms, particularly stool frequency and rectal bleeding. The aim of this study was to determine time to symptom resolution in patients with UC during induction treatment with multimatrix mesalazine, and the proportion of patients remaining symptom-free and in endoscopic remission after 12 months of maintenance.

METHODS

A pooled analysis of 5 pivotal clinical trials, including >1300 patients, evaluating multimatrix mesalazine for treatment of mild-to-moderate active UC was conducted. Time to symptom resolution was defined as the period between first drug dosage date and first 3 consecutive days of induction therapy when the patient achieved a score of 0 [normal] on a modified UC Disease Activity Index for stool frequency and/or rectal bleeding.

RESULTS

Median [95% confidence interval] time to resolution of stool frequency was 52 (45-not estimable [NE]) days for placebo versus 38 [34-41] days for multimatrix mesalazine [combined dose groups, 2.4 or 4.8 g/day]; time to resolution of rectal bleeding was 35 [20-NE] days for placebo versus 15 [14-17] days for multimatrix mesalazine [combined dose groups]. Among those who achieved resolution of both stool frequency and rectal bleeding during induction, 67.4% maintained symptom scores of 0 at Month 12. No relationship was observed between rapidity of symptom resolution during induction treatment and achievement of endoscopic remission at Month 12.

CONCLUSIONS

Induction with multimatrix mesalazine provided rapid and prolonged symptom resolution in addition to endoscopic remission at Month 12.

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.

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.

Tests that now deserve to be more widely adopted in IBD clinical practice

Inflammatory bowel diseases are chronic relapsing immune-mediated diseases of the intestinal tract with multifaceted manifestations and treatment related morbidity. Faecal and blood tests, radiological, endoscopic and histologic investigations are now widely used for managing both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Over the years, a number of new investigations have been proposed but not widely adopted yet. Patients with Crohn's disease may have multiple causes of diarrhoea, not always attributable to disease exacerbation, but sometimes linked to bile acid malabsorption; we have a reliable serum test, C4, that allows us to recognize and treat this cause of diarrhoea efficaciously and not empirically, but it is not available or used widely. There is genetic inter-individual variability in drug responses, in terms of both efficacy and toxicity, leading to high rates of therapeutic failure. Patients treated with thiopurine or, more rarely, 5-aminosalicylic acid may suffer from unpredictable and serious adverse events, some of these with pathogenesis related to genetic variants: myelosuppression, acute pancreatitis and nephrotoxicity. The identification of pre-treatment genetic tests can optimize therapeutic choice and avoid adverse events. With regard to biological drugs, patients can experience primary non-response or loss of response due to induction of immune responses to the drugs affecting drug efficacy and determining hypersensitivity reactions. We have specifically reviewed a number of investigations, whose use is currently limited, and highlighted four tests that deserve to be more widely incorporated in clinical practice as these could improve medical decision-making and patient outcomes.

Head-to-head trials in inflammatory bowel disease: past, present and future

With the increase in the number of novel drugs for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), comparing therapeutic options or strategies has become a key challenge in IBD trials. Head-to-head trials designed and powered to enable formal comparisons are the gold standard in comparative research. Indeed, these trials are requested by some health authorities for evaluating the positioning of new treatments in IBD, as well as helping prescribing physicians to select the most appropriate treatment options for their patients. Despite head-to-head trials including aminosalicylate therapy in IBD having been performed decades ago, the first results of a randomized controlled trial directly comparing biologic agents with different modes of action have only now been published, mainly owing to important methodological issues. This Perspective provides an overview of the past, current and future concepts in IBD trial design, with a detailed focus on the role of comparative research and the challenges and pitfalls in undertaking and interpreting the results from such studies.

Solving the questions regarding 5-aminosalitylate formulation in the treatment of ulcerative colitis

5-aminosalicylate is a fundamental treatment for patients with ulcerative colitis with mild-to-moderate disease; however, evidence for 5-aminosalicylate treatment is unclear in some situations. This review discusses the clinical guidelines and previous studies, and highlights the following points: (1) Although rectal 5-aminosalicylate is effective for proctitis, physicians should endeavor to reduce patient's distress when administering suppositories or enema as the first-line therapy. It should be clarified whether oral 5-aminosalicylate alone with a drug delivery system that allows higher 5-aminosalicylate concentrations to reach the distal colon would be as effective as rectal 5-aminosalicylate therapy. (2) There has been no direct evidence demonstrating the clinical efficacy of switching the 5-aminosalicylate treatment to other 5-aminosalicylate formulations. However, switching to a different 5-aminosalicylate formulation may be indicated if clinical symptoms are not progressive. (3) Several studies have shown that colonic mucosal 5-aminosalicylate concentration correlates with clinical and endoscopic severity; however, it is unclear whether a high 5-aminosalicylate concentration has therapeutic efficacy. (4) The maximum dose of 5-aminosalicylate is necessary for patients with risk factors for recurrence or hospitalization. (5) Optimization of 5-aminosalicylate dosage may be indicated even for quiescent patients with ulcerative colitis if mucosal healing is not obtained, and if patients have multiple risk factors for recurrence. (6) Furthermore, the discontinuation of 5-aminosalicylate is acceptable when biologics are used. Because there are many "old studies" providing evidence for 5-aminosalicylate formulations, more clinical studies are needed to establish new evidence.

British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn's and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, including patients, their families and friends.

British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn's and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, including patients, their families and friends.

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.

Efficacy and safety of once daily versus twice daily mesalazine for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety between once daily (OD) and twice daily (BD) regime dosing of mesalazine for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Web of Science from 1990 to November 2018 were investigated. We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OD with BD regime dosing of mesalazine for mild-to-moderate UC. The software Review Manager 5.3 was used to pool the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Eight RCTs containing 3495 patients were identified. Regardless of induction of remission or maintenance of remission of UC, OD regime dosing of mesalazine was as effective as BD regime dosing in clinical and endoscopic remission and clinical remission. Also, no obvious difference was found between OD and BD regime dosing of mesalazine regardless of total adverse events, treatment-related adverse events or serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

OD is as effective and safe as BD regime dosing of mesalazine for active UC.

A comprehensive review and update on ulcerative colitis. Dis Mon 2019;65:100851. [PMID: 30837080 DOI: 10.1016/j.disamonth.2019.02.004]

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic idiopathic inflammatory bowel disorder of the colon that causes continuous mucosal inflammation extending from the rectum to the more proximal colon, with variable extents. UC is characterized by a relapsing and remitting course. UC was first described by Samuel Wilks in 1859 and it is more common than Crohn's disease worldwide. The overall incidence and prevalence of UC is reported to be 1.2-20.3 and 7.6-245 cases per 100,000 persons/year respectively. UC has a bimodal age distribution with an incidence peak in the 2nd or 3rd decades and followed by second peak between 50 and 80 years of age. The key risk factors for UC include genetics, environmental factors, autoimmunity and gut microbiota. The classic presentation of UC include bloody diarrhea with or without mucus, rectal urgency, tenesmus, and variable degrees of abdominal pain that is often relieved by defecation. UC is diagnosed based on the combination of clinical presentation, endoscopic findings, histology, and the absence of alternative diagnoses. In addition to confirming the diagnosis of UC, it is also important to define the extent and severity of inflammation, which aids in the selection of appropriate treatment and for predicting the patient's prognosis. Ileocolonoscopy with biopsy is the only way to make a definitive diagnosis of UC. A pathognomonic finding of UC is the presence of continuous colonic inflammation characterized by erythema, loss of normal vascular pattern, granularity, erosions, friability, bleeding, and ulcerations, with distinct demarcation between inflamed and non-inflamed bowel. Histopathology is the definitive tool in diagnosing UC, assessing the disease severity and identifying intraepithelial neoplasia (dysplasia) or cancer. The classical histological changes in UC include decreased crypt density, crypt architectural distortion, irregular mucosal surface and heavy diffuse transmucosal inflammation, in the absence of genuine granulomas. Abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scanning is the preferred initial radiographic imaging study in UC patients with acute abdominal symptoms. The hallmark CT finding of UC is mural thickening with a mean wall thickness of 8 mm, as opposed to a 2-3 mm mean wall thickness of the normal colon. The Mayo scoring system is a commonly used index to assess disease severity and monitor patients during therapy. The goals of treatment in UC are three fold-improve quality of life, achieve steroid free remission and minimize the risk of cancer. The choice of treatment depends on disease extent, severity and the course of the disease. For proctitis, topical 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) drugs are used as the first line agents. UC patients with more extensive or severe disease should be treated with a combination of oral and topical 5-ASA drugs +/- corticosteroids to induce remission. Patients with severe UC need to be hospitalized for treatment. The options in these patients include intravenous steroids and if refractory, calcineurin inhibitors (cyclosporine, tacrolimus) or tumor necrosis factor-α antibodies (infliximab) are utilized. Once remission is induced, patients are then continued on appropriate medications to maintain remission. Indications for emergency surgery include refractory toxic megacolon, colonic perforation, or severe colorectal bleeding.

Pharmacotherapy of ulcerative colitis - current status and emerging trends

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic mucosal inflammation of the large intestine restricted to the rectum and colon. Its clinical course follows an intermittent pattern with episodes of relapse, followed by remission and eventually resulting in mucosal damage. Although there is no permanent cure for UC, the currently available pharmacotherapy aims to induce and maintain clinical remission, promote the healing of colonic mucosa and avert any surgical intervention. The conventional drug therapy comprising of 5-aminosalicylates, thiopurines and corticosteroids has advanced recently in terms of formulations and dosing schedule, resulting in improved efficacy, safety and compliance. Calcineurin inhibitors, such as cyclosporin and tacrolimus, have emerged as steroid sparing agents. The treatment paradigm of UC patients who are refractory to conventional drugs has changed in view of the availability of biologics. Currently, there are four biologics approved by the US FDA for the treatment of UC, namely, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab and vedolizumab, and several others are undergoing clinical trial. In this comprehensive review, the advantages and limitations of the medical therapy of UC are elaborated with an emphasis on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects of the drugs.

AGA Technical Review on the Management of Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis

Most patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) have mild-to-moderate disease activity, with low risk of colectomy, and are managed by primary care physicians or gastroenterologists. Optimal management of these patients decreases the risk of relapse and proximal disease extension, and may prevent disease progression, complications, and need for immunosuppressive therapy. With several medications (eg, sulfasalazine, diazo-bonded 5-aminosalicylates [ASA], mesalamines, and corticosteroids, including budesonide) and complex dosing formulations, regimens, and routes, to treat a disease with variable anatomic extent, there is considerable practice variability in the management of patients with mild-moderate UC. Hence, the American Gastroenterological Association prioritized clinical guidelines on this topic. To inform clinical guidelines, this technical review was developed in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework for interventional studies. Focused questions included the following: (1) comparative effectiveness and tolerability of different oral 5-ASA therapies (sulfalsalazine vs diazo-bonded 5-ASAs vs mesalamine; low- (<2 g) vs standard (2-3 g/d) vs high-dose (>3 g/d) mesalamine); (2) comparison of different dosing regimens (once-daily vs multiple times per day dosing) and routes (oral vs rectal vs both oral and rectal); (3) role of oral budesonide in patients mild-moderate UC; (4) comparative effectiveness and tolerability of rectal 5-ASA and corticosteroid formulations in patients with distal colitis; and (5) role of alternative therapies like probiotics, curcumin, and fecal microbiota transplantation in the management of mild-moderate UC.

Budesonide Suppositories Are Effective and Safe for Treating Acute Ulcerative Proctitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although proctitis is the most limited form of ulcerative colitis, it causes unpleasant symptoms. Topical mesalamine, the standard treatment, is not always effective. We conducted a randomized phase 2 trial to determine the efficacy and safety of 2 doses of a budesonide suppository vs mesalamine suppositories vs combined budesonide and mesalamine suppositories for proctitis.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter trial in 337 patients with active proctitis to compare the efficacies of 4 different suppository treatments. Patients were randomly assigned to groups given 2 mg budesonide suppositories (2 mg BUS; n = 89 patients), 4 mg BUS (n = 79), 1 g mesalamine suppositories (1 g MES; n = 81), or the combination of 2 mg BUS and 1 g MES (n = 88). The study was performed from November 2013 through July 2015 at 36 study sites in Europe and Russia. The primary end point was the time to resolution of clinical symptoms, defined as the first of 3 consecutive days with a score of 0 for rectal bleeding and stool frequency.

RESULTS

The mean time to resolution of symptoms in the 4 mg BUS (29.8 days) and combination of 2 mg BUS and 1 g MES (29.3 days) groups resembled that of the standard 1 g MES treatment (29.2 days), but was significantly longer in the 2 mg BUS group (35.5 days). Furthermore, proportions of patients with deep, clinical, and endoscopic remission, as well as mucosal healing, were similar among the 1 g MES, 4 mg BUS, and combination therapy groups, but significantly lower in the group that received 2 mg BUS. No safety signals were observed, and the patients' treatment acceptance was high (67%-85% of patients).

CONCLUSIONS

In a multicenter randomized trial, we found that the efficacy and safety of 4 mg BUS in treatment of active proctitis did not differ significantly from those of 1 g MES. Budesonide suppositories offer an alternative therapy to mesalamine for topical treatment of proctitis. Clinicaltrialsregister.eu no: 2012-003362-41.

Algorithms to facilitate shared decision-making for the management of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

Nonadherence has been a key barrier to the efficacy of medical treatments in ulcerative colitis (UC). Engaging patients in their IBD care via shared decision-making (SDM) to facilitate self-management may improve adherence to therapy. Areas covered: This review aims to summarize the most recent trial evidence from 2012 to 2017 for mild-to-moderate UC in order to develop clinical algorithms that guide SDM to facilitate self-management. A structured literature search via multiple electronic databases was performed using the search terms 'ulcerative colitis,' 'treatment,' 'management,' 'medication,' 'maintenance,' 'remission,' '5-ASA,' and 'inflammatory bowel disease. Expert commentary: Novel formulations of existing oral and topical medications have expanded the treatment options available for the induction and maintenance therapy for mild-to-moderate UC. Daily dosing of 5-ASA therapy is equivalent to twice daily dosing. The combination therapies of oral plus topical 5-ASA therapy and 5-ASA plus corticosteroid therapy are more effective than monotherapy. Budesonide MMX now plays a role in the management of mild-to-moderate UC. This review collates the evidence on drug efficacy and safety, adherence and tolerability, and noninvasive monitoring of mild-to-moderate UC into SDM-orientated algorithms to facilitate self-management.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological agents for management of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients with ulcerative colitis have mildly to moderately active disease. To inform the management of patients with left-sided or extensive mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis, we assessed the comparative efficacy and tolerability of different therapies.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched Epub, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to Dec 14, 2015, and updated on MEDLINE on March 1, 2018, for randomised controlled trials in adults (age ≥17 years) with left-sided or extensive mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. Studies were included if patients were treated with oral sulfasalazine, diazo-bonded 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs), mesalazine (low dose <2 g/day, standard dose 2-3 g/day, or high dose >3 g/day), controlled ileal-release budesonide, or budesonide multimatrix, alone or in combination with rectal 5-ASA therapy, and were compared with each other or placebo for induction or maintenance of clinical remission. The minimum duration of therapy was 4 weeks for trials of induction and 24 weeks for trials of maintenance therapy. We did pairwise and random-effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs; agents were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to appraise quality of evidence. We examined heterogeneity with the I2 statistic.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 1316 unique studies, from which 75 randomised trials with 12 215 patients were eligible for analysis. Based on 48 induction randomised trials (8020 participants) that met inclusion criteria, combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs (SUCRA 0·99) and high-dose mesalazine (>3 g/day; SUCRA 0·82) were ranked highest for induction of remission. Both interventions were superior to standard-dose mesalazine (2-3 g/day; failure to induce remission with combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs OR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·77; high-dose mesalazine 0·78, 0·66-0·93) with moderate confidence in estimates. On the basis of 28 randomised trials (4218 participants) that met inclusion criteria, all interventions were superior to placebo for maintenance of remission; however, neither combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs nor high-dose mesalazine were superior to standard-dose mesalazine.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with mildly to moderately active left-sided or extensive ulcerative colitis, combined oral and topical mesalazine therapy and high-dose mesalazine are superior to standard-dose mesalazine for induction of remission, but not maintenance of remission. Standard-dose mesalazine might be preferred for maintenance in most patients.

FUNDING

None.

The impact of food intake on the luminal environment and performance of oral drug products with a view to in vitro and in silico simulations: a PEARRL review

Objectives

Using the type of meal and dosing conditions suggested by regulatory agencies as a basis, this review has two specific objectives: first, to summarize our understanding on the impact of food intake on luminal environment and drug product performance and second, to summarize the usefulness and limitations of available in vitro and in silico methodologies for the evaluation of drug product performance after food intake.

Key findings

Characterization of the luminal environment and studies evaluating product performance in the lumen, under conditions suggested by regulatory agencies for simulating the fed state, are limited. Various in vitro methodologies have been proposed for evaluating drug product performance in the fed state, but systematic validation is lacking. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling approaches require the use of in vitro biorelevant data and, to date, have been used primarily for investigating the mechanisms via which an already observed food effect is mediated.

Summary

Better understanding of the impact of changes induced by the meal administration conditions suggested by regulatory agencies on the luminal fate of the drug product is needed. Relevant information will be useful for optimizing the in vitro test methods and increasing the usefulness of PBPK modelling methodologies.

Budesonide with multi-matrix technology as second-line treatment for ulcerative colitis: evaluation of long-term cost-effectiveness in the Netherlands

AIMS

Budesonide with multi-matrix technology (MMX) is an oral corticosteroid, shown to have high topical activity against ulcerative colitis (UC) while maintaining low systemic bioavailability with few adverse events. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of budesonide MMX versus commonly used corticosteroids, in the second-line treatment of active mild-to-moderate UC in the Netherlands.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An eight-state Markov model with an 8 week cycle length captured remission, four distinct therapy stages, hospitalization, possible colectomy and mortality. Remission probability for budesonide MMX was based on the CORE-II study. Population characteristics were derived from the Dutch Inflammatory Bowel Disease South Limburg cohort (n = 598) and included patients with proctitis (39%), left-sided (42%) and extensive disease (19%). Comparators (topical budesonide foam and enema, oral budesonide and prednisolone) were selected based on current Dutch clinical practice. Treatment effects were evaluated by network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed over a 5 year time horizon from a societal perspective, with costs, health-state and adverse event utilities derived from published sources. Outcomes were weighted by disease extent distribution and corresponding comparators.

RESULTS

Budesonide MMX was associated with comparable quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain versus foam and oral formulations (+0.01 QALYs) in the total UC population, whilst being cost-saving (EUR 366 per patient). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis evaluated an 86.6% probability of budesonide MMX being dominant (cost-saving with QALY gain) versus these comparators. Exploratory analysis showed similar findings versus prednisolone.

LIMITATIONS

Differing definitions of trial end-points and remission across trials meant indirect comparison was not ideal. However, in the absence of head-to-head clinical data, these comparisons are reasonable alternatives and currently offer the only comparison of second-line UC treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present analysis, budesonide MMX was shown to be cost-effective versus comparators in the total UC population, for the second-line treatment of active mild-to-moderate UC in the Netherlands.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: endoscopic and histologic placebo rates in induction and maintenance trials of ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Regulatory requirements for claims of mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis (UC) will require demonstration of both endoscopic and histologic healing. Quantifying these rates is essential for future drug development.

AIMS

To meta-analyse endoscopic and histologic placebo response and remission rates in UC randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and identify factors influencing these rates.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 2017 for placebo-controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for UC. Endoscopic and histologic placebo rates were pooled by random effects. Mixed effects univariable and multivariable meta-regression was used to evaluate the influence of patient, intervention and trial-related study-level covariates on these rates.

RESULTS

Fifty-six induction (placebo n = 4171) and 8 maintenance trials (placebo n = 1011) were included. Pooled placebo endoscopic remission and response rates for induction trials were 23% [95 confidence interval (CI) 19-28%] and 35% [95% CI 27-42%] respectively, and 20% [95% CI 16-24%] for maintenance of remission. The pooled histologic placebo remission rate was 14% [95% CI 8-22%] for induction trials. High heterogeneity was observed for all outcomes (I² 56.2%-88.3%). On multivariable meta-regression, central endoscopy reading was associated with significantly lower endoscopic placebo remission rates (16% vs 25%; OR = 0.52, [95% CI 0.29-0.92], P = 0.03). On univariable meta-regression, higher histologic placebo remission was associated with concomitant corticosteroids (OR = 1.17 [95% CI 1.08-1.26], P < 0.0001, per 10% increase in corticosteroid use).

CONCLUSIONS

Placebo endoscopic and histologic rates range from 14% to 35% in UC RCTs but are highly heterogeneous. Outcome standardisation may reduce heterogeneity and is needed in this field.

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.

Heterogeneity in Definitions of Endpoints for Clinical Trials of Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review for Development of a Core Outcome Set

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Advances in development of therapeutic agents for ulcerative colitis (UC) have been paralleled by innovations in trial design. It would be useful to identify a core outcome set, to standardize outcome definitions for efficacy and safety in clinical trials. We performed a systematic review of efficacy and safety outcomes reported in placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials of patients with UC.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception through March 1, 2017, for placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials of adult patients with UC treated with aminosalicylates, immunosuppressants, corticosteroids, biologics, and oral small molecules. We collected information on efficacy and safety outcomes, definitions, and measurement tools, stratified by decade of publication.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 83 randomized controlled trials (68 induction and 15 maintenance) comprising 17,737 patients. Clinical or composite-clinical efficacy outcomes were reported in all trials; the UC Disease Activity Index and Mayo Clinic Score were frequently used to determine clinical response or remission. We found substantial variation in definitions of clinical or composite-clinical endpoints, with more than 50 definitions of response or remission. Endoscopic factors, histologic features, and fecal or serum biomarkers were used to determine outcomes in 83.1% (69 of 83), 24.1% (20 of 83), and 24.1% (20 of 83) of trials, respectively. A greater proportion of trials published after 2007 reported objective outcomes (96.5% endoscopic, 26.3% histologic, and 36.8% biomarker outcomes), but no standardized definitions of histologic or biomarker endpoints were found. Patient-reported efficacy and quality-of-life outcomes were described in 25 trials (30.1%) and safety outcomes were reported in 77 trials (92.8%).

CONCLUSION

In a systematic review, we found that despite recent advances in clinical trials methods, there is a great deal of variation in definitions of endpoints, including response and remission, in randomized controlled trials of patients with UC. Researchers should identify a core set of outcomes to standardize efficacy and safety reporting in UC clinical trials.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Remission endpoints in ulcerative colitis: A systematic review

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

MMX® technology and its applications in gastrointestinal diseases

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

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.

Defining endoscopic response and remission in ulcerative colitis clinical trials: an international consensus

BACKGROUND

Recently, endpoints for clinical trials have been changing from measuring clinical response to mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis. Endoscopic evaluation is the current gold standard to assess mucosal lesions and has become a major measure of therapeutic efficacy in addition to patients reported outcomes.

AIM

To achieve consensus on endoscopic definitions of remission and response for clinical trials in patients with ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

In reaching the current international recommendations on an International Organization For the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IOIBD) initiative, we first performed a systematic review of technical aspects of endoscopic scoring systems. Then, to achieve consensus on endoscopic definitions of remission and response for clinical trials, we conducted a two-round vote using a Delphi-style process among fifteen specialists in the field of inflammatory bowel diseases.

RESULTS

The literature review showed that many endoscopic indices have been proposed to evaluate disease activity in ulcerative colitis; most are unvalidated and arbitrary definitions have been used in clinical trials for defining endoscopic response or remission. At the end of the voting process, the investigators ranked initially the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) 0 for the definition of endoscopic remission, and a decrease in Mayo endoscopic score ≥1 grade or a decrease in UCEIS ≥2 points for the definition of endoscopic response in ulcerative colitis.

CONCLUSIONS

These international recommendations represent the first consensus on measurement indices for endoscopic outcomes in ulcerative colitis. They should be subject to prospective testing in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis.

Current and Future Targets for Mucosal Healing in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The induction and subsequent maintenance of mucosal healing has emerged as one of the central therapeutic goals in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis). Current and novel treatment options are assessed regarding their therapeutic efficacy on the basis of their ability to induce mucosal healing. However, there is still substantial debate about the precise definition of mucosal healing. Here, we will give an overview regarding the definitions of mucosal healing as well as its probable effects on long-term disease behavior and finally focus on current and potential therapeutic targets to achieve this therapeutic goal in IBD patients.

Second Korean guidelines for the management of ulcerative colitis

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical relevance of endoscopic assessment of inflammation in ulcerative colitis: Can endoscopic evaluation predict outcomes?

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel condition characterised by a relapsing and remitting course. Symptom control has been the traditional mainstay of medical treatment. It is well known that histological inflammatory activity persists despite adequate symptom control and absence of endoscopic inflammation. Current evidence suggests that presence of histological inflammation poses a greater risk of disease relapse and subsequent colorectal cancer risk. New endoscopic technologies hold promise for developing endoscopic markers of mucosal inflammation. Achieving endoscopic and histological remission appears be the future aim of medical treatments for UC. This review article aims to evaluate the use of endoscopy as a tool in assessment of mucosal inflammation UC and its correlation with disease outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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