Mesalazine in left-sided ulcerative colitis: efficacy analyses from the PODIUM trial on maintenance of remission and mucosal healing

The epithelium takes the stage in asthma and inflammatory bowel diseases

The epithelium is a dynamic barrier and the damage to this epithelial layer governs a variety of complex mechanisms involving not only epithelial cells but all resident tissue constituents, including immune and stroma cells. Traditionally, diseases characterized by a damaged epithelium have been considered "immunological diseases," and research efforts aimed at preventing and treating these diseases have primarily focused on immuno-centric therapeutic strategies, that often fail to halt or reverse the natural progression of the disease. In this review, we intend to focus on specific mechanisms driven by the epithelium that ensure barrier function. We will bring asthma and Inflammatory Bowel Diseases into the spotlight, as we believe that these two diseases serve as pertinent examples of epithelium derived pathologies. Finally, we will argue how targeting the epithelium is emerging as a novel therapeutic strategy that holds promise for addressing these chronic diseases.

Formulation and optimization of a single-layer coat for targeting budesonide pellets to the descending Colon

The current budesonide formulations are inadequate for addressing left-sided colitis, and patients might hesitate to use an enema for a prolonged time. This study focuses on developing a single-layer coating for budesonide pellets targeting the descending colon. Pellets containing budesonide (1.5%w/w), PVP K30 (5%w/w), lactose monohydrate (25%w/w) and Avicel pH 102 (68.5%w/w) were prepared using extrusion spheronization technique. Coating formulations were designed using response surface methodology with pH and time-dependent Eudragits. Dissolution tests were conducted at different pH levels (1.2, 6.5, 6.8, and 7.2). Optimal coating formulation, considering coating level and the Eudragit (S + L) ratio to the total coating weight, was determined. Budesonide pellets were coated with the optimized composition and subjected to continuous dissolution testing simulating the gastrointestinal tract. The coating, with 48% S, 12% L, and 40% RS at a 10% coating level, demonstrated superior budesonide delivery to the descending colon. Coated pellets had a spherical shape with a uniform 30 µm thickness coating, exhibiting pH and time-dependent release. Notably, zero-order release kinetics was observed for the last 9 h in colonic conditions. The study suggests that an optimized single-layer coating, incorporating pH and time-dependent polymers, holds promise for consistently delivering budesonide to the descending colon.

Treatment of Patients with Mild to Moderate Ulcerative Colitis: A Middle East Expert Consensus

The prevalence of ulcerative colitis (UC) in the Middle East is increasing, impacting the economic and healthcare burden. The management of patients with mild to moderate UC is still a challenge as several factors can affect optimal care, including drug choice, induction and maintenance dose, treatment optimization and de-escalation, therapy duration, monitoring, and safety profile. We conducted an expert consensus to standardize the management of patients with mild to moderate UC. Sixteen experts in inflammatory bowel diseases, through a well-established and accepted Delphi methodology, voted and approved eight statements in order to provide practical guidance to clinicians in the Middle East.

A Keystone Gut Bacterium Christensenella minuta-A Potential Biotherapeutic Agent for Obesity and Associated Metabolic Diseases

A new next-generation probiotic, Christensenella minuta was first discovered in 2012 from healthy human stool and described under the phylum Firmicutes. C. minuta is a subdominant commensal bacterium with highly heritable properties that exhibits mutual interactions with other heritable microbiomes, and its relative abundance is positively correlated with the lean host phenotype associated with a low BMI index. It has been the subject of numerous studies, owing to its potential health benefits. This article reviews the evidence from various studies of C. minuta interventions using animal models for managing metabolic diseases, such as obesity, inflammatory bowel disease, and type 2 diabetes, characterized by gut microbiota dysbiosis and disruption of host metabolism. Notably, more studies have presented the complex interaction between C. minuta and host metabolism when it comes to metabolic health. Therefore, C. minuta could be a potential candidate for innovative microbiome-based biotherapy via fecal microbiota transplantation or oral administration. However, the detailed underlying mechanism of action requires further investigation.

Qingchang decoction retention enema may induce clinical and mucosal remission in left-sided ulcerative colitis: A case report

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by relapsing-remitting abdominal pain, diarrhea, mucopurulent discharge and rectal bleeding. To date, the etiology of the disease remains unknown; therefore, medical therapy is not yet available. Left-sided UC is mainly treated with oral and topical mesalazine. However, due to its modest clinical effect, endoscopic mucosal remission is not achieved in all patients.

CASE SUMMARY

A 44-year-old man presented to Longhua Hospital with a history of left-sided UC for more than 6 years and slight bloody diarrhea over time. Endoscopy suggested hyperemia, edema, and erosive mucosa involving the rectum and sigmoid colon. The Traditional Chinese medicine Qingchang decoction (QCD) enema treatment was initiated once a day combined with a previous standard dose of mesalazine for 8 wk, and rectal bleeding ceased after 4 wk of treatment. Another QCD enema treatment was provided after symptom relapse due to drug withdrawal for nearly 6 mo. At the 2-mo follow-up, the colonoscopy results indicated mucosal healing with no erosion or ulcers.

CONCLUSION

The Chinese formula QCD retention enema represents a potential treatment for left-sided UC with predominant rectal bleeding to achieve clinical and mucosal remission.

The Keystone commensal bacterium Christensenella minuta DSM 22607 displays anti-inflammatory properties both in vitro and in vivo

Christensenellaceae is a family of subdominant commensal bacteria found in humans. It is thought to play an important role in gut health by maintaining microbial symbiosis. Indeed, these bacteria occur at significantly lower levels or are absent in individuals suffering from inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). Here, we explored if type species Christensenella minuta (strain: DSM 22607) could have the potential to help treat IBDs. We assessed key properties displayed by the bacterium using a combination of in vitro and in vivo assays. We found that while C. minuta is a strict anaerobe, it is also oxygen tolerant. Additionally, we observed that the species produces high levels of acetate and moderate levels of butyrate. We performed deep phenotyping using Biolog microarrays. Using human intestinal cell lines, we discovered that C. minuta demonstrated strong anti-inflammatory activity, resulting in reduced levels of proinflammatory IL-8 cytokines via the inhibition of the NF-κB signaling pathway. Furthermore, C. minuta protected intestinal epithelial integrity in vitro. Finally, in two distinct animal models of acute colitis, C. minuta prevented intestinal damage, reduced colonic inflammation, and promoted mucosal healing. Together, these results indicate that C. minuta has potent immunomodulatory properties, underscoring its potential use in innovative microbiome-based IBD biotherapies.

Intestinal Mucosal Wound Healing and Barrier Integrity in IBD-Crosstalk and Trafficking of Cellular Players

The intestinal epithelial barrier is carrying out two major functions: restricting the entry of potentially harmful substances while on the other hand allowing the selective passage of nutrients. Thus, an intact epithelial barrier is vital to preserve the integrity of the host and to prevent development of disease. Vice versa, an impaired intestinal epithelial barrier function is a hallmark in the development and perpetuation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Besides a multitude of genetic, molecular and cellular alterations predisposing for or driving barrier dysintegrity in IBD, the appearance of intestinal mucosal wounds is a characteristic event of intestinal inflammation apparently inducing breakdown of the intestinal epithelial barrier. Upon injury, the intestinal mucosa undergoes a wound healing process counteracting this breakdown, which is controlled by complex mechanisms such as epithelial restitution, proliferation and differentiation, but also immune cells like macrophages, granulocytes and lymphocytes. Consequently, the repair of mucosal wounds is dependent on a series of events including coordinated trafficking of immune cells to dedicated sites and complex interactions among the cellular players and other mediators involved. Therefore, a better understanding of the crosstalk between epithelial and immune cells as well as cell trafficking during intestinal wound repair is necessary for the development of improved future therapies. In this review, we summarize current concepts on intestinal mucosal wound healing introducing the main cellular mediators and their interplay as well as their trafficking characteristics, before finally discussing the clinical relevance and translational approaches to therapeutically target this process in a clinical setting.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; also known as mesalazine or mesalamine) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. In an earlier version of this review, we found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), but had a significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. In this version, we have rerun the search to bring the review up to date.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness, and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC and to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a literature search for studies on 11 June 2019 using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. In addition, we searched review articles and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. We considered studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of participants with quiescent UC compared with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose-ranging studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes were adherence, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus SASP, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (balsalazide, Pentasa, and olsalazine) versus comparator 5-ASA formulation (Asacol and Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (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

The search identified 44 studies (9967 participants). Most studies were at low risk of bias. Ten studies were at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three were open-label. 5-ASA is more effective than placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. About 37% (335/907) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 12 months compared to 55% (355/648) of placebo participants (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.76; 8 studies, 1555 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication was not reported for this comparison. SAEs were reported in 1% (6/550) of participants in the 5-ASA group compared to 2% (5/276) of participants in the placebo group at six to 12 months (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.84; 3 studies, 826 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18; 5 studies, 1132 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). SASP is more effective than 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. About 48% (416/871) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 43% (336/784) of SASP participants (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27; 12 studies, 1655 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication and SAEs were not reported for this comparison. There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.40; 7 studies, 1138 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in clinical or endoscopic remission rates between once-daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. About 37% (717/1939) of once-daily participants relapsed over 12 months compared to 39% (770/1971) of conventional-dosing participants (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; 10 studies, 3910 participants; high-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in medication adherence rates. About 10% (106/1152) of participants in the once-daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 8% (84/1154) of participants in the conventional-dosing group (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.93; 9 studies, 2306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). About 3% (41/1587) of participants in the once-daily group experienced a SAE compared to 2% (35/1609) of participants in the conventional-dose group at six to 12 months (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.87; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in the incidence of AEs at six to 13 months' follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 8 studies, 3497 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the efficacy of different 5-ASA formulations. About 44% (158/358) of participants in the 5-ASA group relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 41% (142/349) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28; 6 studies, 707 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in UC. There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is inferior compared to SASP. There is probably little or no difference between 5-ASA and placebo, and 5-ASA and SASP in commonly reported AEs such as flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, and dyspepsia. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily has a similar benefit and harm profile as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC.

Colitis and Crohn's Foundation (India) consensus statements on use of 5-aminosalicylic acid in inflammatory bowel disease

Despite several recent advances in therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) therapy has retained its place especially in ulcerative colitis. This consensus on 5-ASA is obtained through a modified Delphi process, and includes guiding statements and recommendations based on literature evidence (randomized trials, and observational studies), clinical practice, and expert opinion on use of 5-ASA in IBD by Indian gastroenterologists. The aim is to aid practitioners in selecting appropriate treatment strategies and facilitate optimal use of 5-ASA in patients with IBD.

Association between Dietary Isoflavone Intake and Ulcerative Colitis Symptoms in Polish Caucasian Individuals

Currently there are contradictory observations regarding the associations between the isoflavone intake and inflammatory bowel disease in terms of its prevention and treatment, and this may be attributed to the diversity of applied doses and influence of various isoflavones. The aim of the presented cross-sectional study is to analyze the association between intake of various isoflavones (daidzein, genistein, glicytein and total isoflavones) and ulcerative colitis symptoms (fecal blood, mucus and pus) in Polish Caucasian individuals in confirmed remission. Assessment of diet was based on self-reported data obtained from patients' three-day dietary records and their individual assessments of symptoms. A total of 56 Caucasian patients with ulcerative colitis in confirmed remission were recruited for the study (37 females and 19 males, aged 18-80). For individuals with no fecal mucus observed, higher daidzein (p = 0.035, 122 vs. 19 µg) and total isoflavone intakes (p = 0.034, 302.2 vs. 123.7 µg) were observed in comparison with individuals not declaring this symptom, while for daidzein it was confirmed for the component density of their diets. The opposite association was stated for fecal pus, as for individuals with a lack of this symptom, lower daidzein intake was stated in comparison with individuals declaring this symptom (p = 0.049, 103.3 vs. 206.7 µg), but it was not confirmed for the component density of the diets. It was stated that the high intake of isoflavones by Caucasian individuals, as in a western diet, may influence the symptoms of ulcerative colitis, with the strongest influence by daidzein. Taking this into account, isoflavones may be included into the diets of ulcerative colitis patients in remission if well-tolerated, but there is a need for further study.

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.

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.

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.

Rate and Predictors of Mucosal Healing in Ulcerative Colitis Treated with Thiopurines: Results of a Multicentric Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Mucosal healing (MH) with thiopurines has been poorly investigated in ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to assess MH rate in UC patients treated with thiopurine monotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected all UC patients treated with thiopurines more than 6 months who have undergone colonoscopy at baseline and after at least 6 months of treatment. Patients were recruited from January 2005 to May 2015 through a personal database and/or standardized hospital inpatient diagnostic dataset. Patients were excluded in case of any use of other immunomodulator or biological agent. MH was defined as a Mayo endoscopic subscore ≤1 and UCEIS ≤ 2. Histological healing (HH) was defined by the absence of epithelial polynuclear infiltrate, cryptic abscesses, or ulcerations.

RESULTS

Eighty patients (31 women, median age 43 [IQR 32-58]) were included. Median disease duration was 10.5 [6-16] years. At baseline, median full Mayo score, endoscopic subscore, and UCEIS were 8 [6.8-10], 3 [2-3], and 5 [3-6], respectively. MH was first assessed after a mean follow-up of 38 ± 31 months. Median full Mayo score, endoscopic subscore, and UCEIS decreased to 3.5 [1-6], 2 [0-2.2], and 2 [0-4], respectively. MH was achieved in 43.7%, HH in 38%. In multivariate analysis, predictors of MH were thiopurine exposure duration ≥2 years [odds ratio (OR) 2.9, CI 95% (1.1-7.6), p = 0.03] and a prior acute severe colitis [OR 5.9, CI 95% (1.1-32), p = 0.04]. Factors associated with MH during treatment were partial Mayo score ≤2 (NPV = 100%), BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² (NPV = 75%), and MCV ≥ 95 fL (NPV = 73%).

CONCLUSIONS

In UC, thiopurine monotherapy is associated with MH in 43.7% and HH in 38%.

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.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo but had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the effectiveness, dose-responsiveness, and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis. A secondary objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of once daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

A literature search for relevant studies (inception to 9 July 2015) was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other 5-ASA formulations were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes included adherence, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA versus comparator 5-ASA formulation, and 5-ASA dose-ranging. Placebo-controlled trials were subgrouped by dosage. Once daily versus conventional dosing studies were subgrouped by formulation. 5-ASA-controlled trials were subgrouped by common 5-ASA comparators (e.g. Asacol and Salofalk). Dose-ranging studies were subgrouped by 5-ASA formulation. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies (8928 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. Ten studies were rated at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three studies were open-label. However, two open-label studies and four of the single-blind studies utilized investigator performed endoscopy as an endpoint, which may protect against bias. 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. Forty-one per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 58% of placebo patients (7 studies, 1298 patients; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77). There was a trend towards greater efficacy with higher doses of 5-ASA with a statistically significant benefit for the 1 to 1.9 g/day (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) and the > 2 g/day subgroups (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89). SASP was significantly superior to 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. Forty-eight per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 43% of SASP patients (12 studies, 1655 patients; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome for the placebo and SASP-controlled studies was high. No statistically significant differences in efficacy or adherence were found between once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Twenty-nine per cent of once daily patients relapsed over 12 months compared to 31% of conventionally dosed patients (8 studies, 3127 patients; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.01). Eleven per cent of patients in the once daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 9% of patients in the conventional dosing group (6 studies, 1462 patients; RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Forty-four per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group relapsed compared to 41% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (6 studies, 707 patients; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28). A pooled analysis of two studies showed no statistically significant difference in efficacy between Balsalazide 6 g and 3 g/day. Twenty-three per cent of patients in the 6 g/day group relapsed compared to 33% of patients in the 3 g/day group (216 patients; RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.79). One study found Balsalazide 4 g to be superior to 2 g/day. Thirty-seven per cent of patients in the 4 g/day Balsalazide group relapsed compared to 55% of patients in the 2 g/day group (133 patients; RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). One study found a statistically significant difference between Salofalk granules 3 g and 1.5 g/day. Twenty-five per cent of patients in the Salofalk 3 g/day group relapsed compared to 39% of patients in the 1.5 g/day group (429 patients; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.86). Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, dyspepsia, and nasopharyngitis. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, 5-ASA and SASP, once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA, 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulations and 5-ASA dose ranging studies. The trials that compared 5-ASA and SASP may have been biased in favour of SASP because most trials enrolled patients known to be tolerant to SASP which may have minimized SASP-related adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

5-ASA was superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis. However, 5-ASA had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily is as effective and safe as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis. There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy or safety between the various formulations of 5-ASA. Patients with extensive ulcerative colitis or with frequent relapses may benefit from a higher dose of maintenance therapy. High dose therapy appears to be as safe as low dose and is not associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo but had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the effectiveness, dose-responsiveness, and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis. A secondary objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of once daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

A literature search for relevant studies (inception to 9 July 2015) was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other 5-ASA formulations were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes included adherence, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA versus comparator 5-ASA formulation, and 5-ASA dose-ranging. Placebo-controlled trials were subgrouped by dosage. Once daily versus conventional dosing studies were subgrouped by formulation. 5-ASA-controlled trials were subgrouped by common 5-ASA comparators (e.g. Asacol and Salofalk). Dose-ranging studies were subgrouped by 5-ASA formulation. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies (8928 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. Ten studies were rated at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three studies were open-label. However, two open-label studies and four of the single-blind studies utilized investigator performed endoscopy as an endpoint, which may protect against bias. 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. Forty-one per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 58% of placebo patients (7 studies, 1298 patients; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77). There was a trend towards greater efficacy with higher doses of 5-ASA with a statistically significant benefit for the 1 to 1.9 g/day (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) and the > 2 g/day subgroups (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89). SASP was significantly superior to 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. Forty-eight per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 43% of SASP patients (12 studies, 1655 patients; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome for the placebo and SASP-controlled studies was high. No statistically significant differences in efficacy or adherence were found between once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Twenty-nine per cent of once daily patients relapsed over 12 months compared to 31% of conventionally dosed patients (8 studies, 3127 patients; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.01). Eleven per cent of patients in the once daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 9% of patients in the conventional dosing group (6 studies, 1462 patients; RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Forty-four per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group relapsed compared to 41% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (6 studies, 707 patients; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28). A pooled analysis of two studies showed no statistically significant difference in efficacy between Balsalazide 6 g and 3 g/day. Twenty-three per cent of patients in the 6 g/day group relapsed compared to 33% of patients in the 3 g/day group (216 patients; RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.79). One study found Balsalazide 4 g to be superior to 2 g/day. Thirty-seven per cent of patients in the 4 g/day Balsalazide group relapsed compared to 55% of patients in the 2 g/day group (133 patients; RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). One study found a statistically significant difference between Salofalk granules 3 g and 1.5 g/day. Twenty-five per cent of patients in the Salofalk 3 g/day group relapsed compared to 39% of patients in the 1.5 g/day group (429 patients; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.86). Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, dyspepsia, and nasopharyngitis. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, 5-ASA and SASP, once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA, 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulations and 5-ASA dose ranging studies. The trials that compared 5-ASA and SASP may have been biased in favour of SASP because most trials enrolled patients known to be tolerant to SASP which may have minimized SASP-related adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

5-ASA was superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis. However, 5-ASA had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily is as effective and safe as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis. There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy or safety between the various formulations of 5-ASA. Patients with extensive ulcerative colitis or with frequent relapses may benefit from a higher dose of maintenance therapy. High dose therapy appears to be as safe as low dose and is not associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.

Role of epithelial cells in the pathogenesis and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

In the past decades, continuous effort has been paid to deeply understanding the pathophysiology of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), such as ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease. As the disease typically arises as chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal mucosa, research has been focused on how such an uncontrolled, deleterious immune response may arise and persist in a certain cohort of patients. Based on those immunologic analyses, the establishment of anti-TNF-α therapy, and the following series of biologic agents achieved great success and dramatically changed the therapeutic strategy of IBD patients. However, to guarantee long-term remission of the disease, the therapeutic standard has been raised to achieve "mucosal healing", which requires complete repair of the gastrointestinal mucosa. Recent studies have revealed the unexpected importance of epithelial cells in the pathophysiology of IBD. The general barrier function as well as the cell lineage-specific functions have been deeply attributed to the development of chronic intestinal inflammation. Also, the groundbreaking establishment of the in vitro intestinal stem cell culture system has opened up a way of developing stem cell transplantation therapy to treat otherwise refractory ulcers that may persist in IBD patients. In this review, we would like to focus on the role of epithelial cells in the pathophysiology of IBD, and also give a perspective to the upcoming development of regenerative therapies that may become one of the therapeutic choices to achieve mucosal healing in refractory patients of IBD.

Proteins and peptides: The need to improve them as promising therapeutics for ulcerative colitis

The present review briefly describes the nature, type and pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis, and explores the potential use of peptides and proteins in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, especially ulcerative colitis. Intestinal absorption and the barrier mechanism of peptide and protein drugs are also discussed, with special emphasis on various strategies which make these drugs better therapeutics having high specificity, potency and molecular targeting ability. However, the limitation of such therapeutics are oral administration, poor pharmacokinetic profile and decreased bioavailability. The recent findings illustrated in this review will be helpful in designing the peptide/protein drugs as a promising treatment of choice for ulcerative colitis.

Randomised clinical trial: once- vs. twice-daily prolonged-release mesalazine for active ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Aminosalicylates are first-choice treatment for mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC); however, multi-dosing regimens are inconvenient.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of once- (OD) vs. twice- (BD) daily prolonged-release mesalazine (Pentasa, Ferring, Saint-Prex, Switzerland) for active mild-to-moderate UC in a non-inferiority study.

METHODS

Eligible patients (n = 206) were randomised to 8 weeks of mesalazine (4 g/day), either OD with two sachets of 2 g mesalazine granules in the morning (n = 102) or BD with one 2 g sachet in the morning and one in the evening (n = 104). Patients also received 4 weeks of mesalazine enema 1 g/day. Disease activity was assessed at randomisation, weeks 4, 8 and 12 using the UC Disease Activity Index (UC-DAI). Clinical and endoscopic remission (primary endpoint) was assessed after 8 weeks. Patients recorded stool frequency and rectal bleeding in a daily diary.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint, non-inferiority in clinical and endoscopic remission with OD vs. BD mesalazine at 8 weeks, was met (intent-to-treat population: 52.1% vs. 41.8%, respectively, 95% confidence interval -3.4, 24.1; P = 0.14). Improvement of UC-DAI score (92% vs. 79%; P = 0.01) and mucosal healing (87.5% vs. 71.1%; P = 0.007) were significantly better, time to remission significantly shorter (26 vs. 28 days; P = 0.04) and safety similar with OD vs. BD dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

When combined with mesalazine enema, prolonged-release mesalazine once-daily 4 g is as effective and well tolerated as 2 g twice-daily for inducing remission in patients with mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00737789).