A pilot feasibility study of once daily versus conventional dosing mesalamine for maintenance of ulcerative colitis

Impact of Demographic, Clinical and Psychosocial Variables on Drug Adherence and Outcomes in Indian Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Cost is not the Only Factor!

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Barriers to drug adherence in the developing world are multifactorial and under evaluated. We aimed to evaluate predictive factors of medication adherence in Indian patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and association of adherence with quality of life (QOL) and relapse free remission.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adherence was assessed in consecutive IBD patients using a self-administered survey questionnaire including Morisky Medication Adherence Scale together with interview and Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (SIBDQ) to assess QOL. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables correlating with adherence, Cox proportional hazards method used for variables associated with relapse and Kaplan-Meier survival curve used for comparing relapse free remission in adherent and nonadherent.

RESULTS

A total of 467 consecutive outpatients (279 ulcerative colitis, 188 Crohn's disease, mean age 38.6 y) were mostly on mesalazine 439 (94%) or thiopurines 213 (46%). Self-reported nonadherence was noted in 236/467 (51%). Disease remission was associated with medication adherence [P=0.003, odds ratio (OR): 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21-2.52]. Medication-related factors like high dosing frequency (>3/d) (OR: 0.39, P=0.005) and concomitant non-IBD medications (OR: 0.44, P=0.007) were associated with nonadherence. Psychosocial factors associated with nonadherence were lack of drug information (OR: 0.30, P<0.001), feeling depressed (OR: 0.43, P<0.001), comorbidities (OR: 0.47, P=0.005), doubts about efficacy (OR: 0.49, P=0.001) and perceived poor QOL (OR: 0.61, P=0.01). High-cost perception was associated with nonadherence in univariate analysis (OR: 0.47, P<0.001) but lost significance on multivariate analysis (OR: 0.68, P=0.07). Physician imparting disease information (OR: 2.5, P=0.14) and physician reinforcement (OR: 1.8, P=0.049) were associated with adherence.Adherence was associated with improved QOL (SIBDQ, R=0.724). Nonadherence was associated with >3-fold risk of recurrence within 2 years (hazard ratio: 3.89, 95% CI: 2.74-5.52, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonadherence is common in Indian IBD patients but adherence is associated with improved QoL and lower probability of relapse. Psychosocial and medication-related factors are important determinants of adherence compared with demographic or clinical variables and should be addressed.

Clinical and Mechanistic Characteristics of Current JAK Inhibitors in IBD

Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are chronic, immune-mediated diseases of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Their etiology is complex and involves immune (eg, cytokines) and nonimmune (eg, environment) mediated contributions, causing inflammatory damage to the GI tract. Though cytokines contribute a major role in the inflammatory process of both CD and UC, there are some key differences in which cytokines are involved in the pathobiology of CD and UC. Over the past several years, new biologic-directed therapies have focused on controlling specific aspects of inflammation associated with both conditions. Although these treatments have benefited patients overall, approximately 30% of patients still do not respond to induction (initial) therapy, and up to 50% of patients lose response to treatment over a year. Many of these therapies are administered parenterally and have been associated with adverse events such as serious infections or malignancy. Therefore, there is a significant unmet medical need for these patients to minimize symptoms and promote GI healing. There are several therapeutic agents in the pipeline, including oral, small molecules, which hold much promise. One group of small molecules known as Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors offers an additional option for treatment of chronic inflammatory conditions, based on currently available data. The article will focus on the potential benefits of JAK inhibitors as oral, small molecules, such as the potential role of selectivity, and potential risks.

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.

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.

Real World Effectiveness of Golimumab Therapy in Ulcerative Colitis Regardless of Prior TNF Exposure

Background

The efficacy of golimumab to induce and maintain remission in biologic-naïve patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) is established from placebo-controlled trials. However, golimumab's real-world effectiveness, important to physicians and payers, remains unexplored.

Aim

The goal of this study was to describe real-world use and rate of persistence among UC patients with golimumab therapy and to assess factors that predict discontinuation during golimumab maintenance treatment.

Methods

A retrospective study of UC patients receiving golimumab maintenance therapy (August 2012-August 2015) was conducted on dosing data from a national case management program. Treatment persistence, defined as time from index prescription to the last dose (gap in dose >60 days), was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Predictors of treatment persistence were explored with Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results

One hundred thirty-six patients (50.7% male) with a mean (SD) age of 44.4 (15.6) years were included. At golimumab initiation, 72.1% were naïve to anti-TNFs; 77.2% received 200 mg, while 4.4% and 18.4% received 50 mg and 100 mg, respectively, every 4 weeks (induction therapy). The median time to discontinuation was 530 days, with a cumulative probability of 63% to remain on therapy at one year. Age, gender, golimumab induction, golimumab maintenance dose and prior anti-TNF exposure were not significantly associated with treatment persistence. Dose adjustment occurred in 7.4% of patients during maintenance treatment.

Conclusions

Overall, the persistence rate of golimumab observed in the current real-world study is similar to that described in previous single-centre UC cohorts and consistent with that seen in controlled clinical trials.

Adherence, risk factors of non-adherence and patient's preferred treatment strategy of mesalazine in ulcerative colitis: multicentric observational study

OBJECTIVES

Compliance to therapy is a key factor in the efficacy of treatment in clinical practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate the rate of compliance with mesalazine in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), to examine risk factors of noncompliance and especially find ways on how adherence can be improved.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 198 outpatients with UC completed two anonymous questionnaires including information on basic demographics, details of patient´s disease and the use of mesalazine medication and quality of life.

RESULTS

We found noncompliance (percentage of used medication per day less than 80%) with 5-ASA in 21.2% patients. Our study proved that the education level of patients significantly influenced the compliance of patients using mesalazine. A significant difference (p = .014) was found between the compliance of patients with secondary school education (84.1 ± 16.73) and those with university education (94.1 ± 9.9). The majority of patients preferred mesalazine once daily and are less likely to forget to take medication in the morning. Better quality of life was observed based on our data from WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire in statistically significant way in patients using concomitant therapy of immuosuppressive or biological therapy, lower daily doses and using sachets not tablets.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study proved that compliance with mesalazine in patients with UC was related only to education level. If we target mesalazine therapy based on patient's preferences, we can improve the adherence with mesalazine. Our data could be beneficial for the treatment strategy in clinical practice.

Medication adherence in inflammatory bowel disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic idiopathic inflammatory condition with intestinal and extraintestinal manifestations. Medications are the cornerstone of treatment of IBD. However, patients often adhere to medication poorly. Adherence to medications is defined as the process by which patients take their medications as prescribed. Treatment non-adherence is a common problem among chronic diseases, averaging 50% in developed countries and is even poorer in developing countries. In this review, we will examine the adherence data in IBD which vary greatly depending on the study population, route of administration, and methods of adherence measurement used. We will also discuss the adverse clinical outcomes related to non-adherence to medical treatment including increased disease activity, flares, loss of response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy, and so forth. There are many methods to measure medication adherence namely direct and indirect methods, each with their advantages and drawbacks. Finally, we will explore different intervention strategies to improve adherence to medications.

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).

Medication non-adherence in adult patients affected by inflammatory bowel disease: a critical review and update of the determining factors, consequences and possible interventions

Achieving adherence to medications can be a serious challenge for patients affected by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Medical treatment is fundamental for inducing and maintaining remission, preventing flares and reducing the risk of colorectal cancer. Non-adherence may affect patients' quality of life resulting in unfavourable treatment outcomes, more hospitalizations and higher healthcare-related costs. Recognising and improving adherence is therefore a primary aim for the treatment of IBD. Areas covered: We critically discuss the current knowledge on medication non-adherence in adult patients affected by IBD, also mentioning a few issues concerning the paediatric and adolescent populations. In particular, we reviewed the literature focusing on the definition and detection of non-adherence, on its extent and on the possible non-modifiable and modifiable factors involved (patient-centred, therapy-related, disease-related and physician-related). Furthermore, we analysed the interventional studies performed so far. The literature review was conducted through PubMed addressing medication non-adherence in IBD, using the keywords 'adherence' and related terms and 'IBD, ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease'. Expert commentary: Adherence to therapy for IBD is a complex yet fundamental issue that cannot be solved by addressing a single aspect only. Future studies should focus on patient-tailored and multidimensional interventions.

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.

Once daily vs multiple daily mesalamine therapy for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis

AIM

5-Aminosalicylic acid is the first-line drug for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). The most commonly used 5-aminosalicylic acid is mesalamine. Several systematic reviews have demonstrated that mesalamine is effective in inducing and maintaining remission. Efficacy, safety and adherence to once daily (OD) and multiple daily (MD) dosing of mesalamine for the induction and maintenance of remission in mild to moderate UC were systematically reviewed and compared.

METHOD

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to November 2014. Only randomized controlled trials were considered eligible. STATA software (version 12.0) was used to calculate the pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized studies containing 5439 patients were identified. No significant differences were noted in comparisons between OD and MD dosing for maintenance and induction of remission. No significant differences were noted in rates of medication adherence or adverse events between OD and MD dosing. With regard to mesalamine suppository, no significant differences were noted for comparisons between dosing regimens and adverse events for induction of remission.

CONCLUSION

OD dose of mesalamine is as effective and safe as MD doses for the induction and maintenance treatment of mild to moderate UC. OD mesalamine given as a suppository can attain the same effect and safety as MD mesalamine in inducing remission of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis.

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.

Budesonide Multi-matrix for the Treatment of Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic idiopathic inflammatory disorder in which patients cycle between active disease and remission. Budesonide multi-matrix (MMX) is an oral second-generation corticosteroid designed to deliver active drug throughout the colon. In pharmacokinetic studies, the mean relative absorption of budesonide in the region between the ascending colon and the descending/sigmoid colon was 95.9 %. In 2 identically designed, phase 3 studies (CORE I and II), budesonide MMX 9 mg once daily was efficacious and well tolerated for induction of remission of mild to moderate UC. Clinical and endoscopic remission rates were 17.9 % (CORE I) and 17.4 % (CORE II) for budesonide MMX 9 mg compared with 7.4 and 4.5 %, respectively, with placebo (p < 0.05, budesonide MMX 9 mg vs. placebo in both studies), 12.1 % with mesalamine 2.4 g, and 12.6 % with budesonide controlled ileal release capsules 9 mg. A 12-month maintenance therapy study suggested that budesonide MMX 6 mg may prolong time to clinical relapse: Median time was >1 year with budesonide MMX 6 mg versus 181 days (p = 0.02) with placebo; however, further studies are needed. In the CORE studies, budesonide MMX exhibited a favorable safety profile; the majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity, and serious adverse events were uncommon. Furthermore, rates of potential glucocorticoid-related adverse events were comparable across treatment groups. The long-term (12-month) safety of budesonide MMX appears to be comparable with placebo. Data support budesonide MMX in the management algorithm of UC.

New Applications for Traditional Drugs in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: What Do Cochrane Reviews Tell Us?

Although multiple innovative treatments of inflammatory bowel disease have become available, research continues to refine the value of existing drug therapies for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. What can Cochrane reviews tell us about evolving applications for traditional agents in inflammatory bowel disease? A Cochrane Collaboration symposium held at the 2014 Digestive Diseases Week annual meeting addressed this question. This article reviews the data presented at that session.

Practical strategies for enhancing adherence to treatment regimen in inflammatory bowel disease

Promoting adherence to treatment among pediatric and adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a critical yet challenging task for health care providers. Several existing interventions to enhance adherence among individuals with IBD offer useful information about practical strategies to enhance adherence. The current review article has 3 goals. First, the review provides a context for understanding treatment regimen adherence in IBD by reviewing key definitional, measurement, and conceptual challenges in this area. Next, published studies focused on interventions to enhance adherence in IBD are briefly summarized, followed by a synthesis of practical adherence promotion strategies for use in IBD by health care providers. Strategies are distinguished by the level of evidence supporting their utility as well as by age group. Finally, recommendations for future research to facilitate the development and implementation of practical, evidence-based strategies for adherence promotion in IBD are provided. Findings from the literature review suggest that strategies including education, regimen simplification, and use of reminder systems and organizational strategies (e.g., pill boxes) are likely to be best suited for addressing accidental nonadherence. In contrast, addressing motivational issues, teaching problem-solving skills, and addressing problematic patterns of family functioning are more likely to benefit individuals displaying intentional nonadherence.

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 January 20, 2012) was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized controlled 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 relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention to treat basis.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies (8127 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. Eight studies were rated at high risk of bias. Six of these studies were single-blind and two studies were open-label. However, the 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 (7 studies, 2826 patients; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.03). Fourteen per cent of patients in the once daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 11% of patients in the conventional dosing group (5 studies, 1161 patients; RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.63). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Thirty-eight per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group relapsed compared to 37% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (5 studies, 457 patients; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.80 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 0.72; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.13). 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.

One-year investigator-blind randomized multicenter trial comparing Asacol 2.4 g once daily with 800 mg three times daily for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Mesalazine (Asacol) is still widely prescribed in divided doses for ulcerative colitis (UC), despite evidence that adherence is improved by once-daily (OD) prescribing. We aimed to investigate whether OD Asacol was as effective as three times (TDS) daily dosing, and to evaluate the role of treatment adherence.

METHODS

An investigator-blind randomized trial was undertaken comparing OD Asacol (three 800 mg tablets) versus one 800 mg TDS in maintenance of remission of UC over 1 year. The primary endpoint was relapse rate, and noninferiority would be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportions relapsing (TDS-OD) exceeded -10%. Adherence was measured by tablet counts and self-reported adherence. A subgroup of patients used a bottle cap that recorded all bottle opening events.

RESULTS

In all, 213 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, relapse rates were 31% (95% CI 22%-40%) in the OD and 45% (95% CI 35%-54%) in the TDS group. Primary analysis confirmed the noninferiority of OD dosing. Two of the study populations, ITT and per-protocol (PP), showed potential superiority of OD dosing. All measures of adherence showed that it was significantly better in the OD group. Multivariate analysis, however, showed OD dosing was associated with lower relapse risk independently of adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

OD dosing with Asacol 2.4 g is as safe and effective as TDS dosing, and secondary analysis confirmed significantly reduced relapse rates. The benefit, however, was clinically borderline and may relate in part to ease of adherence.

Long-term oral mesalazine adherence and the risk of disease flare in ulcerative colitis: nationwide 10-year retrospective cohort from the veterans affairs healthcare system

BACKGROUND

Adherence is a major factor in determining disease activity in ulcerative colitis (UC). There are limited data on long-term nationwide adherence levels among patients with UC.

AIM

To evaluate the long-term adherence levels to oral mesalazine (mesalamine) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system, to determine the impact of non-adherence on the risk of flares, and to evaluate the different pharmacy data-based adherence indicators.

METHODS

Nationwide data were obtained from the VA for the period 2001-2011. UC patients who started mesalazine maintenance during the inclusion period were included. Level of adherence was assessed using three different indicators: medication possession ratio (MPR), continuous single-interval medication availability (CSA) and continuous multiple-interval medication gaps (CMG). Cox regression modelling was used to predict disease flares and assess the predictive value of each adherence indicator.

RESULTS

We included 13 062 patients into the analysis with median follow-up time of 6.1 years. Percentage of patients with high adherence was 47%, 43%, 31% as identified by CSA, MPR and CMG respectively. Low adherers had a significant increase in the risk of flares compared with high adherers (Hazard ratio: 2.8, 1.7 and 1.8, P < 0.001 for CSA, MPR and CMG, respectively). Compared with other adherence indicators, CSA offered the best trend in predicting disease flares.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term high-adherence level was lower than previously reported. Adherence was a significant factor in predicting disease flares. Pharmacy adherence indicators may be useful to healthcare providers in identifying patients at high risk of exacerbations.

Once daily oral mesalamine compared to conventional dosing for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We systematically reviewed and compared the efficacy and safety of once daily (OD) mesalamine to conventional dosing for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis (UC). A literature search to January 2012 identified all applicable randomized trials. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The GRADE criteria were used to assess the overall quality of the evidence. Studies were subgrouped by formulation for meta-analysis. Eleven studies that evaluated 4070 patients were identified. The risk of bias was low for most factors, although five studies were single-blind and one was open-label. No difference was observed between the dosing strategies in the proportion of patients with clinical remission (relative risk [RR] 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.10), clinical improvement (RR 0.87 95% CI 0.68-1.10), or relapse at 6 (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.83-1.46) or 12 months (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.83-1.03). Subgroup analyses showed no important differences in efficacy. No significant difference was demonstrated in rates of medication adherence or adverse events between OD and conventional dosing. OD mesalamine appears to be as effective and safe as conventional dosing for both the treatment of mild to moderately active UC and for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC. The failure to demonstrate a superior rate of adherence to OD dosing may be due to the high rate of adherence observed in the clinical trials environment. Future research should assess the value of OD dosing in community settings.

Mesalazine granules 1.5 g once-daily maintain remission in patients with ulcerative colitis who switch from other 5-ASA formulations: a pooled analysis from two randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Mesalazine (mesalamine) granules (MG) were shown to be effective for the maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis (UC) in two double-blind placebo-controlled trials.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of once-daily MG for maintenance of remission in patients with UC who switched from other 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) formulations.

METHODS

Data from two independent multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-month trials evaluating patients with UC in remission were combined for analysis of a subpopulation of patients who switched from other 5-ASA formulations to MG 1.5 g or placebo upon randomisation. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who remained relapse-free at Month 6 or end of treatment. Relapse was defined as a Sutherland Disease Activity Index (SDAI) rectal bleeding score ≥1 and mucosal appearance score ≥2, a UC flare or medication used to treat a UC flare.

RESULTS

Of the 487 patients who received 5-ASA maintenance therapy at enrolment, 322 were in the MG group and 165 were in the placebo group. The percentage of patients who remained relapse-free (based on Sutherland Disease Activity Index scores) after 6 months was significantly higher with MG than placebo (78.3% vs. 58.8%, P < 0.001). Rectal bleeding, stool frequency and the physician's rating of disease activity remained unchanged after 6 months in a higher percentage of patients using MG compared with those on placebo (P < 0.004 for each endpoint).

CONCLUSION

Mesalazine granules 1.5 g once-daily is effective for maintenance of remission in UC patients who switch from other 5-ASA formulations. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT00744016, NCT00767728.

Can oral 5-aminosalicylic acid be administered once daily in the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis? A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Several trials have demonstrated that oral delayed-release mesalamine might be administered once daily. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to investigate this.

METHODS

A comprehensive and multiple-source literature search was carried out. Only randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) were investigated by comparing a once daily-dosing regime with a divided (twice or thrice daily)-dosing regime of oral delayed-release mesalamine formulations for induction or maintenance of remission in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. The quality of RCTs was assessed using the Jadad scores. Meta-analysis of pooled odds ratios was carried out using Review Manager 5.1.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs were finally included. With regard to meta-analyses for induction trials, there were no significant differences for all comparisons between the once daily and the divided groups, including maintenance of just clinical remission (P=0.52) and just endoscopic remission (P=0.23), maintenance of combined clinical and endoscopic remission (P=0.78), and the overall incidence of adverse events (P=0.61). With regard to meta-analyses for maintenance trials, there were also no significant differences for all comparisons between once daily and divided groups, including maintenance of just clinical remission (P=0.73) and just endoscopic remission (P=0.43), maintenance of combined clinical and endoscopic remission (P=0.43), the overall incidence of adverse events (P=0.12) as well as compliance with the prescribed medication (P=0.34).

CONCLUSION

The present work showed that oral delayed-release mesalazine administered as a single or a divided dose demonstrated a good safety profile, which was well tolerated and effective as either maintenance or induction treatment. High clinical and/or endoscopic remission rates can be achieved with once-daily dosing.

Once-daily versus multiple-daily mesalamine for patients with ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the efficacy and safety of once-daily (OD) mesalamine for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) compared with multiple-daily (MD) mesalamine.

METHODS

Electronic databases up to July 2011 were searched for related studies evaluating the efficacy of OD vs MD for treatment of UC. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered eligible. Remission rates or relapse rates were analyzed using intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Publication bias was assessed with a funnel plot.

RESULTS

Overall 10 RCTs including 9 full-text manuscripts and one abstract met the inclusion criteria. OD dosing of mesalamine was shown to be as effective as MD dosing for the maintenance of clinical remission in patients with quiescent UC (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.89-1.12) by ITT analysis. For active UC, a mild but significant benefit was achieved by OD dosing compared with MD dosing (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-0.99). Total adverse events were similar using OD and MD mesalamine in quiescent UC (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.93-1.20). Compliance with OD was slightly better than with MD (RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.82-1.03).

CONCLUSIONS

OD mesalamine is as effective and has a comparable safety profile as MD regimens for the maintenance treatment of UC, and is even more effective for inducing remission in active UC.

Patient preferences for first-line oral treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: a discrete-choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) frequently require long-term therapy to prevent relapse. Treatments such as 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA [mesalazine]) are efficacious and well tolerated, but adherence to treatment is often poor.

OBJECTIVE

This discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to estimate differences in patient preferences for 5-ASA treatment in mild-to-moderate UC based on levels of self-reported adherence. Inclusion of patients residing in the US, UK, Germany, and Canada allowed for assessment of possible cultural differences in patient preferences.

METHODS

DCE attributes were determined through literature review, clinician consultation, and patient interviews. Six treatment attributes were identified: ease of swallowing, time of day, quantity, extent of flare resolution, likelihood of flare occurrence, and cost. A total of 400 patients in four countries completed the DCE and adherence (Modified Morisky Scale) surveys. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations to estimate patient preference and willingness to pay (WTP) by levels of self-reported adherence and country of residence.

RESULTS

All attributes had expected polarity and were significant predictors of patient preference. Self-reported 'good' versus 'poor' adherers significantly preferred symptom control (p = 0.0108) and mucosal healing (p = 0.0190) attributes. All patients stated preference for symptom control/mucosal healing and flare risk attributes; the latter attribute was significantly preferred across all countries. Country differences in patient preference for convenience versus clinical attributes were found. Overall, patients were willing to pay £29.24 ($US46.27) per month for symptom control and mucosal healing, and an additional £78.81 ($US124.70) per month for reduction in flare risk to 10% per year (WTP costs were equalized between each country using the published 2008 purchasing power parity). Those with flares in the past year significantly preferred avoiding future flares (p < 0.0001) versus other attributes, as well as lower risk of flares (10%, likelihood ratio: 0.64-0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that self-reported adherers to UC therapy have a stronger preference for clinical benefits over other treatment attributes, suggesting that positive patient assessment of effectiveness may influence adherence. Ongoing clinician assessment of patient preferences for treatment attributes, as well as education on the importance of adherence, may help improve treatment outcomes in UC.

A phase I study of veliparib in combination with metronomic cyclophosphamide in adults with refractory solid tumors and lymphomas

PURPOSE

Oral administration of the alkylating agent cyclophosphamide at low doses, metronomic dosing, is well tolerated, with efficacy in multiple tumor types. PARP inhibition potentiates effects of cyclophosphamide in preclinical models. We conducted a phase I trial of the PARP inhibitor veliparib and metronomic cyclophosphamide in patients with refractory solid tumors and lymphoid malignancies.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Objectives were to establish the safety and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination; characterize veliparib pharmacokinetics (PK); measure poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR), a product of PARP, in tumor biopsies and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC); and measure the DNA-damage marker γH2AX in PBMCs and circulating tumor cells (CTC). Cyclophosphamide was administered once daily in 21-day cycles in combination with veliparib administered once daily for 7, 14, or 21 days.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were enrolled. The study treatment was well tolerated, and the MTD was established as veliparib 60 mg with cyclophosphamide 50 mg given once daily. Seven patients had partial responses; an additional six patients had disease stabilization for at least six cycles. PAR was significantly decreased in PBMCs (by at least 50%) and tumor biopsies (by at least 80%) across dose levels (DL); γH2AX levels were increased in CTCs from seven of nine patients evaluated after drug administration.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of veliparib with metronomic cyclophosphamide is well tolerated and shows promising activity in a subset of patients with BRCA mutations. A phase II trial of the combination compared with single-agent cyclophosphamide is ongoing in BRCA-positive ovarian cancer, triple-negative breast cancer, and low-grade lymphoma.

Update on the management of ulcerative colitis

The treatment options for inflammatory bowel disease have expanded with the introduction of biological therapies. Recently published controlled clinical trials were searched and those that impact the clinical management of ulcerative colitis (UC) are discussed in this review. In the management of mild to moderate UC, mesalamine still remains the first choice of drug. The newly developed once daily formulations have shown equal efficacy to divided doses and possibly portend better compliance owing to a simplified regimen. In outpatients with moderate to severe UC, recent data indicate that infliximab induced and maintained remission leads to decreased colectomy rates and fewer hospitalizations. An alternative anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agent, adalimumab, was also recently shown to be effective for induction of remission in moderate to severe UC. The use of immunosuppressives, such as azathioprine and mercaptopurine, is associated with decreased colectomy rates and thioguanine was shown to be effective in maintaining clinical remission in those who are intolerant to azathioprine/mercaptopurine. In hospitalized patients with steroid resistant severe UC, infliximab and tacrolimus may be alternatives to cyclosporine in those who are otherwise candidates for colectomy. Adequate long-term maintenance therapy with immunosuppressives or anti-TNF therapy is required after rescue therapy for a sustained benefit. Future research is needed to position the available anti-TNF agents and combined immunosuppressive therapy in the treatment of UC to achieve and maintain steroid free remission.

Clinical impact and drivers of non-adherence to maintenance medication for inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) require maintenance medication to sustain remission and as a prophylaxis against the development of colorectal dysplasia. Non-adherence can compromise the effectiveness of treatment plans.

AREAS COVERED

Depending on study cohort and country, 7 - 72% of IBD patients do not adhere to maintenance medication plans. Non-adherence is associated with an increased number of flares and increased healthcare utilization costs. Several factors, such as experiencing side effects and demographic, socioeconomic, disease-specific and psychological variables have been associated with non-adherence in IBD. Data on demographic, socioeconomic and disease-specific variables are inconsistent, while data on psychological distress, patients' beliefs about medication and discordant doctor-patient relationships are more consistently associated with non-adherence. There has been a change towards investigation of modifiable factors for non-adherence in the recent literature.

EXPERT OPINION

Currently, there is no simple and effective intervention to improve adherence to IBD maintenance medication. Anxiety, beliefs about medicines and the doctor-patient relationship are promising targets for interventions, but require further study.

Research of the quality of life of patients with ulcerative colitis: current status and future prospects

Since there is a currently increasing incidence of ulcerative colitis (UC) in China, the research of the quality of life (QOL) of UC patients is of great significance. UC influences many aspects of patients' QOL, including physical functions, psychological functions, social relationship, and emotional functions. There are generic and specific instruments available for the estimation of the QOL of UC patients, and the combination of them can be more informative. Compared to abundant findings obtained in developed countries, the research of the QOL of UC patients is still in infancy stage in China. Therefore, it is essential to conduct extensive research of the QOL of UC patients to improve the efficacy of possible interventions.

The role of self-efficacy in inflammatory bowel disease management: preliminary validation of a disease-specific measure

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) require self-management skills that may be influenced by self-efficacy (SE). Self-efficacy represents an individual's perception of his or her ability to organize and execute the behaviors necessary to manage disease. The goal of this study was to develop a valid and reliable measure of IBD-specific SE that can be used in clinical and research contexts.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-two adults with a verified IBD diagnosis participated in the study. Data were pooled from 2 sources: patients from an outpatient university gastroenterology clinic (n=42) and a sample of online respondents (n=80). All participants (N=122) completed the IBD Self-Efficacy Scale (IBD-SES) and the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire. Additionally, online participants completed the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, whereas those in the clinic sample completed the Perceived Health Competence Scale, the Perceived Stress Questionnaire, and the Short Form Version 2 Health Survey.

RESULTS

The IBD-SES was initially constructed to identify 4 distinct theoretical domains of self-efficacy: (1) managing stress and emotions, (2) managing medical care, (3) managing symptoms and disease, and (4) maintaining remission. The 29-item IBD-SES has high internal consistency (r=0.96), high test-retest reliability (r=0.90), and demonstrates strong construct and concurrent validity with established measures.

CONCLUSIONS

The IBD-SES is a critical first step toward addressing an important psychological construct that could influence treatment outcomes in IBD.

Review article: understanding adherence to medication in ulcerative colitis - innovative thinking and evolving concepts

BACKGROUND

Non-adherence to medication is an important challenge in the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). Epidemiological studies have demonstrated that non-adherence affects 40-60% of UC patients, and has a substantial impact on the course of the disease. In one study, non-adherence was associated with a five-fold increase in the risk of relapse.

AIM

We review factors contributing to non-adherence to UC therapy, and emerging concepts in addressing the problem.

METHODS

A search of the published literature on adherence to medication, combined with the authors' knowledge of the field.

RESULTS

Adherence is a complex, multifactorial issue, with factors varying between patients and changing over time. Identifying patients at risk of non-adherence is a key first step in targeting interventions to improve adherence. However, investigations of single factors that affect adherence have provided conflicting evidence. Evaluating physical and perceptual barriers to adherence, and acknowledging the role of patients' beliefs and concerns regarding treatment provide valuable insights into the causes of non-adherence. This allows development of targeted interventions to improve adherence to UC therapy. Clinical tools to identify patients at risk of non-adherence are being developed to facilitate this approach.

CONCLUSIONS

To help patients adhere better to maintenance therapy for UC, it is vital to consider patients' beliefs and concerns, and to evaluate and address both physical and perceptual barriers to adherence.

Clinical trial: once-daily mesalamine granules for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis - a 6-month placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic relapsing and remitting idiopathic inflammatory bowel disorder.

AIM

To evaluate once-daily mesalamine (mesalazine) granules (MG) for maintenance of remission of UC.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients (n=209 MG, n=96 placebo) with UC in remission [revised Sutherland Disease Activity Index (SDAI) rectal bleeding=0, mucosal appearance <2] who took MG 1.5 g or placebo once-daily for up to 6 months. Primary efficacy endpoint: the percentage of patients who remained relapse-free at month 6/end of treatment. Relapse was defined as SDAI rectal bleeding score ≥1 and a mucosal appearance score ≥2, a UC flare, or initiation of medication to treat a UC flare.

RESULTS

The percentage of relapse-free patients at month 6/end of treatment was higher with MG than placebo (78.9% vs. 58.3%, P < 0.001) in the intent-to-treat analysis. Significant differences (P ≤ 0.025) favouring MG were observed for most secondary endpoints including improvement in rectal bleeding, physician's disease activity rating, stool frequency, the SDAI at month 6/end of treatment, patients classified as a treatment success and relapse-free duration. The incidence of adverse events was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily mesalamine (mesalazine) was effective in maintaining remission of UC for 6 months.

Best practice in the management of mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis and achieving maintenance of remission using mesalazine

Optimizing treatment goals in ulcerative colitis requires recognizing the needs of patients. It is increasingly recognized that adapting treatment strategies aligned with patient needs can improve patient compliance and consequently minimize relapse rates. Tailoring of treatment strategies can improve not only patient quality of life, and decrease the number harmed by adverse events from more potent drugs, but can also save valuable healthcare costs by avoiding high-cost treatment interventions associated with acute ulcerative colitis. This review will consider several elements of mesalazine management from the patient perspective based on a range of clinical and patient-focused evidence. By highlighting patient preferences in disease management it is envisaged that this review will aid physicians to optimize treatment decisions with the different mesalazine preparations available.

Impact of a patient-support program on mesalamine adherence in patients with ulcerative colitis--a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Patient adherence to medications, particularly mesalamine, is reported to be low in patients with ulcerative colitis. We sought to determine whether a nurse-delivered patient-support program could improve medication adherence in these patients.

METHODS

Patients prescribed mesalamine for ulcerative colitis prospectively received either a 23 week, nurse-delivered, patient support program (PSP) by phone, or standard care (SC). Medication adherence and quality of life were measured before and at 3 and 6 months after the program started.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients completed the study; 60 who received standard care, and 21 who received the PSP. Patients were in remission (mean SCAI score 3) at enrollment. Mean % of prescribed mesalamine refilled was 71% and 74% in the SC and PSP groups at 3 months (p=0.7), and 73% and 84% at 6 months (p=0.4). The proportion of adherent patients at 3 months (39% vs 44%, p=0.7) and 6 months (50% vs 67%, p=0.3) were similar between the SC and PSP groups. There was no association between use of the PSP and adherence at 3 (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.4 to 3.8) or 6 months (OR 2, 95% CI 0.6 to 7). The change from baseline in SIBDQ scores were similar between SC and PSP groups at 3 months (+0.3 vs +0.2, p=0.8), and 6 months (+0.6 vs +0.2, p=0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

This nurse-delivered patient-support program did not significantly improve medication adherence or quality-of-life beyond standard care at short and medium-term time-points. Simply discussing and measuring adherence improved mesalamine adherence in both groups in this study.

Once-daily dosing of delayed-release oral mesalamine (400-mg tablet) is as effective as twice-daily dosing for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The practice of dosing mesalamines in divided doses for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) began with sulfasalazine and was driven by sulfapyridine toxicity. This convention and the assumption that dosing multiple times a day is necessary to treat UC had not been challenged until recently. This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of delayed-release mesalamine (Asacol 400-mg tablets) compared with twice-daily dosing for maintaining remission in UC patients.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, investigator-blinded, 12-month, active-control trial was conducted to assess the noninferiority of delayed-release mesalamine 1.6-2.4 g/day administered once daily compared with twice daily in patients with mild-to-moderate UC currently in clinical remission. The primary end point was maintenance of clinical remission at month 6.

RESULTS

A total of 1023 patients were randomized and dosed. The primary objective of noninferiority was met. At month 6, 90.5% of patients receiving once-daily dosing had maintained clinical remission, compared with 91.8% of patients receiving twice-daily dosing (95% confidence interval for twice daily - once daily, -2.3 to 4.9). At month 12, 85.4% of patients receiving once-daily dosing had maintained clinical remission, compared with 85.4% of patients receiving twice-daily dosing (95% confidence interval for twice daily - once daily, -4.6 to 4.7). Both regimens had low rates of withdrawals as a result of adverse events and serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily dosing of delayed-release mesalamine at doses of 1.6-2.4 g/day was shown to be as effective as twice-daily dosing for maintenance of clinical remission in patients with UC.

Factors associated with non-adherence to oral medication for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Adherence is generally associated with improved treatment outcomes. Risk factors for non-adherence must be understood to improve adherence. A systematic review was undertaken to determine which variables were consistently associated with non-adherence to oral medication in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

The databases EMBASE, Medline, and PsycINFO were searched for titles relating to adherence, medication, and IBD (1980-2008). Primary, quantitative studies were included if they concerned adult patients with IBD, measured adherence to oral medication, and measured characteristics associated with adherence. The resulting 17 papers were independently reviewed by two researchers who also assessed their quality according to pre-defined criteria. The main outcome was the frequency with which demographic, clinical, treatment, and psychosocial variables were found to be statistically significantly associated with non-adherence.

RESULTS

Non-adherence rates ranged from 7 to 72%, with most studies reporting that 30-45% of patients were non-adherent. No demographic, clinical, or treatment variables were consistently associated with non-adherence. Psychological distress and patients' beliefs about medications were both related to non-adherence in four out of five studies, and doctor-patient discordance was associated with non-adherence in two out of three studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest review of factors associated with non-adherence in IBD. Demographic, clinical, and treatment variables were not consistently associated with non-adherence. Psychological distress, patients' beliefs about medications, and doctor-patient discordance were associated with non-adherence. These findings call into question some of the conclusions of earlier reviews that did not take into account nonsignificant findings. Practical suggestions for gastroenterologists and future research are discussed.

Clinical trial: ulcerative colitis maintenance treatment with 5-ASA: a 1-year, randomized multicentre study comparing MMX with Asacol

BACKGROUND

5-ASA-MMX (1.2 g/tablet) is a 5-aminosalicylic acid formulation, designed for once-daily dosing in the treatment of ulcerative colitis.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA-MMX (2.4 g/day, once daily), compared with Asacol (2.4 g/day, twice daily) in the maintenance of left-sided UC, through a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, randomized, comparator study.

METHODS

In all, 331 patients with UC were randomized to receive either 5-ASA-MMX 2.4 g/day, once daily, or Asacol 2.4 g/day, twice daily, for 12 months. All patients were in remission for >or=1 month prior to the trial, with >or=1 documented relapse in the previous year. The co-primary endpoints of this study were the proportion of patients in clinical, and clinical and endoscopic remission following 12 months' treatment.

RESULTS

In the intent-to-treat population, excluding those with major protocol deviations, 68.0 and 65.9% patients in the 5-ASA-MMX and Asacol groups, respectively, were in clinical remission (P = 0.69), and 60.9 and 61.7% of patients, respectively, were in clinical and endoscopic remission (P = 0.89). Diary card data revealed statistically significant treatment differences favouring 5-ASA-MMX. Both treatments were similarly tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily 5-ASA-MMX is similarly effective with a comparable safety profile to Asacol administered twice daily, for the maintenance treatment of ulcerative colitis.

Mesalamine once daily is more effective than twice daily in patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Oral mesalamine (5-aminosalicylate) is the current standard of care for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. We investigated the efficacy and safety of once daily administration of prolonged-release mesalamine granules in maintenance of remission in patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis, compared with the well established twice daily dosing regimen.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, single blind, noninferiority trial, 362 patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups that were given oral mesalamine 2 g, once daily, or 1 g, twice daily, for 12 months. The primary objective was to compare remission rates at 1 year, based on the ulcerative colitis disease activity index score, using Kaplan-Meier methodology.

RESULTS

At 1 year, 70.9% of the group given 2 g mesalamine once daily remained in remission vs 58.9% of the group given 1 g mesalamine twice daily; this difference was statistically significant (P = .024), indicating the increased efficacy of once daily, compared with twice daily, dosing. Self-reported adherence to therapy, measured by visual analog scale score after 4, 8, and 12 months, was significantly greater in the group given 2 g mesalamine once daily, compared with twice daily, at all but 1 study visit (P < .05). Compliance measured by medication taken was not significantly different between the groups. The difference between the 2 groups in overall incidence of adverse events was not statistically significant (P = .23).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ulcerative colitis given prolonged-release oral mesalamine 2 g once daily had better remission rates, acceptability, and self-reported adherence to therapy compared with patients given oral mesalamine 1 g twice daily.

Treatment of ulcerative colitis from the patient's perspective: a survey of preferences and satisfaction with therapy

BACKGROUND

Data available regarding patient perspectives on ulcerative colitis (UC) and their preferences and satisfaction with therapy are limited.

AIMS

To examine the preferences of UC patients to understand better what they look for in a therapy when managing their disease, as this may influence overall medication adherence.

METHODS

The study surveyed 100 Canadian UC patients on topics including educational resources used to learn about the disease, medication attributes that are most valued and preferred by the patient and satisfaction with current therapy.

RESULTS

Overall, efficacy- and safety-related medication attributes were rated by patients to be more important than those related to dosing regimen (e.g. dosing frequency, number of pills), cost and formulary coverage. In pair-wise comparisons of specific medication attributes, UC patients rated speed of symptom relief and few side effects as the most important factors when considering a UC medication (preferred on average 84% and 74% of the time respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study provides insight into UC patient preferences and satisfaction with therapy that may be important when counselling on treatment options, and generates relevant discussions on adherence. Larger studies may be warranted to examine further how these findings can be extrapolated to broader UC populations.

Systematic review: impact of non-adherence to 5-aminosalicylic acid products on the frequency and cost of ulcerative colitis flares

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative colitis (UC) can be maintained in remission with 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) medications, but frequent non-adherence by patients who are feeling well has been associated with more frequent flares of colitis.

AIM

To perform a systematic review of the published literature and unpublished randomized clinical trials (RCTs) regarding the impact of non-adherence with 5-ASA medications on the incidence of UC flares and costs of care.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane databases was performed. Prospective studies of UC maintenance with 5-ASAs in adults were selected if they included data on adherence and disease flares. Studies using insurance claims data to estimate the impact of non-adherence on cost of care were included. Data from unpublished RCTs were obtained from the FDA with a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

RESULTS

The relative risk for flare in non-adherent vs. adherent patients ranged from 3.65 to infinity. Data were obtained from six unpublished 5-ASA RCTs, but none measured the impact of adherence on disease activity. The comorbidity-adjusted annual costs of care in adherent patients were 12.5% less than in non-adherent patients, despite increased medication expenditures.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of UC flares and medical costs of UC are attributable to 5-ASA non-adherence. As non-adherence to 5-ASA medications is common, cost-effective strategies to improve adherence are needed. The impact of adherence on disease activity should be measured in RCTs of all inflammatory bowel disease treatments.