Once-daily dosing vs. conventional dosing schedule of mesalamine and relapse of quiescent ulcerative colitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Common Mistakes in Managing Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Introduction: Errors are very common in medical practice and in particular, in the healthcare of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); however, most of these can be prevented. Aim: To address common errors in the management of IBD. Methods: Our approach to this problem consists in identifying mistakes frequently observed in clinical practice (according to our experience) in the management of patients with IBD, then reviewing the scientific evidence available on the subject, and finally proposing the most appropriate recommendation for each case. Results: The most common mistakes in the management of IBD include those related to diagnosis and differential diagnosis, prevention, nutrition and diet, treatment with different drugs (mainly 5-aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, thiopurines, and anti-TNF agents), extraintestinal manifestations, anemia, elderly patients, pregnancy, and surgery. Conclusions: Despite the availability of guidelines for both disease management and preventive aspects of IBD care, a considerable variation in clinical practice still remains. In this review, we have identified common mistakes in the management of patients with IBD in clinical practice. There is a clear need for a greater dissemination of clinical practice guidelines among gastroenterologists and for the implementation of ongoing training activities supported by scientific societies. Finally, it is desirable to follow IBD patients in specialized units, which would undoubtedly be associated with higher-quality healthcare and a lower likelihood of errors in managing these patients.

Overcoming barriers to patient adherence: the case for developing innovative drug delivery systems

Poor medication adherence is a pervasive issue with considerable health and socioeconomic consequences. Although the underlying reasons are generally understood, traditional intervention strategies rooted in patient-centric education and empowerment have proved to be prohibitively complex and/or ineffective. Formulating a pharmaceutical in a drug delivery system (DDS) is a promising alternative that can directly mitigate many common impediments to adherence, including frequent dosing, adverse effects and a delayed onset of action. Existing DDSs have already positively influenced patient acceptability and improved rates of adherence across various disease and intervention types. The next generation of systems have the potential to instate an even more radical paradigm shift by, for example, permitting oral delivery of biomacromolecules, allowing for autonomous dose regulation and enabling several doses to be mimicked with a single administration. Their success, however, is contingent on their ability to address the problems that have made DDSs unsuccessful in the past.

Review article: safety of new biologic agents for inflammatory bowel disease in the liver

New biologic agents (vedolizumab, ustekinumab and tofacitinib) represent an effective treatment for inflammatory bowel diseases and have been recently approved. However, with a rapidly evolving complement of advanced targeted therapies, new concerns about their potentially undesirable effects on liver function emerge. In particular, little is known about safety data in patients with hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus chronic infections, cirrhosis and in transplanted patients who are accumulating. In addition, these new agents have also been associated with drug-induced liver injury. Limited data on the efficacy of vedolizumab in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis are also available. This article reviews available data about hepatic safety concerns in patients receiving vedolizumab, ustekinumab and tofacitinib with and without preexistent hepatic diseases.

Optimising management strategies of inflammatory bowel disease in resource-limited settings in Asia

Over the 21st century, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has become a global disease with increasing prevalence reported in the Asian subcontinent as a result of rapid urbanisation, industrialisation, and westernisation of lifestyles. Although rates of surgery have shown a temporal decrease globally because of the increasing availability of new drugs and early initiation of effective therapy, health-care costs associated with IBD have continued to rise. The increase in IBD prevalence in resource-limited countries poses a substantial health-care burden. Drugs are not universally accessible or available. An optimised and practical management strategy of IBD in resource-limited countries in Asia is urgently needed. Special consideration should be made to balance the risk of undertreatment (and suboptimal disease control) because of financial constraints with the risk of overtreatment, which is associated with side-effects and costly therapeutics. In this Series paper, we summarise the current approach in optimising conventional therapies, use of other therapies, and de-escalation of biologics in low-resource settings in Asia. The long-term objective is to strive for more effective and affordable therapies with sustained durability of benefit.

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.

Trends and Characteristics of Clinical Trials Participation for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the United States: A Report From IBD Partners

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There are currently several recruitment challenges in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which prolong the drug approval process and affect the generalizability of study results. The purpose of this study is to characterize individuals who participate in IBD RCTs and identify factors that could influence future recruitment strategies.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study within the IBD Partners cohort comparing patients with current or prior participation in an RCT of medical therapy for IBD to those without any RCT participation. Bivariate statistics were used to compare RCT participation by IBD subtype and by other demographic and disease characteristics, and predictive modeling was used to identify factors predictive of RCT participation. We calculated the percent of the cohort that participated in an RCT during each calendar year from 2011 to 2018 and accessed Clinicaltrials.gov to determine the number of active RCTs for IBD therapies per year during that same period.

RESULTS

A total of 14,747 patients with IBD were included in the analysis and 1116 (7.6%) reported RCT participation at any time. Demographic factors predictive of RCT participation included following at an academic institution [odds ratio (OR) = 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51-2.04) and age 36-75 (OR = 1.7; 95% CI 1.46-1.92). Patients with Crohn's disease were more likely to participate than those with ulcerative colitis (OR = 1.5; 95% CI 1.35-1.77). Patients with more severe disease were more likely to participate, including those with prior IBD-related hospitalization (OR = 2.6; 95% CI 2.19-2.99), IBD-related surgery (OR = 2.5; 95% CI 2.24-2.87), biologic exposure (OR = 3.2; 95% CI 2.76-3.65), and "Poor" or worse quality of life (OR = 1.7; 95% CI 1.45-1.93). Steroid-free remission was associated with a lower likelihood of RCT participation (OR = 0.6; 95% CI 0.53-0.70). Although the number of active RCTs for IBD more than doubled between 2011 and 2018, RCT participation rates during that same time period decreased from 1.1% to 0.7% of the cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

RCT participation declined within this cohort. Groups underrepresented in RCTs for IBD included younger patients, patients followed in community settings, and patients with more mild disease. The non-RCT group had mean disease activity scores that did not meet remission thresholds, demonstrating populations in need of alternate therapies for whom clinical trials could be an option. Given anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) exposure rates in this national cohort, studies should focus on anti-TNF failure populations. Investigators should make every effort to offer RCTs to all patients and network with community providers to increase awareness of RCTs.

Anti-IL-12/23p40 antibodies for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Ustekinumab and briakinumab are monoclonal antibodies that target the standard p40 subunit of cytokines interleukin-12 and interleukin-23 (IL-12/23p40), which are involved in the pathogenesis of Crohn's disease (CD). A significant proportion of people with Crohn's disease fail conventional therapy or therapy with biologics (e.g. infliximab) or develop significant adverse events. Anti-IL-12/23p40 antibodies such as ustekinumab may be an effective alternative for these individuals.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to assess the efficacy and safety of anti-IL-12/23p40 antibodies for maintenance of remission in CD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers from inception to 17 September 2019. We searched references and conference abstracts for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion randomized controlled trials in which monoclonal antibodies against IL-12/23p40 were compared to placebo or another active comparator in participants with quiescent CD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. The primary outcome measure was failure to maintain clinical remission, defined as a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) of < 150 points. Secondary outcomes included failure to maintain clinical response, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), and withdrawals due to AEs. Clinical response was defined as a decrease in CDAI score of ≥ 100 points from baseline score. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. We analyzed all data on an intention-to-treat basis. We used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence supporting the outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (646 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Two trials assessed the efficacy of ustekinumab (542 participants), and one study assessed the efficacy of briakinumab (104 participants). We assessed all of the included studies as at low risk of bias. One study (N = 145) compared subcutaneous ustekinumab (90 mg) administered at 8 and 16 weeks compared to placebo. Fifty-eight per cent (42/72) of ustekinumab participants failed to maintain clinical remission at 22 weeks compared to 73% (53/73) of placebo participants (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.02; moderate-certainty evidence). Failure to maintain clinical response at 22 weeks was seen in 31% (22/72) of ustekinumab participants compared to 58% (42/73) of placebo participants (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence). One study (N = 388) compared subcutaneous ustekinumab (90 mg) administered every 8 weeks or every 12 weeks to placebo for 44 weeks. Forty-nine per cent (126/257) of ustekinumab participants failed to maintain clinical remission at 44 weeks compared to 64% (84/131) of placebo participants (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; moderate-certainty evidence). Forty-one per cent (106/257) of ustekinumab participants failed to maintain clinical response at 44 weeks compared to 56% (73/131) of placebo participants (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.91; moderate-certainty evidence). Eighty per cent (267/335) of ustekinumab participants had an AE compared to 84% (173/206) of placebo participants (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; high-certainty evidence). Commonly reported adverse events included infections, injection site reactions, CD event, abdominal pain, nausea, arthralgia, and headache. Eleven per cent of ustekinumab participants had an SAE compared to 16% (32/206) of placebo participants (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.15; moderate-certainty evidence). SAEs included serious infections, malignant neoplasm, and basal cell carcinoma. Seven per cent (5/73) of ustekinumab participants withdrew from the study due to an AE compared to 1% (1/72) of placebo participants (RR 4.93, 95% CI 0.59 to 41.18; low-certainty evidence). Worsening CD was the most common reason for withdrawal due to an AE. One study compared intravenous briakinumab (200 mg, 400 mg, or 700 mg) administered at weeks 12, 16, and 20 with placebo. Failure to maintain clinical remission at 24 weeks was seen in 51% (32/63) of briakinumab participants compared to 61% (22/36) of placebo participants (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.20; low-certainty evidence). Failure to maintain clinical response at 24 weeks was seen in 33% (21/63) of briakinumab participants compared to 53% (19/36) of placebo participants (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.02; low-certainty evidence). Sixty-six per cent (59/90) of briakinumab participants had an AE compared to 64% (9/14) of placebo participants (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.55; low-certainty evidence). Common AEs included upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, abdominal pain, headache, and injection site reaction. Two per cent (2/90) of briakinumab participants had an SAE compared to 7% (1/14) of placebo participants (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.21; low-certainty evidence). SAEs included small bowel obstruction, deep vein thrombosis, and respiratory distress. Withdrawal due to an AE was noted in 2% of briakinumab participants compared to 0% (0/14) of placebo participants (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.04 to 16.34; low-certainty evidence). The AEs leading to study withdrawal were not described.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that ustekinumab is probably effective for the maintenance of clinical remission and response in people with moderate to severe CD in remission without an increased risk of adverse events (high-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events (moderate-certainty evidence) relative to placebo. The effect of briakinumab on maintenance of clinical remission and response in people with moderate to severe Crohn's disease in remission was uncertain as the certainty of the evidence was low. The effect of briakinumab on adverse events and serious adverse events was also uncertain due to low-certainty evidence. Further studies are required to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of subcutaneous ustekinumab maintenance therapy in Crohn's disease and whether it should be used by itself or in combination with other agents. Future research comparing ustekinumab with other biologic medications will help to determine when treatment with ustekinumab in CD is most appropriate. Currently, there is an ongoing study that compares ustekinumab with adalimumab. This review will be updated when the results of this study become available. The manufacturers of briakinumab have stopped production of this medication, thus further studies of briakinumab are unlikely.

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

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

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

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

Induction and maintenance treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: A comprehensive review

Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) are the two major types of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We conducted a comprehensive review of meta-analyses to summarize the reported effectiveness of different drugs for IBD. We performed a literature search and a total of 110 meta-analyses from 66 articles were summarized and re-analyzed (62 in UC and 48 in CD). In summary, 5-ASA was more effective than placebo in both induction and maintenance treatment of UC, but there were conflicting results on the effect of 5-ASA on the induction treatment or relapse of CD. The use of immunomodulatory agents in the induction or maintenance phase of UC and CD using immunomodulators appeared to be more effective than placebo, but the results were impacted by small number of patients, discordant results with the largest study and risk of biases. Anti-TNF-α and anti-integrin therapeutic antibodies in both, induction and maintenance, showed a better efficacy than placebo in a large proportion of patients analyzed. Other agents, such as probiotics, antibiotics, omega-3, were shown to be more effective than placebo, but the same issues arose as stated above with the use of immunomodulatory agents. In conclusion, we performed a comprehensive review of meta-analysis on comparative efficacy of pharmacotherapy used in the management of IBD. Our review will augment our understanding of the treatment of UC and CD by providing a guideline for interpreting the statistically significant findings and discusses the optimal choice for IBD treatment.

Randomized, crossover questionnaire survey of acceptabilities of controlled-release mesalazine tablets and granules in ulcerative colitis patients

Background/Aims

Oral mesalazine is an important treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC), and non-adherence to mesalazine increases the risk of relapse. Controlled-release (CR) mesalazine has 2 formulations: tablets and granules. The relative acceptabilities of these formulations may influence patient adherence; however, they have not been compared to date. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptabilities of the 2 formulations of CR mesalazine in relation to patient adherence using a crossover questionnaire survey.

Methods

UC patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in each group took either 4 g of CR mesalazine tablets or granules for 6 to 9 weeks, and then switched to 4 g of the other formulation for a further 6 to 9 weeks. The acceptability and efficacy were evaluated by questionnaires, and adherence was assessed using a visual analog scale. The difference in acceptabilities between the 2 formulations and its impact on adherence were assessed.

Results

A total of 49 patients were prospectively enrolled and 33 patients were included in the analysis. Significantly more patients found the tablets to be less acceptable than the granules (76% vs. 33%, P=0.0005). The granules were preferable to the tablets when the 2 formulations were compared directly (73% vs. 21%, P=0.004), for their portability, size, and numbers of pills. The adherence rate was slightly better among patients taking the granules (94% vs. 91%) during the observation period, but the difference was not significant (P=0.139).

Conclusions

CR mesalazine granules are more acceptable than tablets, and may therefore be a better option for long-term medication.

Systematic review: safety of mesalazine in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Mesalazine is the most commonly prescribed medication for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. It is generally well tolerated with some reported side effects.

AIM

To summarise adverse drug events to mesalazine and recommend techniques for management. Furthermore, to determine if there is a dose-dependent relationship between high (>2.4 g/day) vs low dosing (≤2.4 g/day) and occurrence of adverse drug events.

METHODS

A literature search for relevant studies from inception to 1 December 2017 of the MEDLINE database was conducted. Two reviewers screened all titles identified. Data obtained from randomised controlled trials was used to estimate incidence rates of each adverse event. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological risk of bias and performed data extraction.

RESULTS

3581 articles were initially considered. Of these, 3573 were screened, 622 reviewed and 91 included. Adverse events attributed to mesalazine included inflammatory reactions, pancreatitis, cardiotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, musculoskeletal complaints, respiratory symptoms, nephropathies and sexual dysfunction. There does not appear to be a dose-dependent relationship of mesalazine and occurrence of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Patients on mesalazine should be monitored for worsening of ulcerative colitis and development of new onset organ dysfunction. High-dose mesalazine appears to have similar safety profile as low dose, and is not associated with greater risk of adverse events. Prior to placing a patient on mesalazine, baseline liver and renal function should be evaluated. Renal function should be periodically assessed, whereas other testing should be performed depending on development of symptoms.

Urinalysis of MMX-mesalazine as a tool to monitor 5-ASA adherence in daily IBD practice

Adherence is pivotal but challenging in ulcerative colitis (UC) treatment. Many methods to assess adherence are subjective or have limitations. (Nac-)5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) urinalysis by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) seems feasible and reproducible in healthy volunteers. We performed a prospective study in adult quiescent UC patients to evaluate the feasibility of spot (Nac-)5-ASA urinalysis by HPLC to assess adherence in daily inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care. Twenty-nine patients (51.7% male, mean age 52 ± 11 years) were included (median FU 9 months) and weekly spot urine samples were collected. We found large variation in spot (Nac-)5-ASA urinary excretion that was unrelated to brand, dosing schedule or dosage of 5-ASA. In conclusion, spot (Nac-)5-ASA urinalysis is not applicable to assess 5-ASA adherence in daily IBD care.

MMX® technology and its applications in gastrointestinal diseases

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

2.4 g Mesalamine (Asacol 400 mg tablet) Once Daily is as Effective as Three Times Daily in Maintenance of Remission in Ulcerative Colitis: A Randomized, Noninferiority, Multi-center Trial

BACKGROUND

The noninferiority of pH-dependent release mesalamine (Asacol) once daily (QD) to 3 times daily (TID) administration was investigated.

METHODS

This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-control study, with dynamic and stochastic allocation using central registration. Patients with ulcerative colitis in remission (a bloody stool score of 0, and an ulcerative colitis disease activity index of ≤2), received the study drug (Asacol 2.4 g/d) for 48 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint of the nonrecurrence rate was assessed on the full analysis set. The noninferiority margin was 10%.

RESULTS

Six hundred and four subjects were eligible and were allocated; 603 subjects received the study drug. The full analysis set comprised 602 subjects (QD: 301, TID: 301). Nonrecurrence rates were 88.4% in the QD and 89.6% in the TID. The difference between nonrecurrence rates was -1.3% (95% confidence interval: -6.2, 3.7), confirming noninferiority. No differences in the safety profile were observed between the two treatment groups. On post hoc analysis by integrating the QD and the TID, nonrecurrence rate with a mucosal appearance score of 0 at determination of eligibility was significantly higher than the score of 1. The mean compliance rates were 97.7% in the QD and 98.1% in the TID.

CONCLUSIONS

QD dosing with Asacol is as effective and safe as TID for maintenance of remission in patients with ulcerative colitis. Additionally, this study indicated that maintaining a good mucosal state is the key for longer maintenance of remission.

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.

What is the real-life maintenance mesalazine dose in ulcerative colitis?

OBJECTIVE

To describe how mesalazine (MSZ) is used in our practice in ulcerative colitis (UC), at what dose, and the success rate (regarding adherence to therapy).

METHODS

Observational, transversal study, including all patients with UC and with MSZ maintenance therapy seen from September 2014 to February 2015 at two IBD units in Spain. Treatment adherence was measured by the Morisky-Green scale.

RESULTS

We included 203 patients (mean MSZ dose: 2.6 ± 1.0 g/d; median of treatment: 19.5 months [IQR: 8-48]). Doses < 2 g/d were used in 15.3% of cases, 2-2.9 g/d doses in 35.0%, 3-3.9 doses in 29.5%, and ≥ 4 g/d doses in the remaining 20.2%. A single daily dose was preferred in 51.2% of cases, two doses in 33.0% and three doses in 15.8%. A different MSZ brand had been previously used in 36.6% of patients. In 134 cases (66%), the maintenance dose had been increased during a flare-up, and in 49 (36.6% of cases) this higher dose had been kept for maintenance (dose ≥ 4 g/d in 36 patients). During the MSZ therapy, 14 patients (6.9%) suffered mild side effects (21.4% altered liver function tests). Therapy adherence was good in 81.8% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Half of our UC patients take high MSZ doses (≥ 3 g/d) as maintenance therapy, with acceptable safety and good adherence. Half of all patients take a single daily dose, and one third needed a different commercial brand during therapy. Opting for a higher MSZ maintenance dose is a possible strategy for a satisfactory maintenance therapy.

Therapeutic challenges of managing inflammatory bowel disease in the elderly patient

INTRODUCTION

The rapid advancements in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have given clinicians many new therapeutic options. The prevalence of IBD in the elderly is increasing, and the role of these therapeutic agents in the elderly population with IBD is still uncertain.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we will highlight the challenges facing clinicians managing IBD in the elderly, the considerations to take when starting new medications, when to consider for surgical referral, the potential pitfalls to avoid, and the non-pharmacological management measures that clinicians should be aware of. Expert Commentary: The safety of prescribing new IBD medications in elderly patients must be taken into consideration. Managing comorbidities, polypharmacy, functional status and drug interactions can also be challenging and requires an individualized approach.

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.

Management of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) in children is increasing. The range of treatments available has also increased too but around 1 in 4 children still require surgery to control their disease. An up-to-date understanding of treatments is essential for all clinicians involved in the care of UC patients to ensure appropriate and timely treatment while minimising the risk of complications and side effects.

Mesalazine preparations for the treatment of ulcerative colitis: Are all created equal?

Oral mesalazine (also known as mesalamine) is a 5-aminosalicylic acid compound used in the treatment of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, with high rates of efficacy in induction and maintenance of remission. The therapeutic effect of mesalazine occurs topically at the site of diseased colonic mucosa. A myriad of oral mesalazine preparations have been formulated with various drug delivery methods to minimize systemic absorption and maximise drug availability at the inflamed colonic epithelium. It remains unclear whether different oral mesalazine formulations are bioequivalent. This review aims to evaluate the differences between mesalazine formulations based on the currently available literature and explore factors which may influence the selection of one agent above another.

Efficacy of a pH-dependent controlled-release mesalazine based on clinical and endoscopic assessment for ulcerative colitis: a retrospective cohort study

Background

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to clinically and endoscopically assess the efficacy of delayed-release mesalazine for ulcerative colitis.

Methods

The study included 104 ulcerative colitis patients (52 men, 52 women) initiated on treatment with delayed-release mesalazine between 2009 and 2012. The clinical symptoms at months 0, 1, and 12 were scored using the clinical activity index. An endoscopic index was also used to determine disease activity in 72 patients who underwent total colonoscopy before and after mesalazine treatment.

Results

The clinical activity index at months 0, 1, and 12 were 4.6±2.8, 3.4±1.8, and 2.8±1.4, respectively, decreasing with time after the start of mesalazine treatment (P<0.001). The endoscopic index decreased significantly from 4.5±3.2 before to 3.1±2.8 after the start of delayed-release mesalazine treatment in the mean follow-up period of 1.0±0.4 years (P<0.001).

Conclusion

Delayed-release mesalazine was confirmed to be effective both clinically and endoscopically.

Inflammatory bowel disease meta-evidence and its challenges: is it time to restructure surgical research?

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the methodological quality and input paper characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported in the medical and surgical literature by performing a systematic 'overview of reviews'. Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) were used as the framework for this comparison as they are relatively common serious conditions, with both medical and surgical options for therapy.

METHOD

Medline, Embase, CINHAL and the Cochrane Database were searched to November 2013. Eligible papers were systematic reviews or meta-analyses that considered a question of therapy in CD or UC. Two independent reviewers selected the papers, extracted the data and scored their methodology using the AMSTAR scoring system. The papers were categorized into medical therapy (M), surgical therapy (S) or medical and surgical therapy (MS) groups. Following retrieval of the sample of meta-evidence papers, the original input studies used in their creation were identified and a search of Medline, Embase, CINHAL and the Cochrane Database was performed. A team of researchers then examined the collection of papers for bibliographic and financial information.

RESULTS

Five hundred papers were identified in the meta-evidence search, of which 118 were deemed eligible. There was a difference in the AMSTAR-rated average quality of the papers between the S and M group (S 7.36 vs M 8.75, P = 0.01). On average S papers were published in journals with a lower impact factor (S 3.26, M 5.04, MS 5.30, P < 0.001). S papers also showed more heterogeneity (I(2) ; S 37%, M 24%, MS 10%, P < 0.001). Some 25% of S meta-analyses used data-sets with significant heterogeneity (I(2) > 75%), compared with 8% of M meta-analyses and 3% of the MS meta-analyses. Some 5% of S papers were done on data sets that had I(2) values > 90%. There was no difference in the average number of papers assessed in each group, the average number of patients per meta-paper, the average time covered by the reviews, the average number of papers considered within each meta-analysis, or the average number of patients considered within each meta-analysis. Considering the conclusions of each meta-analysis, S meta-evidence was 50% more likely than M meta-evidence to be unable to make recommendations for practice. A total of 1499 original input papers were identified, of which 283 were used in more than one review. Within the non-repeated papers (n = 1023) the average impact factor within the S group was lower than that of the M and the MS groups (3.720 vs 11.230 vs 7.563, respectively; ANOVAP < 0.001). M papers had higher rates of pharmaceutical sponsorship than S papers (M 56% vs S 1%) and twice the level of government support (M 16% vs S 8%). Of note, 21% of M papers had corporate sponsorship but did not list any conflict of interest.

CONCLUSION

Compared with M meta-analyses, S meta-analyses in the UC and CD domain are more likely to be of poorer methodological quality, are of a greater degree of heterogeneity and less often offer a positive conclusion. The papers used to generate meta-evidence in M papers have a greater degree of corporate and government sponsorship, and are more likely to come from journals with higher impact factors.

Clinical practice guidelines for the medical management of nonhospitalized ulcerative colitis: the Toronto consensus

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The medical management of ulcerative colitis (UC) has improved through the development of new therapies and novel approaches that optimize existing drugs. Previous Canadian consensus guidelines addressed the management of severe UC in the hospitalized patient. We now present consensus guidelines for the treatment of ambulatory patients with mild to severe active UC.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified studies on the management of UC. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Statements were developed through an iterative online platform and then finalized and voted on by a working group of specialists.

RESULTS

The participants concluded that the goal of therapy is complete remission, defined as both symptomatic and endoscopic remission without corticosteroid therapy. The consensus includes 34 statements focused on 5 main drug classes: 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA), corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies, and other therapies. Oral and rectal 5-ASA are recommended first-line therapy for mild to moderate UC, with corticosteroid therapy for those who fail to achieve remission. Patients with moderate to severe UC should undergo a course of oral corticosteroid therapy, with transition to 5-ASA, thiopurine, anti-TNF (with or without thiopurine or methotrexate), or vedolizumab maintenance therapy in those who successfully achieve symptomatic remission. For patients with corticosteroid-resistant/dependent UC, anti-TNF or vedolizumab therapy is recommended. Timely assessments of response and remission are critical to ensuring optimal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal management of UC requires careful patient assessment, evidence-based use of existing therapies, and thorough assessment to define treatment success.

Drug Management in the Elderly IBD Patient

OPINION STATEMENT

Managing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in a world of immunomodulators and biologics is complex enough, but managing the elderly IBD patient is further confounded by multiple comorbidities, polypharmacy with drug-drug interactions, and cognitive mobility/motility disturbances. Social and insurance coverage issues also always lurk in the background. All of these factors summate into a daunting challenge for the clinician. In this review, we aim to describe important considerations when prescribing to an elderly patient with IBD, taking into account costs of medications, drug interactions, the aging body's effect on pharmacokinetics, and the effect of aging on the immune system. Adverse effects and drug-drug interactions are expounded upon in detail specific for the aging adult with IBD in an effort to assist the clinician in the decision-making process.

Five-aminosalicylic Acid: an update for the reappraisal of an old drug

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) comprises several conditions with chronic or recurring immune response and inflammation of the gastrointestinal apparatus, of which ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the commonest forms. This disease has a significant prevalence and it is of an unknown aethiology. Five-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) and its derivatives are among the oldest drugs approved for the treatment of the IBD. In this review we reapprise aspects of 5-ASA mechanism of action, safety, and efficacy that in our opinion make it a valuable drug that can be fruitfully tailored in personalised treatments as a therapeutic option alongside other immune-modifying agents.

eHealth: individualization of mesalazine treatment through a self-managed web-based solution in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

To individualize treatment with mesalazine for ulcerative colitis relapses through a self-managed, web-based solution to optimize the short-term disease course.

METHODS

Prospective, open-label, web-guided study with 3 months mesalazine therapy among patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Once a week, patients completed the simple clinical colitis activity index (SCCAI) and registered fecal calprotectin (FC) on the web application: www.meza.constant-care.dk. SCCAI and FC were summed and resulted in a total inflammatory burden score (TIBS). Deep remission was defined as SCCAI ≤1; FC = 0, and TIBS ≤1.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients (62% females; median age 45 yr) were included in the study and allocated 4.8 g mesalazine per day. Of these, 82 (86%) patients were adherent to web therapy, completing 3 months of web-guided mesalazine therapy. Of the 82 adherent patients, 72 (88%) continued mesalazine and 10 (12%) needed rescue therapy. From weeks 0 to 12, patients had experienced a significant reduction in mean SCCAI (4.6 versus 1.6, P < 0.001), mean FC (437 versus 195, P < 0.001), and mean TIBS (6.7 versus 2.4, P < 0.001). Based on TIBS values (≤1), the dose of mesalazine was reduced to 2.4 g in 25% of patients at week 3 in 50% of subjects at week 5 and in 88% of patients at week 12.

CONCLUSIONS

Web-guided therapy with mesalazine in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis helps to individualize the dose and improve adherence to therapy. The study confirms mesalazine efficacy in mild-to-moderate UC, significantly improving TIBS values in majority of the patients.

Long-term efficacy and safety of once-daily mesalazine granules for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis

In 1977, 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) was discovered as a therapeutically active moiety of sulfasalazine (SASP) and was launched for topical and oral therapy of ulcerative colitis (UC) in 1984. As a first-step, delivery systems had to be developed to protect 5-ASA against absorption in the upper gastrointestinal tract, resulting in different and competing strategies (azo compounds, controlled release, and pH-dependent release). In a second step, at the beginning of the new century, coinciding with the expiration of patent protection for the first 5-ASA formulations, two component composite release mechanisms (pH-dependent and controlled release) were developed. Furthermore, the drug was formulated as granules instead of tablets, allowing higher unit strengths compared with tablets. Neither Salofalk Granu-Stix^®, nor MMX 5-ASA, nor Pentasa^® granules have initially been developed for once-daily (OD) dosing. A review of the achievements of 20 years of 5-ASA development has demonstrated that 5-ASA has equal efficacy compared with SASP at best, that there are no measurable differences in efficacy between various 5-ASA preparations, and that in a group of patients tolerating SASP, adverse event profiles of SASP and 5-ASA did not differ significantly, with SASP being the far cheaper substance. Therefore, drug adherence came into focus as a new goal for improving UC therapy. Although adherence is a complex and multifactorial construct, a simple dosing schedule may contribute to higher drug adherence and better efficacy of treatment. Simultaneously, the US 5-ASA market, estimated to be worth US$1.4 billion, is expected to grow continuously. Naturally, this very competitive market is not only driven by scientific progress but also by commercial interests. Thus, patents for minor changes to the formulation may serve as protection against drug companies trying to launch generic versions. Randomized controlled trials performed on OD dosing in induction of remission have demonstrated that OD administration of 5-ASA is as effective as conventional dosing in mild to moderate active UC. The three 5-ASA products MMX, Salofalk^®, and Pentasa^® employed in those studies so far have not shown differences in efficacy between OD and conventional dosing. No differences regarding safety outcomes have been detected between OD and conventional dosing, including incidence of adverse events, serious adverse events, or withdrawal from treatment due to an adverse event. Although the majority of patients prefer OD dosing to conventional dosing, it was not possible to detect differences in adherence between OD and multiple dose regimens in the clinical trial setting. Well-designed and controlled large-scale community-based studies are necessary to further investigate and prove the point of improved long-term adherence and treatment efficacy in OD dosing.

Medical management of inflammatory bowel disease in the elderly: balancing safety and efficacy

The medical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the older patient extends beyond luminal disease activity. Factors such as comorbidity, functional status, polypharmacy, and age-related changes in physical reserve and drug metabolism may affect therapeutic decision making. The older patient with IBD is more susceptible to disease-related complications and also to adverse events with therapy, particularly immunosuppression. Appropriate medication selection along with multidisciplinary care, factoring not only disease activity but also these age-related risk factors, may improve therapeutic outcomes and decrease adverse events to therapy.

Current and emerging maintenance therapies for ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic idiopathic intestinal disease that requires life-long maintenance therapy to maintain clinical remission. This article reviews the current literature on maintenance treatments in UC. It examines the natural history of the condition and the proposed benefits of treatment. These include improving quality of life parameters, decreasing corticosteroid intake, the prevention of relapse, the prevention of colorectal cancer and the avoidance of colectomy. The immunosuppressive era appears to be reducing the need for elective colectomy in UC. The article explores the classes of drug currently used for maintenance of UC, reviews the literature around adherence issues, and summarizes emerging agents in this space.

Review article: integrating budesonide-MMX into treatment algorithms for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

5-Aminosalicylates (5-ASA) are first-line treatment for mild-moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC). When 5-ASAs fail, systemic corticosteroids have been the standard next step. Due to the significant side effect profile of systemic corticosteroids, alternative options in the treatment algorithm after 5-ASA failures are needed. Budesonide-Multi-Matrix System (MMX) is a novel oral formulation of budesonide that uses colonic release MMX technology to extend release of the drug to the colon. Now that budesonide-MMX has been approved for use in some countries, and pending in others we need to understand its position in the treatment algorithm for UC.

AIM

To review the available literature for budesonide-MMX and incorporate it into the treatment algorithm for mild-moderate UC.

METHODS

The available efficacy and safety literature regarding budesonide-MMX was reviewed, and compared to 5-ASAs and systemic corticosteroids.

RESULTS

In two large studies referred to as CORE (Colonic Release Budesonide trial), budesonide-MMX 9 mg daily was significantly more effective in achieving a combined end point of clinical and endoscopic remission than placebo in patients with mild-moderately active UC. Safety data are reassuring, with no clinically relevant differences between budesonide-MMX and placebo, including steroid-related side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide-MMX 9 mg daily is an effective and safe treatment for induction in patients with mild-moderately active UC. At the current time, it should be considered in patients after 5-ASA failure and before systemic corticosteroids. Data are still needed to understand its role and dose beyond 8 weeks, and if it should be considered first line before 5-ASAs.

Aligning oral mesalazine treatment to health service priorities: guidance for nurses

Oral mesalazine represents a crucial front-line agent for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis (UC) and the maintenance of remission. Clinical aspects of mesalazine therapy are guided by robust evidence-based guidelines, although there is a relative paucity of guidance examining the specific administrative and professional issues faced by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) nurses. As IBD nurses frequently influence treatment decisions in UC, this article was written to provide a practical review of the key evidence and issues affecting mesalazine treatment. Therefore, it may act as an additional resource for IBD nurses, to enhance prescribing decisions. Using the UK's Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention (QIPP) agenda as a framework, it considers clinical and health service priorities affecting treatment decisions. The quality of care perspective naturally focuses on efficacy; recent interest in specific aspects of efficacy, such as the speed of symptom resolution allows targeting of mesalazine treatment to individual needs. Furthermore, innovative adherence programmes build on the latest evidence to develop robust, integrated patient support approaches. In terms of productivity, nurse-led activities and more sophisticated management strategies may offer the best routes towards reducing the costs of care. Key opportunities for preventing ill health include improving adherence to maintenance therapy and achieving mucosal healing. The principles and approaches highlighted by the QIPP agenda emphasise that prescribing decisions for mesalazine in UC must take account of the full spectrum of clinical and health service needs, and cannot focus on any one element in isolation.

Challenging question: is treating inflammatory bowel disease an art or strictly an evidence-based matter?

Although evidence-based medicine (EBM) is the gold standard for clinical practice, misconceptions among health care providers regarding EBM are common. The medical management of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) has advanced substantially over the last 20 years as a direct result of the wealth of new evidence generated by randomized controlled trials. Integrating EBM and traditional clinical skills results in optimal care tailored to the individual patient. This article addresses the role of EBM in the management of IBD and dispels some of the common misconceptions about the use of EBM in practice.

The effect of third-party reporting on adoption of evidence-based mesalazine regimens in ulcerative colitis: an observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The optimal mesalazine dosing strategy for ulcerative colitis (UC) continues to evolve. The current study aimed to explore whether documenting drug use could prompt changes in prescribing habits.

METHODS

In a multicenter, prospective, observational study, outpatients with active or quiescent UC were enrolled if they were receiving, or were planned to receive, sustained release mesalazine microgranules (Pentasa). Clinical and prescribing data were collected at study entry, after 2 and 8 weeks. Physician-reported influences on prescribing decisions were recorded at study entry.

RESULTS

360 patients were analyzed (203 active UC, 157 remission). Prior to study entry, the range of oral mesalazine doses was 0.50-6.00 g/day in active UC patients, and 0.50-4.00 g/day for patients in remission. These changed to 1.50-5.00 g/day and 1.00-4.00 g/day, respectively, at study entry with little change thereafter. Use of a single daily mesalazine dose increased from 16.7% to 58.0% of active cases during the study, and from 5.9% to 46.8% in remission cases. Gastroenterologists reported that their basis for prescription decision-making was most frequently medical experience (80.8%), followed by guidelines (67.2%), further education or colleagues' recommendations (50.0%) and current study results (20.0%).

CONCLUSION

In this analysis of mesalazine dosing in routine clinical practice, there was an improvement in adherence to European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) guidelines and in use of once-daily dosing, consistent with recent trial results, following documentation of dosing regimens. Written reporting of drug dosing schedules should be considered fundamental for chronic, complex diseases such as UC.

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.

Multi-Matrix System (MMX®) mesalamine for the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory disease of the colon characterized by periods of active disease and remission. The pathogenesis of this disease is likely a complex interaction of genetic predisposition, environmental factors, and immune system dysregulation, and is not completely understood. A Multi-MatriX (MMX®) system formulation of mesalamine, MMX mesalamine (SPD476; Lialda®; Mesavancol®; Mezavant®), allows for high-dose, once-daily dosing for patients with mild-to-moderate UC. Mesalamine is a topically active agent with anti-inflammatory properties.

AREAS COVERED

Available literature regarding MMX mesalamine is extensively reviewed in this article, covering its chemical makeup, mechanism of action, pharmaceutics and pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and safety and tolerability.

EXPERT OPINION

A dose of 2.4 and 4.8 g was used in large Phase III clinical trials and was efficacious for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission in UC. MMX mesalamine was also efficacious in large multicenter maintenance studies for the maintenance of clinical and endoscopic remission. The introduction of the first once-daily mesalamine has given practitioners and patients more flexibility in dosing administration, which will ultimately lead to higher satisfaction and improved clinical outcomes.

Management of pediatric ulcerative colitis: joint ECCO and ESPGHAN evidence-based consensus guidelines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC) shares many features with adult-onset disease but there are some unique considerations; therefore, therapeutic approaches have to be adapted to these particular needs. We aimed to formulate guidelines for managing UC in children based on a systematic review (SR) of the literature and a robust consensus process. The present article is a product of a joint effort of the European Crohn's and Colitis Organization (ECCO) and the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN).

METHODS

A group of 27 experts in pediatric IBD participated in an iterative consensus process including 2 face-to-face meetings, following an open call to ESPGHAN and ECCO members. A list of 23 predefined questions were addressed by working subgroups based on a SR of the literature.

RESULTS

A total of 40 formal recommendations and 68 practice points were endorsed with a consensus rate of at least 89% regarding initial evaluation, how to monitor disease activity, the role of endoscopic evaluation, medical and surgical therapy, timing and choice of each medication, the role of combined therapy, and when to stop medications. A management flowchart, based on the Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (PUCAI), is presented.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines provide clinically useful points to guide the management of UC in children. Taken together, the recommendations offer a standardized protocol that allows effective, timely management and monitoring of the disease course, while acknowledging that each patient is unique.

Update on the management of ulcerative colitis: treatment and maintenance approaches focused on MMX(®) mesalamine

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the colon that typically manifests as diarrhea, abdominal pain, and bloody stool. Complications, such as colorectal cancer and extraintestinal manifestations, may also develop. The goals of management are to induce and maintain clinical remission and to screen for complications of this disease. Mesalamine is a 5-aminosalicylic acid compound that is the first-line therapy to induce and maintain clinical remission in patients with mild-to-moderate UC. For patients who are refractory to mesalamine or have more severe disease, steroids, azathioprine/mercaptopurine, cyclosporine, or infliximab may be used, induce and/or maintain remission. The various formulations of mesalamine available are primarily differentiated by the methods of delivery of the active compound of the drug to the colon. Mesalamine with Multi-Matrix System^® (MMX) technology (Cosmo SpA, Milan, Italy) is an oral (1.2 g), once-daily tablet formulation of mesalamine used for the treatment of UC (Lialda^® or Mezavant^®, Shire Pharmaceuticals Inc, Wayne, PA). In clinical studies, MMX mesalamine (taken as a once-daily dose of 2.4 or 4.8 g) effectively induced and maintained clinical remission in patients with active mild-to-moderate UC. The overall safety profile of MMX mesalamine is similar to other oral mesalamine formulations. The use of such once-daily formulations has led to intense interest in whether simplified pill regimens can improve patient adherence to mesalamine therapy.