Budesonide versus mesalamine for maintaining remission in patients refusing other immunomodulators for steroid-dependent Crohn's disease

Systematic review: outcomes and adverse events from randomised trials in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

The suitability of disease activity indices has been challenged, with growing interest in objective measures of inflammation.

AIM

To undertake a systematic review of efficacy and safety outcomes in placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with Crohn's disease.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched until November 2015, for RCTs of adult Crohn's disease patients treated with medical or surgical therapies. Data on efficacy and safety outcomes, end-point definitions, and measurement instruments were extracted and stratified by publication date (pre-2009 and 2009 onwards).

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-one RCTs (110 induction and 71 maintenance) were identified, including 23 850 patients. About 92.3% reported clinical efficacy endpoints. The Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) dominated, defining clinical response or remission in 63.5% of trials (35 definitions of response or remission). CDAI < 150 was the commonest endpoint, but reporting reduced between periods (46.4%-41.1%), whilst use of CDAI100 increased (16.8%-30.4%). Fistula studies most commonly reported fistula closure (9, 90.0%). Reporting of biomarker, endoscopy and histology endpoints increased overall (33.3%-40.6%, 14.4%-30.4% and 3.2%-12.5%, respectively), but were heterogeneous and rarely reported in fistula trials. Patient-reported outcome measures were reported in 41.4% of trials and safety endpoints in 35.4%. Many of the common adverse events relate to disease exacerbation or treatment failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial endpoints vary across studies, over time and are distinct in fistula studies. Despite growth in reporting of objective measures of inflammation and in patient-reported outcome measures, there is a lack of standardisation. This confirms the need for a core outcome set for comparative effectiveness research in Crohn's disease.

Reviewing the therapeutic role of budesonide in Crohn's disease

Oral budesonide is a glucocorticoid of primarily local action. In the field of digestive diseases, it is used mainly in inflammatory bowel disease, but also in other indications. This review addresses the pharmacology, pharmacodynamics and therapeutic use of budesonide. Its approved indications are reviewed, as well as other clinical scenarios in which it could play a role, in order to facilitate its use and improve the accuracy of its prescription.

Budesonide for the Induction and Maintenance of Remission in Crohn's Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for the Cochrane Collaboration

Background

Budesonide is an oral glucocorticoid designed for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that may reduce systemic adverse events (AEs). This review examined the efficacy and safety of budesonide for the induction and maintenance of clinical remission in Crohn’s disease (CD).

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, other electronic databases, reference lists and conference proceedings were searched to November 2017 to identify randomized controlled trials of budesonide. Outcomes were the induction and maintenance of remission at eight weeks and one year, respectively, as well as corticosteroid-related AEs and abnormal adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) tests. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random effects models.

Results

Thirteen induction and 10 maintenance trials were included. Budesonide 9 mg/day was more effective than placebo (RR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.37–2.73; GRADE: moderate) but less effective than conventional steroids (RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75–0.97; GRADE: moderate) to induce remission. Corticosteroid-related AEs occurred less often with induction doses of budesonide than steroids (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54–0.76; GRADE: moderate); budesonide did not increase AEs relative to placebo (RR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76–1.23; GRADE: moderate). Budesonide 6 mg/day was not different from placebo for maintaining remission (RR 1.13; 95% CI, 0.94–1.35; GRADE: moderate). Both induction (GRADE: low for 3 mg/day, moderate for 9 mg/day) and maintenance budesonide treatment (GRADE: very low for 3 mg/day, low for 6 mg/day) increased the risk of an abnormal ACTH test compared with placebo, but less than conventional steroids (GRADE: very low for both induction and maintenance).

Conclusion

For induction of clinical remission, budesonide was more effective than placebo, but less effective than conventional steroids. Budesonide was not effective for the maintenance of remission. Budesonide was safer than conventional steroids, but the long-term effects on the adrenal axis and bone health remain unknown.

New treatment strategies for ulcerative colitis

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic strategies in ulcerative colitis are evolving. A personalized and optimal use of available drugs and the integration of new drug classes are the cornerstones underpinning the new treatment paradigms. Areas covered: A structured literature search in Medline and PubMed, Cochrane meta-analyses, and abstracts of international congresses has been performed to review therapeutic approaches to ulcerative colitis. The primary therapeutic objective of therapy is to achieve clinical remission since persistence of active disease, even if mild, leads to a significant reduction in quality of life. Current treatment paradigms of ulcerative colitis are based on the use of 5-aminosalycilates, corticosteroids, thiopurines, TNF-α inhibitors and α4ß7 integrin blockers. The main determinants for drug class selection are disease extension, disease severity, and previous drug history. New drug classes that will likely become available in the foreseeable future include inhibitors of Janus kinases, modulators of sphingosine-1-phosphate receptors, SMAD-7 antisense oligonucleotides, interleukin-12/23 blockers, and fecal microbiota transplantation. Expert commentary: Increasing therapeutic options for ulcerative colitis make predictors of response highly relevant. While these are not available, judicious use of therapies, avoidance of underdosing, or persistent therapy when criteria for drug failure are met are essential.

Pharmacokinetic drug evaluation of budesonide in the treatment of Crohn's disease

INTRODUCTION

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that commonly affects the terminal ileum and proximal colon. Although systemic corticosteroids such as prednisone and methylprednisolone are widely used for treatment of CD, these agents have a high incidence of adverse drug reactions due to off-target effects. Budesonide is a locally acting corticosteroid with enhanced formulation properties that offer a superior therapeutic index in comparison to conventional members of the class. Areas covered: This review focuses on budesonide for the treatment of CD. The pharmacological and pharmacokinetics of the drug are summarized, along with clinical efficacy and safety data. We also indicate the role of budesonide in therapeutic algorithms. Expert opinion: Budesonide has an important role as an induction therapy in patients with mild to moderately active CD of the ileum and proximal colon. The most distinctive advantage of budesonide over conventional corticosteroids is a substantially reduced risk of corticosteroid-related side effects.

Aminosalicylates for induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials investigating the efficacy of aminosalicylates for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease have yielded conflicting results. A systematic review was conducted to critically examine current available data on the efficacy of sulfasalazine and mesalamine for inducing remission or clinical response in these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of aminosalicylates compared to placebo, corticosteroids, and other aminosalicylates (alone or in combination with corticosteroids) for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Library from inception to June 2015 to identify relevant studies. There were no language restrictions. We also searched reference lists from potentially relevant papers and review articles, as well as proceedings from annual meetings (1991-2015) of the American Gastroenterological Association and American College of Gastroenterology.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of sulfasalazine or mesalamine in the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease compared to placebo, corticosteroids, and other aminosalicylates (alone or in combination with corticosteroids) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality was independently performed by the investigators and any disagreement was resolved by discussion and consensus. We assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. The primary outcome measure was a well defined clinical endpoint of induction of remission or response to treatment. Secondary outcomes included mean Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) scores, adverse events, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated the pooled risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses based on a fixed-effect model and duration of therapy were conducted where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies (2367 patients) were included. Two studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. Eight studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to incomplete outcomes data (high drop-out rates) and potential selective reporting. The other 10 studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. A non-significant trend in favour of sulfasalazine over placebo for inducing remission was observed, with benefit confined mainly to patients with Crohn's colitis. Forty-five per cent (63/141) of sulfasalazine patients entered remission at 17-18 weeks compared to 29% (43/148) of placebo patients (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.89, 2 studies). A GRADE analysis rated the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome as moderate due to sparse data (106 events). There was no difference between sulfasalazine and placebo in adverse event outcomes. Sulfasalazine was significantly less effective than corticosteroids and inferior to combination therapy with corticosteroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.86, 1 study, 110 patients). Forty-three per cent (55/128) of sulfasalazine patients entered remission at 17 to 18 weeks compared to 60% (79/132) of corticosteroid patients (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.91; 2 studies, 260 patients). A GRADE analysis rated the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome as moderate due to sparse data (134 events). Sulfasalazine patients experienced significantly fewer adverse events than corticosteroid patients (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.82; 1 study, 159 patients). There was no difference between sulfasalazine and corticosteroids in serious adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events. Olsalazine was less effective than placebo in a single trial (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.71; 91 patients). Low dose mesalamine (1 to 2 g/day) was not superior to placebo for induction of remission. Twenty-three per cent (43/185) of low dose mesalamine patients entered remission at week 6 compared to 15% (18/117) of placebo patients (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.40; n = 302). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to risk of bias (incomplete outcome data) and sparse data (61 events). There was no difference between low dose mesalamine and placebo in the proportion of patients who had adverse events (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.96; 3 studies, 342 patients) or withdrew due to adverse events (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.95; 3 studies, 342 patients). High dose controlled-release mesalamine (4 g/day) was not superior to placebo, inducing a clinically non significant reduction in CDAI (MD -19.8 points, 95% CI -46.2 to 6.7; 3 studies, 615 patients), and was also inferior to budesonide (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78; 1 study, 182 patients, GRADE = low). While high dose delayed-release mesalamine (3 to 4.5 g/day) was not superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 5.45; 1 study, 38 patients, GRADE = very low), no significant difference in efficacy was found when compared to conventional corticosteroids (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36; 3 studies, 178 patients, GRADE = moderate) or budesonide (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05; 1 study, 307 patients, GRADE = moderate). However, these trials were limited by risk of bias (incomplete outcome data) and sparse data (small numbers of events). There was a lack of good quality clinical trials comparing sulfasalazine with other mesalamine formulations. Adverse events that were commonly reported included headache, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhea.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sulfasalazine is only modestly effective with a trend towards benefit over placebo and is inferior to corticosteroids for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease. Olsalazine and low dose mesalamine (1 to 2 g/day) are not superior to placebo. High dose mesalamine (3.2 to 4 g/day) is not more effective than placebo for inducing response or remission. However, trials assessing the efficacy of high dose mesalamine (4 to 4.5 g/day) compared to budesonide yielded conflicting results and firm conclusions cannot be made. Future large randomized controlled trials are needed to provide definitive evidence on the efficacy of aminosalicylates in active Crohn's disease.

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.

Budesonide for induction of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are commonly used for the induction of remission in Crohn's disease. However, traditional corticosteroids can cause significant adverse events. Budesonide is an alternative glucocorticoid with limited systemic bioavailability.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for the induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched up to June 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane IBD/FBD Group Specialised Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Reference lists of articles, as well as conference proceedings were manually searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing budesonide to a placebo or active comparator were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed study quality. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.5 software. The primary outcome was induction of remission (defined by a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) < 150) by week 8 to 16 of treatment. Secondary outcomes included: time to remission, mean change in CDAI, clinical, histological or endoscopic improvement, improvement in quality of life, adverse events and early withdrawal. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each dichotomous outcome and the mean difference and corresponding 95% CI for each continuous outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. A random-effects model was used for the pooled analyses. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcomes and selected secondary outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen studies (1805 patients) were included: Nine (779 patients) compared budesonide to conventional corticosteroids, three (535 patients) were placebo-controlled, and two (491 patients) compared budesonide to mesalamine. Ten studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. Three studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to open label design. One study was judged to be at high risk of bias due to selective reporting. After eight weeks of treatment, 9 mg budesonide was significantly more effective than placebo for induction of clinical remission. Forty-seven per cent (115/246) of budesonide patients achieved remission at 8 weeks compared to 22% (29/133) of placebo patients (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.73; 3 studies, 379 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (144 events). Budesonide was significantly less effective than conventional steroids for induction of remission at eight weeks. Fifty-two per cent of budesonide patients achieved remission at week 8 compared to 61% of patients who received conventional steroids (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; 8 studies, 750 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate due to risk of bias. Budesonide was significantly less effective than conventional steroids among patients with severe disease (CDAI > 300) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95). Studies comparing budesonide to mesalamine were not pooled due to heterogeneity (I(2) = 81%). One study (n = 182) found budesonide to be superior to mesalamine for induction of remission at 8 weeks. Sixty-eight per cent (63/93) of budesonide patients were in remission at 8 weeks compared to 42% (37/89) of mesalamine patients (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16). The other study found no statistically significant difference in remission rates at eight weeks. Sixty-nine per cent (107/154) of budesonide patients were in remission at 8 weeks compared to 62% (132/242) of mesalamine patients (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.32). Fewer adverse events occurred in those treated with budesonide compared to conventional steroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76) and budesonide was better than conventional steroids in preserving adrenal function (RR for abnormal ACTH test 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.78).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide is more effective than placebo for induction of remission in Crohn's disease. Although short-term efficacy with budesonide is less than with conventional steroids, particularly in those with severe disease or more extensive colonic involvement, the likelihood of adverse events and adrenal suppression with budesonide is lower. The current evidence does not allow for a firm conclusion on the relative efficacy of budesonide compared to 5-ASA products.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: comparative efficacy and safety of budesonide and mesalazine (mesalamine) for Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Budesonide and mesalazine (mesalamine) are commonly used in the medical management of patients with mild to moderate Crohn's disease.

AIM

To assess their comparative efficacy and harm using the methodology of network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov, through October 2014, was performed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited adult patients with active or quiescent Crohn's disease, and compared budesonide or mesalazine with placebo, or against each other, or different dosing strategies of one drug.

RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs were combined using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Budesonide 9 mg/day, or at higher doses (15 or 18 mg/day), was shown superior to placebo for induction of remission [odds ratio (OR), 2.93; 95% credible interval (CrI), 1.52-5.39, and OR, 3.28; CrI, 1.46-7.55 respectively] and ranks at the top of the hierarchy of the competing treatments. For maintenance of remission, budesonide 6 mg/day demonstrated superiority over placebo (OR, 1.69; CrI, 1.05-2.75), being also at the best ranking position among all compared treatment strategies. No other comparisons (i.e. different doses of mesalazine vs. placebo or budesonide, for induction or maintenance of remission) reached significance. The occurrence of withdrawals due to adverse events was not shown different between budesonide, mesalazine and placebo, in both the induction and maintenance phases.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide, at the doses of 9 mg/day, or higher, for induction of remission in active mild or moderate Crohn's disease, and at 6 mg/day for maintenance of remission, appears to be the best treatment choice.

Low bioavailability steroids in inflammatory bowel disease: an old chestnut or a whole new ballgame?

At present, therapy of inflammatory bowel disease is still far from being fully satisfactory; old drugs like steroids, for instance, still represent a cornerstone in the treatment of active disease despite their associated important side effects and incomplete clinical efficacy. In the last years, new therapeutic strategies have been suggested in order to avoid or at least limit steroids use and in this direction the so-called low bioavailability steroids appeared to be a promising therapeutic weapon; however, some grey areas about their real utility and manner of use still remain. The aim of this review is to evaluate the available evidence about the use of oral budesonide and beclomethasone dipropionate in inflammatory bowel disease, to critically assess their current position in the therapeutic algorithm of these diseases and to give simple and practical indications for their use in every-day clinical practice.

Budesonide for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are effective for induction, but not maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Significant concerns exist regarding the risk for adverse events, particularly when corticosteroids are used for long treatment courses. Budesonide is a glucocorticoid with limited systemic bioavailability due to extensive first-pass hepatic metabolism and is effective for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.

SEARCH METHODS

The following databases were searched from inception to 12 June 2014: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD/FBD Group Specialised Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Reference lists of articles, as well as conference proceedings were manually searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing budesonide to a control treatment, or comparing two doses of budesonide, were included. The study population included patients of any age with quiescent Crohn's disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was maintenance of remission at various reported follow-up times during the study. Secondary outcomes included: time to relapse, mean change in CDAI, clinical, histological, improvement in quality of life, adverse events and study withdrawal. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi(2) and I(2) statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. Random-effects models were used to allow for expected clinical and statistical heterogeneity. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome was assessed using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies (n = 1273 patients) were included in the review: eight studies compared budesonide to placebo, one compared budesonide to 5-aminosalicylates, one compared budesonide to traditional systemic corticosteroids, one compared budesonide to azathioprine, and one compared two doses of budesonide. Nine studies used a controlled ileal release form of budesonide, while three used a pH-modified release formulation. Nine studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. Three studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to blinding and one of these studies also had inadequate allocation concealment. Budesonide 6 mg daily was no more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission at 3 months, 6 months or 12 months. At three months 64% of budesonide 6 mg patients remained in remission compared to 52% of placebo patients (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.58; 6 studies, 540 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was low due to moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 56%) and sparse data (315 events). At six months 61% of budesonide 6 mg patients remained in remission compared to 52% of placebo patients (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.39; 5 studies, 420 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (238 events). At 12 months 55% of budesonide 6 mg patients remained in remission compared to 48% of placebo patients (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; 5 studies, 420 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (215 events). Similarly, there was no significant benefit for budesonide 3 mg compared to placebo at 6 and 12 months. There was no statistically significant difference in continued remission at 12 months between budesonide and weaning doses of prednisolone (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13; 1 study, 90 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (51 events) and high risk of bias (no blinding). Budesonide 6 mg was better than mesalamine 3 g/day at 12 months (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.12; 1 study, 57 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to very sparse data (18 events) and high risk of bias (no blinding). There was no statistically significant difference in continued remission at 12 months between budesonide and azathioprine (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.08; 1 study 77 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to sparse data (55 events) and high risk of bias (single-blind and no allocation concealment). The use of budesonide 6 mg resulted in slight improvements in CDAI scores when assessed at 6 months (MD -24.30, 95% CI -46.31 to -2.29) and 12 months (MD -23.49, 95% CI -46.65 to -0.32) and mean time to relapse of disease (MD 59.93 days, 95% CI 19.02 to 100.84). Mean time to relapse was significantly shorter for patients receiving budesonide than for those receiving azathioprine (MD -58.00, 95% CI -96.68 to -19.32). Adverse events were not more common in patients treated with budesonide compared to placebo (6 mg: RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.52; 3 mg: RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.24). These events were relatively minor and did not result in increased rates of study withdrawal. Commonly reported treatment-related adverse effects included acne, moon facies, hirsutism, mood swings, insomnia, weight gain, striae, and hair loss. Abnormal adrenocorticoid stimulation tests were seen more frequently in patients receiving both 6 mg (RR 2.88, 95% CI 1.72 to 4.82) and 3 mg daily (RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.57) compared to placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest budesonide is not effective for maintenance of remission in CD, particularly when used beyond three months following induction of remission. Budesonide does have minor benefits in terms of lower CDAI scores and longer time to relapse of disease. However, these benefits are offset by higher treatment-related adverse event rates and more frequent adrenocorticoid suppression in patients receiving budesonide.

The role of Budesonide-MMX in active ulcerative colitis

Traditional corticosteroids represent a well-established and effective treatment for active ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the severity of their systemic side effects, led in recent years to look for new steroid molecules that could reduce them, maximizing the anti-inflammatory activity. Budesonide has been one of the most studied steroid compounds and it has been approved for the treatment of mild to moderate active Crohn's disease (CD). In order to extend the release until the distally located inflammation, budesonide has been coupled with a controlled delivery system, called Multi-Matrix system (MMX), already successfully tested with oral mesalazine for the treatment of distal UC. After in vitro and in vivo models, the efficacy of Budesonide-MMX has been investigated in active UC with a first small phase II study, and partially encouraging results. This article will review the evidences on the use of budesonide in inflammatory bowel diseases and will discuss the role of Budesonide-MMX in active UC nowadays.

Oral locally active steroids in inflammatory bowel disease

IBD is a chronic and relapsing inflammatory disorder of the gut that demands long-lasting treatment targeting both flare-up periods and maintenance of remission. Oral systemic steroids have been used to induce remission in patients with active IBD for over 50 years due to their potent anti-inflammatory effects. The efficacy of systemic steroids in this setting has been largely demonstrated. However, the wide range of adverse events associated with these drugs has prompted the development of equally effective but less toxic steroid compounds. Currently, topically acting oral steroids are an important therapeutic option for Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis and microscopic colitis, being oral budesonide and oral beclomethasone established elements of the IBD armamentarium. At present, oral budesonide is the first-line therapy to induce remission in microscopic colitis and mild to moderate ileocaecal CD patients and oral beclomethasone is effective treating mild to moderate UC patients with left-sided or extensive disease. This review aims at evaluating the current role of these compounds in IBD clinical practice.

Therapeutic benefits of budesonide in gastroenterology

Budesonide is a synthetic steroid of the glucocorticoid family with a high topical anti-inflammatory activity. Enteric-coated formulations resist gastric-acid degradation, delivering active drug to the small intestine and proximal colon. Budesonide has a high first-pass metabolism with minimal systemic absorption. It is therefore felt to cause fewer side effects than traditional glucocorticosteroids and to be generally well tolerated. The aim of this paper is to examine the utility of this medication in frequently encountered gastrointestinal conditions: Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, microscopic colitis and eosinophilic oesophagitis. A Medline search was performed to find published original research and review articles relating to the use budesonide in common gastroenterological conditions. The results showed that budesonide is efficacious in the induction and short-term maintenance of Crohn's disease. Budesonide is the best-documented treatment for microscopic colitis. It is well proven to be effective in the induction of remission in collagenous colitis but its use in lymphocytic colitis remains less well documented. In conclusion, budesonide is an effective glucocorticosteroid therapy for many chronic gastrointestinal diseases. In combination with its efficacy, the low incidence of serious side effects associated with this drug should keep it at the forefront in the therapeutic arsenal of any gastroenterologist.

Budesonide in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

Inflammatory bowel disease, including Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, features recurrent episodes of inflammation of the GI tract. The treatment of inflammatory bowel disease is aimed at breaking the cycle of relapsing and remitting inflammation by inducing and maintaining remission. Systemically active conventional corticosteroids have long played a role in the induction of remission in both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, however, their long-term use can lead to adverse systemic effects. Budesonide, a synthetic steroid, has potent local anti-inflammatory effects and limited systemic bioavailability making it an appealing therapeutic option. Ulcerative colitis with predominantly distal disease may be treated with topical budesonide, however, novel oral controlled-release formulations have also been developed to allow for treatment of the entire colon. This article summarizes the use of budesonide in the management of inflammatory bowel disease.

Aminosalicylates for induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of aminosalicylates for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease have yielded conflicting results. A systematic review was conducted to critically examine current available data on the efficacy of sulfasalazine and mesalamine for inducing remission or clinical response in patients with mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of aminosalicylates compared to placebo, corticosteroids, and other aminosalicylates (alone or in combination with corticosteroids) for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Separate MEDLINE (1966-July 2010), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 3, 2010) and EMBASE database searches (1985-July 2010) of all relevant English and non-English language articles were performed, followed by manual searches of the reference list from potentially relevant papers and review articles, as well as proceedings from annual meetings (1991-2010) of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of sulfasalazine or mesalamine in the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease compared to placebo, corticosteroids, and other aminosalicylates (alone or in combination with corticosteroids) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality of each selected study was independently performed by the investigators and any disagreement was resolved by discussion and consensus. The primary outcome measure was a well defined clinical endpoint of induction of remission or response to treatment. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Pooled relative risks (RR) for inducing remission or clinical response and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated (random effects model) where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Sulfasalazine was more likely to induce remission (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.87; n = 263) compared to placebo with benefit confined mainly to patients with colitis. Sulfasalazine was less effective than corticosteroids (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 260). Olsalazine was less effective than placebo in a single trial. Low dose mesalamine (1 to 2 g/day) was not superior to placebo (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 0.89-2.40; n = 302) and was less effective than corticosteroids. High dose mesalamine (3 to 4.5 g/day) was not superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 2.02; 95% CI 0.75 to 5.45) or response (Weighted Mean Difference -19.8 points; 95% CI -46.2 to 6.7; n = 615). In a single randomized controlled trial, 5-ASA was inferior to budesonide (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78). No statistically significant difference was found between high dose mesalamine and conventional corticosteroids (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36; n = 178). However, relatively few patients were available for analysis. There was a lack of good quality clinical trials comparing sulfasalazine with other mesalamine formulations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sulfasalazine has modest efficacy compared to placebo and is inferior to corticosteroids for the treatment of mild to moderately active Crohn's disease. Olsalazine and low dose mesalamine (1 to 2 g/day) are not superior to placebo. High dose mesalamine (3 to 4.5 g/day) is not more effective than placebo for inducing response or remission. High dose mesalamine was inferior to budesonide for inducing remission in a single trial. In conclusion, sulfasalazine shows modest efficacy for the treatment of active Crohn's disease. However, the existing data show little benefit for 5-aminosalicylates.

Oral budesonide for maintenance of remission of Crohn's disease: a pooled safety analysis

BACKGROUND

Budesonide exhibits similar efficacy to systemic glucocorticosteroids (GCSs) in Crohn's disease (CD), but with fewer adverse events (AEs). Aim To evaluate budesonide's safety profile in CD patients, in particular, incidences of clinically important AEs known to be associated with systemic GCSs.

METHODS

Five 1-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating budesonide for mild-to-moderate CD were pooled for analysis.

RESULTS

The highest incidence rates of AEs were gastrointestinal- and endocrine systems-related in both groups (budesonide 6 mg/day, n = 208; placebo, n = 209). Incidence rates were similar, except for higher incidence of endocrine disorders in budesonide versus placebo patients (P = 0.0042) caused by a higher overall occurrence of cutaneous GCS symptoms (P = 0.0036) in the budesonide group; differences in individual symptoms were nonsignificant. Percentage of patients with normal adrenal function was significantly lower at 13 weeks (three of five studies), but not at 52 weeks (two studies) in the budesonide versus placebo groups. Occurrence of clinically important or serious AEs associated with systemic GCSs, including sepsis, cataracts, adrenal insufficiency was rare and similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide treatment for up to 1 year is well-tolerated in CD patients, with an AE profile similar to placebo and only rare occurrences of clinically important AEs associated with systemic GCSs.

Azathioprine is superior to budesonide in achieving and maintaining mucosal healing and histologic remission in steroid-dependent Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

The effects of azathioprine (AZA) and budesonide (BUD) on mucosal healing and histologic remission of Crohn's disease (CD) are insufficiently studied. In this prospective study we evaluated the comparative effects of AZA and BUD on endoscopic and histologic activity in patients with steroid-dependent Crohn's ileocolitis or proximal colitis who had achieved clinical remission on conventional steroids.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to AZA (2.0-2.5 mg/kg a day) or BUD (6-9 mg a day) for 1 year. The study protocol included clinical examination, laboratory tests, calculation of the Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI), completion of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ), at baseline and then every 2 months for 1 year. Ileocolonoscopy with regional biopsies was performed at baseline and then at the end of the study to assess mucosal healing and the histologic activity of CD.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients were randomized to AZA and 39 to BUD. At the end of the study 32 and 25 patients in the AZA and BUD groups, respectively, were in clinical remission (P = 0.07). The Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) score fell significantly only in the AZA group (P < 0.0001). Complete or near complete healing was achieved in 83% of AZA-treated patients compared with only 24% of BUD-treated patients (P < 0.0001). Histologic activity as assessed by an average histology score (AHS) fell significantly only in the AZA group (P < 0.001 versus baseline) and was significantly lower than in the BUD group at the end of the study (P < 0.001). Eight patients in the AZA group were withdrawn for adverse events (n = 6) or relapse of disease compared with 14 patients in the BUD group who were withdrawn for relapse of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with steroid-dependent inflammatory Crohn's ileocolitis or proximal colitis who achieve clinical remission with conventional steroids, a 1-year treatment with AZA was superior to BUD in achieving and maintaining mucosal healing and histologic remission.

Budesonide for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids have been shown to be effective for induction, but not maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. However, significant concerns exist regarding their risk for adverse events, particularly when used for long treatment courses. Budesonide is a glucocorticoid with limited systemic bioavailability due to extensive first-pass hepatic metabolism. Budesonide has been shown to be effective for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane IBD/FBD Group Specialised Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Reference lists of articles, as well as conference proceedings were manually searched. Study authors, study sponsors and pharmaceutical companies were also contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing budesonide to a control treatment, or comparing two doses of budesonide, were included. The study population included patients of any age with Crohn's disease in remission. The primary outcome was maintenance of remission at various reported follow-up times during the study, up to 12 months following enrollment. Secondary outcomes included: time to relapse, mean change in CDAI, clinical, histological or endoscopic improvement, improvement in quality of life, adverse events and study withdrawal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed study quality using Jadad's criteria. A random or fixed effects model was chosen based on an assessment of heterogeneity, and studies were weighted using the DerSimonian & Laird or the Mantel-Haenszel method accordingly. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 4.2.10 software.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies were included in the review: 8 studies compared budesonide with placebo, one compared budesonide to 5-aminosalicylates, one compared budesonide to traditional systemic corticosteroids, and one compared two doses of budesonide with no control group. Eight studies used a controlled ileal release form of budesonide, while three used a pH-modified release formulation. Budesonide 6 mg daily was no more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission at 3 months (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.58; P = 0.05), 6 months (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.39; P = 0.14), or 12 months (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; P = 0.19). Budesonide was not more effective than weaning doses of prednisolone for maintenance of remission at 12 months (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13; P = 0.20), but was better than mesalamine 3 grams per day (RR of remission 2.51; 95% CI 1.03 to 6.12; P = 0.04). Budesonide 3 mg daily was more effective than placebo at 3 months (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.67; P = 0.03). This benefit was not sustained at 6 months (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.50; P = 0.53), or 12 months (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.30; P = 0.70). No differences in efficacy were detected based on the different formulations of budesonide, methods used to induce remission, or budesonide dose. The use of budesonide 6 mg resulted in slight improvements in CDAI scores when assessed at 6 months (WMD -24.3; 95% CI -46.31 to -2.29; P = 0.03) and 12 months (WMD -23.49; 95% CI -46.65 to -0.32; P = 0.05) and mean time to relapse of disease (WMD 59.93 days; 95% CI 19.02 to 100.84; P = 0.004). Adverse events were more frequent in patients treated with 6 mg of budesonide compared with placebo (RR 1.49; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.19; P = 0.05), but not in patients using lower doses of budesonide. These events were relatively minor and did not result in increased rates of study withdrawal. Abnormal adrenocorticoid stimulation tests were seen more frequently in patients receiving both 6 mg daily (RR 2.88; 95% CI 1.72 to 4.82; P < 0.0001) and 3 mg daily (RR 2.73; 95% CI 1.34 to 5.57; P = 0.006) compared with placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide is not more effective than placebo or weaning prednisolone for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Some modest benefits are noted in patients receiving budesonide compared with placebo in terms of lower CDAI scores and longer time to relapse of disease. However, these benefits are offset by higher treatment-related adverse event rates and more frequent adrenocorticoid suppression in patients receiving budesonide. Therefore, budesonide is not recommended for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.

Budesonide for induction of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids play a key role in the induction of remission in Crohn's disease. However, corticosteroids can cause significant adverse events. Budesonide is an alternate enteral glucocorticoid with limited systemic bioavailability.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for the induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane IBD/FBD Group Specialised Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Reference lists of articles, as well as conference proceedings were manually searched. Pharmaceutical companies were also contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing budesonide to a control treatment were included. The study population included patients of any age with active Crohn's disease (CDAI > 150). The primary outcome was induction of remission (CDAI < 150) by week 8 to 16 of treatment. Secondary outcomes included: time to remission, mean change in CDAI, clinical, histological or endoscopic improvement, improvement in quality of life, adverse events and early withdrawal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent investigators reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed study quality. A random effects model was used and studies were weighted using the DerSimonian & Laird method. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 4.2.10 software.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies were included: 9 compared budesonide with conventional corticosteroids, 2 were placebo-controlled, and 1 compared budesonide with mesalamine. After 8 weeks of treatment, budesonide was significantly more effective than placebo (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.23) or mesalamine (RR 1.63; 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16) for induction of remission. Budesonide was significantly less effective than conventional steroids for induction of remission (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.98), particularly among patients with severe disease (CDAI > 300) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95). Fewer adverse events occurred in those treated with budesonide compared to conventional steroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76) and budesonide was better able to preserve adrenal function (RR for abnormal ACTH test 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.78).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide is more effective than placebo or mesalamine for induction of remission in Crohn's disease. Although short-term efficacy with budesonide is less than with conventional steroids, particularly in those with severe disease or more extensive colonic involvement, the likelihood of adverse events and adrenal suppression is lower.

Medical management of mild to moderate Crohn's disease: evidence-based treatment algorithms for induction and maintenance of remission

BACKGROUND

Patients with Crohn's disease alternate between periods of active, symptomatic disease and periods of remission. The treatment goal for Crohn's disease is to induce and then maintain remission of symptoms.

AIM

To review evidence from randomized, controlled, clinical trials on medical therapies for inducing and maintaining remission in patients with mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease, and to suggest the best evidence-based approaches for induction and maintenance therapies.

METHODS

PubMed search using the following terms: sulfasalazine or salicylazosulfapyridine or aminosalicylate or aminosalicylic acid or mesalamine or mesalazine or corticosteroid or prednisone or prednisolone or methylprednisolone or budesonide or antibiotic or metronidazole or ciprofloxacin or immunosuppressive or azathioprine or mercaptopurine or thiopurine or methotrexate and Crohn's disease.

RESULTS

Randomized, controlled trials demonstrated that sulfasalazine, budesonide, and conventional corticosteroids are effective for inducing remission of mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease when administered for a period of 8-16 weeks. An ideal maintenance therapy does not currently exist.

CONCLUSIONS

Selection of maintenance therapy is based on a combination of evidence from controlled trials and patient features including disease severity and location, co-morbidities, previous response to treatment, and previous surgical resection. The options for maintenance therapy include therapy cessation and patient observation following successful induction, budesonide, or immunosuppressive therapy.

Budesonide for maintenance of remission in patients with Crohn's disease in medically induced remission: a predetermined pooled analysis of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for maintenance of remission in patients with mild to moderately active Crohn's disease (CD) of the ileum and/or ascending colon.

METHODS

Four double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with identical protocols were combined according to a predetermined analysis plan. Three hundred eighty patients with CD in medically induced remission (CD activity index [CDAI]< or =150) were randomized to receive oral budesonide 3 mg, 6 mg, or placebo daily for 12 months. The primary outcome measure was time to relapse (increase in CDAI of 60 points above baseline and >150).

RESULTS

The median time to relapse was 268, 170, and 154 days for budesonide 6 mg, budesonide 3 mg, and placebo groups, respectively (p= 0.0072). The frequency of adverse events and glucocorticosteroid side effects were similar in all groups.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide 6 mg/day is effective for prolonging time to relapse and for significantly reducing rates of relapse at 3 and 6 months but not 12 months in patients with CD in medically induced remission.

Methods to avoid infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Infections have been reported in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), especially in association with anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory medications used to treat IBD. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of information on infectious complication risk in patients with IBD. This review describes infectious complications reported in patients with IBD and provides a framework for future studies to assess potential risk factors and incidence for infection. Recommendations are also provided for prevention of infection.

Budesonide as maintenance treatment in Crohn's disease: a placebo-controlled trial

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide capsules 6 mg daily for prolongation of time to relapse and maintenance of remission in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) affecting the ileum and/or ascending colon.

METHODS

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial, 110 patients with CD, who had previously achieved remission in a placebo-controlled trial of budesonide 9 mg daily, were randomly assigned to receive budesonide 6 mg once daily or placebo for 52 weeks. Primary outcome measure was time to relapse [CD activity index (CDAI) of >150 plus an increase of at least 60 points from study entry or withdrawal due to clinical deterioration].

RESULTS

Median time to relapse was 360 days for budesonide patients; 169 days for placebo patients (P = 0.132). No significant differences were seen between groups in relapse rates at 1 year. Budesonide was safe and well tolerated, with a similar adverse events profile to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with budesonide 6 mg once daily had a trend towards a prolonged time to relapse and lower CDAI scores compared with patients treated with placebo, but relapse rates were not significantly different at the 1-year end point.

Advances in the treatment of Crohn's disease

The medical therapy of Crohn's disease has improved considerably in recent years. In large part, this is due to the introduction of new efficacious agents, both "biologics" and traditional small molecules. Further study of older drugs has also advanced our ability to devise the optimum approach to individual Crohn's disease patients by better clarifying the benefits, adverse effects, and means to optimize doses of established medications. In this review, we present an evidence-based approach to the medical management of active Crohn's disease, Crohn's disease in remission, and perianal Crohn's disease that emphasizes recent advances that have come from the results of randomized controlled clinical trials.