Once-daily, high-concentration MMX mesalamine in active ulcerative colitis

Colon targeting in rats, dogs and IBD patients with species-independent film coatings

Polysaccharides were identified, which allow for colon targeting in human Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients, as well as in rats and dogs (which are frequently used as animals in preclinical studies). The polysaccharides are degraded by colonic enzymes (secreted by bacteria), triggering the onset of drug release at the target site. It has to be pointed out that the microbiota in rats, dogs and humans substantially differ. Thus, the performance of this type of colon targeting system observed in animals might not be predictive for patients. The aim of this study was to limit this risk. Different polysaccharides were exposed to culture medium inoculated with fecal samples from IBD patients, healthy dogs and "IBD rats" (in which colonic inflammation was induced). Dynamic changes in the pH of the culture medium were used as an indicator for the proliferation of the bacteria and, thus, the potential of the polysaccharides to serve as their substrate. Fundamental differences were observed with respect to the extent of the pH variations as well as their species-dependency. The most promising polysaccharides were used to prepare polymeric film coatings surrounding 5-aminosaliciylic acid (5-ASA)-loaded starter cores. To limit premature polysaccharide dissolution/swelling in the upper gastro intestinal tract, ethylcellulose was also included in the film coatings. Drug release was monitored upon exposure to culture medium inoculated with fecal samples from IBD patients, healthy dogs and "IBD rats". For reasons of comparison, also 5-ASA release in pure culture medium was measured. Most film coatings showed highly species-dependent drug release kinetics or limited colon targeting capacity. Interestingly, extracts from aloe vera and reishi (a mushroom) showed a promising potential for colon targeting in all species.

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

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

Different levels of healing in inflammatory bowel diseases: mucosal, histological, transmural, barrier and complete healing

Mucosal healing on endoscopy has emerged as a key prognostic parameter in the management of patients with IBD (Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis/UC) and can predict sustained clinical remission and resection-free survival. The structural basis for this type of mucosal healing is a progressive resolution of intestinal inflammation with associated healing of ulcers and improved epithelial barrier function. However, in some cases with mucosal healing on endoscopy, evidence of histological activity in mucosal biopsies has been observed. Subsequently, in UC, a second, deeper type of mucosal healing, denoted histological healing, was defined which requires the absence of active inflammation in mucosal biopsies. Both levels of mucosal healing should be considered as initial events in the resolution of gut inflammation in IBD rather than as indicators of complete transmural healing. In this review, the effects of anti-inflammatory, biological or immunosuppressive agents as well as small molecules on mucosal healing in clinical studies are highlighted. In addition, we focus on the implications of mucosal healing for clinical management of patients with IBD. Moreover, emerging techniques for the analysis of mucosal healing as well as potentially deeper levels of mucosal healing such as transmural healing and functional barrier healing of the mucosa are discussed. Although none of these new levels of healing indicate a definitive cure of the diseases, they make an important contribution to the assessment of patients' prognosis. The ultimate level of healing in IBD would be a resolution of all aspects of intestinal and extraintestinal inflammation (complete healing).

Assessing the Clinical and Endoscopic Efficacy of Extended Treatment Duration with Different Doses of Mesalazine for Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis beyond 8 Weeks of Induction

Introduction

High-strength mesalazine formulations play an important role in providing a convenient option to increase the dose in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients and therefore avoiding the switch to another therapeutic class. Higher doses of mesalazine may be required during periods of remission in order to prevent relapse.

Aim

The aim of the study was to investigate clinical outcomes of three mesalazine maintenance doses adapted for post induction response.

Methods

In this post hoc analysis, 675 UC patients entered an open-label extension study for a total of 38 weeks (including 8-12 week induction period with 3.2 g/day mesalazine). After the induction period, they were separated into three groups: remitters (in clinical and endoscopic remission), responders (decrease in Partial Mayo Clinic Score of ≥2 points and ≥30% from week 0), and nonresponders (failed to achieve endoscopic or clinical response at week 8) and received 1.6 g/day, 3.2 g/day, or 4.8 g/day of mesalazine (using a new 1,600 mg mesalazine tablet), respectively.

Results

133/202 (65.8%), 108/274 (39.4%), and 59/199 (29.6%) patients achieved clinical and endoscopic remission at week 38 with 1.6 g/day, 3.2 g/day, and 4.8 g/day, respectively. At week 38, 142/202 (70.3%), 93/274 (33.9%), and 61/199 (30.7%) patients achieved clinical remission (stool score of 0 and rectal bleeding score of 0) with 1.6 g/day, 3.2 g/day, and 4.8 g/day, respectively.

Conclusions

Patients partially responding or not responding to an initial induction dose of 3.2 g/day mesalazine could benefit from an extended treatment period at the same dose, or an increase to 4.8 g/day in an attempt to achieve combined clinical and endoscopic remission.

Efficacy of oral prolonged-release mesalazine in moderately active ulcerative colitis

New meta-analyses are presented that provide further evidence supporting the effectiveness of oral prolonged-release mesalazine compared to other oral mesalazines as induction therapy in patients with moderately active ulcerative colitis.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

GADECCU 2022 Guideline for the treatment of Ulcerative Colitis. Adaptation and updating of the GETECCU 2020 Guideline

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease that compromises the colon, affecting the quality of life of individuals of any age. In practice, there is a wide spectrum of clinical situations. The advances made in the physio pathogenesis of UC have allowed the development of new, more effective and safer therapeutic agents.

OBJECTIVES

To update and expand the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of relevant treatments for remission induction and maintenance after a mild, moderate or severe flare of UC.

RECIPIENTS

Gastroenterologists, coloproctologists, general practitioners, family physicians and others health professionals, interested in the treatment of UC.

METHODOLOGY

GADECCU authorities obtained authorization from GETECCU to adapt and update the GETECCU 2020 Guide for the treatment of UC. Prepared with GRADE methodology. A team was formed that included authors, a panel of experts, a nurse and a patient, methodological experts, and external reviewers. GRADE methodology was used with the new information.

RESULTS

A 118-page document was prepared with the 44 GADECCU 2022 recommendations, for different clinical situations and therapeutic options, according to levels of evidence. A section was added with the new molecules that are about to be available.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline has been made in order to facilitate decision-making regarding the treatment of UC, adapting and updating the guide prepared by GETECCU in the year 2020.

Colonic drug delivery: Formulating the next generation of colon-targeted therapeutics

Colonic drug delivery can facilitate access to unique therapeutic targets and has the potential to enhance drug bioavailability whilst reducing off-target effects. Delivering drugs to the colon requires considered formulation development, as both oral and rectal dosage forms can encounter challenges if the colon's distinct physiological environment is not appreciated. As the therapeutic opportunities surrounding colonic drug delivery multiply, the success of novel pharmaceuticals lies in their design. This review provides a modern insight into the key parameters determining the effective design and development of colon-targeted medicines. Influential physiological features governing the release, dissolution, stability, and absorption of drugs in the colon are first discussed, followed by an overview of the most reliable colon-targeted formulation strategies. Finally, the most appropriate in vitro, in vivo, and in silico preclinical investigations are presented, with the goal of inspiring strategic development of new colon-targeted therapeutics.

Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Roadmap to Sail the Seas of IBD Therapies

The drug pipeline for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has dramatically expanded over the last two decades, and it is expected to further grow in the upcoming years with the introduction of new agents with different mechanisms of action. However, such an increase of therapeutic options needs to be paralleled with an appropriate development of research to help physicians in the decision-making process when choosing which drug to prescribe. On the population level, comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to explore and identify relevant differences-in terms of both efficacy and safety outcomes-amongst different therapeutic regimens and/or strategies, in order to find the correct placement for each treatment in the therapeutic algorithm. CER revolves around three cornerstones: network meta-analyses, head-to-head trials and real-world studies, each of which has specific pros and cons, and can therefore offer answers to different questions. In this review, we aim to provide an overview on the methodological features specific to each of these research approaches, as well as to illustrate the main findings coming from CER on IBD target therapies (i.e., biologics and small molecules) and to discuss their appropriate interpretation.

Definition of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis in clinical trials: A systematic literature review

We performed a systematic review to investigate the definition of mild to moderate active ulcerative colitis (UC), and to describe predictors of good response to treatment in clinical trials assessing 5‐ASA and/or budesonide. Thirty‐nine randomized controlled trials were included. The UC Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) was the most frequent score used for defining mild to moderate active UC (16 studies, 41%), followed by Clinical Activity Index in 11 studies (28.2%). Four different cut‐offs were used to define mild to moderate active UC using the UCDAI. The most frequently reported predictors of good response to treatment was a mild and moderate disease activity. There is heterogeneity in the definition of mild to moderate active UC in randomized clinical trials. A standardized definition of mild to moderate active UC used for inclusion of patients in clinical trials is needed.

Endoscopic activity in inflammatory bowel disease: clinical significance and application in practice

Endoscopy is vital for diagnosing, assessing treatment response, and monitoring surveillance in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). With the growing importance of mucosal healing as a treatment target, the assessment of disease activity by endoscopy has been accepted as the standard of care for IBD. There are many endoscopic activity indices for facilitating standardized reporting of the gastrointestinal mucosal appearance in IBD, and each index has its strengths and weaknesses. Although most endoscopic indices do not have a clear-cut validated definition, endoscopic remission or mucosal healing is associated with favorable outcomes, such as a decreased risk of relapse. Therefore, experts suggest utilizing endoscopic indices for monitoring disease activity and optimizing treatment to achieve remission. However, the regular monitoring of endoscopic activity is limited in practice owing to several factors, such as the complexity of the procedure, time consumption, inter-observer variability, and lack of a clear-cut, validated definition of endoscopic response or remission. Although experts have recently suggested consensus-based definitions, further studies are needed to define the values that can predict long-term outcomes.

Novel Budesonide Suppository and Standard Budesonide Rectal Foam Induce High Rates of Clinical Remission and Mucosal Healing in Active Ulcerative Proctitis: a Randomised, Controlled, Non-inferiority Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Proctitis is the least extensive type of ulcerative colitis, for which rectal therapy is rarely studied and is underused. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and patient's preference of a novel formulation of budesonide suppository 4 mg, compared with a commercially available budesonide rectal foam 2 mg, for the treatment of mild to moderate ulcerative proctitis.

METHODS

This was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either budesonide 4 mg suppository or budesonide 2 mg foam once daily for 8 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were changes from baseline to Week 8 in clinical symptoms, for which clinical remission was defined as having a modified Ulcerative Colitis-Disease Activity Index [UC-DAI] subscore for stool frequency of 0 or 1 and a subscore for rectal bleeding of 0, and mucosal healing, defined as having a modified UC-DAI subscore for mucosal appearance of 0 or 1. Using a more stringent criterion, we additionally analysed deepened mucosal healing, which was defined as a mucosal appearance subscore of 0. Patient's preference, physician's global assessment, and quality of life were also assessed and analysed.

RESULTS

Overall, 286 and 291 patients were included in the 4 mg suppository and 2 mg foam groups, respectively. Budesonide 4 mg suppository met the prespecified criterion for non-inferiority to the 2 mg foam in both co-primary endpoints of clinical remission and mucosal healing. Secondary endpoints consistently supported the non-inferiority of the suppository. Trends in favour of the suppository were observed in the subgroup of mesalazine non-responders. More patients reported a preference for the suppository over rectal foam.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ulcerative proctitis, budesonide 4 mg suppository was non-inferior to budesonide 2 mg foam in efficacy, and both were safe and well tolerated.

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

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

Clinical translation of advanced colonic drug delivery technologies

Targeted drug delivery to the colon offers a myriad of benefits, including treatment of local diseases, direct access to unique therapeutic targets and the potential for increasing systemic drug bioavailability and efficacy. Although a range of traditional colonic delivery technologies are available, these systems exhibit inconsistent drug release due to physiological variability between and within individuals, which may be further exacerbated by underlying disease states. In recent years, significant translational and commercial advances have been made with the introduction of new technologies that incorporate independent multi-stimuli release mechanisms (pH and/or microbiota-dependent release). Harnessing these advanced technologies offers new possibilities for drug delivery via the colon, including the delivery of biopharmaceuticals, vaccines, nutrients, and microbiome therapeutics for the treatment of both local and systemic diseases. This review details the latest advances in colonic drug delivery, with an emphasis on emerging therapeutic opportunities and clinical technology translation.

A review on the current status and definitions of activity indices in inflammatory bowel disease: how to use indices for precise evaluation

Many clinical trials have been conducted for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), so various clinical indices (CIs) and endoscopic indices (EIs) have also been evaluated. However, recently, with the progress of IBD management, review of established indices from previous studies, and establishment of new indices, the landscape of the use of indices in clinical trials have changed. We investigated the number and frequency of the indices adapted in recent clinical trials for ulcerative colitis (CI and EI) and Crohn's disease (CI, EI, index related to magnetic resonance imaging, index for evaluating patient-reported outcomes, and health-related quality of life). Based on the results, we selected representative indices and further reviewed their content and characteristics. Moreover, various definitions, including clinical and endoscopic response or remission, have been described by means of representative indices in clinical trials.

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

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

Efficacy and safety of oral Pentasa (prolonged-release mesalazine) in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pentasa (prolonged-release mesalazine [5-ASA]) has been available for >30 years as an effective treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was undertaken to provide an up-to-date evaluation of oral Pentasa efficacy and safety for induction and maintenance of remission.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, from inception to 02 December 2020. Unpublished studies were also sourced. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model and Bayesian inference compared Pentasa (tablets, granules, capsules) against placebo and other 5-ASAs.

RESULTS

Twelve studies involving 3674 patients treated with Pentasa were identified. Pentasa 2-4 g/day was superior to placebo at inducing (absolute risk difference [ARD] at 8 weeks 0.14, 95% CI 0.07‒0.21; p < .001) and maintaining (ARD 6-12 months 0.18, 95% CI 0.04‒0.33; p < .05) remission (clinical/endoscopic). Against other 5-ASAs, Pentasa had similar efficacy for induction (ARD <0.001, 95% CI -0.05‒0.05) and maintenance (ARD 0.01, 95% CI -0.07‒0.08) treatment using randomized controlled trial data. Upon inclusion of real-world study data, Pentasa was significantly better at maintaining remission compared both to Eudragit-S mesalazine and sulfasalazine (ARD 0.04, 95% CI 0.02‒0.06; p < .001). Pentasa (1-4 g/day) had similar treatment-related adverse event rates to placebo (ARD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03‒0.06) and Eudragit-L/S mesalazines (2.25-3 vs 2.4-3 g/day, respectively; ARD -0.03, 95% CI -0.12‒0.05), but was better tolerated than sulfasalazine (3 g/day) (ARD 0.07, 95% CI 0.003‒0.14; p < .05).

CONCLUSION

This study confirms oral Pentasa is efficacious and well-tolerated in treating active UC and maintaining remission. The availability of multiple forms of Pentasa supports physicians' ability to individualize treatment and optimize dosing to improve outcomes.

GETECCU 2020 guidelines for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Developed using the GRADE approach

INTRODUCTION

Since the first edition of the Guidelines was published in 2013, much information has been generated around the treatment of ulcerative colitis, and new drugs and action protocols have been introduced. Clinical practice has changed substantially, warranting new approaches and a comprehensive review and update of the evidence.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Once again, we used the GRADE approach, supported by an electronic tool (https://gradepro.org). The clinical scenarios are the same as in the previous version (induction and maintenance in severe and mild-moderate flare-ups), as are the variables and their evaluation. However, in the updated guidelines, three questions have been deleted, 14 added and 30 maintained, making a total of 44 clinical questions. After an exhaustive review of the evidence, the recommendations are now updated.

RESULTS

Of the 44 questions analysed, no recommendation could be established in two due to the very low quality of the evidence, while in the other 42, based on different degrees of quality of evidence, recommendations were made according to the GRADE system. In 25 of these questions the final recommendation is strongly in favour, in six strongly against, in seven weakly in favour and in four weakly against. According to the scenarios and recommendations, six algorithms are proposed as a simple guide for practical decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this update of the 2013 guidelines is to provide answers, based on the GRADE approach, to the different questions we ask ourselves daily when deciding the most appropriate treatment for our patients with ulcerative colitis in the different clinical scenarios.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Deep learning enabled classification of Mayo endoscopic subscore in patients with ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVE

Previous reports of deep learning-assisted assessment of Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) in ulcerative colitis have only explored the ability to distinguish disease remission (MES 0/1) from severe disease (MES 2/3) or inactive disease (MES 0) from active disease (MES 1-3). We sought to explore the utility of deep learning models in the automated grading of each individual MES in ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, a total of 777 representative still images of endoscopies from 777 patients with clinically active ulcerative colitis were graded using the MES by two physicians. Each image was assigned an MES of 1, 2, or 3. A 101-layer convolutional neural network model was trained and validated on 90% of the data, while 10% was left for a holdout test set. Model discrimination was assessed by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver operating characteristic as well as standard measures of accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).

RESULTS

In the holdout test set, the final model classified MES 3 disease with an AUC of 0.96, MES 2 disease with an AUC of 0.86, and MES 1 disease with an AUC 0.89. Overall accuracy was 77.2%. Across MES 1, 2, and 3, average specificity was 85.7%, average sensitivity was 72.4%, average PPV was 77.7%, and the average NPV was 87.0%.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated a deep learning model was able to robustly classify individual grades of endoscopic disease severity among patients with ulcerative colitis.

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

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

Mesalamine in the Initial Therapy of Ulcerative Colitis

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Key Strategies to Optimize Outcomes in Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis

Mesalamine (5-ASA) is the mainstay therapy in patients with mild-to-moderate active ulcerative colitis (UC). However, non-adherence to therapy and practice variability among gastroenterologists represent long-standing barriers, leading to poor outcomes. Additionally, targets to treat in UC are increasingly evolving from focusing on clinical remission to achieving endoscopic and histological healing. To date, systemic steroids are still recommended in non-responders to 5-ASA, despite their well-known side effects. Importantly, with the advent of new therapeutic options such as oral corticosteroids with topical activity (e.g., budesonide multimatrix system (MMX)), biologics, and small molecules, some issues need to be addressed for the optimal management of these patients in daily clinical practice. The specific positioning of these drugs in patients with mild-to-moderate disease remains unclear. This review aims to identify current challenges in clinical practice and to provide physicians with key strategies to optimize treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate UC, and ultimately achieve more ambitious therapeutic goals.

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

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. It was previously found that 5-ASA drugs in doses of at least 2 g/day were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP for inducing remission in ulcerative colitis (UC). This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators (i.e. other formulations of 5-ASA) for induction of remission in active UC. A secondary objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA versus conventional dosing regimens (two or three times daily).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library on 11 June 2019. We also searched references, conference proceedings and study registers to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (aged 18 years or more) with active UC for inclusion. We included studies that compared oral 5-ASA therapy with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily to conventional dosing as well as dose-ranging studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Outcomes include failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, adherence, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. We analyzed five comparisons: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (e.g. MMX mesalamine, Ipocol, Balsalazide, Pentasa, Olsalazine and 5-ASA micropellets) versus comparator 5-ASA (e.g. Asacol, Claversal, Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for each outcome. We analyzed data on an intention-to-treat basis, and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 54 studies (9612 participants). We rated most studies at low risk of bias. Seventy-one per cent (1107/1550) of 5-ASA participants failed to enter clinical remission compared to 83% (695/837) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89; 2387 participants, 11 studies; high-certainty evidence). We also observed a dose-response trend for 5-ASA. There was no difference in clinical remission rates between 5-ASA and SASP. Fifty-four per cent (150/279) of 5-ASA participants failed to enter remission compared to 58% (144/247) of SASP participants (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04; 526 participants, 8 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference in remission rates between once-daily dosing and conventional dosing. Sixty per cent (533/881) of once-daily participants failed to enter clinical remission compared to 61% (538/880) of conventionally-dosed participants (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 1761 participants, 5 studies; high-certainty evidence). Eight per cent (15/179) of participants dosed once daily failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 6% (11/179) of conventionally-dosed participants (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.86; 358 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Fifty per cent (507/1022) of participants in the 5-ASA group failed to enter remission compared to 52% (491/946) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.02; 1968 participants, 11 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, once-daily and conventionally-dosed 5-ASA, and 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulation studies. Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache and worsening UC. SASP was not as well tolerated as 5-ASA. Twenty-nine per cent (118/411) of SASP participants experienced an AE compared to 15% (72/498) of 5-ASA participants (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.63; 909 participants, 12 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo, and moderate-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is not more effective than SASP. Considering relative costs, a clinical advantage to using oral 5-ASA in place of SASP appears unlikely. High-certainty evidence suggests 5-ASA dosed once daily appears to be as efficacious as conventionally-dosed 5-ASA. There may be little or no difference in efficacy or safety among the various 5-ASA formulations.

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

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

Clinical Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Considerations in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) of unknown etiology, probably caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. The treatment of patients with active UC depends on the severity, localization and history of IBD medication. According to the classic step-up approach, treatment with 5-aminosalicylic acid compounds is the first step in the treatment of mild to moderately active UC. Corticosteroids, such as prednisolone are used in UC patients with moderate to severe disease activity, but only for remission induction therapy because of side effects associated with long-term use. Thiopurines are the next step in the treatment of active UC but monotherapy during induction therapy in UC patients is not preferred because of their slow onset. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of the pharmacologically active metabolites of thiopurines, 6-thioguanine nucleotide (6-TGN), has proven to be beneficial. Thiopurine S-methyltransferase (TMPT) plays a role in the metabolic conversion pathway of thiopurines and exhibits genetic polymorphism; however, the clinical benefit and relevance of TPMT genotyping is not well established. In patients with severely active UC refractory to corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors such as ciclosporin A (CsA) and tacrolimus are potential therapeutic options. These agents usually have a rather rapid onset of action. Monoclonal antibodies (anti-tumor necrosis factor [TNF] agents, vedolizumab) are the last pharmacotherapeutic option for UC patients before surgery becomes inevitable. Body weight, albumin status and antidrug antibodies contribute to the variability in the pharmacokinetics of anti-TNF agents. Additionally, the use of concomitant immunomodulators (thiopurines/methotrexate) lowers the rate of immunogenicity, and therefore the concomitant use of anti-TNF therapy with an immunomodulator may confer some advantage compared with monotherapy in certain patients. TDM of anti-TNF agents could be beneficial in patients with primary nonresponse and secondary loss of response. The potential benefit of applying TDM during vedolizumab treatment has yet to be determined.

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

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

Comparative assessment of budesonide-MMX and mesalamine in active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS

The comparative efficacy, safety and tolerability of budesonide-MMX and oral mesalamine in active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) are unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis to fill this evidence gap.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries, regulatory agencies' websites and international conference proceedings, up to July 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adult patients with active, mild-to-moderate UC, comparing budesonide-MMX or mesalamine against placebo, or against each other, or different dosing strategies, for induction of remission. Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and outcomes, and assessed each trial's risk-of-bias.

RESULTS

We identified and synthesized evidence from 15 eligible trials including 4083 participants. Budesonide-MMX 9 mg/day and mesalamine >2.4 g/day had similar efficacy for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission (OR = 0.97; 0.59-1.60), both showing superiority over placebo (OR = 2.68; 1.75-4.10, and OR = 2.75; 1.94-3.90, respectively). Furthermore, mesalamine >2.4 g/day was more efficacious than mesalamine 1.6-2.4 g/day (odds ratio = 1.27; 1.03-1.56). Secondary analyses showed that mesalamine >2.4 g/day ranks at the top among comparator treatments regarding safety (serious adverse events; surface under the cumulative ranking area [SUCRA] 79.2%) and tolerability (treatment discontinuations or withdrawals from the study due to adverse events; SUCRA 96.7%). There was no evidence of inconsistency, while heterogeneity between studies and risk of publication bias were low.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide-MMX and mesalamine >2.4 g/day had similar efficacy for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission in active, mild-to-moderate UC; however, mesalamine >2.4 g/day showed better tolerability. Further high-quality research is warranted.

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

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

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

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

Budesonide Suppositories Are Effective and Safe for Treating Acute Ulcerative Proctitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

Objectives

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

Key findings

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

Summary

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

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

AIMS

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

None.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Systematic review: safety of mesalazine in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparison of efficacy of once daily multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day and 4.8 g/day with other 5-aminosalicylic acid preparation in active ulcerative colitis: a randomized, double-blind study

Background/Aims

This study compared the efficacy of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day and 4.8 g/day with controlled-release mesalazine 2.25 g/day.

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 251 patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis received multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day once daily (Multimatrix-2.4), 4.8 g/day once daily (Multimatrix-4.8), or controlled-release (time-dependent) mesalazine 2.25 g/day 3 times daily (Time-2.25) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the ulcerative colitis-disease activity index (UC-DAI) score.

Results

The mean change in the UC-DAI score and standard deviation in the per protocol set was -1.9±2.5 for Multimatrix-2.4 and -2.4±2.8 for Time-2.25. The difference between Multimatrix-2.4 and Time-2.25 was 0.3 (two-sided 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5 to 1.1), thus non-inferiority was not demonstrated based on the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (1.0). In the full analysis set, the difference between Multimatrix-4.8 and Time-2.25 was -1.2 (two-sided 95% CI, -2.0 to -0.5), and the mean change in UC-DAI score in the FAS was -3.3 (two-sided 95% CI, -3.9 to -2.8) for Multimatrix-4.8 and -1.9 (two-sided 95% CI, -2.5 to -1.3) for Multimatrix-2.4, indicating that Multimatrix-4.8 was more effective than Time-2.25 and Multimatrix-2.4. There was no difference among the treatment groups in terms of safety.

Conclusions

This study showed that the efficacy of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day was comparable to controlled release mesalazine 2.25 g/day, although non-inferiority was not demonstrated. Importantly, this was the first study to indicate that multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day was more effective than 2.4g/day with no associated safety concerns.

Changes in health-related quality of life and work-related outcomes for patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis receiving short-term and long-term treatment with multimatrix mesalamine: a prospective, open-label study

Background

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is associated with lower health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and with disease activity predicting lower HRQoL and worse work-related outcomes. The current study examined the burden of UC on patients' HRQoL, as well as changes in patients' HRQoL and work-related outcomes following short-term and long-term treatment with multimatrix mesalamine, and their correspondence with changes in disease activity.

Methods

Data were from an open-label, multinational, prospective trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01124149) of 717 adults with active mild-to-moderate UC who were treated with 4.8 g/day multimatrix mesalamine tablets once daily for eight weeks (acute phase). Four-hundred sixty-one patients who achieved partial or complete clinical and endoscopic remission subsequently received treatment with daily 2.4 g/day multimatrix mesalamine for 12 months (maintenance phase). At baseline, Week 8, and Month 12, patients were administered patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures of HRQoL (the SF-12v2® Health Survey [SF-12v2] and Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire) and work-related outcomes (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, UC-specific version). SF-12v2 scores were compared to the U.S. general population using Analysis of Variance models to assess burden of UC on HRQoL. Mixed-effects repeated-measures models compared PRO scores across visits to assess change in PRO scores over time. Correlations examined the correspondence of changes in PRO scores with changes on a modified UC disease activity index (UC-DAI).

Results

Baseline burden of disease observed on all SF-12v2 domains was partially eliminated at Week 8 and completely eliminated at Month 12. Statistically significant improvements from baseline were observed at both Week 8 and Month 12 for all PRO scores (all P < 0.001). Decreases in UC-DAI scores significantly predicted improvements in PRO scores during the acute treatment phase.

Conclusions

Patients with UC receiving daily multimatrix mesalamine treatment showed significant improvements in all measured domains of HRQoL and work-related outcomes. Patients who achieved partial or complete clinical and endoscopic remission maintained these improvements for most of these domains over 12 months with continued daily treatment. Changes in HRQoL and work-related outcomes were inversely related to changes in disease activity. Findings support the effectiveness of multimatrix mesalamine for improving, and sustaining improvements, in HRQoL and work-related outcomes.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Work-Related Outcomes for Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis and Remission Status Following Short-Term and Long-Term Treatment With Multimatrix Mesalamine: A Prospective, Open-Label Study

BACKGROUND

Disease activity of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) predicts health-related quality of life (HRQL) and work-related outcomes (eg, absenteeism, productivity). We tested whether outcomes differed among patients in complete (clinical and endoscopic) remission, partial remission, or not in remission following treatment with multimatrix mesalamine.

METHODS

Data were from an open-label, multicountry, prospective trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01124149) of 717 adults with active mild-to-moderate UC treated with 4.8 g/day multimatrix mesalamine tablets for 8 weeks (induction period); 459 patients who achieved partial or complete remission received daily 2.4 g/day multimatrix mesalamine for 12 additional months (maintenance period). HRQL (SF-12v2 Health Survey and Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire) and work-related outcomes (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire) were assessed at baseline and final visits of each treatment period. Differences in scores by remission status within each treatment period were tested using analysis of variance and analysis of covariance models, whereas mixed-effects models with repeated measures tested changes over time.

RESULTS

At their final visit of each treatment period, patients in partial remission scored significantly better on all HRQL and work-related domains than patients not in remission (all Bonferroni-adjusted P < 0.05). Scores for patients in partial remission were, almost without exception, statistically equivalent to those for patients in complete remission. Fluctuating between complete and partial remission during maintenance treatment had no impact on outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in partial remission following multimatrix mesalamine treatment had HRQL and work-related outcomes equivalent to patients in complete remission. Achievement and maintenance of partial remission may be sufficient for improvements in patients' functioning, well-being, and work performance.

Emerging oral targeted therapies in inflammatory bowel diseases: opportunities and challenges

To improve quality of life and prevent long-term risks in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs: Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis), it is essential to suppress inflammatory activity adequately. However, corticosteroids are only suitable for therapy of acute flares and the evidence for positive effects of immunosuppressive substances like azathioprine or 6-mercapropurine is mainly limited to maintenance of remission. In addition, only subgroups of patients benefit from biologicals targeting tumour necrosis factor α or α4β7 integrins. In summary, until now the disease activity is not sufficiently controlled in a relevant fraction of the patients with IBD. Thus, there is an urge for the development of new substances in the therapy of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Fortunately, new oral and parenteral substances are in the pipeline. This review will focus on oral substances, which have already passed phase II studies successfully at this stage. In this article, we summarize data regarding AJM300, phosphatidylcholine (LT-02), mongersen, ozanimod, filgotinib and tofacitinib. AJM300 and ozanimod were tested in patients with ulcerative colitis and target lymphocyte trafficking through inhibition of the α subunit of integrin, respectively binding to the sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (subtypes 1 and 5) on lymphocytes. Mongersen was utilized in patients with Crohn's disease and accelerates the degradation of SMAD7 mRNA, which consequently strengthens the mainly anti-inflammatory signalling pathway of transforming growth factor β1. Various Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors were developed, which inhibit the intracellular signalling pathway of cytokines. For example, the JAK1 blocker filgotinib was tested in Crohn's disease, whereas the JAK1/3 inhibitor tofacitinib was tested in clinical trials for both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. A different therapeutic approach is the substitution of phosphatidylcholine (LT-02), which might recover the colonic mucus. Taken together, clinical trials with these new agents have opened avenues for further clinical studies and it can be expected that at least some of these agents will be finally approved for clinical therapy.

Nanoparticulate Drug Delivery Systems Targeting Inflammation for Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic, idiopathic inflammatory set of conditions that can affect the entire gastrointestinal (GI) tract and is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. To date there is no curative therapy for IBD; therefore life-long medication can be necessary for IBD management if surgery is to be avoided. Drug delivery systems specific to the colon have improved IBD treatment and several such systems are available to patients. However, current delivery systems for IBD do not target drugs to the site of inflammation, which leads to frequent dosing and potentially severe side effects that can adversely impact patients' adherence to medication. There is a need for novel drug delivery systems that can target drugs to the site of inflammation, prolong local drug availability, improve therapeutic efficacy, and reduce drug side effects. Nanoparticulate (NP) systems are attractive in designing targeted drug delivery systems for the treatment of IBD because of their unique physicochemical properties and capability of targeting the site of disease. This review analyzes the microenvironment at the site of inflammation in IBD, highlighting the pathophysiological features as possible cues for targeted delivery; discusses different strategies and mechanisms of NP targeting IBD, including size-, charge-, ligand-receptor, degradation- and microbiome-mediated approaches; and summarizes recent progress on using NPs towards improved therapies for IBD. Finally, challenges and future directions in this field are presented to advance the development of targeted drug delivery for IBD treatment.

Time to clinical response and remission for therapeutics in inflammatory bowel diseases: What should the clinician expect, what should patients be told?

An awareness of the expected time for therapies to induce symptomatic improvement and remission is necessary for determining the timing of follow-up, disease (re)assessment, and the duration to persist with therapies, yet this is seldom reported as an outcome in clinical trials. In this review, we explore the time to clinical response and remission of current therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as well as medication, patient and disease related factors that may influence the time to clinical response. It appears that the time to therapeutic response varies depending on the indication for therapy (Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis). Agents with the most rapid time to clinical response included corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, exclusive enteral nutrition, aminosalicylates and anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy which will work in most patients within the first 2 mo. Vedolizumab, methotrexate and thiopurines had a longer time to clinical response and can take several months to achieve maximal efficacy. Factors affecting the time to clinical response of therapies included use of concomitant therapy, disease duration, smoking status, disease phenotype and advanced age. There appears to be marked variation in time to clinical response for therapies used in IBD which is further influenced by disease and patient related factors. Understanding the expected time to therapeutic response is integral to inform further decision making, maintain a patient-centered approach and ensure treatment is given an appropriate timeframe to achieve maximal benefit prior to cessation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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