Comparison of the efficacy and safety of 1.5 compared with 3.0 g oral slow-release mesalazine (Pentasa) in the maintenance treatment of ulcerative colitis. Dutch Pentasa Study Group

Practical management of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: an international expert consensus

INTRODUCTION

Although there are well-defined guidelines for the management of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC), there are still unmet needs. For this reason, we conducted an international expert consensus to standardize the management of patients with mild-to-moderate UC and provide practical guidance to clinicians.

AREAS COVERED

Based on Delphi methodology, 15 statements were approved after two rounds of voting, addressing several aspects of disease management from sequencing to treatment duration, from monitoring to optimization techniques and safety profile.

EXPERT OPINION

Growing knowledge of mild-to-moderate UC has led to the development of new ambitious outcomes such as histological remission and disease clearance. Furthermore, noninvasive tools for patient monitoring such as fecal calprotectin and intestinal ultrasound are now available. Their implementation in clinical practice will allow clinicians to tightly monitor disease activity and promptly adapt treatment, avoiding complications and disease progression and targeting better disease control.

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 Unpublished studies were also sourced.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.

Patient Preference and Adherence to Aminosalicylates for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that requires sustained treatment for optimal outcomes. The 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) class of medications are first-line for the treatment of mild-to-moderate UC but suffer from suboptimal adherence rates in real-world settings. This review summarizes the literature on adherence and patient preference to 5-ASA in patients with UC. We begin by highlighting key studies that measure real-world adherence rates, as well as some of the pitfalls associated with certain techniques. We examine the data on the consequences of non-adherence, which range from decreased quality of life and higher risk of colorectal cancer at the individual level to increased costs to the overall healthcare system. We then turn to the reasons and risk factors for non-adherence and summarize the current understanding of the barriers towards adherence. Afterwards, we describe the research on patient preferences between 5-ASA formulations and dosing regimen. Finally, we summarize the evidence regarding interventions to improve 5-ASA adherence. While adherence remains a challenge in practice, understanding the current state of the field can better inform future efforts towards increasing adherence, and thus clinical outcomes, in UC.

Predictive factors of relapse after dose reduction of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid in patients with ulcerative colitis in the remission phase

Objectives

Useful indices to determine whether to reduce the dose of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) during remission remain unclear. We aimed to analyze the rate and risk factors of relapse after reducing the dose of oral 5-ASA used for maintenance therapy of UC.

Methods

UC patients whose 5-ASA dose was reduced in clinical remission (partial Mayo score of ≤ 1) at our institution from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed. Various clinical variables of patients who relapsed after reducing the dose of oral 5-ASA were compared with those of patients who maintained remission. Risk factors for relapse were assessed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Cumulative relapse-free survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

A total of 70 UC patients were included; 52 (74.3%) patients maintained remission and 18 (25.7%) patients relapsed during the follow-up period. Multivariate analysis indicated that a history of acute severe UC (ASUC) was an independent predictive factor for clinical relapse (p = 0.024, odds ratio: 21, 95% confidence interval: 1.50–293.2). Based on Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, the cumulative relapse-free survival rate within 52 weeks was 22.2% for patients with a history of ASUC, compared with 82.0% for those without. the log-rank test showed a significant difference in a history of ASUC (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Dose reduction of 5-ASA should be performed carefully in patients who have a history of ASUC.

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.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease 2020

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a general term for chronic or remitting/relapsing inflammatory diseases of the intestinal tract and generally refers to ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). Since 1950, the number of patients with IBD in Japan has been increasing. The etiology of IBD remains unclear; however, recent research data indicate that the pathophysiology of IBD involves abnormalities in disease susceptibility genes, environmental factors and intestinal bacteria. The elucidation of the mechanism of IBD has facilitated therapeutic development. UC and CD display heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management depends on the understanding and tailoring of evidence-based interventions by physicians. In 2020, seventeen IBD experts of the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology revised the previous guidelines for IBD management published in 2016. This English version was produced and modified based on the existing updated guidelines in Japanese. The Clinical Questions (CQs) of the previous guidelines were completely revised and categorized as follows: Background Questions (BQs), CQs, and Future Research Questions (FRQs). The guideline was composed of a total of 69 questions: 39 BQs, 15 CQs, and 15 FRQs. The overall quality of the evidence for each CQ was determined by assessing it with reference to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, and the strength of the recommendation was determined by the Delphi consensus process. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance for on-site physicians is provided regarding indications for proceeding with the diagnosis and treatment.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Outcomes of a drug shortage requiring switching in patients with ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Drug shortages are common yet their impact on patient care and their commercial ramifications has not been adequately researched. In Australia a shortage of balsalazide (2012-2013) necessitated substitution with alternative 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) formulations for ulcerative colitis (UC).

AIM

To assess and compare the clinical and commercial sequelae of non-medical switching from balsalazide to another 5-ASA and/or return to balsalazide once supply resumed.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study of patients on balsalazide for mild-moderate UC was conducted where, strictly due to the national shortage (November 2012- January 2013), were switched to alternative 5-ASA and/or then returned to balsalazide once supply resumed. Clinical (Partial Mayo), endoscopic (Mayo score) activity, adverse effects (to alternative 5-ASA) and percentage market share (of continuous 5-ASA users) from baseline (i.e., time of switching due to shortage) through to five years were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 31 patients switched due to the shortage, 12 (38.7%) resumed balsalazide immediately once supply resumed, 8 (25.8%) prompted by adverse effects to the alternative 5-ASA used. Three patients (9.7%) had documented symptomatic improvement, 15 (48.4%) were unchanged and 13 (41.9%) had symptomatic worsening vs baseline (P < 0.01), after switching to an alternative 5-ASA. At 3 and 5y post switch, overall 26/31 (83.9%) and 23/31 (74.2%) had remained continuously on any 5-ASA therapy respectively. Twelve (38.7%) and 11 (35.5%) patients remained on balsalazide continuously at three and five years respectively after drug supply returned, equating to a loss of market share (within 5-ASA class) of 45.2% and 38.7% respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study of a balsalazide shortage in UC patients exemplifies the detrimental impact of a drug shortage on long term patient, disease and commercial outcomes.

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.

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

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

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

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

Efficacy of Therapeutic Intervention for Patients With an Ulcerative Colitis Mayo Endoscopic Score of 1

BACKGROUND

Mucosal healing (MH) is proposed as a therapeutic target for ulcerative colitis (UC). Recent studies have indicated that the rate of clinical relapse in patients with a Mayo endoscopic score (MES) of 1 is higher than that of patients with an MES of 0. However, no study has yet investigated whether therapeutic intervention prevents clinical relapse in patients with an MES of 1.

METHODS

Patients with UC with an MES of 1 and partial Mayo score ≤2 were included in this study. All patients were followed from first colonoscopy (CS) until follow-up CS. Differences in the rate of clinical relapse (requiring additional treatment for UC) or endoscopic exacerbation (MES ≥2 and proximal extension) were compared between the therapeutic intervention (immediately after first CS) group and the nontherapeutic intervention group; risk factors for relapse were also assessed.

RESULTS

Among 1523 patients with UC who underwent CS between 2013 and 2016, 220 patients were included in this study. The rate of clinical relapse (P = 0.005) and endoscopic exacerbation (P = 0.11) in patients with therapeutic intervention was lower than that in patients without therapeutic intervention. Multivariable analysis indicated that absence of therapeutic intervention (P = 0.001 for clinical relapse, P = 0.050 for endoscopic exacerbation) and a higher Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity vascular pattern score immediately after first CS (P = 0.021 for clinical relapse, P = 0.019 for endoscopic exacerbation) were risk factors for both clinical relapse and endoscopic exacerbation.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic intervention for patients with UC with an MES of 1 might prevent disease relapse.

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.

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.

Influence of Pharmaceutical Formulation on the Mucosal Concentration of 5-Aminosalicylic Acid and N-Acetylmesalamine in Japanese Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

The efficacy of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) as the first-line therapy for ulcerative colitis (UC) is determined by the extent of drug delivery to the inflamed region. Moreover, differences among the various formulations influence delivery of the drug. In this study, we examined the clinical significance of colonic mucosal concentrations of 5-ASA and N-acetylmesalamine (Ac-5-ASA) in UC patients receiving a pH-dependent or time-dependent release formulation of 5-ASA. The subjects were 67 patients with UC who were treated with a pH-dependent or time-dependent formulation of 5-ASA between December 2011 and April 2014. A retrospective observational analysis of clinical outcomes was performed using the clinical activity index (CAI) obtained on the day of biopsy. Colonic mucosal concentrations of 5-ASA and Ac-5-ASA in biopsy samples were measured by LC-tandem mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry. Patients who were treated with the pH-dependent formulation had higher colon mucosal concentrations of 5-ASA than those who were treated with the time-dependent formulation. Additionally, 5-ASA concentration was significantly higher in patients with CAI scores ≤3. A higher concentration of Ac-5-ASA was achieved with the time-dependent formulation than with the pH-dependent formulation. Furthermore, patients with CAI scores ≤3 had higher concentrations of 5-ASA than those with CAI scores ≥4. The colonic mucosal concentration of 5-ASA in patients with UC is influenced by the pharmaceutical formulation and the remission status of UC.

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.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic disorder involving mainly the intestinal tract, but possibly other gastrointestinal and extraintestinal organs. Although etiology is still uncertain, recent knowledge in pathogenesis has accumulated, and novel diagnostic and therapeutic modalities have become available for clinical use. Therefore, the previous guidelines were urged to be updated. In 2016, the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology revised the previous versions of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) in Japanese. A total of 59 clinical questions for 9 categories (1. clinical features of IBD; 2. diagnosis; 3. general consideration in treatment; 4. therapeutic interventions for IBD; 5. treatment of UC; 6. treatment of CD; 7. extraintestinal complications; 8. cancer surveillance; 9. IBD in special situation) were selected, and a literature search was performed for the clinical questions with use of the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases. The guidelines were developed with the basic concept of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made using Delphi rounds. This English version was produced and edited based on the existing updated guidelines in Japanese.

The risk factor of clinical relapse in ulcerative colitis patients with low dose 5-aminosalicylic acid as maintenance therapy: A report from the IBD registry

Background

5-Aminosalicylic acids (5-ASA) are effective for ulcerative colitis (UC) as a maintenance therapy. It is not clear when and how to reduce a dose of 5-ASA after inducing remission. We aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics and evaluate the risk factors of relapse for UC patients receiving 5-ASA.

Methods

The medical records of prospectively registered UC patients who received oral 5-ASA as maintenance therapy between January and December 31, 2014, were investigated. The patients’ clinical characteristics in a 2-year follow-up were compared between a relapse group and a remission group.

Results

Of 527 UC patients receiving only oral 5-ASA, 390 (74.0%) maintained remission and 137 (26.0%) relapsed during the follow-up period. Multivariable analysis indicated that a shorter duration of disease remission (p < 0.001, OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.12–1.38) was statistically significant for each comparison between the remission and relapse groups among all the patients. Risk factors for clinical relapse were a shorter duration of disease remission (p <0.001, OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.04–1.33) in the high-dose 5-ASA group and a shorter duration of disease remission (p = 0.003, OR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.13–1.89) and a history of steroid use (p = 0.048, OR: 4.73, 95% CI: 1.01–22.2) in the low-dose group.

Conclusions

A dose reduction of 5-ASA might be cautiously selected in UC patients with a history of steroid use and a shorter duration of disease remission.

Second Korean guidelines for the management of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease characterized by a relapsing and remitting course. The direct and indirect costs of the treatment of UC are high, and the quality of life of patients is reduced, especially during exacerbation of the disease. The incidence and prevalence of UC in Korea are still lower than those of Western countries, but have been rapidly increasing during the past decades. Various medical and surgical therapies, including biologics, are currently used for the management of UC. However, many challenging issues exist, which sometimes lead to differences in practice between clinicians. Therefore, the IBD study group of the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases established the first Korean guidelines for the management of UC in 2012. This is an update of the first guidelines. It was generally made by the adaptation of several foreign guidelines as was the first edition, and encompasses treatment of active colitis, maintenance of remission, and indication of surgery for UC. The specific recommendations are presented with the quality of evidence and classification of recommendations.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

A randomized trial comparing 4.8 vs. 2.4 g/day of oral mesalazine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Mesalazine is used as maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis but the optimal dosage is still controversial.

AIM

To compare the remission-maintenance efficacy and tolerability of two daily doses of oral mesalazine (4.8 g and 2.4 g) in patients with ulcerative colitis with frequent relapses in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

112 ulcerative colitis patients in remission were enrolled and randomly allocated to treatment for 1 year with oral mesalazine at a daily dose of 4.8 g (n=56, Group A) or 2.4 g (n=56, Group B).

RESULTS

At the end of the 12 months, intention to treat analysis revealed persistent remission in 42 (75%) in Group A and 36 (64.2%) in Group B (p=0.3). The higher daily dose (4.8 g) proved to be significantly more effective for maintaining remission in patients under 40 years of age (90.5% Group A vs. 50% Group B; Fisher's exact test, p=0.0095) and in those with extensive disease (90.9% Group A vs. 46.7% Group B; Fisher's exact test, p=0.0064).

CONCLUSIONS

In ulcerative colitis patients younger than 40 years and/or with extensive disease, a daily dose of 4.8 g oral mesalazine results in increased rates and duration of remission compared to 2.4 g.

Optimal Endpoint of Therapy in IBD: An Update on Factors Determining a Successful Drug Withdrawal

Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) are chronic inflammatory disorders, which require long term treatment to achieve remission and to prevent relapses and cancer. While current therapies are effective in most cases, they can have rare but serious side effects and are often associated with high costs. On the other hand, early discontinuation of an effective treatment may lead to a quick relapse and to complications at the restart of therapy. Therefore it is essential to determine the optimal duration of maintenance therapy, but clear guidelines are missing. The most important questions when deciding whether to continue or withdraw therapy in quiescent UC and CD patients are the efficacy of the continuous treatment to maintain remission in the long term, the frequency and severity of side effects, and the chance of relapse after discontinuation of therapy. This review summarizes the current knowledge on these topics with respect to 5-aminosalicylates, thiopurines, methotrexate, and biological therapies and collects information regarding when and in which specific patient groups, in the absence of risk factors, can withdrawal of therapy be considered without a high risk of relapse. Additionally, the particular aspect of colorectal cancer prevention by current therapies will also be discussed.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Pharmacological intervention based on fecal calprotectin levels in patients with ulcerative colitis at high risk of a relapse: A prospective, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapy, using biomarkers to assess disease activity in ulcerative colitis (UC), has been proposed.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether pharmacological intervention guided by fecal calprotectin (FC) prolongs remission in patients with UC.

METHODS

A total of 91 adults with UC in remission were randomized to an intervention group or a control group. Analysis of FC was performed monthly, during 18 months. A FC value of 300 µg/g was set as the cut-off for intervention, which was a dose escalation of the oral 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) agent. The primary study end-point was the number of patients to have relapsed by month 18.

RESULTS

There were relapses in 18 (35.3%) and 20 (50.0%) patients in the intervention and the control groups, respectively (p = 0.23); and 28 (54.9%) patients in the intervention group and 28 (70.0%) patients in the control group had a FC > 300 µg/g, of which 8 (28.6%) and 16 (57.1%) relapsed, respectively (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Active intervention significantly reduced relapse rates, although no significant difference was reached between the groups overall. Thus, FC-levels might be used to identify patients with UC at risk for a flare, and a dose escalation of their 5-ASA agent is a therapeutic option for these patients.

Efficacy of long-term 4.0 g/day mesalazine (Pentasa) for maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis

Background

High-dose (4.0 g/day) mesalazine is typically used for induction therapy, but its efficacy as maintenance therapy remains to be determined. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study to investigate the efficacy of continuous treatment with 4.0 g/day of mesalazine.

Material/Methods

Japanese ulcerative colitis (UC) patients receiving acute induction therapy with 4.0 g/day mesalazine were enrolled and followed. Those who clinically improved or who achieved clinical remission were categorized into 2 sub-groups according to the median duration of treatment with 4.0 g/day of mesalazine. The clinical relapse frequency and the time to relapse were analyzed.

Results

We enrolled 180 patients with active UC, and then 115 patients who clinically improved or who achieved clinical remission after treatment with 4.0 g/day mesalazine were categorized into 2 sub-groups according to the median of treatment duration: a short-term treatment group (≤105 days, n=58) and a long-term treatment group (>105 days, n=57). Overall, 45 (39.1%) patients relapsed: 28 (48.3%) in the short-term treatment group and 17 (29.8%) in the long-term treatment group. This difference was statistically significant (p<0.05). The relapse-free rate in the long-term treatment group was significantly higher than that in the short-term treatment group (p<0.05). The mean time to relapse in the long-term treatment group was significantly longer than that in the short-term treatment group (425.6±243.8 days vs. 277.4±224.5 days; p<0.05).

Conclusions

Long-term continuous treatment with high-dose mesalazine (4.0 g/day) may be more effective than short-term treatment for maintenance of remission in UC patients.

Ulcerative colitis: prevention of relapse

The clinical management of ulcerative colitis (UC) involves first treating the acute symptoms to induce remission, and then successfully maintaining it. Oral 5-aminosalicylic acids are safe and useful for maintaining remission in patients with UC. In terms of adherence, a once-daily form of 5-aminosalicylic acid is superior in maintaining remission as compared with split dosing. Patients at high risk of relapse may be candidates for treatment with thiopurines and/or biologics in the early stages of UC. Calcineurin inhibitors, such as cyclosporine and tacrolimus, are effective for severe, steroid-refractory UC patients. It is suggested that these patients use thiopurines as their maintenance therapy once they achieve remission with calcineurin inhibitors. Recent studies have confirmed that biologics are effective for inducing clinical and endoscopic remission of UC, and thus they may improve long-term prognosis of UC.

Outcome following aminosalicylate therapy in children newly diagnosed as having ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVES

Despite a paucity of published supporting data, 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) use in pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC) is common. The present study describes the use and outcome of a large multicenter inception cohort of children with UC treated with 5-ASA.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease Collaborative Research Group Registry, a prospective North American observational study of children newly diagnosed as having inflammatory bowel disease ages 16 years or younger. Patient data are recorded at diagnosis, 30 days, and then quarterly. Patients are managed by physician dictate, not protocol. Disease activity is classified by physician global assessment. The primary outcome examined was corticosteroid (CS) free, inactive UC at 1 year following initiation of 5-ASA within 30 days of diagnosis (with or without concomitant CS use) without the need for rescue therapy (immunomodulators, biologics, or colectomy).

RESULTS

Study subjects included 213 patients newly diagnosed as having UC who received oral 5-ASA compounds (115 of whom also received CS) during the first 30 days after diagnosis, and no other oral therapies for the treatment of UC. Of these 213 patients, 86 (40%) were CS free and physician global assessment inactive at 1 year without rescue. Outcome was not associated with disease severity at diagnosis, demographic or laboratory factors examined, or initial dose of 5-ASA used.

CONCLUSIONS

Forty percent of children taking 5-ASA as primary maintenance therapy at diagnosis are in CS-free remission after 1 year of treatment. Further pediatric studies will be needed to address whether increased adherence and/or higher dosing schedules will improve outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

A literature search for relevant studies (inception to January 20, 2012) was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies (8127 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. Eight studies were rated at high risk of bias. Six of these studies were single-blind and two studies were open-label. However, the two open-label studies and four of the single-blind studies utilized investigator performed endoscopy as an endpoint, which may protect against bias. 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. Forty-one per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 58% of placebo patients (7 studies, 1298 patients; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77). There was a trend towards greater efficacy with higher doses of 5-ASA with a statistically significant benefit for the 1 to 1.9 g/day (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) and the > 2 g/day subgroups (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89). SASP was significantly superior to 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. Forty-eight per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 43% of SASP patients (12 studies, 1655 patients; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome for the placebo and SASP-controlled studies was high. No statistically significant differences in efficacy or adherence were found between once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Twenty-nine per cent of once daily patients relapsed over 12 months compared to 31% of conventionally dosed patients (7 studies, 2826 patients; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.03). Fourteen per cent of patients in the once daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 11% of patients in the conventional dosing group (5 studies, 1161 patients; RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.63). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Thirty-eight per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group relapsed compared to 37% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (5 studies, 457 patients; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.28). A pooled analysis of two studies showed no statistically significant difference in efficacy between Balsalazide 6 g and 3 g/day. Twenty-three per cent of patients in the 6 g/day group relapsed compared to 33% of patients in the 3 g/day group (216 patients; RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.13). One study found Balsalazide 4 g to be superior to 2 g/day. Thirty-seven per cent of patients in the 4 g/day Balsalazide group relapsed compared to 55% of patients in the 2 g/day group (133 patients; RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). One study found a statistically significant difference between Salofalk granules 3 g and 1.5 g/day. Twenty-five per cent of patients in the Salofalk 3 g/day group relapsed compared to 39% of patients in the 1.5 g/day group (429 patients; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.86). Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, dyspepsia, and nasopharyngitis. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, 5-ASA and SASP, once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA, 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulations and 5-ASA dose ranging studies. The trials that compared 5-ASA and SASP may have been biased in favour of SASP because most trials enrolled patients known to be tolerant to SASP which may have minimized SASP-related adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

[Guidelines for the management of ulcerative colitis]

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disorder characterized by a relapsing and remitting course. The quality of life can decreases significantly during exacerbations of the disease. The incidence and prevalence of UC in Korea are still lower than those of Western countries, but have been rapidly increasing during the past decades. Various medical and surgical therapies are currently used for the management of UC. However, many challenging issues exist and sometimes these lead to differences in practice between clinicians. Therefore, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) Study Group of Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID) set out the Korean guidelines for the management of UC. These guidelines are made by the adaptation using several foreign guidelines and encompass treatment of active colitis, maintenance of remission and indication for surgery in UC. The specific recommendations are presented with the quality of evidence. These are the first Korean treatment guidelines for UC and will be revised with new evidences on treatment of UC.

Once-daily MMX(®) mesalamine for endoscopic maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVES

Treatment with mesalamine to maintain endoscopic remission (mucosal healing) of ulcerative colitis (UC) has been shown to reduce the risk of relapse and is the recommended first-line maintenance therapy. To improve treatment adherence, a mesalamine formulation that can be administered once-daily, MMX(®) mesalamine (Lialda; Shire Pharmaceuticals LLC, Wayne, PA), was developed. This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of once-daily MMX mesalamine compared with twice-daily delayed-release mesalamine (Asacol; Warner Chilcott, Dublin, Ireland) for maintaining endoscopic remission in patients with UC.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 6-month, active-control trial was conducted to assess the non-inferiority of once-daily MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day compared with twice-daily delayed-release mesalamine at a total daily dose of 1.6 g/day in patients with UC in endoscopic remission. The primary end point was maintenance of endoscopic remission at month 6 in the per-protocol (PP) population.

RESULTS

Overall, 826 patients were randomized and dosed. The primary objective (non-inferiority) was met. At month 6, 83.7 and 77.8% of patients receiving MMX mesalamine in the PP and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, respectively, had maintained endoscopic remission compared with 81.5% (PP) and 76.9% (ITT) of patients receiving delayed-release mesalamine (95% confidence interval for difference: -3.9%, 8.1% (PP); -5.0%, 6.9% (ITT)). Time to relapse was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (log-rank test, P=0.5116 (PP); P=0.5455 (ITT)). The proportion of patients with adverse events was 37.1 and 36.0% in patients receiving MMX mesalamine and delayed-release mesalamine, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily dosing of MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day was shown to be well tolerated and non-inferior to twice-daily dosing with delayed-release mesalamine 1.6 g/day for maintenance of endoscopic remission in patients with UC.

Self-reported adherence to medical treatment prior to and during pregnancy among women with ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Adherence to medical treatment among women with ulcerative colitis (UC) prior to and during pregnancy has never been investigated. The aim was to examine predictors for and prevalence rates of nonadherence to maintenance treatment among women with UC prior to and during pregnancy.

METHODS

We identified 115 women with UC having given birth during 2000-2005 within a population of 1.6 million. They received a questionnaire about predictors and adherence and relapses were registered. We retrieved information on medical treatment from prescription databases and used logistic regression to estimate prevalence odds ratios (POR) for nonadherence by different predictors.

RESULTS

Among 93 (81%) respondents, 63 (68%) reported taking medication, 53 of whom had filled prescriptions for relevant medication, yielding a positive predictive value of self-reported use of medical treatment of 84.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 72.7-92.1). Approximately 60% reported adhering to medical treatment. Those who received counseling regarding medical treatment were less likely to be nonadherent compared with no counseling, especially during pregnancy (POR 0.2, 95% CI 0.04-0.94). Of those who were nonadherent, fear of a negative effect on fertility/fetus was stated as the reason by 23% prior to and by 50% during pregnancy. Notably, 40.3% reported an episode of relapse during the pregnancy period, compared with 13.6% in the period 6 months prior to pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence was high despite fear of a negative effect on fertility or the fetus. Counseling predicted higher adherence. This may be important because our study suggests an increase in UC activity during pregnancy.

Efficacy of 5-aminosalicylates in ulcerative colitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The efficacy of 5-aminosalicylic acids (5-ASAs) in ulcerative colitis (UC) has been studied previously in meta-analyses. However, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published recently, and no previous meta-analysis has studied the effect of 5-ASA dosage used.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched (through December 2010). Eligible trials recruited adults with active or quiescent UC, comparing different doses of 5-ASAs with themselves or placebo. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain relative risk (RR) of failure to achieve remission in active UC, and RR of relapse of disease activity in quiescent UC, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated from the reciprocal of the risk difference.

RESULTS

The search identified 3,061 citations, and 37 RCTs were eligible. Of these, 11 compared 5-ASA with placebo in active UC remission, with the RR of no remission with 5-ASAs of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73-0.85; NNT=6). Doses of ≥ 2.0 g/day were more effective than <2.0 g/day for remission (RR=0.91; 95% CI 0.85-0.98). There were 11 RCTs comparing 5-ASAs with placebo in preventing relapse of quiescent UC, with the RR of relapse of 0.65 (95% CI 0.55-0.76; NNT=4). Doses of ≥ 2.0 g/day appeared more effective than <2.0 g/day for preventing relapse (RR=0.79; 95% CI 0.64-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

5-ASAs are highly effective for inducing remission and preventing relapse in UC. Evidence suggests that doses of ≥ 2.0 g/day have greater efficacy, although doses >2.5 g/day do not appear to lead to higher remission rates.

Randomised clinical trial: a comparative dose-finding study of three arms of dual release mesalazine for maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Comparative data regarding different regimens of oral mesalazine (mesalamine) for maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis are limited.

AIM

To evaluate whether 3.0 g mesalazine once-daily (OD) is superior to the standard treatment of 0.5 g mesalazine three times daily (t.d.s.) and to prove the therapeutic equivalence of OD vs. t.d.s. dosing of total 1.5 g mesalazine for remission maintenance in patients with ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

A 1-year, multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy study was undertaken in patients with endoscopically and histologically confirmed ulcerative colitis in remission. Patients were randomised to oral mesalazine 3.0 g OD, 1.5 g OD or 0.5 g t.d.s. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients still in clinical remission at the final visit, with clinical relapse being defined as CAI score >4 and an increase of ≥3 from baseline.

RESULTS

The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 162/217 3.0 g OD patients (75%), 129/212 1.5 g OD patients (61%) and 150/218 0.5 g t.d.s. patients (69%) in the intention-to-treat population, and in 152/177 (86%), 121/182 (67%) and 144/185 (78%) in the per protocol population respectively; 3.0 g OD was superior to both low-dose regimens for the primary endpoint (i.e. P < 0.001, 3.0 g OD vs. 1.5 g OD; P = 0.024, 3.0 g OD vs. 0.5 g t.d.s.; superiority test, per protocol population). Safety analysis, including comprehensive renal monitoring, revealed no concern in any treatment group.

CONCLUSION

Mesalazine 3.0 g once daily was the most effective dose for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis of the three regimens assessed, with no penalty in terms of safety.

Ulcerative colitis practice guidelines in adults: American College Of Gastroenterology, Practice Parameters Committee

Guidelines for clinical practice are aimed to indicate preferred approaches to medical problems as established by scientifically valid research. Double-blind placebo controlled studies are preferable, but compassionate-use reports and expert review articles are used in a thorough review of the literature conducted through Medline with the National Library of Medicine. When only data that will not withstand objective scrutiny are available, a recommendation is identified as a consensus of experts. Guidelines are applicable to all physicians who address the subject regardless of specialty training or interests and are aimed to indicate the preferable but not necessarily the only acceptable approach to a specific problem. Guidelines are intended to be flexible and must be distinguished from standards of care, which are inflexible and rarely violated. Given the wide range of specifics in any health-care problem, the physician must always choose the course best suited to the individual patient and the variables in existence at the moment of decision. Guidelines are developed under the auspices of the American College of Gastroenterology and its Practice Parameters Committee and approved by the board of trustees. Each has been intensely reviewed and revised by the Committee, other experts in the field, physicians who will use them, and specialists in the science of decision analysis. The recommendations of each guideline are therefore considered valid at the time of composition based on the data available. New developments in medical research and practice pertinent to each guideline will be reviewed at a time established and indicated at publication to assure continued validity. The recommendations made are based on the level of evidence found. Grade A recommendations imply that there is consistent level 1 evidence (randomized controlled trials), grade B indicates that the evidence would be level 2 or 3, which are cohort studies or case-control studies. Grade C recommendations are based on level 4 studies, meaning case series or poor-quality cohort studies, and grade D recommendations are based on level 5 evidence, meaning expert opinion.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of 5-aminosalicylates on renal function in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: 4-year follow-up study

OBJECTIVE

Nephrotoxicity has been described in some patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA). Our aim was to conduct a retrospective study of IBD patients, both with and without 5-ASA treatment, who underwent regular evaluation of renal function over a 4-year period.

METHODS

Serum creatinine was measured before the start of 5-ASA therapy, and thereafter yearly up to 4 years. Creatinine clearance (Cl(Cr)) was estimated from serum creatinine (Cockroft and Gault formula). The influence of 5-ASA treatment on renal function was assessed by univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 150 IBD patients (ulcerative colitis in 45%, Crohn's disease in 55%) were included. Sixty-two patients were receiving 5-ASAs (95% coated mesalazine, mean dose 1.9 +/- 0.8 g/day). Both serum creatinine levels and ClCr were similar in patients with and without 5-ASA treatment, and remained stable throughout the 4-year follow-up in patients taking 5-ASAs. In the multivariate analysis, 5-ASA treatment (or its dose) was not correlated with serum creatinine levels or Cl(Cr). No interstitial nephritis was reported during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

5-ASA-related renal disease was not found in our series, suggesting that the occurrence of renal impairment in IBD patients receiving these drugs is exceptional. Our results do not support the recommendation of serum creatinine monitoring in patients receiving 5-ASA treatment.

Renal effects of long-term treatment with 5-aminosalicylic acid

BACKGROUND

A number of case reports link the use of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) to interstitial nephritis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the long-term use of 5-ASA has harmful effects on renal function in patients with IBD.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 171 consecutive outpatients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis was conducted. Serum creatinine levels and body weight were measured before and after treatment to calculate the creatinine clearance (CrCl) rate.

RESULTS

In 171 patients (93 women, 78 men), the mean (+/- SD) dose of 5-ASA was 3.65+/-0.85 g/day with a cumulative dose of 11+/-7.7 kg over an interval of 8.4+/-5.9 years. Serum creatinine concentrations increased from 76.8 micromol/L to 88.7 micromol/L (n=171; P<0.0001) and the CrCl rate fell significantly from 104.6 mL/min to 93.1 mL/min (n=81; P<0.0001). There was one case of interstitial nephritis reported. Treatment groups included mesalamine (74.3%), sulfasalazine (15.2%) and combination (sulfalsalazine/mesalamine [10.5%]) with treatment durations of 7.2+/-4.5, 12.3+/-8.7 and 11.2+/-6.7 years, respectively. The duration of treatment was the most important covariate for change in CrCl and when analyzed by treatment group, those treated with sulfasazine had a strong correlation (r=-0.54, P=0.0145), while nonsignificant in the mesalamine group (r=0.06, P=0.7017). The decline in CrCl was negatively correlated with the pretreatment CrCl rate (r=-0.34; P=0.0024) and positively correlated with the mean daily dose of 5-ASA (r=0.32; P=0.0034).

CONCLUSION

The present study is the first to demonstrate a significant dose- and treatment duration-dependant decline in CrCl. The risks need to be further evaluated because 5-ASA is widely used for long-term maintenance therapy in patients with IBD.

Emerging therapy-related kidney disease

CONTEXT

Many new therapies have emerged within the last 5 to 10 years to treat a variety of conditions. Several of these have direct or indirect renal toxicities that may go undiagnosed without careful attention of the pathologist to a patient's clinical history, particularly the addition of new medications or treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To discuss patterns of renal injury resulting from medications or therapeutic regimens that have been introduced within the last 10 years. Recognition of these patterns may allow the pathologist to alert the attending clinician to a possible drug-induced renal injury and prevent further deterioration of renal function and possible chronic kidney disease.

DATA SOURCES

A review of recent literature and unpublished observations of case-derived material.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of newer therapies have emerged as agents of renal toxicity, producing a variety of pathologic changes in the kidney. The outcome can be acute or chronic glomerular, tubular, interstitial, and/or vascular injury. Some drugs will result in irreversible changes and end-stage renal disease, whereas many of the alterations can be reversed with removal of the offending agent, avoiding potential long-term kidney injury.

Improving delivery of aminosalicylates in ulcerative colitis: effect on patient outcomes

Developments in drug delivery technology have expanded the formulations of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) available to clinicians over the last 50 years. Delivery of adequate doses of 5-ASA to the colon can be achieved by pH-dependent, delayed-release or pro-drug formulations. Despite some variations in the pharmacokinetics between individual preparations, the clinical effects in induction of response and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis appear to be consistent. Direct comparison studies between different preparations have yielded similar results in primary endpoints, although differences in secondary endpoints or post hoc analyses have been noted. The development of delivery methods that allow once-daily administration represents a potential means to improve the low medication adherence rates reported in patients with ulcerative colitis.