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

A real-world disproportionality analysis of mesalazine data mining of the public version of FDA adverse event reporting system

Background: Mesalazine, a preparation of 5-aminosalicylic acid, is a medication widely used in clinical practice as a first-line therapy in the treatment of mild and moderate inflammatory bowel disease. However, the long-term safety of mesalazine in large sample population was unknown. The current study was to assess mesalazine -related adverse events of real-world through data mining of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods: Disproportionality analyses, including the reporting odds ratio (ROR), the proportional reporting ratio the Bayesian confidence propagation neural network and the multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) algorithms were employed to quantify the signals of mesalazine -associated AEs. Results: Out of 14,149,980 reports collected from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database, 24,284 reports of mesalazine -associated AEs were identified. A total of 170 significant disproportionality preferred terms conforming to the four algorithms simultaneously were retained. The most common AEs included colitis ulcerative, diarrhoea, condition aggravated, crohn's disease, fatigue, abdominal pain, nausea, haematochezia, which were corresponding to those reported in the specification and clinical trials. Unexpected significant AEs as dizziness, drug ineffective, drug hypersensitivity, infection, off label use, weight decreased, decreased appetite, arthralgia, rash might also occur. The median onset time of mesalazine -related AEs was 1,127 days (interquartile range [IQR] 1,127-1,674 days), and most of the cases occurred 2 years later (n = 610, 70.93%) and within the first 1 month (n = 89, 10.35%) after mesalazine initiation. Conclusion: Results of our study were consistent with clinical observations. We also found potential new and unexpected AEs signals for mesalazine, suggesting prospective clinical studies were needed to confirm these results and illustrate their relationship. Our results could provide valuable evidence for further safety studies of mesalazine.

Concomitant 5-aminosalicylic acid treatment does not affect 6-thioguanine nucleotide levels in patients with inflammatory bowel disease on thiopurines

Background

There are conflicting data as to whether co-treatment with 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) under azathioprine (AZA) or 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) therapy may influence 6-thioguanine nucleotide (6-TGN) concentrations, and whether this combination puts patients at risk of side-effects. The aim of the study was to determine 6-TGN levels in patients treated with AZA/6-MP, either alone or in combination with 5-ASA.

Methods

Available blood samples from patients treated with AZA or 6-MP were retrieved from the Swiss IBD Cohort Study (SIBDCS). The eligible individuals were divided into 2 groups: those with vs. without 5-ASA co-medication. Levels of 6-TGN and 6-methylmercaptopurine ribonucleotides (6-MMPR) were determined and compared. Potential confounders were compared between the groups, and also evaluated as potential predictors for a multivariate regression model.

Results

Of the 110 patients enrolled in this analysis, 40 received concomitant 5-ASA at the time of blood sampling. The median 6-TGN levels in patients with vs. those without 5-ASA co-treatment were 261 and 257 pmol/8×108 erythrocytes, respectively (P=0.97). Likewise, there were no significant differences in 6-MMPR levels (P=0.79). Through multivariate analysis, 6-TGN levels were found to be significantly higher in non-smokers, patients without prior surgery, and those without signs of stress-hyperarousal.

Conclusions

Blood concentrations of 6-TGN and 6-MMPR did not differ between patients with vs. those without 5-ASA co-treatment. Our data warrant neither more frequent lab monitoring nor dose adaptation of AZA in patients receiving concomitant 5-ASA treatment.

Efficacy and safety of oral beclomethasone dipropionate and budesonide MMX versus 5-aminosalicylates or placebo in ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Low bioavailability steroids, including beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and budesonide MMX, have been developed to ensure colonic targeting and low systemic activity than systematic corticosteroids in treating patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).

Objectives

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of BDP and budesonide MMX® compared with 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASAs) or placebo, in patients with mild-to-moderate UC.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from inception to December 2021. We included all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral BDP or budesonide MMX with 5-ASAs or with placebo in induction of remission of mild-to-moderate UC. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results

We identified two RCTs comparing BDP 5 mg with 5-ASA, one RCTs comparing BDP 10 mg with 5-ASA, two RCTs BDP 5 mg versus placebo, one RCT BDP 10 mg versus placebo, two RCTs budesonide MMX 9 mg versus 5-ASA, and six RCTs budesonide MMX 9 mg versus placebo. In terms of achieving clinical remission or improvement, BDP 5 mg, BDP 10 mg, and budesonide MMX 9 mg were more effective than placebo (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.37-4.08; OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.02-4.87; and OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.45-2.85, respectively). The drugs were also more effective than placebo in achieving endoscopic remission. Regarding the comparisons with 5-ASA, we found no differences between 5-ASA and BDP 5 mg or BDP 10 mg or budesonide MMX 9 mg in achieving clinical remission or improvement (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.51-1.57; OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42-5.64; and OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.82-1.66). However, 5-ASA was more effective than budesonide MMX 9 mg in achieving histological remission (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16-0.70). Overall, all the drugs were safe and well tolerated.

Conclusion

Low bioavailability steroids were more effective than placebo in achieving clinical remission, clinical and endoscopic remission, and histological remission. No differences were found between 5-ASA and BDP or budesonide MMX. Surely, more RCTs, also comparing BDP and budesonide MMX, are mandatory to confirm or not these results.

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.

Saudi Arabia consensus guidance for the diagnosis and management of adults with inflammatory bowel disease

Optimal management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) relies on a clear understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This article provides concise guidelines for the management of IBD in adults, based on the most up-to-date information at the time of writing and will be regularly updated. These guidelines were developed by the Saudi Ministry of Health in collaboration with the Saudi Gastroenterology Association and the Saudi Society of Clinical Pharmacy. After an extensive literature review, 78 evidence-and expert opinion-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease in adults were proposed and further refined by a voting process. The consensus guidelines include the finally agreed on statements with their level of evidence covering different aspects of IBD diagnosis and treatment.

pH-dependent vs. constant release of mesalazine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis: Do drug delivery concepts determine therapeutic efficacy? (Review)

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) have developed to become a major global health problem. Ulcerative colitis (UC) is one of two main types of IBD, and >90% of patients suffering from mild or moderate forms of UC are treated with mesalazine, a well-tolerated and cost-effective drug. To allow oral administration, the drug has to be protected from resorption before it can reach the affected sites in the colon. The drug is therefore released from most currently used medications either constantly slow (time-dependent) or triggered by an increased pH during gastrointestinal transition. Both variants are widely used in clinical practice and it is surprising that they have not yet been compared directly in a large clinical study. In this overview, the evidence that may suggest preferential use of one type of mesalazine formulation over the other in general or for defined subgroups of patients is summarized and evaluated. Data from in vitro modelling of drug release and measurements of drug concentrations in colonic mucosa suggest that in many cases, constant release and pH-dependent formulations are of similar therapeutic efficiency; however, pH-triggered release may be superior in patients with proctitis-type UC or sites of inflammation in the proximal colon. Additionally, patients with a long gastric residence time, slow small intestinal transition, disease-related diarrhea or sensitivity to systemic adverse effects may benefit more from pH-dependent release formulations. In general, medications based on both concepts show similar efficacies, but the pH-dependent release formulations seem to be more robust in the treatment of a not further classified group of patients with UC. Future comparative clinical studies are required to clearly define the subgroups of patients that should be treated preferably with constant or pH-dependent release formulations of mesalazine.

Medical therapy versus surgery in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis, a chronic inflammatory condition that affects the colon from rectum to caecum, is characterized by periods of increased bowel movements, blood in feces, rectal urgency, tenesmus, and abdominal pain, with periods of remission and flares of disease, which negatively impact quality of life. A number of therapeutic options are available for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis, however, no clear treatment algorithm exists. Therapeutic goals include short-term benefits for patients (i.e., the reduction/absence of symptoms, essentially stool frequency and rectal bleeding) and long-term benefits (i.e., sustained clinical remission, steroid-free remission, and mucosal healing). Therapies currently approved and available for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis include monoclonal antibodies such as those targeting anti-tumor necrosis factor α (i.e., infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab), anti-adhesion molecules (i.e., vedolizumab), anti-interleukin 12/23 agents (i.e., ustekinumab), and Janus Kinase inhibitors (i.e., tofacitinib). Surgical approaches should also be considered in patients refractory to medical therapy or with complications (including toxic megacolon or colonic dysplasia/cancer). This review provides an overview of currently available treatment options for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis and summarizes factors that should be considered during the therapeutic decision.

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.

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.

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.