Evaluation of an enteric-coated delayed-release 5-aminosalicylic acid tablet in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Fasting before Intra-Gastric Dosing with Antigen Improves Intestinal Humoral Responses in Syrian Hamsters

Oral vaccines, unlike injected, induce intestinal secretory immunoglobulin A (sIgA) mimicking our natural defense against gut pathogens. We previously observed sIgA responses after administering the Clostridioides difficile colonisation factor CD0873 orally in enteric capsules to hamsters. Enteric-coated capsules are designed to resist dissolution in the stomach and disintegrate only at the higher pH of the small intestine. However, the variable responses between animals led us to speculate suboptimal transit of antigens to the small intestine. The rate of gastric emptying is a controlling factor in the passage of oral drugs for subsequent availability in the small intestine for absorption. Whilst in humans, food delays gastric emptying, in rats, capsules can empty quicker from fed stomachs than from fasted. To test in hamsters if fasting improves the delivery of antigens to the small intestine, as inferred from the immune responses generated, 24 animals were dosed intragastrically with enteric capsules containing recombinant CD0873. Twelve hamsters were fasted for 12 h prior to each dose and the other 12 fed. Significantly higher sIgA titres, with significantly greater bacterial-adherence-blocking activity, were detected in small intestinal lavages in the fasted group. We conclude that fasting in hamsters improves intestinal delivery leading to more robust responses.

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

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

Effects of fiber intake on intestinal pH, transit, and predicted oral mesalamine delivery in patients with ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Limited data are available on the effects of fermentable fiber in altering intestinal pH and transit to predict efficacy-based delivery profiles of pH-dependent mesalamine coatings in ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to examine regional pH and transit after acute changes in fermentable fiber intake in quiescent UC patients and their effects on drug release systems.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind study, 18 patients with quiescent UC and 10 healthy controls were supplied meals high (13 g) or low (≤ 2 g) in fermentable fiber and subsequently ingested a wireless pH-motility capsule. After a ≥ 3-day washout, they crossed over to the other diet. Measurements of intestinal pH and transit were used to predict drug release for the various pH-dependent coatings.

RESULTS

Increasing fermentable fiber intake lowered overall (median 6.2 [6.1-6.7] vs low: 6.9 [range or interquartile range: 6.4-7.4]; P = 0.01) and distal pH (7.8 [7.3-8.1] vs 8.2 [8.0-8.5]; P = 0.04) in controls. In UC patients, only cecal pH was decreased (high: 5.1 [4.8-5.5] vs low: 5.5 [5.3-5.7]; P < 0.01). Colonic transit in the UC cohort varied widely after a low-fiber intake but tended to normalize after the high fermentable fiber intake. Hypothetical coating dissolution profiles were heterogeneous in UC patients, with a multi-matrix delayed release system having the highest likelihood of patients (20-40%) with incomplete dissolution, and predominant small intestinal dissolution predicted for Eudragit L (94% patients) and S (44-69%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with quiescent UC have abnormalities in intestinal pH and transit in response to acute changes in fermentable fiber intake. These have potentially detrimental effects on predicted luminal release patterns of pH-dependent 5-aminosalicylic acid release systems.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

pH-dependent ileocolonic drug delivery, part II: preclinical evaluation of novel drugs and novel excipients

Novel drugs and novel excipients in pH-dependent ileocolonic drug delivery systems have to be tested in animals. Which animal species are suitable and what in vivo methods are used to verify ileocolonic drug delivery?

Regulating the pH of bicarbonate solutions without purging gases: Application to dissolution testing of enteric coated tablets, pellets and microparticles

Dissolution media based on bicarbonate buffers closely mimic the environment of intestinal fluids and thus improve in vitro in vivo correlation compared to phosphate buffers. Purging gases into the medium is used as a method to stabilise bicarbonate buffers; however, this causes issues due to the disturbance of the hydrodynamics in the dissolution vessel. The aim of this study was to develop a novel system to regulate and stabilise the pH of bicarbonate buffers without purging gases for the application of dissolution testing of enteric coated products. A novel enclosure system was applied to the USP II dissolution vessel to supply N₂ and CO₂ gases above the dissolution medium without purging into the solution. Drug release from enteric coated predinisolone microparticles (216.9 µm), pellets (1.25 mm) and commercially available tablets was determined in 0.1 M HCl and subsequently in pH 6.8 phosphate buffer or pH 6.2-6.8 bicarbonate buffers generated by titration of the acidic medium in situ using USP II apparatus. Supplying N₂ at 3-4 bar and CO₂ at 0.1 bar were able to increase the pH of the bicarbonate buffer from pH 6.2 to 6.8 within 45 min and subsequently stabilise the medium pH at 6.8 ± 0.05 pH units. Enteric coated microparticles showed much faster drug release in the physiological bicarbonate buffers than tablets and pellets. The novel bicarbonate-based dissolution system moves forward the application of the physiological bicarbonate buffers for testing pharmaceutical products to meet compendial requirements.

pH-dependent ileocolonic drug delivery, part I: in vitro and clinical evaluation of novel systems

After the pH dependency of novel pH-dependent ileocolonic drug delivery systems is confirmed in vitro, their performance should be evaluated in human volunteers.

All disease begins in the gut: Influence of gastrointestinal disorders and surgery on oral drug performance

The term "disease" conjures a plethora of graphic imagery for many, and the use of drugs to combat symptoms and treat underlying pathology is at the core of modern medicine. However, the effects of the various gastrointestinal diseases, infections, co-morbidities and the impact of gastrointestinal surgery on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic behaviour of drugs have been largely overlooked. The better elucidation of disease pathology and the role of underlying cellular and molecular mechanisms have increased our knowledge as far as diagnoses and prognoses are concerned. In addition, the recent advances in our understanding of the intestinal microbiome have linked the composition and function of gut microbiota to disease predisposition and development. This knowledge, however, applies less so in the context of drug absorption and distribution for orally administered dosage forms. Here, we revisit and re-evaluate the influence of a portfolio of gastrointestinal diseases and surgical effects on the functionality of the gastrointestinal tract, their implications for drug delivery and attempt to uncover significant links for clinical practice.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs in doses of at least 2 g/day, were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP for inducing remission in ulcerative colitis. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for the treatment of mild to moderately active 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 induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis. A secondary objective of this systematic review 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 computer-assisted literature search for relevant studies (inception to July 9, 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 clinical trials of parallel design, with a minimum treatment duration of four weeks. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with active ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other formulations of 5-ASA were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA (two or three times daily) and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcomes of interest were the failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, 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, and 5-ASA dose-ranging. Placebo-controlled trials were subgrouped by dosage. SASP-controlled trials were subgrouped by 5-ASA/SASP mass ratios. Once daily versus conventional dosing studies were subgrouped by formulation. 5-ASA-controlled trials were subgrouped by common 5-ASA comparators (e.g. Asacol, Claversal, Salofalk and Pentasa). 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

Fifty-three studies (8548 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo with regard to all measured outcome variables. Seventy-one per cent of 5-ASA patients failed to enter clinical remission compared to 83% of placebo patients (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89). A dose-response trend for 5-ASA was also observed. No statistically significant differences in efficacy were found between 5-ASA and SASP. Fifty-four per cent of 5-ASA patients failed to enter remission compared to 58% of SASP patients (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04). No statistically significant differences in efficacy or adherence were found between once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Forty-five per cent of once daily patients failed to enter clinical remission compared to 48% of conventionally dosed patients (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07). Eight per cent of patients dosed once daily failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 6% of conventionally dosed patients (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.86). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Fifty per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group failed to enter remission compared to 52% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.02). A pooled analysis of 3 studies (n = 1459 patients) studies found no statistically significant difference in clinical improvement between Asacol 4.8 g/day and 2.4 g/day used for the treatment of moderately active ulcerative colitis. Thirty-seven per cent of patients in the 4.8 g/day group failed to improve clinically compared to 41% of patients in the 2.4 g/day group (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that patients with moderate disease may benefit from the higher dose of 4.8 g/day. One study compared (n = 123 patients) Pentasa 4 g/day to 2.25 g/day in patients with moderate disease. Twenty-five per cent of patients in the 4 g/day group failed to improve clinically compared to 57% of patients in the 2.25 g/day group (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71). A pooled analysis of two studies comparing MMX mesalamine 4.8 g/day to 2.4 g/day found no statistically significant difference in efficacy (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA, 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulation and 5-ASA dose ranging (high dose versus low dose) studies. Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache and worsening ulcerative colitis. SASP was not as well tolerated as 5-ASA. Twenty-nine percent of SASP patients experienced an adverse event compared to 15% of 5-ASA patients (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.63).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

5-ASA was superior to placebo and no more effective than SASP. Considering their relative costs, a clinical advantage to using oral 5-ASA in place of SASP appears unlikely. 5-ASA dosed once daily appears to be as efficacious and safe as conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Adherence does not appear to be enhanced by once daily dosing in the clinical trial setting. It is unknown if once daily dosing of 5-ASA improves adherence in a community-based setting. There do not appear to be any differences in efficacy or safety among the various 5-ASA formulations. A daily dosage of 2.4 g appears to be a safe and effective induction therapy for patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. Patients with moderate disease may benefit from an initial dose of 4.8 g/day.

Are there any differences in the efficacy and safety of different formulations of Oral 5-ASA used for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis? evidence from cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

We systematically reviewed and compared the efficacy and safety of oral mesalamine formulations (sustained release, delayed release, and prodrugs) used for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. The main objective of this review was to determine if there are any differences in efficacy or safety among the oral 5-ASA drugs.

METHODS

A literature search in February 2013 identified all applicable randomized trials. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria were used to assess the overall quality of the evidence. Studies were subgrouped by common mesalamine comparators for meta-analysis. Studies were pooled for analysis if they compared equimolar doses of oral 5-ASA.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies that evaluated 2925 patients were identified. The risk of bias was low for most factors, although 1 study was single blind and 3 were open label. No difference was observed between oral 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulations in the proportion of patients with clinical remission (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.02), clinical improvement (relative risk, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.01), or relapse at 12 months (relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.28). Subgroup analyses showed no important differences in efficacy. No significant difference was demonstrated in rates of adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

There does not seem to be any difference in efficacy or safety among the various formulations of oral 5-ASA. Oral mesalamine is an effective and safe treatment of mild-to-moderate or quiescent ulcerative colitis regardless of the chosen formulation.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs in doses of at least 2 g/day, were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP for inducing remission in ulcerative colitis. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for the treatment of mild to moderately active 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 induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis. A secondary objective of this systematic review 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 computer-assisted 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 clinical trials of parallel design, with a minimum treatment duration of four weeks. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with active ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other formulations of 5-ASA were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA (two or three times daily) and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcomes of interest were the failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, 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, and 5-ASA dose-ranging. Placebo-controlled trials were subgrouped by dosage. SASP-controlled trials were subgrouped by 5-ASA/SASP mass ratios. Once daily versus conventional dosing studies were subgrouped by formulation. 5-ASA-controlled trials were subgrouped by common 5-ASA comparators (e.g. Asacol, Claversal, Salofalk and Pentasa). 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

Forty-eight studies (7776 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo with regard to all measured outcome variables. Seventy-two per cent of 5-ASA patients failed to enter clinical remission compared to 85% of placebo patients (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.91). A dose-response trend for 5-ASA was also observed. No statistically significant differences in efficacy were found between 5-ASA and SASP. Fifty-four per cent of 5-ASA patients failed to enter remission compared to 58% of SASP patients (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04). No statistically significant differences in efficacy or adherence were found between once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Forty-two per cent of once daily patients failed to enter clinical remission compared to 44% of conventionally dosed patients (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10). Eight per cent of patients dosed once daily failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 6% of conventionally dosed patients (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.86). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Forty-eight per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group failed to enter remission compared to 50% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.03). A pooled analysis of the ASCEND (I, II and III, n = 1459 patients) studies found no statistically significant difference in clinical improvement between Asacol 4.8 g/day and 2.4 g/day used for the treatment of moderately active ulcerative colitis. Thirty-seven per cent of patients in the 4.8 g/day group failed to improve clinically compared to 41% of patients in the 2.4 g/day group (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that patients with moderate disease may benefit from the higher dose of 4.8 g/day. One study compared (n = 123 patients) Pentasa 4 g/day to 2.25 g/day in patients with moderate disease. Twenty-five per cent of patients in the 4 g/day group failed to improve clinically compared to 57% of patients in the 2.25 g/day group (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71). A pooled analysis of two studies comparing MMX mesalamine 4.8 g/day to 2.4 g/day found no statistically significant difference in efficacy (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29). 5-ASA was generally safe and common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache and worsening ulcerative colitis. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA, 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulation and 5-ASA dose ranging (high dose versus low dose) studies. SASP was not as well tolerated as 5-ASA. Twenty-nine percent of SASP patients experienced an adverse event compared to 15% of 5-ASA patients (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.63).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

5-ASA was superior to placebo and no more effective than SASP. Considering their relative costs, a clinical advantage to using oral 5-ASA in place of SASP appears unlikely. 5-ASA dosed once daily appears to be as efficacious and safe as conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Adherence does not appear to be enhanced by once daily dosing in the clinical trial setting. It is unknown if once daily dosing of 5-ASA improves adherence in a community-based setting. There do not appear to be any differences in efficacy or safety among the various 5-ASA formulations. A daily dosage of 2.4 g appears to be a safe and effective induction therapy for patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. Patients with moderate disease may benefit from an initial dose of 4.8 g/day.

Galactomannan gum coated mucoadhesive microspheres of glipizide for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: In vitro and in vivo evaluation

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a heterogeneous disease of polygenic origin and involves both defective insulin secretion and peripheral insulin resistance. Studies have shown that post-meal hyperglycemic spikes are associated with increased cardiovascular mortality in type 2 diabetes. Over the past decade, a major interest in control of postprandial glucose excursion has emerged and a plethora of new medications that specifically target postprandial hyperglycemia were discovered. Despite the availability of new agents for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, oral sulfonylureas remain a cornerstone of therapy, because they are relatively inexpensive and are well tolerated. However, hypoglycemia is a major safety concern with sulfonylureas and it is one major risk factor requiring hospitalization. Glipizide is a potent, rapid-acting with short duration of action and well tolerated second-generation sulfonylurea effective in reducing postprandial glucose levels. However, risk of postprandial hypoglycemia and post-meal glucose excursions, if dose missed before meal; are always associated with the use of glipizide for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Since, the site of absorption of glipizide is from stomach thus dosage forms that are retained in stomach by mucoadhesion; would increase absorption, improve drug efficiency and decrease dose requirements. Microsphere carrier systems made by using polymer galactomannan having strong mucoadhesive properties and easily biodegradable could be an attractive strategy to formulate. The purpose of this research work is to formulate galactomannan coated mucoadhesive microspheres of glipizide and systematically evaluate its in vitro characteristics and in vivo performance for sustained glucose lowering effect and improvement in diabetic condition as compared to immediate release of glipizide.

A combination of pH-sensitive caplet coatings may be an effective noninvasive strategy to deliver bioactive substances, nutrients, or their precursors to the colon

We hypothesize that bacterially synthesized nutrients in the large intestine may significantly influence the nutritional status of humans and, specifically, that of the colonocytes. In vivo research with human subjects in this area has been extremely limited because of the absence of a noninvasive means to quantitatively deliver test doses of nutrients, or their precursors, to the colon. The purpose of this study was to design and test the effectiveness of a pH-dependent coating in delivering intact placebo caplets to the large intestine. Barium sulphate caplet cores (19.1 mm x 9.7 mm) were coated with 2 different pH-dependent acrylic copolymer products, Eudragit L100 and S100, in either a 1:0 ratio (100% Eudragit L100) or 3:1 ratio (75% Eudragit L100 and 25% S100). The disintegration profile of each formulation was determined through in vitro testing, then caplets were sequentially administered to 10 healthy volunteers, and monitored in vivo via serial abdominal fluoroscopic images. Test caplets with the 3:1 coating formulation had a 40% higher colon-targeting specificity compared with the 1:0-coated caplets, and tended to begin disintegrating at a later time after administration (p = 0.09). The total time from administration to complete disintegration was also significantly longer for the 3:1-coated caplets (p = 0.003). These results suggest that barium sulphate caplets with a 3:1 acrylic copolymer coating formulation ratio (Eudragit L100 and S100) may be a suitable delivery system for quantifying the biosynthesis of nutrients in the human large intestine and measuring their absorption across the colonic epithelium.

In vivo effects of mesalazine or E. coli Nissle 1917 on microsatellite instability in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Microsatellite instability (MSI) occurs in chronically inflamed colorectal tissue and may evolve to colitis-associated cancer. In vitro data suggest that mesalazine (5-ASA) improves MSI.

AIM

To analyse the changes in MSI in 156 distal colonic biopsies of 39 patients with ulcerative colitis that had been treated within a randomized, double-blind trial comparing 5-ASA with E. coli Nissle (EcN).

METHODS

Two biopsies had been collected before and after 1 year of treatment. MSI testing was performed using a panel of eight markers, including 3 dinucleotide and 5 mononucleotide repeats.

RESULTS

No MSI was observed with any of the mono-repeats, and among dinucleotide repeats, only D5S346 (maps to APC) and D17S250 (p53) were consistently informative. Overall, 31/156 (20%) biopsies displayed MSI. After 1 year, 3/11 patients displayed MSI improvement [change to microsatellite stability (MSS); 1 on 5-ASA, 2 on EcN] at D5S346 and 4/11 showed MSI worsening (change from MSS to MSI; all 5-ASA). For D17S250, the corresponding data were for 3/9 patients (2 on 5-ASA, 1 on EcN) and 2/9 (both on 5-ASA), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In the set of biopsies taken from patients treated with 1.5 g 5-ASA for 1 year, there was no improvement in the prevalence of MSI in the distal colon.

Review article: 5-aminosalicylate formulations for the treatment of ulcerative colitis--methods of comparing release rates and delivery of 5-aminosalicylate to the colonic mucosa

BACKGROUND

Many oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) formulations are designed to maximize 5-ASA release in the colon where it acts topically on the colonic mucosa. Delayed-release formulations and azo-prodrugs minimize 5-ASA absorption in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract.

AIMS

To review methods for assessing 5-ASA release and colonic distribution from oral formulations, and the potential use of this information for guiding clinical decisions.

METHODS

PubMed and recent conference abstracts were searched for articles describing techniques used to assess 5-ASA release from ulcerative colitis (UC) therapies.

RESULTS

In-vitro GI models, although unable to simulate more complex aspects of GI physiology, can provide useful data on 5-ASA release kinetics and bioaccessibility. Gamma-scintigraphy is useful for investigating GI disintegration of different formulations, but may not accurately reflect 5-ASA distribution. Plasma pharmacokinetic studies provide data on systemic exposure, but not on colonic distribution or mucosal uptake. Mucosal biopsies provide direct evidence of colonic distribution and may predict clinical efficacy, but must be interpreted cautiously because of considerable inter-subject variability and other confounding factors.

CONCLUSION

While assessment of 5-ASA release is important, limitations of individual measurement techniques mean that randomized clinical studies in UC patients remain the best guide for dosing and treatment regimen decisions.

Release of 5-aminosalicylate from an MMX mesalamine tablet during transit through a simulated gastrointestinal tract system

5-Aminosalicylate (5-ASA; mesalamine) is the current first-line treatment for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, a chronic inflammatory condition that most commonly affects the distal part of the colon. MMXtrade mark mesalamine (Lialdatrade mark [US]; Mezavanttrade mark XL [UK and Ireland]; Mezavanttrade mark [elsewhere]; Shire Pharmaceuticals Inc., Wayne, Pa, under license from Giuliani SpA, Milan, Italy) was created to be a novel, once-daily 5-ASA formulation. MMX mesalamine in tablet form has a pH-dependent, gastroresistant coating and is designed to delay the release of 5-ASA during transit through the upper gastrointestinal tract; it consists of hydrophilic and lipophilic excipients that are designed to prolong the release of 5-ASA throughout the colon. The release kinetics of 5-ASA from an MMX mesalamine tablet were assessed with the use of a dynamic in vitro gastrointestinal tract system (TNO GastroIntestinal Model) that simulates physiologic conditions in the adult human gastrointestinal tract under standardized fed and fasted conditions. This system incorporates removal of released drug via dialysis and automated sampling taken at various sections of the system. Less than 1% of 5-ASA was found to be released from the tablet in the simulated stomach and small intestine (before introduction into the simulated colon). Most of the 5-ASA within each tablet was released in the simulated colon (fasted state conditions: 78.0%; fed state conditions: 68.5%). Substantial quantities were released during the 8- to 18-hour sampling period (49.6 mg/h[fasted] and 40.7 mg/h [fed]). In conclusion, with the use of an in vitro system, the investigators showed that 5-ASA release from an MMX mesalamine tablet was delayed until the tablet reached the simulated colon. Throughout the simulated colon, release of 5-ASA from an MMX mesalamine tablet was prolonged.

In vivo drug release from hydrophilic dextran tablets capable of forming polyion complex

The aim of this comparative study was to investigate the in vivo drug release property of hydrophilic dextran tablets with or without swelling in the upper gastrointestinal tract (GIT) in humans. Two kinds of theophylline (TH) tablets were prepared by direct compression from a mixture of carboxymethyldextran and [2-(diethylamino)ethyl]dextran as a matrix capable of forming polyion complex (PIC-tablet), and a mixture of low and medium molecular weight hydroxypropylcellulose as a representative hydrophilic matrix (HPC-tablet). In these tablets, in vitro drug release behaviors and saliva TH level profiles after oral administration to humans were similar to each other, indicating equivalent AUC value. The tablets were then coated with Eudragit S100, enteric-coating polymer, by a dipping method in order to reveal drug release without full swelling in the upper GIT. Although the two enteric-coated tablets showed a similar in vitro release pattern, saliva level profiles were quite different as reflected in AUC values of 16.4 and 4.68 microg h/ml for enteric-coated PIC- and enteric-coated HPC-tablet, respectively. These results demonstrated that HPC-tablet could not release sufficiently without swelling in the upper GIT. In contrast, enteric-coated PIC-tablet showed an equivalent AUC value to PIC-tablet, indicating that TH was released well even in the lower GIT.

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

BACKGROUND

The newer 5-ASA preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of SASP while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. The efficacy and safety of 5-ASA preparations have been evaluated in numerous clinical trials that have often lacked sufficient statistical power to arrive at definitive conclusions. Previously, it was found that newer 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP in inducing remission in ulcerative colitis. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the effectiveness, dose-responsiveness, and safety of 5-ASA preparations in terms of more precise outcome measures.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of the newer release formulations of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) compared to placebo or sulfasalazine (SASP) in the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A computer-assisted literature search for relevant studies (1981-2005) was performed using MEDLINE, BIOS, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane IBD/FBD Group Specialized Trials Register, and the Science Citation Index, followed by a manual search of reference lists from previously retrieved articles, review articles, symposia proceedings, and abstracts from major gastrointestinal conferences.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were prospective, randomized, double-blinded, and placebo- or SASP-controlled clinical trials of parallel design with treatment duration of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Based on an intention to treat principle, the primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes were the number of patients experiencing adverse events, the number of patients withdrawn due to adverse events, and exclusions or withdrawals after entry into the study (not due to relapse). All data were analyzed using the Peto odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

The Peto odds ratio for the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission (withdrawals and relapses) for 5-ASA versus placebo was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.62) with an NNT of 6. These values were also calculated for the trials in which SASP and 5-ASA were compared, revealing an odds ratio of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57), with a negative NNT value (-19), suggesting a higher degree of therapeutic effectiveness for SASP.SASP and 5-ASA had similar adverse event profiles, with odds ratios of 1.16(0.62 to 2.16), and 1.31(0.86 to 1.99), respectively. The NNH values were determined to be 171 and 78 respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The newer 5-ASA preparations were superior to placebo in maintenance therapy. However, the newer preparations had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. This review updates the existing review of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis which was published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2006).

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

BACKGROUND

The newer 5-ASA preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of SASP while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. The efficacy and safety of 5-ASA preparations have been evaluated in numerous clinical trials that have often lacked sufficient statistical power to arrive at definitive conclusions. Previously, it was found that newer 5-ASA drugs in doses of at least 2 g/day, were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP in inducing remission in ulcerative colitis. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the effectiveness, dose-responsiveness, and safety of 5-ASA preparations in terms of more precise outcome measures.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of the newer release formulations of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) compared to placebo or sulfasalazine (SASP) for the induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A computer-assisted literature search for relevant studies (1981-2005) was performed using MEDLINE, BIOS, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane IBD/FBD group specialized trials register and the Science Citation Index, followed by a manual search of reference lists from previously retrieved articles, review articles, symposia proceedings, and abstracts from major gastrointestinal conferences.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized, double-blinded, and controlled clinical trials of parallel design, with treatment durations of a minimum of four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Based on an intention to treat principle, the outcomes of interest in the treatment of active disease were the failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, or endoscopic improvement.

MAIN RESULTS

5-ASA was superior to placebo with regard to all measured outcome variables. For the failure to induce global/clinical improvement or remission, the pooled Peto odds ratio was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.53). A dose-response trend for 5-ASA was also observed. When 5-ASA was compared to SASP, the pooled Peto odds ratio was 0.83 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.13) for the failure to induce global/clinical improvement or remission, and 0.66 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.04) for the failure to induce endoscopic improvement. SASP was not as well tolerated as 5-ASA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The newer 5-ASA preparations were superior to placebo and tended towards therapeutic benefit over SASP. However, considering their relative costs, a clinical advantage to using the newer 5-ASA preparations in place of SASP appears unlikely. This review updates the existing review of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis which was published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2006).

Combined scintigraphic and pharmacokinetic investigation of enteric-coated mesalazine micropellets in healthy subjects

BACKGROUND

There is a growing clinical trend to increase the daily dose of mesalazine, which leads to significant compliance issues associated with multiple dosings of current preparations.

AIM

To examine the gastrointestinal performance and systemic exposure of a 1.5 g sachet (micropellets) mesalazine formulation, compared with three enteric-coated tablets (500 mg each, Claversal).

METHODS

A randomized, two-way, cross-over pharmacoscintigraphic (scintigraphy plus pharmacokinetics) study and a two-way, cross-over, pharmacokinetic-only study were performed in 24 healthy volunteers (12 subjects per investigation).

RESULTS

The relative bioavailability of mesalazine was 92% comparing micropellets with Claversal tablets, and the cumulative urine excretion was c. 26% for both preparations, suggesting comparable systemic exposure for the two types of preparation. In the majority of subjects, drug release from the micropellet formulation occurred predominantly in the terminal ileum and ascending colon. The Claversal tablets disintegrated in comparable intestinal sites, albeit at slightly later time points than the micropellets, principally due to slower gastric emptying for the single-unit formulation.

CONCLUSION

The 1.5 g micropellet formulation offers comparable delivery properties to the marketed tablets, but with greater convenience of dosing.

Gastrointestinal transit and release of 5-aminosalicylic acid from 153Sm-labelled mesalazine pellets vs. tablets in male healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

Mesalazine (5-aminosalicylic acid)-containing formulations, designed to optimize drug delivery to the ileo-caecal region, represent a cornerstone in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases.

AIM

: To test, by means of pharmaco-scintigraphy, whether novel mesalazine-containing pellets release 5-aminosalicylic acid in the same target region as mesalazine tablets (Salofalk).

METHODS

Fourteen healthy male volunteers received a single dose of either pellets or tablets containing 500 mg of mesalazine and 2 mg of 152Sm2O3 with a 1-week washout period. The gastrointestinal transit of 153Sm, incorporated into the formulations, was followed by gamma-scintigraphy. Mesalazine release was verified by assessing 5-aminosalicylic acid plasma pharmacokinetics.

RESULTS

The formulations reached the ileo-caecal target region almost at the same time (3.3 +/- 1 and 3.8 +/- 1 h for pellets and tablets, respectively). Plasma 5-aminosalicylic acid tmax values were comparable and corresponded to the time during which the formulations were located in the target region. Plasma AUC values were significantly lower for pellets, which might be explained by a more prolonged release of 5-aminosalicylic acid.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel mesalazine pellets and Salofalk tablets release active 5-aminosalicylic acid in the same target region and pass through the gastrointestinal tract under fasting conditions in healthy volunteers in a comparable time. From a comparison of in vitro dissolution and plasma concentration data, a slower and more prolonged release of 5-aminosalicylic acid from pellets is suggested.

A pharmacoscintigraphic evaluation of oral budesonide given as controlled-release (Entocort) capsules

AIMS

To investigate the gastrointestinal pharmacokinetics of controlled-release (Entocort) and standard budesonide capsules.

METHODS

Six Crohn's disease patients and eight healthy controls were given controlled-release capsules containing budesonide and an inert 111In label, following breakfast. In the patients, a standard capsule containing deuterium-labelled budesonide was given simultaneously. In the controls, on a separate occasion, the controlled-release capsules were given in the fasting state. Gastrointestinal transit was recorded by a gamma camera. Plasma budesonide and deuterium-labelled budesonide were used to estimate drug release, and urine cortisol was used to assess systemic effects.

RESULTS

Budesonide delivery to the ileo-colonic region was significantly greater after the intake of the controlled-release capsules [69%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 54-84] than after the standard capsules (30%; 95% CI, 15-45) (P = 0.005). Fasting had little impact on uptake. The transit and pharmacokinetics of budesonide were similar in both subject groups, although systemic availability was higher in patients (21%; 95% CI, 13-33) than in controls (12%; 95% CI, 10-14) (P = 0.009). Urinary cortisol was, however, similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A major fraction of budesonide is released in the ileum and throughout the colon, the intended target for the controlled-release formulation. The prandial state has little effect on budesonide uptake.

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

BACKGROUND

The newer 5-ASA preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of SASP while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. The efficacy and safety of 5-ASA preparations have been evaluated in numerous clinical trials that have often lacked sufficient statistical power to arrive at definitive conclusions. Previously, it was found that newer 5-ASA drugs in doses of at least 2g/day, were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP in inducing remission in ulcerative colitis. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the effectiveness, dose-responsiveness, and safety of 5-ASA preparations in terms of more precise outcome measures.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of the newer release formulations of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) compared to placebo or sulfasalazine (SASP) for the induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A computer-assisted literature search for relevant studies (1981-2003) was performed using MEDLINE, BIOS, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane IBD group specialized trials register and the Science Citation Index, followed by a manual search of reference lists from previously retrieved articles, review articles, symposia proceedings, and abstracts from major gastrointestinal conferences.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized, double-blinded, and controlled clinical trials of parallel design, with treatment durations of a minimum of four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Based on an intention to treat principle, the outcomes of interest in the treatment of active disease were the failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, or endoscopic improvement.

MAIN RESULTS

5-ASA was superior to placebo with regard to all measured outcome variables. For the failure to induce global/clinical improvement or remission, the pooled Peto odds ratio was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.76). A dose-response trend for 5-ASA was also observed. When 5-ASA was compared to SASP, the pooled Peto odds ratio was 0.87 (CI, 0.63 to 1.21) for the failure to induce global/clinical improvement or remission, and 0.66 (CI, 0.42 to 1.04) for the failure to induce endoscopic improvement. SASP was not as well tolerated as 5-ASA.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The newer 5-ASA preparations were superior to placebo and tended towards therapeutic benefit over SASP. However, considering their relative costs, a clinical advantage to using the newer 5-ASA preparations in place of SASP appears unlikely. This review updates the existing review of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis which was published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2003).

Bioequivalence testing for locally acting gastrointestinal products: what role for gamma scintigraphy?

Bioequivalence testing for locally acting gastrointestinal products is a challenging issue for both the pharmaceutical industry and the global regulatory authorities. It is widely accepted that for medicinal products not intended to be delivered into the systemic circulation, pharmacokinetic bioavailability cannot be used. However, it is becoming increasingly accepted that local availability may be assessed, where appropriate, by approaches that qualitatively reflect the presence of the active substance at the site of action. These methods must be specifically chosen for that combination of active substance and route of drug delivery. This paper argues for the use of gamma scintigraphy as a validated measure of local availability and bioequivalence for topically acting products administered to the gastrointestinal tract by the oral and rectal route.

Enteric coated HPMC capsules designed to achieve intestinal targeting

The enteric coating of HPMC capsules containing paracetamol was investigated. Two enteric polymers, Eudragit L 30 D-55 and Eudragit FS 30 D were studied, which are designed to achieve enteric properties and colonic release, respectively. The capsules were coated in an Accela Cota 10, and, as shown by optical microscopy, resulted in capsules with a uniform coating. Scanning electron microscopy of the surface of the capsules illustrate that, in contrast to gelatin, HPMC has a rough surface, which provides for good adhesion to the coating. Dissolution studies demonstrated that capsules coated with Eudragit L 30 D-55 were gastro resistant for 2 h at pH 1.2 and capsules coated with Eudragit FS 30 D were resistant for a further 1 h at pH 6.8. The product visualisation technique of gamma scintigraphy was used to establish the in vivo disintegration properties of capsules coated with 8 mg cm(-2) Eudragit L 30 D-55 and 6 mg cm(-2) Eudragit FS 30 D. For HPMC units coated with Eudragit L 30 D-55, complete disintegration occurred predominately in the small bowel in an average time of 2.4 h post dose. For HPMC capsules coated with Eudragit FS 30 D, complete disintegration did not occur until the distal small intestine and proximal colon in an average time of 6.9 h post dose.

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

BACKGROUND

The newer 5-ASA preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of SASP while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. The efficacy and safety of 5-ASA preparations have been evaluated in numerous clinical trials that have often lacked sufficient statistical power to arrive at definitive conclusions. Previously, it was found that newer 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP in inducing remission in ulcerative colitis. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the effectiveness, dose-responsiveness, and safety of 5-ASA preparations in terms of more precise outcome measures.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of the newer release formulations of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) compared to placebo or sulfasalazine (SASP) in the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A computer-assisted literature search for relevant studies (1981-2002) was performed using MEDLINE, BIOS, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register, and the Science Citation Index, followed by a manual search of reference lists from previously retrieved articles, review articles, symposia proceedings, and abstracts from major gastrointestinal conferences.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were prospective, randomized, double-blinded, and placebo- or SASP-controlled clinical trials of parallel design with treatment duration of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Based on an intention to treat principle, the primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes were the number of patients experiencing adverse events, the number of patients withdrawn due to adverse events, and exclusions or withdrawals after entry into the study (not due to relapse). All data were analyzed using the Peto odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

The Peto odds ratio for the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission (withdrawals and relapses) for 5-ASA versus placebo was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.62) with an NNT of 6. These values were also calculated for the trials in which SASP and 5-ASA were compared, revealing an odds ratio of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57), with a negative NNT value (-19), suggesting a higher degree of therapeutic effectiveness for SASP. SASP and 5-ASA had similar adverse event profiles, with odds ratios of 1.16(0.62 to 2.16), and 1.31(0.86 to 1.99), respectively. The NNH values were determined to be 171 and 78 respectively.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The newer 5-ASA preparations were superior to placebo in maintenance therapy. However, the newer preparations had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. This review updates the existing review of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis which was published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2002).

The role of gamma-scintigraphy in oral drug delivery

The gastrointestinal tract is usually the preferred site of absorption for most therapeutic agents, as seen from the standpoints of convenience of administration, patient compliance and cost. In recent years there has been a tendency to employ sophisticated systems that enable controlled or timed release of a drug, thereby providing a better dosing pattern and greater convenience to the patient. Although much about the performance of a system can be learned from in vitro release studies using conventional and modified dissolution methods, evaluation in vivo is essential in product development. The non-invasive technique of gamma-scintigraphy has been used to follow the gastrointestinal transit and release characteristics of a variety of pharmaceutical dosage forms. Such studies provide an insight into the fate of the delivery system and its integrity and enable the relationship between in vivo performance and resultant pharmacokinetics to be examined (pharmacoscintigraphy).

An in vitro investigation of the suitability of press-coated tablets with hydroxypropylmethylcellulose acetate succinate (HPMCAS) and hydrophobic additives in the outer shell for colon targeting

To develop a new colon targeting formulation, which can suppress drug release completely during 12 h in the stomach and release the drug rapidly after a lag time of 3+/-1 h in the small intestine, the use of press-coated tablets with hydroxypropylmethylcellulose acetate succinate (HPMCAS) in the outer shell was investigated. The release of diltiazem hydrochloride (DIL) as a model drug contained in the core tablets in the 1st fluid (pH 1.2) was suppressed by preparing with higher compression force, but the lag time in the 2nd fluid (pH 6.8) could not exceed 1.5 h. Therefore, to improve the dissolution characteristics, the effects of addition of various hydrophobic additives to HPMCAS were examined. All of the additives examined suppressed the release rate in the 1st fluid, and prolonged the lag time in the 2nd fluid compared to HPMCAS alone. However, although none of the additives examined fulfilled all of the desired criteria, magnesium stearate (MgSt) and calcium stearate (CaSt) showed interesting effects; the former suppressed drug release completely in 1st fluid, while the latter markedly prolonged the lag time in 2nd fluid. To integrate the merits of each additive, press-coated tablets with a powder mixture of HPMCAS, MgSt and CaSt in the outer shell (HMC tablets) were prepared and in vitro tests were performed. The results indicated that HMC tablets with a mixing ratio of 80% HPMCAS, 5-15% MgSt and 15-5% CaSt in the outer shell met the desired criteria and the lag time in 2nd fluid could also be controlled from 2 to 9 h. At a mixing ratio of 80% HPMCAS, 10% MgSt and 10% CaSt, the dissolution profiles of DIL in 1st fluid and 2nd fluid were not remarkably affected by agitation intensity, and addition of bile salts, pretreatment time or anticipated higher pH except for pH 6.0, respectively. These results indicated the usefulness of HMC tablets with the desirable functions for colon-targeting formulations.

Pathology of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD): variability with time and treatment

The diagnosis of chronic idiopathic IBD and the differential diagnosis between Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis can be made in most cases on cumulative clinical, radiological, endoscopical, biochemical and pathological evidence. Diagnostic difficulties can however, occur in fulminant colitis, in early onset disease and in long-standing disease. The microscopic evaluation of disease activity is based on the presence of active inflammation. Effective medical treatment has however, an influence upon the morphology and the evolution of the lesions and hence can affect the diagnostic features and the microscopic features used for the assessment of disease activity. A literature review was performed on clinical drug trials in IBD and the effect of the drugs upon the microscopic features. Several studies have shown that the diagnostic microscopic features and the features characteristic for disease activity vary with time and treatment. For an adequate analysis of biopsy samples of patients with IBD the pathologist should be aware of the duration of the symptoms and the type of treatment given to the patient.

Mono- and biphasic plasma concentration-time curves of mesalazine from a 500 mg suppository in healthy male volunteers controlled by the time of defecation before dosing

This study was based on data from a bioequivalence study (n=24) of two different formulations of suppositories containing 500 mg mesalazine (formulation I and II), with a similar dissolution profile in phosphate buffer pH 6.8. There was a large intra- and intersubject variability in the plasma concentration-time curves of mesalazine from both suppositories. The aim of the investigation was to identify the parameters that caused the observed large variations in release and absorption of mesalazine in the rectum. Plasma mesalazine and acetylmesalazine, and urine acetylmesalazine concentrations were determined according to validated methods involving HPLC analysis with coulometric detection. Lower limit of quantitation values were respectively 10.4 and 19.4 ng mL(-1) in plasma and 0.96 microg mL(-1) in urine. The time of defecation before and after insertion was recorded. There was a clear distinction between subjects who showed monophasic mesalazine release/absorption and those who showed biphasic and more extended release/absorption. With formulation I there was a correlation between time of defecation before dosing and the type of absorption, monophasic and biphasic absorbers showed a significant difference in the time of defecation, e.g. 9.7+/-5.6 h vs 18.8+/-11.9 h (P = 0.0218). The impact of time of defecation before dosing was non-significant with formulation II, 16.7+/-7.2 h vs 15.1+/-4.2 h (P = 0.67). The impact of the time elapsed between administration and time of defecation after the insertion of the suppository was not significant for the type of release/absorption. The plasma concentration-time curves of the metabolite ran parallel to that of the parent drug, the more parent drug was released/absorbed, the more was acetylated (P = 0.0013) and excreted into the urine (P = 0.0004). After absorption the compound was metabolized into acetylmesalazine, and renally excreted (12-13% of the dose). Monophasic release/ absorption resulted in 7.1% metabolite with I and 10.3% with II (P = 0.0004), while biphasic release/absorption gave 16.8% metabolite with I and 15.5% with II. The renal clearance of the metabolite acetylmesalazine was independent of the observed defecation patterns (300 mL min(-1), P > 0.8), stool composition, and type of absorption.

Gastrointestinal spread of oral prolonged-release mesalazine microgranules (Pentasa) dosed as either tablets or sachet

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in using higher dosages of mesalazine for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease; however, with current mesalazine products this involves the use of 8-16 tablets per day.

AIM

To evaluate the disposition, dispersion and movements of Pentasa prolonged-release microgranules following single dosing of either tablets (2 x 500 mg) or a new 1 g sachet (unit dose, microgranules in a foil bag).

METHODS

A randomized crossover study in eight healthy volunteers was undertaken. Both formulations were radiolabelled by neutron activation and dosed in the fasted state. Location of the preparations in the bowel was assessed over 24 h by scintigraphy.

RESULTS

Dissolution testing at pH 7.5 showed comparable in vitro mesalazine release properties for the tablet and sachet preparations. In vivo disposition of the microgranules administered as either tablets or sachet was comparable in terms of gastric emptying, small intestinal transit and colon arrival.

CONCLUSIONS

Pentasa sachets 1 g unit dose offers the same release of mesalazine as Pentasa 500 mg tablets. Drug release occurs throughout the gastrointestinal tract from stomach to colon, with the advantage of fewer oral doses and ease of swallowing.

Starch capsules: an alternative system for oral drug delivery

Manufactured by the process of injection moulding, starch capsules have been shown to be a very useful alternative delivery system for orally administered compounds. This review describes the starch capsule manufacturing and filling processes and provides an overview of the capsules' physical characteristics. In addition, investigations supporting the development of novel delivery technologies based on the starch capsules are described. Particular emphasis is given to a technology that facilitates drug delivery to specific sites in the human gastrointestinal tract.

[Pharmacokinetic data for different 5-aminosalicylic acid and budesonide preparations]

Different orally and rectally applicable forms of 5-ASA and budesonide have been developed to achieve sufficient high concentrations of the active moieties at the site of inflammation (small and/or large bowel) and to limit the systemic action of the drugs. This concept of drug targeting could be accomplished by both special galenic formulations and by utilizing the pharmacokinetic properties of the agents especially their high intestinal and hepatic presystemic elimination. Thus, 5-ASA and budesonide represent drugs of first choice in the treatment of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. This review describes the various pharmacokinetic and (patho)physiologic factors and their impact on drug delivery and biological availability of the different 5-ASA and budesonide preparations.

Colonic drug targeting

Specific targeting of drugs to the colon is recognized to have several therapeutic advantages. Drugs which are destroyed by the stomach acid and/or metabolized by pancreatic enzymes are slightly affected in the colon, and sustained colonic release of drugs can be useful in the treatment of nocturnal asthma, angina and arthritis. Treatment of colonic diseases such as ulcerative colitis, colorectal cancer and Crohn's disease is more effective with direct delivery of drugs to the affected area. Likewise, colonic delivery of vermicides and colonic diagnostic agents require smaller doses. This article is aimed at providing insight into the design considerations and evaluation of colonic drug delivery systems. For this purpose, the anatomy and physiology of the lower gastrointestinal tract are surveyed. Furthermore, the biopharmaceutical aspects are considered in relation to drug absorption in the colon and hence various approaches to colon-specific drug delivery are discussed.