Mesalazine (5-aminosalicylic acid) micropellets show similar efficacy and tolerability to mesalazine tablets in patients with ulcerative colitis--results from a randomized-controlled trial

Management and treatment optimization of patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease with a significant health-care burden worldwide. While medical therapy aims to induce and maintain remission, optimal management of mild to moderate UC remains challenging due to heterogeneity in severity classifications and non-standardized approaches. This comprehensive review summarizes current evidence and knowledge gaps to optimize clinical decision-making in patients with mild to moderate UC.

AREAS COVERED

After an extensive literature search of PubMed, Medline, and Embase through August 2023, we provide an overview of definitions utilized to characterize mild to moderate UC severity and established therapeutic targets. Current medical treatments including mesalazine formulations, corticosteroids, and their combinations are surveyed. The role of emerging intestinal ultrasound, telemedicine, and home testing is explored. Individualized, patient-centered paradigms aiming to streamline care delivery through proactive identification of relapses are also examined.

EXPERT OPINION

Addressing inconsistencies in disease activity stratification will better align tailored regimens with each patient's profile. Advancing noninvasive technologies like ultrasound criteria and home testing could improve UC management by enabling personalized models. Realizing individualized plans through informed shared-decision making between health-care providers and fully engaged patients holds promise to maximize quality of life outcomes. Continuous improvement relies on innovation bridging different domains to overcome current limitations and push the field toward more predictive and tailored care.

Prebiotics, Probiotics, Synbiotics, Paraprobiotics and Postbiotic Compounds in IBD

The increasing incidence of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) and the increasing severity of the course of these diseases create the need for developing new methods of therapy. The gut microbiome is extensively studied as a factor influencing the development and course of IBD. The composition of intestinal microbiota can be relatively easily modified by diet (i.e., prebiotics, mainly dietary fibers) and bacterial supplementation using beneficial bacteria strains called probiotics. Additionally, the effects of the improved microbiome could be enhanced or gained by using paraprobiotics (non-viable, inactivated bacteria or their components) and/or postbiotics (products of bacterial metabolism or equal synthetic products that beneficially modulate immunological response and inflammation). This study summarizes the recent works on prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics (products merging pre- and probiotics), paraprobiotics and postbiotics in IBD.

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.

Patient Preference and Physician Perceptions of Patient Preference for Oral Pharmaceutical Formulations: Results from a Real-Life Survey

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceutical treatment prescribed according to patient preference for a formulation may have a positive impact on adherence to treatment and consequently on treatment outcomes.

AIM

This study aimed at understanding patient preference for pharmaceutical formulations and attributes that trigger patient preference and physician perception of patient preference.

METHODS

Between August and September 2017, gastroenterologists and patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis from France, Germany, Spain, and the UK participated in an online survey. The investigation was exploratory in nature, and descriptive results are presented.

RESULTS

Patient (n = 380) preference appears to be driven by the appearance (format, shape, size, and color - 44%), number of units per administration (39%), and number of administrations per day (17%). Gastroenterologist (n = 159) preference is instead driven by the number of administrations per day (55%), number of units per day (26%), and tablet size (19%). Overall, 254 (67%) patients preferred a tablet formulation, 111 (29%) preferred granules, and 15 (4%) other formulations. According to gastroenterologist perception of patient preference, only 49% of patients prefer tablets, 38% prefer granules, and 13% have no preference. After switching from granules to tablets, 25% patients expressed negative feelings for granules. However, after switching from tablets to granules, 44% of patients still have positive perceptions of tablets. Among patients receiving tablets (n = 255), 18 (7%) perceived their treatment to be not at all effective versus 16 (13%) patients receiving granules (n = 125). A similar proportion of patients in the two groups perceived their treatment as extremely effective (48 vs. 46%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients generally prefer tablets. Patient and gastroenterologist perception of patient preference for different oral drug formulations is triggered by the same attributes but with inverse importance. To improve adherence, patients should be involved in the choice of the treatment formulation.

Defining endoscopic response and remission in ulcerative colitis clinical trials: an international consensus

BACKGROUND

Recently, endpoints for clinical trials have been changing from measuring clinical response to mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis. Endoscopic evaluation is the current gold standard to assess mucosal lesions and has become a major measure of therapeutic efficacy in addition to patients reported outcomes.

AIM

To achieve consensus on endoscopic definitions of remission and response for clinical trials in patients with ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

In reaching the current international recommendations on an International Organization For the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IOIBD) initiative, we first performed a systematic review of technical aspects of endoscopic scoring systems. Then, to achieve consensus on endoscopic definitions of remission and response for clinical trials, we conducted a two-round vote using a Delphi-style process among fifteen specialists in the field of inflammatory bowel diseases.

RESULTS

The literature review showed that many endoscopic indices have been proposed to evaluate disease activity in ulcerative colitis; most are unvalidated and arbitrary definitions have been used in clinical trials for defining endoscopic response or remission. At the end of the voting process, the investigators ranked initially the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) 0 for the definition of endoscopic remission, and a decrease in Mayo endoscopic score ≥1 grade or a decrease in UCEIS ≥2 points for the definition of endoscopic response in ulcerative colitis.

CONCLUSIONS

These international recommendations represent the first consensus on measurement indices for endoscopic outcomes in ulcerative colitis. They should be subject to prospective testing in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis.

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.

Long-term efficacy and safety of once-daily mesalazine granules for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis

In 1977, 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) was discovered as a therapeutically active moiety of sulfasalazine (SASP) and was launched for topical and oral therapy of ulcerative colitis (UC) in 1984. As a first-step, delivery systems had to be developed to protect 5-ASA against absorption in the upper gastrointestinal tract, resulting in different and competing strategies (azo compounds, controlled release, and pH-dependent release). In a second step, at the beginning of the new century, coinciding with the expiration of patent protection for the first 5-ASA formulations, two component composite release mechanisms (pH-dependent and controlled release) were developed. Furthermore, the drug was formulated as granules instead of tablets, allowing higher unit strengths compared with tablets. Neither Salofalk Granu-Stix^®, nor MMX 5-ASA, nor Pentasa^® granules have initially been developed for once-daily (OD) dosing. A review of the achievements of 20 years of 5-ASA development has demonstrated that 5-ASA has equal efficacy compared with SASP at best, that there are no measurable differences in efficacy between various 5-ASA preparations, and that in a group of patients tolerating SASP, adverse event profiles of SASP and 5-ASA did not differ significantly, with SASP being the far cheaper substance. Therefore, drug adherence came into focus as a new goal for improving UC therapy. Although adherence is a complex and multifactorial construct, a simple dosing schedule may contribute to higher drug adherence and better efficacy of treatment. Simultaneously, the US 5-ASA market, estimated to be worth US$1.4 billion, is expected to grow continuously. Naturally, this very competitive market is not only driven by scientific progress but also by commercial interests. Thus, patents for minor changes to the formulation may serve as protection against drug companies trying to launch generic versions. Randomized controlled trials performed on OD dosing in induction of remission have demonstrated that OD administration of 5-ASA is as effective as conventional dosing in mild to moderate active UC. The three 5-ASA products MMX, Salofalk^®, and Pentasa^® employed in those studies so far have not shown differences in efficacy between OD and conventional dosing. No differences regarding safety outcomes have been detected between OD and conventional dosing, including incidence of adverse events, serious adverse events, or withdrawal from treatment due to an adverse event. Although the majority of patients prefer OD dosing to conventional dosing, it was not possible to detect differences in adherence between OD and multiple dose regimens in the clinical trial setting. Well-designed and controlled large-scale community-based studies are necessary to further investigate and prove the point of improved long-term adherence and treatment efficacy in OD dosing.

Current approaches to the management of new-onset ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an idiopathic, inflammatory gastrointestinal disease of the colon. As a chronic condition, UC follows a relapsing and remitting course with medical maintenance during periods of quiescent disease and appropriate escalation of therapy during times of flare. Initial treatment strategies must not only take into account current clinical presentation (with specific regard for extent and severity of disease activity) but must also take into consideration treatment options for the long-term. The following review offers an approach to new-onset UC with a focus on early treatment strategies. An introduction to the disease entity is provided along with an approach to initial diagnosis. Stratification of patients based on clinical parameters, disease extent, and severity of illness is paramount to determining course of therapy. Frequent assessments are required to determine clinical response, and treatment intensification may be warranted if expected improvement goals are not appropriately reached. Mild-to- moderate UC can be managed with aminosalicylates, mesalamine, and topical corticosteroids with oral corticosteroids reserved for unresponsive cases. Moderate-to-severe UC generally requires oral or intravenous corticosteroids in the short-term with consideration of long-term management options such as biologic agents (as initial therapy or in transition from steroids) or thiopurines (as bridging therapy). Patients with severe or fulminant UC who are recalcitrant to medical therapy or who develop disease complications (such as toxic megacolon) should be considered for colectomy. Early surgical referral in severe or refractory UC is crucial, and colectomy may be a life-saving procedure. The authors provide a comprehensive evidence-based approach to current treatment options for new-onset UC with discussion of long-term therapeutic efficacy and safety, patient-centered perspectives including quality of life and medication compliance, and future directions in related inflammatory bowel disease care.

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.

High mucosal healing rates in 5-ASA-treated ulcerative colitis patients: results of a meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Recently, mucosal healing (MH) is regarded as an important treatment goal in ulcerative colitis (UC). 5-Aminosalicylates (5-ASA) are the standard treatment in mild-to-moderate UC, but the effect on MH is less known. The aim of this study was to systematically review the medical literature in order to compare different preparations of 5-ASA for the effect on MH.

METHODS

We conducted a structured search of PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled clinical trials with 5-ASA in UC providing data about MH. We calculated the sample size-weighted pooled proportion of patients with MH, and performed meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons.

RESULTS

Out of 645 hits, we included 90 treatment arms, involving 3977 patients using oral 5-ASA (granulate and tablets) and 2513 patients using rectal 5-ASA (suppositories, enema, and foam). Overall, 43,7% of 5-ASA treated patients achieved MH (oral 36,9%; rectal 50,3%). In oral studies, 49% of patients using granulate (7 treatment-arms) achieved MH compared to 34,9% using tablets (43 treatment-arms). In rectal studies the proportion of MH was 62% for suppositories (eight treatment arms), 51% for foam (nine treatment arms), and 46% for enema (23 treatment arms), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

5-ASA preparations achieved MH in nearly 50% of UC patients. There were no significant differences in MH between the various 5-ASA agents, either in the oral or the rectal treatment groups.

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.

Clinical pharmacology of 5-ASA compounds in inflammatory bowel disease

Mesalamine has been the first-line of therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) since the 1960s. This article serves as a review of the different 5-aminosalicylic acid compounds, release formulations, use and dosing in the treatment of IBD, in particular ulcerative colitis.

Recent advances in the management of distal ulcerative colitis

The most frequent localization of ulcerative colitis (UC) is the distal colon. In treating patients with active distal UC, efficacy and targeting of the drug to the distal colon are key priorities. Oral and rectal 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations represent the first line therapy of mild-to-moderate distal UC for both induction and maintenance treatment. It has been reported that many UC patients are not adherent to therapy and that non-compliant patients had a 5-fold risk of experiencing a relapse. These findings led to the introduction of once-daily oral regimens of 5-ASA as better therapeutic options in clinical practice due to improved adherence. New formulations of mesalazine, including the multi-matrix delivery system, and mesalazine granules, which allow once-daily administration, have been developed. They have been demonstrated to be efficacious in inducing and maintaining remission in mild-to-moderate distal UC in large clinical trials. However, existing data for distal UC are rather insufficient to make a comparison between new and classical 5-ASA formulations. It seems that the new formulations are at least as effective as classical oral 5-ASA formulations. Other treatment options, in the case that 5-ASA therapy is not effective, include systemic corticosteroids, thiopurines (azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine), cyclosporine, infliximab and surgery. The combination of a prompt diagnostic work-up, a correct therapeutic approach and an appropriate follow-up schedule is important in the management of patients with distal UC. This approach can shorten the duration of symptoms, induce a prolonged remission, improve patient’s quality of life, and optimize the use of health resources.

Mesalamine foam enema versus mesalamine liquid enema in active left-sided ulcerative colitis

AIM

To determine in a noninferiority study whether mesalamine foam is as effective as mesalamine liquid enema for inducing clinical remission in patients with active left-sided ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

In a multicenter investigator-blind trial, 375 patients with mild-to-moderate UC were randomized to receive mesalamine foam 1 g/80 mL/day or mesalamine liquid enema 1 g/100 mL/day for 4 wk (W). Inclusion criteria were: disease extension at least 5 cm from anorectal junction and not above splenic flexure and Clinical Activity Index (CAI) 1-4 > or = 4. Primary end point was clinical remission at W4 defined as a CAI 1-4 < or = 2. Noninferiority of the foam to liquid enema was declared if the lower limit of the 97.5% unilateral confidence interval (97.5% CI) of the difference in remission rates between foam and liquid enema groups was greater than -15% .

RESULTS

Remission rates at W4 in foam versus liquid were 68.3%versus 73.6% in per protocol (PP) population (lower limit of 97.5% CI -15.1%) and 66.7%versus 70.5% in intention-to-treat (ITT) population (97.5% CI -13.4%). Remission rates at W2 were 48.1 %versus 50.6% in ITT (97.5% CI -12.8%) and 49.1%versus 52.1% in PP (97.5% CI -13.8%) in foam versus liquid, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

A 4-wk treatment of 1 g mesalamine foam induced a clinical remission in 68% patients versus 73% with 1 g mesalamine liquid enema. Although the noninferiority of mesalamine foam could not be strictly demonstrated at W4 in the PP analysis, it was achieved in the ITT population and at W2 in both populations. Mesalamine foam represents a therapeutic alternative to mesalamine liquid enema in patients with mild-to-moderate active proctitis and proctosigmoiditis.

Review article: new drug formulations, chemical entities and therapeutic approaches for the management of ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for ulcerative colitis (UC) are expanding with the development of novel drug formulations and dosing regimens and new chemical entities. Although the goals of medical therapy for UC remain unchanged, that is to induce and to maintain remission, focus has also centred on improving patient compliance, modifying the natural course of disease and healing the mucosa.

AIM

To examine novel formulations, new chemical entities and novel therapeutic approaches to the management of UC.

METHODS

Searches for all studies related to UC treatment in Medline and abstracts from major national and international meetings published in the last 10 years.

RESULTS

5-Aminosalicylic acids (5-ASA) remain the standard first-line treatment for patients with mild to moderately active UC. New formulations with altered delivery, and new dosing regimens have demonstrated possible improvements in efficacy compared with historically available preparations and dosing patterns. Once-daily dosing, micropellet formulations,and high-dose tablets offer enhanced efficacy and improved compliance. 5-ASA is now recognized as a ligand for peroxisome proliferator activated receptor-gamma (PPAR-gamma) and it has a role as a chemo-preventive agent in long-standing UC. New colonic release corticosteroid formulations help to limit systemic toxicity; turmeric, tacrolimus and infliximab have shown promising results. New anti-inflammatory targeted therapies include an anti-CD3 antibody, selective integrin blockers, anti-IL-2 antibody and PPAR-gamma agonists.

CONCLUSION

The evolution of novel oral 5-ASA formulations and dosage regimens,and recent development of new molecules have expanded the therapeutic armamentarium of UC.

Mesalamine with MMX technology for the treatment of ulcerative colitis

Mesalamine with MMX Multi Matrix System technology (hereafter referred to as MMX mesalamine) is an oral, high-strength (1.2 g/tablet), once-daily formulation of 5-aminosalicylic acid used for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. This new formulation has been designed to provide delayed and prolonged 5-aminosalicylic acid release throughout the colon. In recent clinical studies, MMX mesalamine (taken as a once-daily dose of 2.4 or 4.8 g) effectively induced clinical remission and mucosal healing versus placebo in patients with active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Once remission was achieved, MMX mesalamine effectively maintained disease remission in the majority of patients for at least 12 months. In this paper, we comprehensively review the results of studies exploring the clinical pharmacology, efficacy and safety of MMX mesalamine in patients with ulcerative colitis, and examine the implications of these findings on clinical practice.

Quality of life of patients with ulcerative colitis: past, present, and future

Quality of life (QoL) is vitally important to patients with chronic illnesses such as ulcerative colitis (UC) and has been assessed in observational, cross-sectional, and cohort studies. However, relatively few clinical trials have evaluated the QoL of patients with UC. Recently, greater availability of the necessary tools has facilitated the undertaking of studies showing that QoL of patients with UC is reduced significantly compared with that of the general population. Studies using disease-specific instruments have identified disease severity as the strongest predictor of QoL, with other disease-related predictors including type of medical or surgical treatment and the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability to patients of particular types of medical or surgical treatments. Other factors, such as comorbid medical or psychosocial problems and adherence to treatment, also affect QoL. Combined use of generic and disease-specific instruments in clinical trials can ensure that all clinically relevant unexpected events (generic instrument) and important improvement or deterioration (disease-specific instrument) are captured. For accurate outcomes assessment, the use of comprehensively validated instruments is critical. The need for the development and evaluation of new instruments will be determined by the mechanisms and targets of novel therapies. Ultimately, QoL assessment of effective therapies will play a strong role in pharmacoeconomic evaluations, providing health policy makers with the evidence to support the treatments that can most effectively normalize QoL through complete symptom resolution, minimal side effects, and convenient administration.

Review article: evolutionary advances in the delivery of aminosalicylates for the treatment of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis is a chronic and debilitating disease that involves inflammation of the colonic mucosa. Current therapies aim to reduce the symptom burden of ulcerative colitis and maintain disease quiescence. The standard first-line treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis is 5-aminosalicylate therapy, which is available in oral and rectal (topical) formulations. While current 5-aminosalicylate formulations are effective in the majority of patients, they are associated with a number of limitations including inconvenient dosing regimens and poor patient acceptability, which may lead to non-compliance with prescribed therapy. A variety of improved delivery mechanisms have been developed in an effort to overcome these limitations. Micropellet formulations and high-dose tablets appear to offer comparable efficacy and tolerability to conventional formulations, although any benefit in terms of long-term patient compliance remains to be proven. Novel methods of delivery, such as those using a combination of hydrophilic and lipophilic matrices, designed to provide once-daily dosing in a high-strength tablet, may offer a significant improvement in the therapy of active and quiescent ulcerative colitis. This review examines the limitations of current 5-aminosalicylate formulations and reports on the evolution of novel oral formulations designed to overcome these limitations, maximize patient compliance during both induction and maintenance of quiescence, and optimize overall clinical outcomes.

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).