Clinical trial: randomized-controlled clinical study comparing the efficacy and safety of a low-volume vs. a high-volume mesalazine foam in active distal ulcerative colitis

Systematic review with meta-analysis: Medical therapies for treatment of ulcerative proctitis

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative proctitis (UP) is a common highly symptomatic form of ulcerative colitis that can be difficult to treat.

AIM

To assess the efficacy of medical treatments for UP.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL on 23 November 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medical therapy for adults with UP. Primary outcomes included induction and maintenance of clinical remission. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each outcome.

RESULTS

We included 53 RCTs (n = 4096) including 46 induction studies (n = 3731) and seven maintenance studies (n = 365). First-line therapies included topical 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), conventional corticosteroids, budesonide, and oral 5-ASA. Therapy for refractory UP included topical tacrolimus and small molecules. Topical 5-ASA was superior to placebo for induction (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.94-3.82) and maintenance of remission (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.26-3.46). Topical corticosteroids were superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.62-4.92). Topical budesonide was superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.44-3.81). Combination therapy with topical 5-ASA and topical corticosteroids was superior to topical monotherapy with either agent. Topical tacrolimus was superior to placebo. Etrasimod was superior to placebo for induction (RR 4.71, 95% CI 1.2-18.49) and maintenance of remission (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.31-3.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical 5-ASA and corticosteroids are effective for active UP. Topical 5-ASA may be effective for maintenance of remission. Tacrolimus may be effective for induction of remission. Etrasimod may be effective for induction and for maintenance of remission. Trials should include UP to expand the evidence base for this under-represented population.

Temperature-triggered in situ forming lipid mesophase gel for local treatment of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease that strongly affects patient quality of life. Side effects of current therapies necessitate new treatment strategies that maximise the drug concentration at the site of inflammation, while minimizing systemic exposure. Capitalizing on the biocompatible and biodegradable structure of lipid mesophases, we present a temperature-triggered in situ forming lipid gel for topical treatment of colitis. We show that the gel is versatile and can host and release drugs of different polarities, including tofacitinib and tacrolimus, in a sustained manner. Further, we demonstrate its adherence to the colonic wall for at least 6 h, thus preventing leakage and improving drug bioavailability. Importantly, we find that loading known colitis treatment drugs into the temperature-triggered gel improves animal health in two mouse models of acute colitis. Overall, our temperature-triggered gel may prove beneficial in ameliorating colitis and decreasing adverse effects associated with systemic application of immunosuppressive treatments.

Efficacy of Pharmacological Agents for Ulcerative Proctitis: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative proctitis is a common and often highly symptomatic form of inflammatory bowel disease. We performed a systematic review to assess the efficacy of different therapies in the management of patients with ulcerative proctitis.

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled trials in adults with ulcerative proctitis treated with oral or topical therapies for induction of response or remission, or prevention of relapse.

RESULTS

A total of 32 randomized controlled trials were included [27 induction/2839 participants, five maintenance/334 participants]. Follow-up varied from 3 to 8 weeks for induction, and from 6 to 24 months for maintenance of remission. 5-Aminosalicylic acid [5-ASA] suppository was the most frequently evaluated treatment [14/32, 43.7%], followed by steroid enema [7/32, 21.9%]. Topical 5-ASA demonstrated effectiveness for induction of clinical response or remission and prevention of relapse in several studies. Combined topical steroids and 5-ASA was more effective than topical 5-ASA or topical steroids alone to induce response [100% of patients for combination vs 70% for beclomethasone alone and 76% for 5-ASA alone]. One observational study suggested azathioprine may be effective in patients with ulcerative proctitis. Only two cohort studies evaluated the efficacy of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in ulcerative proctitis. Small molecules, anti-integrins and anti-interleukin therapies have not been evaluated in isolated ulcerative proctitis.

CONCLUSION

The role of topical 5-ASA as a treatment for ulcerative proctitis has been confirmed in this systematic literature review, for induction and maintenance of remission. Future trials are needed to investigate the efficacy of more recent and upcoming drug classes in patients with ulcerative proctitis.

Histologic Healing Rates of Medical Therapies for Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

Histologic remission is a potentially valuable means of assessing disease activity and treatment response in ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the efficacy of existing therapies to achieve this outcome is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of histologic outcomes in UC randomized controlled trials and examined the relationship between histologic and endoscopic outcomes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Register were searched for randomized controlled trials of aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, immunosuppressives, biologics, and small molecules. Histologic and endoscopic remission and response data were independently extracted and pooled using binomial-normal random-effect or fixed-effect models. Pooled efficacy estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RRs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Univariable and multivariable random-effect meta-regression models examined factors associated with histologic remission.

RESULTS

Seventy-four studies (68 induction and 7 maintenance) were identified. Topical aminosalicylate enemas [37.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 29.0-46.3] and suppositories (44.9%, 95% CI, 28.9-62.3) had the highest induction of histologic remission rates. Aminosalicylate enemas (RR = 4.14, 95% CI, 2.35-7.31), aminosalicylate suppositories (RR = 3.94, 95% CI, 1.26-12.32), and budesonide multimatrix (RR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.08-1.99) had higher histologic remission rates than placebo. Data were lacking for biologics and immunosuppressives. The pooled histologic remission rate for placebo in induction studies was 10.4% (95% CI, 7.1-15.2). Histologic and endoscopic remission correlated strongly (r = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78). In multivariate analysis of placebo-arm data, less severe clinical disease activity and corticosteroid use were associated with higher histologic remission rates. Similarly, mild clinical disease activity was associated with higher histologic remission rates when active-arm data were analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

Histologic remission rates for current UC treatments ranged from 15.0% to 44.9% according to drug class and patient population with the highest rates observed for topical aminosalicylates. Placebo remission rates were low with relatively narrow CIs. These data provide benchmarks to inform future trial design. Histologic remission is a potential treatment target in clinical practice.

Efficacy and safety of a novel high-dose mesalazine tablet in mild to moderate active ulcerative colitis: a double-blind, multicentre, randomised trial

Background

Adherence to mesalazine treatment is essential for the successful treatment of ulcerative colitis.

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and preference of a novel high-dose 1000 mg mesalazine tablet versus conventional treatment for ulcerative colitis remission.

Methods

This pivotal phase III trial compared one 1000 mg mesalazine tablet (M1000 group) versus two registered 500 mg mesalazine tablets (M2x500 group), both taken three times daily, in patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. The primary efficacy variable was clinical remission at week 8.

Results

A total of 306 patients were considered for intent-to-treat analysis. Clinical remission was achieved in 45.0% of the patients in the M1000 group versus 41.9% in the M2x500 group (P < 0.001 for non-inferiority). Mucosal healing was achieved by 68.9% of the patients in the M1000 group and 68.4% in the M2x500 group. The majority of patients preferred the intake of one high-dose tablet (47.7%) over two low-dose tablets (10.5%). Oral treatment with high-dose 1000 mg mesalazine tablets was well tolerated without new safety signals.

Conclusions

The novel high-dose 1000 mg mesalazine tablet is effective, non-inferior to the registered 500 mg mesalazine tablet, and safe for ulcerative colitis treatment. It was preferred by a majority of patients and may improve ulcerative colitis treatment adherence.

Strategies for remission induction of inflammatory bowel disease

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is an abnormal immune-mediated, chronic, recurrent gastrointestinal inflammatory disorder, which is caused by a variety of factors, including ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). IBD is characterized by alternating periods of relapse and remission. During the active period of IBD, clinicians usually formulate an appropriate medical management plan based on the disease activity, location, extent, and the medication history. In this way, remission can be induced as soon as possible. This paper summarizes the strategies for remission induction of IBD.

Efficacy and safety of a novel high-dose mesalazine tablet in mild to moderate active ulcerative colitis: a double-blind, multicentre, randomised trial

Background

Adherence to mesalazine treatment is essential for the successful treatment of ulcerative colitis.

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and preference of a novel high-dose 1000 mg mesalazine tablet versus conventional treatment for ulcerative colitis remission.

Methods

This pivotal phase III trial compared one 1000 mg mesalazine tablet (M1000 group) versus two registered 500 mg mesalazine tablets (M2x500 group), both taken three times daily, in patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. The primary efficacy variable was clinical remission at week 8.

Results

A total of 306 patients were considered for intent-to-treat analysis. Clinical remission was achieved in 45.0% of the patients in the M1000 group versus 41.9% in the M2x500 group (P < 0.001 for non-inferiority). Mucosal healing was achieved by 68.9% of the patients in the M1000 group and 68.4% in the M2x500 group. The majority of patients preferred the intake of one high-dose tablet (47.7%) over two low-dose tablets (10.5%). Oral treatment with high-dose 1000 mg mesalazine tablets was well tolerated without new safety signals.

Conclusions

The novel high-dose 1000 mg mesalazine tablet is effective, non-inferior to the registered 500 mg mesalazine tablet, and safe for ulcerative colitis treatment. It was preferred by a majority of patients and may improve ulcerative colitis treatment adherence.

Medical Therapy of Active Ulcerative Colitis

Background

Medical therapy of mild and moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) of any extent is evidence-based and standardized by national and international guidelines. However, patients with steroid-refractory UC still represent a challenge.

Methods

A literature search using PubMed (search terms: ulcerative colitis, therapy, new, 1-2008-2015) resulted in 821 publications. For the current article, 88 citations were extracted including 36 randomized controlled studies, 18 reviews, and 8 meta-analyses.

Results

In steroid-refractory UC, early intensive therapy using anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antibodies or the calcineurin inhibitors cyclosporine and tacrolimus is indicated in any case to prevent progression to a toxic megacolon and/or to avoid proctocolectomy. In patients with chronic disease activity, treatment with anti-TNF antibodies has a higher level of evidence than azathioprine therapy and should therefore be preferred. However, there is a subgroup of UC patients who may achieve prolonged steroid-free remission on azathioprine monotherapy. The importance of vedolizumab, a newly registered inhibiting antibody against integrin, has not yet been fully clarified since direct comparison studies are lacking, in particular in relation to anti-TNF antibodies.

Conclusion

There is a great need for additional innovative therapies, especially in cases of primary non-response or secondary loss of response to anti-TNF antibodies. New small molecules (Janus kinase inhibitors) are promising with an acceptable safety profile and efficacy in UC. Further, strategies that target the intestinal microbiome are currently considered for patients with active or relapsing UC, and may in the future open up new therapeutic options.

Systematic Review: Rectal Therapies for the Treatment of Distal Forms of Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

Many therapeutic options are available for patients with distal forms of ulcerative colitis (UC). Rectal therapies (e.g., suppositories, foams, gels, and enemas) may be recommended either alone or in combination with oral treatment. Compared with oral therapies, rectal therapies are underused in patients with distal forms of UC, although rectal therapies have favorable efficacy and safety profiles.

METHODS

This systematic review identified 48 articles for inclusion after a comprehensive PubMed search and the identification of additional relevant articles through other sources. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies examining efficacy and safety of 5-aminosalicylic acid, corticosteroid, and non-5-aminosalicylic acid rectal therapies (suppositories, foams, gels, and enemas) that induce or maintain remission in patients with ulcerative proctitis, ulcerative proctosigmoiditis, or left-sided colitis (i.e., distal forms of UC). The quality of the evidence presented was evaluated using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Overall, a greater percentage of patients with distal forms of UC receiving 5-aminosalicylic acids or corticosteroid rectal formulations derived greater therapeutic benefit after treatment compared with patients receiving placebo. Furthermore, most uncontrolled studies of rectal therapies reported that patients with distal forms of UC had marked improvement from baseline after treatment. The overall safety profile of rectal therapies was favorable. Treatment with second-generation corticosteroids, such as budesonide and beclomethasone dipropionate, did not increase the incidence of steroid-related adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature supports the use of rectal therapies for both induction and maintenance of remission in patients with distal forms of UC.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Accuracy of Rapid Fecal Calprotectin Test in Monitoring Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Under Treatment with TNFα Antagonists

BACKGROUND

Anti-TNFα antibodies are effective in treating inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) unresponsive to the standard treatments. Information about the role of rapid fecal calprotectin (FC) in monitoring ambulatory IBD patients under treatment with anti-TNFα is lacking. Our aim was to assess the accuracy of rapid FC in monitoring those patients.

METHODS

Seventy-two patients (38 males, 34 females, mean age 42.5 years, range 23-57 years), affected by ulcerative colitis (UC) (20 patients) or by Crohn's disease (CD) (52 patients) were treated with anti-TNFα antibodies. FC was assessed by a rapid semiquantitative test.

RESULTS

With respect to the absence of clinical remission, FC test showed sensitivity of 71.8 %, specificity of 65.2 %, PPV of 41.8 %, and NPV of 86.9 %. In UC patients, FC test showed a sensitivity of 66.7 %, a specificity of 56.1 %, a PPV of 18.2 %, and a NPV of 92.0 %. In CD patients, FC test showed sensitivity of 70.6 %, specificity of 65.2 %, PPV of 50.0 %, and NPV of 81.8 %. With respect to the presence of endoscopic lesions, FC test showed sensitivity of 73.5 %, specificity of 96.0 %, PPV of 96.2 %, and NPV of 72.7 %. In UC patients, FC test showed sensitivity of 47.2 %, specificity of 84.6 %, PPV of 89.5 %, and NPV of 36.7 %. In CD patients, FC test showed sensitivity of 90.1 %, specificity of 79.7 %, PPV of 71.9 %, and NPV of 93.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid FC seems better in predicting persistence of endoscopic lesions than clinical remission in IBD patients under treatment with anti-TNFα.

Drug therapies for ulcerative proctitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with ulcerative colitis limited to the proctum are considered to have ulcerative proctitis (UP). In patients with more extensive ulcerative colitis, treatment occurs in a step-up fashion (5-ASA, corticosteroids, thiopurines, anti-TNF-α agents), a strategy which has proven effective. Although treatment of UP occurs using the same step-up design, the efficacy of these therapies in UP is scarcely studied. The objectives were to systematically review the literature for randomized controlled trials studying drug therapies for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with UP.

METHODS

Electronic databases and reference lists of review articles were searched. The primary outcomes were clinical remission induction rate and the maintained clinical remission rate. Secondary outcomes were induction and maintenance of endoscopic and histological remission. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies (1834 patients) were included. Eighteen trials investigated induction and 5 studied maintenance of remission. Topical 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo for induction (RR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.63-3.51) and maintenance (RR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.21-6.45) of clinical remission, regardless of dose or formulation. Subgroup analysis of 5-ASA suppositories also showed superiority over placebo for induction of clinical (RR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.70-5.55) and endoscopic remission (RR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.85-3.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical 5-ASA is superior to placebo for the induction and maintenance of clinical remission and for the induction of endoscopic remission. The efficacy of corticosteroids, thiopurines, and anti-TNFα has been insufficiently studied in patients with UP.

Mucosal lichen planus: an evidence-based treatment update

BACKGROUND

Mucosal lichen planus (MLP) is a chronic mucosal disorder that often poses a therapeutic challenge to dermatologists, dentists, and gynecologists. To relieve patients' pain and discomfort, improve their quality of life, and achieve clinical improvement, various therapeutic approaches can be considered for this disease. Based on the current literature it is difficult to define any particular treatment as the main therapeutic modality.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review the current literature for the effectiveness of available treatment modalities for MLP.

METHODS

All of the randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of MLP were collected by searching Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Meta-analysis was performed, if possible.

RESULTS

Topical betamethasone valerate, clobetasol-17-propionate, and fluocinonide are effective in the treatment of oral lichen planus (OLP) when compared with placebo. Calcineurin inhibitors and topical retinoids are also beneficial treatment options.

LIMITATIONS

The review does not include therapies with a lower level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Topical corticosteroids are the mainstay of therapy for OLP. High-quality evidence is lacking for the treatment of lichen planus.

Topical therapy is underused in patients with ulcerative colitis

The availability of new topical preparations for the treatment of left sided ulcerative colitis offers a therapy optimization for many patients. Rectal application of steroids and 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) is associated with fewer side effects and has a higher therapeutic efficacy in left-sided colitis as compared to a systemic therapy. Therefore, we were interested in the use of topical therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis. The key question was whether topical treatment is more frequently used than oral therapy in patients with proctitis and left sided colitis. Data of 800 patients of the Swiss IBD cohort study were analyzed. Sixteen percent of patients of the cohort had proctitis, 21% proctosigmoiditis and 41% pancolitis. Topical therapy with 5-ASA or corticosteroids was given in 26% of patients with proctitis, a combined systemic and topical treatment was given in 13%, whereas systemic treatment with 5-ASA without topical treatment was given in 29%. Proportion of topical drug use decreased with respect to disease extension from 39% for proctitis to 13.1% for pancolitis (P=0.001). Patients with severe colitis received a significantly higher dose of topical 5-ASA than patients in remission. Side effects of topical or systemic 5-ASA or budesonide treatment were less frequently seen compared to other medications. Topical treatment was frequently stopped over time. The quality of life was the same in patients with limited disease compared to patients with pancolitis. Topical treatment in proctitis patients was underused in Switzerland. Since topical treatment is safe and effective it should be used to a larger extend.

Topical therapy

Topical therapy with mesalazine and/or corticosteroids is the standard treatment for patients with distal ulcerative colitis. Rectal mesalazine is more effective than rectal systemically active corticosteroids or topically active corticosteroids like budesonide. In patients with mild to moderately active distal ulcerative colitis, topical mesalazine is therefore the treatment of choice. Doses of 1 g or higher are equally effective. The period of treatment is important (4 weeks are more effective than 2 weeks). In the case of nonresponse or nontolerability of rectal mesalazine, rectal budesonide is indicated. The standard dose of budesonide is 2 mg/day. This does not usually induce any corticosteroid-associated adverse events. Treatment with rectal mesalazine plus rectal topically active corticosteroids is even more effective than treatment with either substance alone. To overcome adherence problems with rectal therapy, rectal foam preparations have been developed which are usually better tolerated than enemas.

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.

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.

Clinical trial: controlled, open, randomized multicentre study comparing the effects of treatment on quality of life, safety and efficacy of budesonide or mesalazine enemas in active left-sided ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Therapy for active left-sided ulcerative colitis usually involves topical application of mesalazine (mesalamine) or budesonide.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide enema and mesalazine enema in the treatment of active left-sided ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

A total of 237 patients with mild-moderate ulcerative colitis were randomized open 1:1 to receive either budesonide (n = 118) or mesalazine enemas (n = 119) for 8 weeks. Efficacy variables were clinical activity index, endoscopic, histological index and IBDQ scores after 4 and 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Clinical remission (intention-to-treat analysis) at week 4 was 63.5% for budesonide enemas and 77.2% for mesalazine enemas (P < 0.05). The respective values for the per protocol population (PP) were 59.9% examined in the budesonide group and 77.5% in the mesalazine group (P < 0.02). At the final visit (W8), clinical remission was diagnosed in the ITT analysis for 64.4% of the budesonide group and 77.4% of the mesalazine group (P < 0.05). The respective values for the PP analysis were 59.5% in the budesonide group and 75.3% in the mesalazine group (P < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with budesonide, mesalazine enema was associated with a significantly higher remission rate; this was supported by favourable trends in endoscopic, histological remission rates and the IBDQ score.

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

BACKGROUND

5-Aminosalicylates (5-ASA) are considered a first-line therapy for inducing and maintaining remission of mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC). When inflammation in UC is limited to the distal colon, 5-ASA can also be administered rectally as a suppository, enema or foam.

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of rectal 5-ASA for treating active distal UC.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of the MEDLINE database (1966-2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane IBD/FBD Group Specialized Trials Register were supplemented by manual reviews of reference listings and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials comparing rectal 5-ASA to placebo or another active therapy were eligible for inclusion. Eligible trials enrolled patients with a distal disease margin less than 60 cm from the anal verge or distal to the splenic flexure. Trials that enrolled subjects less than 12 years of age were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eligibility was assessed by three authors. Data were extracted by two authors using standardized forms. Pooled odds ratios (POR) for inducing improvement and remission by symptomatic, endoscopic and histologic criteria were calculated using an intention to treat principle. Fixed effects models were used unless heterogeneity was encountered within groups (P < 0.10), where random effects models were used. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5. Where sufficient data were available, subgroup analyses were performed for disease extent, total daily 5-ASA dose, 5-ASA formulation (enema,suppository, foam) and the type of control intervention (placebo or another active therapy).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Rectal 5-ASA was superior to placebo for inducing symptomatic, endoscopic and histological improvement and remission, with POR for symptomatic improvement 8.87 (8 trials, 95% CI: 5.30 to 14.83; P < 0.00001), endoscopic improvement 11.18 (5 trials, 95% CI 5.99 to 20.88; P < 0.00001), histologic improvement 7.69 (6 trials, 95% CI 3.26 to 18.12; P < 0.00001), symptomatic remission 8.30 (8 trials, 95% CI 4.28 to 16.12; P < 0.00001), endoscopic remission 5.31 (7 trials, 95% CI 3.15 to 8.92; P < 0.00001), and histologic remission 6.28 (5 trials, 95% CI 2.74 to 14.40; P < 0.0001). Rectal 5-ASA was superior to rectal corticosteroids for inducing symptomatic improvement and remission with POR 1.56 (6 trials, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.11; P = 0.004) and 1.65 (6 trials, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.45; P = 0.01), respectively. Rectal 5-ASA was not superior to oral 5-ASA for symptomatic improvement (POR 2.25; 95% CI 0.53 to 19.54; P = 0.27). Neither total daily dose nor 5-ASA formulation affected treatment response.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Rectal 5-ASA should be considered a first-line therapy for patients with mild to moderately active distal UC. The optimal total daily dose and dose frequency of 5-ASA remain to be determined. Future research should define differences in efficacy among patient subgroups defined by proximal disease margin and disease activity. There is a strong need for consensus standardization of outcome measurements for clinical trials in ulcerative colitis.

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: 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.

Therapy of ulcerative colitis: state of the art

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advances in conventional therapy, novel targets and therapeutic goals are the highlights of treatment for ulcerative colitis in the last year. There have also been disappointments. This review summarizes the highs and lows, with an emphasis on strategy as opposed to seeking the newest treatment option.

RECENT FINDINGS

In conventional therapy, once daily therapy for 5-aminosalicylic acid is generally sufficient. Furthermore, a new 5-aminosalicylic acid (mesalamine MMX) has been released that effectively induces and maintains remission. There have been reappraisals of immunomodulators and further evaluation of (yes, now conventional!) infliximab for ulcerative colitis. Opportunistic infections, long-term outcomes and the burden of disease are being characterized. New therapeutic targets included an antibody against T cells (anti-CD3), but trials on visilizumab for acute severe colitis have been suspended. T-cell costimulation, phosphatidylcholine to promote barrier function, new anti-tumour necrosis factor agents, B-cell (anti-CD20) depletion and complementary therapies represent new therapeutic horizons. International agreement is needed on activity indices, definitions of remission, therapeutic goals (including mucosal healing) and outcomes that matter to patients, so that trials can be compared.

SUMMARY

Advances will take time to alter mainstream practice, but 2007-2008 is the year of organized strategies, with European, American and British guidelines on ulcerative colitis published or in press. These should be the platform for better outcomes for patients.