A prospective randomized observer-blind 2-year trial of azathioprine monotherapy versus azathioprine and olsalazine for the maintenance of remission of steroid-dependent ulcerative colitis

Understanding the therapeutic toolkit for inflammatory bowel disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), encompassing ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, is a group of chronic, immune-mediated disorders of the gastrointestinal tract that present substantial clinical challenges owing to their complex pathophysiology and tendency to relapse. A treat-to-target approach is recommended, involving iterative treatment adjustments to achieve clinical response, reduce inflammatory markers and achieve long-term goals such as mucosal healing. Lifelong medication is often necessary to manage the disease, maintain remission and prevent complications. The therapeutic landscape for IBD has evolved substantially; however, a ceiling on therapeutic efficacy remains and surgery is sometimes required (owing to uncontrolled disease activity or complications). Effective IBD management involves comprehensive care, including medication adherence and a collaborative clinician-patient relationship. This Review discusses current therapeutic options for IBD, detailing mechanisms of action, efficacy, safety profiles and guidelines for use of each drug class. We also explore emerging therapies and the role of surgery. Additionally, the importance of a multidisciplinary team and personalized care in managing IBD is emphasized, advocating for patient empowerment and involvement in treatment decisions. By synthesizing current knowledge and emerging trends, this Review aims to equip healthcare professionals with a thorough understanding of therapeutic options for IBD, enhancing informed, evidence-based decisions in clinical practice.

AGA Living Clinical Practice Guideline on Pharmacological Management of Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) living guideline is intended to support practitioners in the pharmacological management of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to prioritize clinical questions, identify patient-centered outcomes, conduct an evidence synthesis, and develop recommendations on the pharmacological management of moderate-to-severe UC.

RESULTS

The AGA guideline panel made 14 recommendations. In adult outpatients with moderate-to-severe UC, the AGA recommends the use of infliximab, golimumab, vedolizumab, tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ustekinumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, risankizumab, and guselkumab, and suggests the use of adalimumab, filgotinib, and mirikizumab over no treatment. In patients who are naïve to advanced therapies, the AGA suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, and guselkumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (eg, golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and mirikizumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication (eg, adalimumab). In patients who have previously been exposed to 1 or more advanced therapies, particularly tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonists, the AGA suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and ustekinumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (eg, filgotinib, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication (eg, adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, and etrasimod). In adult outpatients with moderate-to-severe UC, the AGA suggests against using thiopurine monotherapy for induction of remission, but suggests using thiopurine monotherapy over no treatment for maintenance of (typically corticosteroid-induced) remission. The AGA suggests against using methotrexate monotherapy, for induction or maintenance of remission. In adult outpatients with moderate-to-severe UC, the AGA suggests the use of infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in combination with an immunomodulator over corresponding monotherapy. However, the AGA makes no recommendation in favor of, or against, the use of non-TNF antagonist biologics in combination with an immunomodulator over non-TNF biologic alone. In patients with UC who are in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on combination therapy of TNF antagonists and an immunomodulator, the AGA suggests against withdrawal of TNF antagonists, but makes no recommendation in favor of, or against, withdrawing immunomodulators. In adult outpatients with moderate-to-severe UC, who have failed 5-aminosalicylates, and have escalated to therapy with immunomodulators or advanced therapies, the AGA suggests stopping 5-aminosalicylates. Finally, in adult outpatients with moderate-severe UC, the AGA suggests early use of advanced therapies and/or immunomodulator therapy, rather than gradual step-up after failure of 5-aminosalicylates. The panel also proposed key implementation considerations for optimal use of these medications and identified several knowledge gaps and areas for future research.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline provides a comprehensive, patient-centered approach to the pharmacological management of patients with moderate-to-severe UC.

Continuing or stopping 5-aminosalicylates in patients with inflammatory bowel disease on anti-TNF therapy: A nationwide population-based study

BACKGROUND

The impact of continuing or stopping 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) after commencing anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains unclear.

AIMS

To compare the outcomes of patients with IBD who stopped or continued 5-ASA after starting anti-TNF therapy.

METHODS

We analysed data from the Korean National Health Insurance claims database between 2007 and 2020. We compared the clinical outcomes of patients who stopped or continued 5-ASA within 90 days of anti-TNF initiation. The primary outcome was any adverse clinical event defined as a composite of new corticosteroid use, IBD-related hospitalisation, or intestinal surgery.

RESULTS

Among 7442 patients included for analysis (4479 [60.2%] with Crohn's disease [CD] and 2963 [39.8%] with ulcerative colitis [UC]), 1037 (13.9%) discontinued 5-ASA within 90 days of starting anti-TNF therapy. During a median 4.3-year follow-up, discontinuation of 5-ASA was not associated with an increased risk of adverse clinical events (adjusted hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.93-1.10). The cumulative incidence of each adverse clinical event and the composite outcome were not significantly different between groups (all, p > 0.05). Additionally, separate analyses in CD and UC cohorts revealed no differences in adverse clinical outcomes between the 5-ASA continuation and discontinuation groups. Subgroup analyses by presumed risk factors for disease relapse showed no significant differences in the risk of adverse events between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationwide population-based study, discontinuing 5-ASA after starting anti-TNF therapy was not associated with an increased risk of adverse events in patients with IBD.

De-escalation of Therapy in Patients with Quiescent Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Inflammatory bowel disease is a chronic disease of unknown origin that requires long-term treatment. The optical duration of maintenance treatment once remission has been achieved remains unclear. When discussing a de-escalation strategy, not only the likelihood of relapse but also, the outcome of retreatment for relapse after de-escalation should be considered. Previous evidence has demonstrated controversial results for risk factors for relapse after de-escalation due to the various definitions of remission and relapse. In fact, endoscopic or histologic remission has been suggested as a treatment target; however, it might not always be indicative of a successful drug withdrawal. For better risk stratification of relapse after de-escalation, it may be necessary to evaluate both the current and previous treatments. Following de-escalation, biomarkers should be closely monitored. In addition to the risk of relapse, a comprehensive understanding of the overall outcome, such as the long-term safety, patient quality of life, and impact on healthcare costs, is necessary. Therefore, a shared decision-making with patients on a case-by-case basis is imperative.

Korean clinical practice guidelines on biologics and small molecules for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC), a relapsing-remitting chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), has a variable natural course but potentially severe disease course. Since the development of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents has changed the natural disease course of moderate-to-severe UC, therapeutic options for patients who failed conventional treatments are expanding rapidly. IBD clinical trials have demonstrated the potential efficacy and safety of novel biologics such as anti-integrin α4β7 and anti-interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibodies and small molecules such as a Janus kinase inhibitor. Anti-TNF biosimilars also have been approved and are widely used in IBD patients. Wise drug choices should be made considering evidence-based efficacy and safety. However, the best position of these drugs remains several questions, with limited data from direct comparative trials. In addition, there are still concerns to be elucidated on the effect of therapeutic drug monitoring and combination therapy with immunomodulators. The appropriate treatment regimens in acute severe UC and the risk of perioperative use of biologics are unclear. As novel biologics and small molecules have been approved in Korea, we present the Korean guidelines for medical management of adult outpatients with moderate-to-severe UC and adult hospitalized patients with acute severe UC, focusing on biologics and small molecules.

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.

No benefit of continuing vs stopping 5-aminosalicylates in patients with ulcerative colitis escalated to anti-metabolite therapy

BACKGROUND

Whilst continuation of 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) after escalation to biologic therapy is considered ineffective in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), their role in patients escalated to anti-metabolites is unclear.

AIM

To compared patterns and outcomes of continuing vs stopping 5-ASA in patients with UC who escalated to anti-metabolite monotherapy, using a de-identified administrative claims database.

METHODS

We identified patients with UC who were new users of anti-metabolite monotherapy who were receiving 5-ASA, and were followed for at least 12 months after starting anti-metabolite therapy. We evaluated patterns of 5-ASA use (stopped 5-ASA, short-term 5-ASA use for <6 months after starting anti-metabolites, persistent 5-ASA use for >6 months after starting anti-metabolites). We compared outcomes (risk of UC-related hospitalisation and/or surgery, need for corticosteroids, treatment escalation to biologic therapy) by pattern of 5-ASA use, using Cox proportional hazard analysis adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidity burden, and hospitalisation or emergency department visit, abdominal surgery and corticosteroid use in the previous 12 months (as measures of disease severity), with a 12-month immortal time period.

RESULTS

Of 4068 patients with UC who were new-users of anti-metabolite monotherapy, 578 (14.2%), 782 (19.2%) and 2708 (66.6%) stopped 5-ASA, used 5-ASA transiently or persistently, respectively. Compared to patients who stopped 5-ASA after starting anti-metabolites, persistent 5-ASA use was associated with a higher risk of UC-related hospitalisation (HR, 1.40 [1.07-1.83]) and corticosteroid use (HR, 1.48 [1.28-1.70]), without an increase in risk of UC-related surgery (HR, 1.32 [0.86-2.00]) or treatment escalation (HR, 0.80 [0.53-1.20]). Sensitivity analyses using a 3 months window after initiation of anti-metabolites to classify patients as continuing vs stopping 5-ASA showed similar results. Residual confounding by disease severity could not be excluded.

CONCLUSION

5-ASA are usually continued long-term even after escalating to anti-metabolite therapy in patients with UC without clinical benefit.

Review article: withdrawal of 5-aminosalicylates in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) are widely used in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but emerging evidence suggests that they may be safely withdrawn in significant subsets of patients. This is important to address: 5-ASA therapy accounts for up to 25% of total healthcare costs in ulcerative colitis (UC), while almost a third of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) receive long-term 5-ASA despite no clear evidence of benefit. Further, rationalising medication burden may improve overall adherence and outcome.

AIMS

To summarise the rationale for 5-ASA withdrawal, review the current evidence in both UC and CD and consider the data surrounding colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention, guiding an evidence-based withdrawal strategy.

METHODS

PubMed was searched to identify relevant studies. Only papers published in English were reviewed, with priority given to randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses.

RESULTS

For patients with UC, consideration of 5-ASA withdrawal should be made on a case-by-case basis, but it appears safest for those in deep remission without any of the following risk factors: younger age (<40 years), remission for less than 2 years, a history of multiple flares, extensive disease. 5-ASA withdrawal should also be considered in patients with UC escalated to biologic therapy who have achieved remission and in all patients with CD. Although 5-ASA therapy may have chemopreventive benefits for CRC, the cost-benefit ratio appears significant, and this indication is not justified by evidence in those who have achieved remission and are continuing therapy with other agents, or in those in sustained remission without a history of extensive disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of patients with IBD receive 5-ASA during their disease course, safe withdrawal appears possible in many, with important implications for both health economics and patient experience. A number of unanswered questions, however, remain.

AGA Technical Review on the Management of Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis

A subset of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) present with, or progress to, moderate to severe disease activity. These patients are at high risk for colectomy, hospitalization, corticosteroid dependence, and serious infections. The risk of life-threatening complications and emergency colectomy is particularly high among those patients hospitalized with acute severe ulcerative colitis. Optimal management of outpatients or inpatients with moderate to severe UC often requires the use of immunomodulator and/or biologic therapies, including thiopurines, methotrexate, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, TNF-α antagonists, vedolizumab, tofacitnib, or ustekinumab, either as monotherapy or in combination (with immunomodulators), to mitigate these risks. Decisions about optimal drug therapy in moderate to severe UC are complex, with limited guidance on comparative efficacy and safety of different treatments, leading to considerable practice variability. Therefore, the American Gastroenterological Association prioritized development of clinical guidelines on this topic. To inform the clinical guidelines, this technical review was completed in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Focused questions in adult outpatients with moderate to severe UC included: (1) overall and comparative efficacy of different medications for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with or without prior exposure to TNF-α antagonists, (2) comparative efficacy and safety of biologic monotherapy vs combination therapy with immunomodulators, (3) comparative efficacy of top-down (upfront use of biologics and/or immunomodulator therapy) vs step-up therapy (acceleration to biologic and/or immunomodulator therapy only after failure of 5-aminosalicylates, and (4) role of continuing vs stopping 5-aminosalicylates in patients being treated with immunomodulator and/or biologic therapy for moderate to severe UC. Focused questions in adults hospitalized with acute severe ulcerative colitis included: (5) overall and comparative efficacy of pharmacologic interventions for inpatients refractory to corticosteroids, in reducing risk of colectomy, (6) optimal dosing regimens for intravenous corticosteroids and infliximab in these patients, and (7) role of adjunctive antibiotics in the absence of confirmed infections.

Solving the questions regarding 5-aminosalitylate formulation in the treatment of ulcerative colitis

5-aminosalicylate is a fundamental treatment for patients with ulcerative colitis with mild-to-moderate disease; however, evidence for 5-aminosalicylate treatment is unclear in some situations. This review discusses the clinical guidelines and previous studies, and highlights the following points: (1) Although rectal 5-aminosalicylate is effective for proctitis, physicians should endeavor to reduce patient's distress when administering suppositories or enema as the first-line therapy. It should be clarified whether oral 5-aminosalicylate alone with a drug delivery system that allows higher 5-aminosalicylate concentrations to reach the distal colon would be as effective as rectal 5-aminosalicylate therapy. (2) There has been no direct evidence demonstrating the clinical efficacy of switching the 5-aminosalicylate treatment to other 5-aminosalicylate formulations. However, switching to a different 5-aminosalicylate formulation may be indicated if clinical symptoms are not progressive. (3) Several studies have shown that colonic mucosal 5-aminosalicylate concentration correlates with clinical and endoscopic severity; however, it is unclear whether a high 5-aminosalicylate concentration has therapeutic efficacy. (4) The maximum dose of 5-aminosalicylate is necessary for patients with risk factors for recurrence or hospitalization. (5) Optimization of 5-aminosalicylate dosage may be indicated even for quiescent patients with ulcerative colitis if mucosal healing is not obtained, and if patients have multiple risk factors for recurrence. (6) Furthermore, the discontinuation of 5-aminosalicylate is acceptable when biologics are used. Because there are many "old studies" providing evidence for 5-aminosalicylate formulations, more clinical studies are needed to establish new evidence.

Is there room for immunomodulators in ulcerative colitis?

Introduction: The management of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) has evolved over the past few decades. While aminosalicylates remain the mainstay of induction and maintenance therapy in patients with mild-to-moderate UC, the advent of biologic agents and novel oral small molecules has substantively changed the treatment landscape for patients with moderate-to-severe disease and confounded the role of traditional immunomodulators (IMMs) such as thiopurines and methotrexate in the UC management algorithm.Areas covered: We summarize the mechanism of action of thiopurines and methotrexate, identify clinical parameters for their use, and appraise the evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of IMMs in UC as both monotherapy and in combination with other therapies, emphasizing on prospective, controlled data.Expert opinion: With the advent of several classes of highly effective treatments for UC, emergence of data demonstrating no benefit of IMMs over placebo, and concerns about the relative safety profile of long-term IMM exposure, we propose that the role of thiopurines or methotrexate be restricted to patients with milder disease failing to maintain corticosteroid-free remission on aminosalicylates alone or in combination therapy with tumor necrosis factor antagonists in patients with moderate-to-severe UC.

Endoscopic score vs blood cell indices for determining timing of immunomodulator withdrawal in quiescent ulcerative colitis

While immunomodulators (IMs) are used as key drugs in remission maintenance treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC), there has been no evidence to date for determining monitoring methods and drug withdrawal. Therefore, we examined if a decrease in white blood cell count (WBC) and an elevation in mean cell volume (MCV) could be used as optimization indices and if mucosal healing (MH) could be a rationale for determining the time of IM withdrawal. Subjects were 89 UC patients who were using IMs and for whom clinical remission had been maintained. Those with a Rachmilewitz Clinical Activity Index score of 4 or lower and those with a Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) of 0 or 1 were defined as MH. The remission maintenance rates of the following comparative groups were examined: an IM continuation group and an IM withdrawal group; an IM continuation group with a WBC of less than 3000 or a MCV of 100 or greater and an IM continuation group with a WBC of 3000 or greater and a MCV of 99 or lower; an IM continuation group of patients for whom MH had been achieved and an IM continuation group of patients for whom MH had not been achieved; and an IM withdrawal group with a MES of 0 and an IM withdrawal group with a MES of 1. A significantly higher remission maintenance rate was observed in the IM continuation group compared to the withdrawal group (p < 0.01). No significant difference was observed between the IM continuation group with a WBC of less than 3000 or a MCV of 100 or greater and the IM continuation group with a WBC of 3000 or greater and a MCV of 99 or lower (p = 0.08). Higher remission maintenance rates were observed in the IM continuation group of patients for whom MH had been achieved compared to the IM continuation group of patients for whom MH had not been achieved (p = 0.03). No significant difference was observed between the IM withdrawal group with MES 0 and the IM withdrawal group with MES 1. (p = 0.48). This retrospective study showed that remission maintenance could be firmly obtained by continuing IM administration in case of endoscopic MH; however, MH was not an indicator of IM withdrawal.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: risk factors for thiopurine-induced leukopenia in IBD

BACKGROUND

Thiopurine-induced leukopenia, a frequently observed and potentially life-threatening adverse event, complicates the clinical management of IBD patients.

AIM

To assess risk factors for thiopurine-induced leukopenia in IBD.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS and Cochrane library were searched for studies reporting at least one risk factor for thiopurine-induced leukopenia. Pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated for each potential risk factor using a random effects model. Studies that were not eligible for meta-analysis were described qualitatively.

RESULTS

Seventy articles were included, 34 (11 229 patients) were included in meta-analyses. A significantly higher thiopurine-induced leukopenia risk was found for TPMT (OR 3.9, 95% [CI] 2.5-6.1) and for NUDT15 R139C (OR 6.9, 95% CI 5.2-9.1), G52A (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.3-7.9) and 36_37ins/delGGAGTC variant carriers (OR 5.6, 95% CI 2.8-11.4). A potential association between high 6-thioguanine nucleotides (6-TGN) or 6-methylmercaptopurine (6-MMP) levels and leukopenia was observed, since most studies reported higher metabolite levels in leukopenic patients (6-TGN: 204-308 (Lennard method) and 397 (Dervieux method), 6-MMP: 4020-10 450 pmol/8 x 10⁸ RBC) compared to controls (6-TGN: 170-212 (Lennard method) and 269 (Dervieux method), 6-MMP: 1025-4550 pmol/8 x 10⁸ RBC).

CONCLUSIONS

TPMT and NUDT15 variants predict thiopurine-induced leukopenia. High 6-TGN and 6-MMP levels might induce leukopenia, although exact cut-off values remain unclear. Potential preventive measures to reduce the risk of thiopurine-induced leukopenia include pre-treatment TPMT and NUDT15 genotyping. Routine thiopurine metabolite measurement might be efficient, yet cut-off levels must be validated in advance.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: high prevalence and cost of continued aminosalicylate use in patients with ulcerative colitis escalated to immunosuppressive and biological therapies

BACKGROUND

Aminosalicylates are the most frequently prescribed treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC). In the absence of empirical evidence, clinicians are uncertain whether to continue aminosalicylates in patients with UC after escalating therapy.

AIMS

To quantify concomitant aminosalicylate use in UC randomised clinical trials (RCTs), identify factors associated with their use, and estimate treatment costs of concomitant aminosalicylate therapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 1 March 2017 for placebo-controlled RCTs of immunosuppressants, biologics, or oral small molecules in adults with UC. The proportion of patients prescribed concomitant aminosalicylates at trial entry was pooled using a random-effects model. Meta-regression was performed to assess trial-level factors associated with aminosalicylate use. Treatment costs were estimated using 2018 formulary data from five Canadian provinces.

RESULTS

Thirty-two trials were included (23 induction only, nine induction, and maintenance trials). The pooled proportion of patients co-prescribed aminosalicylates was 80.7% (95% CI 75.5%-85.1%), with considerable observed heterogeneity (I²  = 95%). In univariable meta-regression, aminosalicylate use was not associated with trial design, setting, year of publication, disease severity, disease duration, or drug class. The estimated direct annual treatment cost of concomitant aminosalicylates is ~$20 million for the Canadian UC population, assuming conservative estimates of UC prevalence, aminosalicylate use and dose, and the lowest cost formulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 80% of UC patients entering clinical trials of immunosuppressants, biologics, or oral small molecules continue to use aminosalicylates. An RCT is needed to inform the benefits and harms of continuing vs stopping aminosalicylates in patients escalating therapy.

Pharmacogenetics of treatments for inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory bowel disease is a chronic inflammation of the gut whose pathogenesis is still unclear. Although no curative therapy is currently available, a number of drugs are used in induction and maintenance therapy; however, for most of these drugs, a high inter-individual variability in response is observed. Among the factors of this variability, genetics plays an important role. Areas covered: This review summarizes the results of pharmacogenetic studies, considering the most important drugs used and in particular aminosalycilates, glucocorticoids, thiopurines, monoclonal antibodies and thalidomide. Most studies used a candidate gene approach, even if significant breakthroughs have been obtained recently from applying genome-wide studies. When available, also investigations considering epigenetics and pharmacogenetic dosing guidelines have been included. Expert opinion: Only for thiopurines, genetic markers identified as predictors of efficacy or adverse events have allowed the development of dosing guidelines. For the other drugs, encouraging results are available and great expectations rely on the study of epigenetics and integration with pharmacokinetic information, especially useful for biologics. However, to improve therapy of IBD patients with these drugs, for implementation in the clinics of pharmacogenetics, informatic clinical decision support systems and training about pharmacogenetics of health providers are needed.

No Benefit of Concomitant 5-Aminosalicylates in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis Escalated to Biologic Therapy: Pooled Analysis of Individual Participant Data From Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) are frequently continued in patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC), even after escalation to biologic agents, without evaluation of the benefit of this approach. We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) pooled analysis of trials of infliximab and golimumab in UC, to evaluate whether concomitant use of 5-ASA modifies clinical outcomes among anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α-treated patients.

METHODS

We included IPD from five trials of infliximab and golimumab in patients with moderate-severe UC (ACT-1 and -2, PURSUIT-SC, PURSUIT-M, NCT00336492). Patients treated with infliximab or golimumab were categorized as receiving concomitant 5-ASA or not at time of trial entry. Primary outcome was clinical remission (Mayo Clinic Score < 3) at last follow-up for each trial; secondary outcomes were clinical response and mucosal healing. Using multivariable logistic regression analysis, we evaluated association between concomitant 5-ASA and clinical remission, after adjusting for sex, smoking, baseline disease activity, disease extent, biochemical variables (C-reactive protein, albumin, hemoglobin), and concomitant prednisone and immunomodulators.

RESULTS

We included 2183 infliximab-treated or golimumab-treated patients (1715 [78.6%] on 5-ASA). Concomitant use of 5-ASA was not associated with odds of achieving clinical remission (adjusted OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45-1.01], p = 0.06), clinical response (aOR, 0.89 [0.60-1.33], p = 0.58) or mucosal healing (aOR, 1.12 [0.82-1.51], p = 0.48). These results were consistent in trials of induction and maintenance therapy, and in trials of infliximab and golimumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on IPD pooled analysis, in patients with moderate-severe UC who are escalated to anti-TNF therapy, continuing 5-ASA does not improve clinical outcomes.

Management of Paediatric Ulcerative Colitis, Part 1: Ambulatory Care-An Evidence-based Guideline From European Crohn's and Colitis Organization and European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition

BACKGROUND

The contemporary management of ambulatory ulcerative colitis (UC) continues to be challenging with ∼20% of children needing a colectomy within childhood years. We thus aimed to standardize daily treatment of pediatric UC and inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD)-unclassified through detailed recommendations and practice points.

METHODS

These guidelines are a joint effort of the European Crohn's and Colitis Organization (ECCO) and the Paediatric IBD Porto group of European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN). An extensive literature search with subsequent evidence appraisal using robust methodology was performed before 2 face-to-face meetings. All 40 included recommendations and 86 practice points were endorsed by 43 experts in Paediatric IBD with at least an 88% consensus rate.

RESULTS

These guidelines discuss how to optimize the use of mesalamine (including topical), systemic and locally active steroids, thiopurines and, for more severe disease, biologics. The use of other emerging therapies and the role of surgery are also covered. Algorithms are provided to aid therapeutic decision-making based on clinical assessment and the Paediatric UC Activity Index (PUCAI). Advice on contemporary therapeutic targets incorporating the use of calprotectin and the role of therapeutic drug monitoring are presented, as well as other management considerations around pouchitis, extraintestinal manifestations, nutrition, growth, psychology, and transition. A brief section on disease classification using the PIBD-classes criteria and IBD-unclassified is also part of these guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines provide a guide to clinicians managing children with UC and IBD-unclassified management to provide modern management strategies while maintaining vigilance around appropriate outcomes and safety issues.

Management of psoriasis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: From the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation

BACKGROUND

There is a significant association between psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Many treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are also used for IBD.

OBJECTIVE

To assess therapeutic options for patients with psoriasis and concurrent IBD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed for clinical studies of biologic and systemic psoriasis medications in psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn's disease, for the period from January 1, 1947, to February 14, 2017. Randomized, controlled, double-blinded studies were selected if available. If not, the next highest level of available evidence was selected.

RESULTS

Of the 2282 articles identified, 132 were selected. Infliximab and adalimumab have demonstrated efficacy in psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative; colitis, and Crohn's disease. Ustekinumab has demonstrated efficacy in psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and Crohn's disease. Certolizumab has demonstrated efficacy in psoriatic arthritis and Crohn's disease. Etanercept, secukinumab, brodalumab, and ixekizumab have demonstrated efficacy in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis but may exacerbate or induce IBD. Guselkumab has demonstrated efficacy in psoriasis.

LIMITATIONS

There are no known clinical trials of treatment specifically for concurrent psoriasis and IBD.

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab and adalimumab have demonstrated efficacy in psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn's disease; other agents have demonstrated efficacy for some, but not all, of these indications.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease

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

Effective long-term solution to therapeutic remission in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Role of Azathioprine

Azathioprine (AZA) is a well-known immunosuppressant used for many years for its ability to ensure long term disease remission in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) at an affordable cost to the public. However, the side effect profile has raised many concerns with numerous investigations into the risk, cause and prevention of these effects. Much of the side effect profile of AZA can be linked to a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) gene which ensures the breakdown and efficacy of AZA. Mutated TPMT alleles result in low or deficient TPMT levels which directly correlate to cytotoxity. This is a review of the role of AZA in the treatment of IBD. Knowing a patient's TPMT status allows the prescribing doctor to make an informed decision about dosage and be more alert to the signs of cytotoxicity. It is essential to include "early warning" SNP testing into common practice to ensure therapeutic efficacy.

Comparison of Concomitant Mesalamine and Immunomodulator Therapy and Immunomodulator Monotherapy for Crohn's Disease

Background

Although immunomodulators are increasingly used in Crohn's disease (CD), a significant number of gastroenterologists still use 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) in combination with azathioprine (AZA) or 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP); there is limited evidence regarding the benefit of concomitant 5-ASA with AZA/6-MP compared with AZA/6-MP monotherapy for the treatment of CD.

Study Design

A total of 106 patients who received AZA/6-MP for more than 3 months between January 1991 and May 2014 were identified retrospectively. Each patient was matched with 3 randomly selected controls who were treated with concomitant therapy during the same period.

Results

The cumulative probabilities of steroid use at 5 and 10 years were 24.9% and 75.8% in the 5-ASA + AZA/6-MP group and 31.2% and 87.8% in the AZA/6-MP group, respectively (P = 0.187). The cumulative probabilities of anti-TNF use, resectional surgery, and disease-related hospitalization were comparable between the groups. The younger age and the use of lower doses of immunomodulators were associated with higher requirement of rescue therapy.

Conclusions

This study did not demonstrate that the concomitant use of 5-ASA with AZA/6-MP showed the proof or effect in terms of steroid requirements, anti-TNF use, resectional surgery, or disease-related hospitalization compared with that of AZA/6-MP alone.

Thiopurine Treatment in Ulcerative Colitis: A Critical Review of the Evidence for Current Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Due to toxicity problems and controversial evidence, thiopurine use in ulcerative colitis (UC) has faced a lot of criticism. We present a critical review of the literature on efficacy of thiopurines in UC.

METHODS

Studies evaluating therapeutic efficacy of thiopurine remission induction and/or maintenance treatment in UC were identified using the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE.

RESULTS

Out of 5 randomized trials on thiopurine induction treatment, 3 demonstrated a significant effect of thiopurine treatment vs mesalamine or placebo in steroid-dependent UC patients: (1) lower endoscopic activity scores, (2) higher clinical remission rates, and (3) more patients who discontinued steroids. Two found no significant difference in clinical and endoscopic remission of azathioprine compared with sulfasalazine or placebo in patients with active UC. Out of 7 randomized trials on thiopurine maintenance treatment, 4 demonstrated significant higher clinical and endoscopic remission rates in thiopurine-treated patients compared with placebo or mesalamine. Three found no significant difference in clinical and endoscopic remission of thiopurine maintenance treatment compared with sulfasalazine or placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

All studies that investigated thiopurine treatment in UC had shortcomings, such as lack of sufficient power, no use of blinding, allowed concomitant treatment with steroids, and no endoscopy to confirm active disease at study entry or to evaluate therapeutic efficacy. Hence, current clinical practice of thiopurine treatment in UC is based on minimal and controversial evidence. This underscores the need for clinical studies with sufficient power and objective end points in order to determine efficacy of thiopurines in UC.

Remission endpoints in ulcerative colitis: A systematic review

AIM

To summarize the current consensus on the definition of remission and the endpoints employed in clinical trials.

METHODS

A bibliogragraphic search was performed from 1946 to 2016 sing online databases (National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central Medline, OVID SP MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Conference Abstracts) with key words: (“ulcerative colitis”) AND (“ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity” OR “UCEIS”) AND (“remission”) as well as (“ulcerative colitis”) AND (“ulcerative colitis disease activity index”) OR “UCDAI” OR “UC disease activity index” OR “Sutherland index”) AND (“remission”).

RESULTS

The search returned 37 and 116 articles for the UCEIS and UCDAI respectively. For the UCEIS, 12 articles were cited in the final analysis of which 9 validation studies have been identified. Despite the UCEIS has been more extensively validated in all three aspects (validity, responsiveness and reliability), it has been little employed to monitor disease in randomised clinical trials. For the UCDAI, 37 articles were considered for the final analysis. Although the UCDAI is only partially validated, 29 randomised clinical trials were acknowledged to use the UCDAI to determine endpoints and disease remission, though no clear protocol was identified.

CONCLUSION

Although the UCEIS has been more widely validated than the UCDAI, it has not been reflected in the monitoring of disease activity in clinical trials. Conversely, the UCDAI has been used in numerous large clinical trials to define their endpoints and disease remission, however, it is challenging to determine the best possible outcomes due to a lack of homogeneity of the clinical trial protocols. Before determining a gold standard index, international agreement on remission is urgently needed to advance patient care.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) pharmacotherapy and the risk of serious infection: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The magnitude of risk of serious infections due to available medical therapies of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the existing IBD literature to estimate the risk of serious infection in adult IBD patients associated with available medical therapies.

METHODS

Studies were identified by a literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Randomized controlled trials comparing IBD medical therapies with no restrictions on language, country of origin, or publication date were included. A network meta-analysis was used to pool direct between treatment comparisons with indirect trial evidence while preserving randomization.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria; one study was excluded from the analysis due to disconnectedness. We found no evidence of increased odds of serious infection in comparisons of the different treatment strategies against each other, including combination therapy with a biologic and immunomodulator compared to biologic monotherapy. Similar results were seen in the comparisons between the newer biologics (e.g. vedolizumab) and the anti-tumor necrosis factor agents.

CONCLUSIONS

No treatment strategy was found to confer a higher risk of serious infection than another, although wide confidence intervals indicate that a clinically significant difference cannot be excluded. These findings provide a better understanding of the risk of serious infection from IBD pharmacotherapy in the adult population.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

The protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO ( CRD42014013497 ).

Do Thiopurines Reduce the Risk of Surgery in Elderly Onset Inflammatory Bowel Disease? A 20-Year National Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Evidence that thiopurines impact on the risk of surgery in elderly onset inflammatory bowel disease (EO-IBD) is lacking. We aimed to compare the rates of surgery in EO-IBD (>60 years at diagnosis) with adult-onset IBD (18-59 yrs), and examine the impact of thiopurines on surgical risk in EO-IBD.

METHODS

Using a U.K. database between 1990 and 2010, we compared rates of surgery between adult-onset IBD and EO-IBD using survival analysis. Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) were analyzed separately. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to determine the adjusted relative risk of surgery. We further assessed the impact of duration of thiopurine treatment on risk of surgery.

RESULTS

We identified 2758 of 9515 patients with UC and 1349 of 6490 patients with CD, with EO-IBD. Cumulative 1, 5, and 10 years risk of colectomy was similar in EO-UC (2.2, 4.5, and 5.8%, respectively) and AO-UC (2.2, 5.0, and 7.3%, respectively; P = 0.15). Cumulative 1, 5, and 10 years risk of first intestinal surgery was lower in EO-CD (9.5, 14.6, and 17.9%, respectively) than AO-CD (12.2, 19.0, and 24.4%, respectively; P < 0.001). Early steroid use, steroid dependency, and thiopurine use was associated with higher risk of colectomy in EO-UC. Among EO-UC receiving thiopurines for >12 months, there was a 70% reduction in risk of colectomy (hazard ratio. 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.58). Thiopurines were not associated with a reduced risk of surgery in EO-CD.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of colectomy in EO-UC does not differ from AO-UC, but the risk of surgery in EO-CD is significantly lower than in AO-CD. Sustained thiopurine use of 12 months or more duration in EO-UC reduces the risk colectomy, but does not impact on the risk of surgery in EO-CD. These findings are important given the greater risk of thiopurine-associated lymphoma in the elderly.

Thiopurines and inflammatory bowel disease: Current evidence and a historical perspective

The use of thiopurines in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been examined in numerous prospective, controlled trials, with a majority demonstrating a clinical benefit. We conducted this review to describe the historical and current evidence in the use of thiopurines in IBD. A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE between 1965 and 2016 to identify studies on thiopurines in IBD. The most robust evidence for thiopurines in IBD includes induction of remission in combination with anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents, and maintenance of remission and post-operative maintenance in Crohn’s disease. Less evidence exists for thiopurine monotherapy in induction of remission, maintenance of ulcerative colitis, chemoprevention of colorectal cancer, and in preventing immunogenicity to anti-TNF. Evidence was often limited by trial design. Overall, thiopurines have demonstrated efficacy in a broad range of presentations of IBD. With more efficacious novel therapeutic agents, the positioning of thiopurines in the management of IBD will change and future studies will analyze the benefit of thiopurines alone and in conjunction with these new medications.

Treatment efficacy and safety of low-dose azathioprine in chronic active ulcerative colitis patients: A meta-analysis and systemic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose azathioprine (AZA) in treating patients with chronic active ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

A literature search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Database, CNKI, SinoMed, VIP Chinese Science and the Technology Journals Database was conducted to identify eligible studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of low-dose azathioprine (AZA) in treating patients with chronic active UC published up to 15 July 2015. Data were extracted from the studies, including clinical efficacy (response rate, adverse drug reaction [ADR] rate, steroid withdrawal rate and relapse rate) and endoscopic improvement (endoscopic remission rate and mucosal healing rate).

RESULTS

Six studies with 211 patients were eligible for the analysis. The overall response rates after 6 and 12 months of treatment were 78.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 71.0-85.0%) and 88.0% (95% CI 80.0-96.0%), respectively. The overall ADR rate was 25.0% (95% CI 18.0-31.0%). Endoscopic response rate was around 85.0%, while the endoscopic remission rates and mucosal healing rates after 6 and 12 months of treatment were above 60.0% and 70.0%, respectively. The steroid withdrawal rate and relapse rate were in moderate to high heterogeneity. Egger's test indicated that there was no publication bias for studies regarding the 6-month response rate and ADR rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose AZA is effective and safe in the treatment of chronic active UC patients. However, randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes are needed to draw definitive conclusions.

Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Maintenance of remission is a major issue in inflammatory bowel disease. In ulcerative colitis, the evidence for the effectiveness of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for the maintenance of remission is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to 30 July 2015. Both full randomized controlled trials and associated abstracts were included.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of at least 12 months duration that compared azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine with placebo or standard maintenance therapy (e.g. mesalazine) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data using standard forms. Disagreements were solved by consensus including a third author. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. Analyses were performed separately by type of control (placebo, or active comparator). Pooled risk ratios were calculated based on the fixed-effect model unless heterogeneity was shown. The GRADE approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for pooled outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies including 302 patients with ulcerative colitis were included in the review. The risk of bias was high in three of the studies due to lack of blinding. Azathioprine was shown to be significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of remission. Fourty-four per cent (51/115) of azathioprine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 65% (76/117) of placebo patients (4 studies, 232 patients; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86). A GRADE analysis rated the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome as low due to risk of bias and imprecision (sparse data). Two trials that compared 6-mercaptopurine to mesalazine, or azathioprine to sulfasalazine showed significant heterogeneity and thus were not pooled. Fifty per cent (7/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 100% (8/8) of mesalazine patients (1 study, 22 patients; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.90). Fifty-eight per cent (7/12) of azathioprine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 38% (5/13) of sulfasalazine patients (1 study, 25 patients; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.50). One small study found that 6-mercaptopurine was superior to methotrexate for maintenance of remission. In the study, 50% (7/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients and 92% (11/12) of methotrexate patients failed to maintain remission (1 study, 26 patients; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.95). One very small study compared azathioprine with cyclosporin and found that there was no significant difference between patients failing remission on azathioprine (50%, 4/8) or cyclosporin (62.5%, 5/8) (1 study, 16 patients, RR 0.80 95% CI 0.33 to 1.92). When placebo-controlled studies were pooled with aminosalicylate-comparator studies to assess adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between azathioprine and control in the incidence of adverse events. Nine per cent (11/127) of azathioprine patients experienced at least one adverse event compared to 2% (3/130) of placebo patients (5 studies, 257 patients; RR 2.82, 95% CI 0.99 to 8.01). Patients receiving azathioprine were at significantly increased risk of withdrawing due to adverse events. Eight per cent (8/101) of azathioprine patients withdrew due to adverse events compared to 0% (0/98) of control patients (5 studies, 199 patients; RR 5.43, 95% CI 1.02 to 28.75). Adverse events related to study medication included acute pancreatitis (3 cases, plus 1 case on cyclosporin) and significant bone marrow suppression (5 cases). Deaths, opportunistic infection or neoplasia were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Azathioprine therapy appears to be more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine may be effective as maintenance therapy for patients who have failed or cannot tolerate mesalazine or sulfasalazine and for patients who require repeated courses of steroids. More research is needed to evaluate superiority over standard maintenance therapy, especially in the light of a potential for adverse events from azathioprine. This review updates the existing review of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis which was published in the Cochrane Library (September 2012).

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.

Direct and indirect healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with ulcerative colitis in a privately-insured employed population in the US

OBJECTIVE

To assess direct and indirect healthcare resource utilization and costs of privately insured US employees with ulcerative colitis (UC) from a societal perspective.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Employees aged 18-64 with ≥ 2 UC diagnoses and no more than one diagnosis of Crohn's disease (CD) were identified from a large, de-identified, private insurance US claims database from January 1, 2005 through March 31, 2013. Patients with UC were matched 1:1 to non-IBD controls based on demographics and index date (a randomly selected UC diagnosis). All patients were required to have continuous eligibility for ≥ 1 year before (baseline period) and after (study period) the index date. Descriptive analyses compared baseline characteristics and study period outcomes. Multivariate cost analysis adjusted for baseline comorbidities. Sub-group analyses compared patients with moderate-to-severe UC with matched controls.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs (2013 US dollars) were measured from a societal perspective, which included direct (patient and payer costs) and indirect (lost wages because of time away from work) costs.

RESULTS

Patients with UC (n = 4314; mean age = 45.1 years, 63.6% male) had significantly higher baseline comorbidity rates compared with controls. In the study period, significantly more patients with UC (p < 0.0001) had higher hospitalization rates (16.9% vs 6.2%), emergency department visits (31.1% vs 22.0%), prescription drug use (95.3% vs 72.0%), and work loss (100% vs 81.4%). Patients with UC also had significantly higher adjusted total direct ($15,548 vs $4812) and indirect costs ($4125 vs $1961). Patients with moderate-to-severe UC (n = 1728) had significantly (p < 0.0001) higher hospitalization rates (26.5% vs 6.2%) and adjusted total direct ($23,085 vs $4932) and indirect costs ($5666 vs $1960).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with UC had higher resource utilization and direct and indirect costs compared with matched controls. The excess burden was greatest in patients with moderate-to-severe UC.

Defining quality indicators for best-practice management of inflammatory bowel disease in Canada

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of published data regarding the quality of care of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Canada. Clinical quality indicators are quantitative end points used to guide, monitor and improve the quality of patient care. In Canada, where universal health care can vary significantly among provinces, quality indicators can be used to identify potential gaps in the delivery of IBD care and standardize the approach to interprovincial management.

METHODS

The Emerging Practice in IBD Collaborative (EPIC) group generated a shortlist of IBD quality indicators based on a comprehensive literature review. An iterative voting process was used to select quality indicators to take forward. In a face-to-face meeting with the EPIC group, available evidence to support each quality indicator was presented by the EPIC member aligned to it, followed by group discussion to agree on the wording of the statements. The selected quality indicators were then ratified in a final vote by all EPIC members.

RESULTS

Eleven quality indicators for the management of IBD within the single-payer health care system of Canada were developed. These focus on accurate diagnosis, appropriate and timely management, disease monitoring, and prevention or treatment of complications of IBD or its therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

These quality indicators are measurable, reflective of the evidence base and expert opinion, and define a standard of care that is at least a minimum that should be expected for IBD management in Canada. The next steps for the EPIC group involve conducting research to assess current practice across Canada as it pertains to these quality indicators and to measure the impact of each of these indicators on patient outcomes.

Treatment of ulcerative colitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ulcerative colitis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the colon of unknown cause that is characterized by alternating intervals of active and inactive disease in 80-90% of patients. The primary goal of treatment is to induce and maintain remission using therapy tailored to the individual patient. The purpose of this review was to describe the management of ulcerative colitis with emphasis on the use of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent research has shown that new anti-TNF agents, adalimumab (ADA) and golimumab, are effective in induction of remission and maintenance of remission in patients with extensive ulcerative colitis. In a recent study, infliximab was found to have comparable efficacy to cyclosporine in treatment of acute severe refractory to corticosteroids ulcerative colitis.

SUMMARY

Anti-TNF therapy should be initiated in patients with acute severe refractory to corticosteroids ulcerative colitis and in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who are not responsive to conventional treatment with aminosalicylates, corticosteroids and immune modulators. Alternatives to infliximab are ADA and golimumab. Future research is needed to further assess the long-term efficacy and safety of ADA and golimumab in ulcerative colitis.

Infliximab in steroid-dependent ulcerative colitis: effectiveness and predictors of clinical and endoscopic remission

BACKGROUND

Up to 20% of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) become steroid-dependent during their course. Thiopurines are recommended in steroid-dependent UC, but their efficacy is debated. Data exploring the use of infliximab in these patients are scarce. Aims of this study were to evaluate the effectiveness of infliximab in steroid-dependent UC and identify predictors of steroid-free remission, mucosal healing (MH), and colectomy.

METHODS

Steroid-dependent UC patients were enrolled and intentionally treated with infliximab. The prospectively designed analyses evaluated (1) steroid-free clinical remission at 6 and 12 months, (2) steroid-free clinical remission and MH at 12 months, and (3) colectomy within 12 months.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-six active steroid-dependent UC patients were studied. Of the 126 patients, 36 patients were retrospectively included and 90 patients prospectively enrolled. Steroid-free remission was 53% and 47% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Predictors of steroid-free remission at 6 and 12 months were thiopurine-naive status (hazard ratio [HR], 2.5 and HR, 2.8, respectively) and combination therapy (HR, 2.1 and HR, 2.2, respectively). At 12 months, 32% were in steroid-free remission and MH. Thiopurine-naive status predicted steroid-free remission and MH (odds ratio, 3.6). C-reactive protein drop to normal after infliximab induction was predictive of steroid-free remission at 6 (HR, 5.9) and 12 months (HR, 4.6) and steroid-free remission and MH at 12 months (odds ratio, 6.0). Twelve patients underwent colectomy after a median of 4.7 months. Steroid sparing significantly reduced the risk of colectomy within 12 months (HR, 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab seems effective in steroid-dependent UC. Thiopurine-naive status and combination therapy significantly increase the rate of steroid-free remission up to 12 months.

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.

Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Maintenance of remission is a major issue in inflammatory bowel disease. In ulcerative colitis, the evidence for the effectiveness of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for the maintenance of remission is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 2012. A manual search was also performed using references from these articles as well as review articles, and proceedings from major gastrointestinal meetings. Authors of maintenance trials were asked about unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of at least 12 months duration that compared azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine with placebo or standard maintenance therapy (e.g. mesalazine) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data using standard forms. Disagreements were solved by consensus including a third author. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. Analyses were performed separately by type of control (placebo, or active comparator). Pooled risk ratios were calculated based on the fixed-effect model unless heterogeneity was shown. The GRADE approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for pooled outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies including 286 patients with ulcerative colitis were included in the review. The risk of bias was high in three of the studies due to lack of blinding. Azathioprine was shown to be significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of remission. Fourty-four per cent (51/115) of azathioprine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 65% (76/117) of placebo patients (4 studies, 232 patients; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86). A GRADE analysis rated the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome as low due to risk of bias and imprecision (sparse data). Two trials that compared 6-mercaptopurine to mesalazine, or azathioprine to sulfasalazine showed significant heterogeneity and thus were not pooled. Fifty per cent (7/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 100% (8/8) of mesalamine patients (1 study, 22 patients; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.90). Fifty-eight per cent (7/12) of azathioprine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 38% (5/13) of sulfasalazine patients (1 study, 25 patients; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.50). One small study found that 6-mercaptopurine was superior to methotrexate for maintenance of remission. In the study, 50% (7/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients and 92% (11/12) of methotrexate patients failed to maintain remission (1 study, 26 patients; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.95). All of the studies which used active comparators were open label. When placebo and active comparator studies were pooled to assess adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between azathioprine and control in the incidence of adverse events. Nine per cent (11/127) of azathioprine patients experienced at least one adverse event compared to 2% (3/130) of placebo patients (5 studies, 257 patients; RR 2.82, 95% CI 0.99 to 8.01). Patients receiving azathioprine were at significantly increased risk of withdrawing due to adverse events. Eight per cent (8/101) of azathioprine patients withdrew due to adverse events compared to 0% (0/98) of control patients (5 studies, 199 patients; RR 5.43, 95% CI 1.02 to 28.75). Adverse events related to study medication included acute pancreatitis (3 cases) and significant bone marrow suppression (5 cases). Deaths, opportunistic infection or neoplasia were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Azathioprine therapy appears to be more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine may be effective as maintenance therapy for patients who have failed or cannot tolerate mesalazine or sulfasalazine and for patients who require repeated courses of steroids. More research is needed to evaluate superiority over standard maintenance therapy, especially in the light of a potential for adverse events from azathioprine. This review updates the existing review of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis which was published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2007).

Management of pediatric ulcerative colitis: joint ECCO and ESPGHAN evidence-based consensus guidelines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC) shares many features with adult-onset disease but there are some unique considerations; therefore, therapeutic approaches have to be adapted to these particular needs. We aimed to formulate guidelines for managing UC in children based on a systematic review (SR) of the literature and a robust consensus process. The present article is a product of a joint effort of the European Crohn's and Colitis Organization (ECCO) and the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN).

METHODS

A group of 27 experts in pediatric IBD participated in an iterative consensus process including 2 face-to-face meetings, following an open call to ESPGHAN and ECCO members. A list of 23 predefined questions were addressed by working subgroups based on a SR of the literature.

RESULTS

A total of 40 formal recommendations and 68 practice points were endorsed with a consensus rate of at least 89% regarding initial evaluation, how to monitor disease activity, the role of endoscopic evaluation, medical and surgical therapy, timing and choice of each medication, the role of combined therapy, and when to stop medications. A management flowchart, based on the Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (PUCAI), is presented.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines provide clinically useful points to guide the management of UC in children. Taken together, the recommendations offer a standardized protocol that allows effective, timely management and monitoring of the disease course, while acknowledging that each patient is unique.

Pleomorphic malignant histiocytoma: a rare skin cancer in a patient on azathioprine for ulcerative colitis

A 67-year-old female who was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis in 2001, presented with a soft tissue mass in the middle of her back of 4 months duration in April 2011. It was excised; however it recurred at the same site in September 2011. Wide excision of the mass was done. Pathology revealed T1aNxM0 pleomorphic malignant fibrous histiocytoma or undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Whole body bones scan and staging CT scan of the chest, abdomen and pelvis was negative for distant metastasis. She received local radiotherapy at the site of excision. No chemotherapy was given.

Mesalamine in the treatment and maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic disease of the GI tract that is characterized by mucosal inflammation in the colon. Mesalamine (mesalazine) is a 5-aminosalicylic acid compound that is the first-line treatment for patients with mild-to-moderate UC. There are multiple formulations of mesalamine available, primarily differentiated by their means of delivering active mesalamine to the colon. Mesalamine has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials to induce both clinical response and remission, and maintain clinical remission, in these patients. It has few serious adverse effects and is generally well tolerated by patients. The main areas of uncertainty with use of mesalamine in patients with UC center on the optimal dose for induction of response, how to maintain patient adherence and the role of mesalamine in cancer chemoprophylaxis. Generic forms of mesalamine have yet to be approved by regulatory bodies in the USA.

Pros and cons of medical management of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by diffuse mucosal inflammation limited to the colon and rectum. Although a complete medical cure may not be possible, UC can be treated with medications that induce and maintain remission. The medical management of this disease continues to evolve with a goal to avoid colectomy and ultimately alter the natural history of UC. Emergence of antitumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) agents has expanded the medical armamentarium. 5-Aminosalicylates continue to be used in mild to moderate UC and corticosteroids are mainly used for induction of remission with immunomodulators (6-mercaptopurine/azathiopurine/methotrexate) being applied as steroid-sparing agents for maintenance therapy. Infliximab has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and used in the treatment of moderate to severe UC; nevertheless, its use may be associated with significant adverse effects and have a negative impact on the postoperative course should the patients undergo restorative proctocolectomy. In addition, there is always a concern about patients' compliance to medical therapy, cost of medications, and risk for UC-associated dysplasia. The authors discuss the pros and cons of medications used in the treatment of UC.

Current treatment of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic disease featuring recurrent inflammation of the colonic mucosa. The goal of medical treatment is to rapidly induce a steroid-free remission while at the same time preventing complications of the disease itself and its treatment. The choice of treatment depends on severity, localization and the course of the disease. For proctitis, topical therapy with 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) compounds is used. More extensive or severe disease should be treated with oral and local 5-ASA compounds and corticosteroids to induce remission. Patients who do not respond to this treatment require hospitalization. Intravenous steroids or, when refractory, calcineurin inhibitors (cyclosporine, tacrolimus), tumor necrosis factor-α antibodies (infliximab) or immunomodulators (azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine) are then called for. Indications for emergency surgery include refractory toxic megacolon, perforation, and continuous severe colorectal bleeding. Close collaboration between gastroenterologist and surgeon is mandatory in order not to delay surgical therapy when needed. This article is intended to give a general, practice-orientated overview of the key issues in ulcerative colitis treatment. Recommendations are based on published consensus guidelines derived from national and international guidelines on the treatment of ulcerative colitis.

Inflammatory bowel disease therapy: current state-of-the-art

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this article is to review current evidence-based approaches to treatment of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

The primary goal of treatment is to induce and to maintain remission in a safe and efficacious fashion. The 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) agents and oral steroids remain the first-line approach for the treatment of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. The 'step-up' approach includes the use of immunomodulators [azathioprine (AZA), or 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP)] and newer biologic agents (infliximab, adalimumab, and natalizumab). The 'step-down' approach can also be considered individually on the basis of the severity of Crohn's disease.

SUMMARY

Current treatment regimens still involve medications with well known efficacy and safety profiles and progress to more potent treatments such as immunomodulators and biologic agents. Adverse events of potent treatment with biologics and immunomodulators have been recognized. In some cases, aggressive approaches with the use of more potent agents as first-line therapy has been proposed, but they are still not considered a routine approach.

Evolution and predictive factors of relapse in ulcerative colitis patients treated with mesalazine after a first course of corticosteroids

INTRODUCTION

Mesalazine remains the first line treatment for the induction and the maintenance of remission in mild to moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). Its efficacy as a maintenance treatment after a first flare treated with corticosteroids has not been specifically studied. The aims of our work were to study a cohort of UC patients treated with mesalazine after a course of oral systemic corticosteroids and to identify predictive factors of relapse and of colectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We studied retrospectively a cohort of 143 UC patients, who never received immunosuppressive drugs, and treated for the first time with oral corticosteroids for a flare. Among patients responding to corticosteroids, we studied the group treated by mesalazine after the flare.

RESULTS

Fifty% (n=52) achieved a complete clinical remission with steroid weaning. In this group, 67% (n=35) received oral mesalazine. Seventy-five % of patients treated by mesalazine relapsed (median 29 months, range: 1-156). Fourteen % required a colectomy (median 11 months, range: 1-24). Kaplan Meier curve showed a relapse rate and a colectomy rate over one year of 26% and 11% respectively. In multivariate analysis, male gender and short duration of disease were predictive factors of the time-to-relapse. No factor was predictive of time-to-colectomy.

CONCLUSION

Maintenance efficacy of mesalazine over one year after a first course of corticosteroids for a disease flare is reasonably high. The longer-term relapse rate becomes higher in male patients with a short disease duration. An immunosuppressive treatment could be discussed in case of further relapse despite improved medication-adherence. Medication-adherence should first be assessed and promoted. An immunosuppressive treatment could be discussed in case of further relapse despite improved medication-adherence.

Thiopurine therapy in inflammatory bowel disease

The thiopurines azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine have been used in the treatment of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis for over 40 years. Randomized controlled trials have supported their use in the treatment of active disease, as well as for the maintenance of disease remission. Presently, the most debated issues surrounding the thiopurines include: the role of thiopurine methyltransferase and metabolite-adjusted dosing in enhancing efficacy and minimizing toxicity; the timing of thiopurine use, that is, earlier versus later use during the course of the disease; the selection of thiopurine monotherapy versus combination therapy with an anti-TNF-α; agent; and the safety profile of thiopurines. Accumulated evidence has supported the safety of 6-mercaptopurine/azathioprine use in pregnancy and lactation. Thiopurine therapy in inflammatory bowel diseases is associated with an increased risk of lymphoproliferative disorders. Factoring their proven efficacy over a broad range of clinical scenarios within Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis together with their overall safety profile and convenient and inexpensive once-daily oral administration, azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine remain among the mainstays of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis therapy.

Thiopurine therapy in inflammatory bowel disease patients: analyses of two 8-year intercept cohorts

BACKGROUND

Thiopurines have proven efficacy in long-term maintenance therapy of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Limited data are available with regard to factors predicting effectiveness and failure of long-term thiopurine use in IBD patients.

METHODS

The data in this retrospective study are based on an 8-year intercept cohort of previous or present thiopurine-using IBD patients. Both cohorts are assessed by descriptive and statistical analysis aimed at determining thiopurine effectiveness and the variables that are predictive for failure of thiopurine therapy.

RESULTS

In all, 363 IBD patients were included (60% female), 63% with Crohn's disease and 33% with ulcerative colitis. Overall, thiopurines were continued in 145/363 (40%) and discontinued in 208/363 (57%) patients. The proportion of patients still using thiopurines at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 60 months was 73%, 69%, 63%, 51%, and 42%, respectively. Patients discontinued thiopurines due to adverse events (39%), refractoriness (16%), and ongoing remission / patient's request (4%). 6-methylmercaptopurine (6-MMP) concentration and 6-MMP/6-thioguanine nucleotides (6-TGN) ratio were significant higher in the failure group. Prolonged continuation of thiopurines was associated with a decreased risk of discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine were considered effective in approximately 40% of IBD patients after 5 years of treatment. A quarter of the patients discontinued thiopurines within 3 months, mostly due to adverse events. A high 6-MMP concentration or 6-MMP/6-TGN ratio was associated with therapeutic failure. If thiopurine use was successfully initiated in the first months, its use was usually extended over many years, as long-term use was associated with continuation of therapy.

Rectal sparing and skip lesions in ulcerative colitis: a comparative study of endoscopic and histologic findings in patients who underwent proctocolectomy

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is generally considered an inflammatory disorder that always involves the rectum and may also involve more proximal portions of the colon, but always in a diffuse and continuous (non-segmental) fashion. Earlier biopsy studies have shown that both rectal sparing and patchy disease may occur during the natural history of UC and may, in fact, be accentuated by oral or enema therapy; but these features have never been evaluated in resection specimens. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence rates and degree of endoscopic and histologic patchiness of disease and rectal sparing in preoperative endoscopic biopsies and to compare the findings with those observed in colectomy specimens. In addition, we evaluated the effects of immunomodulators and anti-TNF-alpha therapy on normalization of mucosa. Cases of 56 UC patients, all of whom had at least 1 preoperative endoscopy with biopsies, and who subsequently underwent a colectomy for nonneoplastic complications, were collected and reviewed for a variety of inflammatory histologic features, such as patchiness of disease and rectal sparing. Both of these features were categorized as either absolute or relative according to predetermined criteria. All biopsies and resection specimens were graded for their inflammatory activity on a 5-point scale. An independent score was provided for each portion of the colon, and a mean colitis score of the entire colon was calculated by adding all inflammatory grades for each colonic segment and dividing this number by the number of segments. Endoscopic, biopsy, and resection specimen findings were correlated with each other and with clinical and demographic features, such as duration of colitis, extent of colitis, and types of medications used for at least 6 months before resection. Overall, the mean colitis score in biopsies was significantly lower than in resection specimens (2.7+/-0.9 vs. 3.2+/-0.8, P<0.01). Evidence of rectal sparing and patchy disease occurred in 32.1% and 30.4% of patients by endoscopy, and 30.4% and 25% of patients by analysis of biopsies. Only 3 patients (5.4%) showed rectal sparing, and all of these were considered "relative" after evaluation of the patients' colectomy specimens. Six (10.7%) showed patchiness of disease in the colon resection specimen, 4 of which were absolute. After evaluation of all of the patients' preresection biopsy specimens and colectomy specimens, none of the patients (0%) showed complete absence of rectal involvement (absolute rectal sparing) after all of the tissue sections were evaluated. A significant correlation was noted between endoscopic and biopsy findings and between biopsy and colectomy findings, but poor correlation was noted between the patients' endoscopic features and the pathologic features in the patients' colectomy specimens. No correlation was noted between any specific type or combination of medication use and the presence or frequency of rectal sparing or patchiness of disease. These data indicate that absolute rectal sparing does not occur in UC patients even after long-term use of antiinflammatory medications. The presence of 1 (or more) tissue sections from an IBD patient's colectomy specimen showing complete absence of histologic features of chronicity or activity, but bordered on both sides by chronic or chronic active disease, should not represent a reason to change the patient's diagnosis from UC to Crohn disease.