Once-daily versus multiple-daily mesalamine for patients with ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis

Overcoming barriers to patient adherence: the case for developing innovative drug delivery systems

Poor medication adherence is a pervasive issue with considerable health and socioeconomic consequences. Although the underlying reasons are generally understood, traditional intervention strategies rooted in patient-centric education and empowerment have proved to be prohibitively complex and/or ineffective. Formulating a pharmaceutical in a drug delivery system (DDS) is a promising alternative that can directly mitigate many common impediments to adherence, including frequent dosing, adverse effects and a delayed onset of action. Existing DDSs have already positively influenced patient acceptability and improved rates of adherence across various disease and intervention types. The next generation of systems have the potential to instate an even more radical paradigm shift by, for example, permitting oral delivery of biomacromolecules, allowing for autonomous dose regulation and enabling several doses to be mimicked with a single administration. Their success, however, is contingent on their ability to address the problems that have made DDSs unsuccessful in the past.

The insoluble excretion of multi-matrix system mesalazine preparations in patients with ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Multi-matrix mesalazine (MMX) is an important treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC); however, it is often excreted intact, which increases the risk of relapse. This study aimed to clarify the risk factors for insoluble MMX excretion.

METHODS

The subjects were 102 UC patients who were newly prescribed MMX alone to induce remission. Their stools were evaluated on the Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS), the presence/absence of insoluble MMX excretion was investigated in interviews, and defecation frequency at the start of treatment and disease type were retrospectively investigated by examining their medical records.

RESULTS

The insoluble excretion rate (IER) was 14.7%. It tended to be higher in the patients with left-sided colitis or extensive colitis, although the differences among the disease types were not significant (p = 0.053). The mean defecation frequency of the patients that reported insoluble MMX excretion was significantly higher than that of the patients that did not report it (6.27 ± 5.28 vs. 3.69 ± 3.17, p < 0.05). The IER tended to be higher among the patients with soft stools (4.5%, 21.9%, and 23.1% in those with BSFS scores of ≤ 4, 5, and ≥ 6, respectively). In ROC analysis of defecation frequency, ≥ 3.5 defecations was found to exhibit sensitivity and specificity of 66.7% and 65.5%, respectively, for predicting insoluble MMX excretion.

CONCLUSIONS

The likelihood of insoluble MMX excretion is influenced by defecation frequency and the extent of inflammation. It is important to keep the possibility of insoluble excretion in mind when prescribing MMX.

Patient Preference and Adherence to Aminosalicylates for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that requires sustained treatment for optimal outcomes. The 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) class of medications are first-line for the treatment of mild-to-moderate UC but suffer from suboptimal adherence rates in real-world settings. This review summarizes the literature on adherence and patient preference to 5-ASA in patients with UC. We begin by highlighting key studies that measure real-world adherence rates, as well as some of the pitfalls associated with certain techniques. We examine the data on the consequences of non-adherence, which range from decreased quality of life and higher risk of colorectal cancer at the individual level to increased costs to the overall healthcare system. We then turn to the reasons and risk factors for non-adherence and summarize the current understanding of the barriers towards adherence. Afterwards, we describe the research on patient preferences between 5-ASA formulations and dosing regimen. Finally, we summarize the evidence regarding interventions to improve 5-ASA adherence. While adherence remains a challenge in practice, understanding the current state of the field can better inform future efforts towards increasing adherence, and thus clinical outcomes, in UC.

Colitis and Crohn's Foundation (India) consensus statements on use of 5-aminosalicylic acid in inflammatory bowel disease

Despite several recent advances in therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) therapy has retained its place especially in ulcerative colitis. This consensus on 5-ASA is obtained through a modified Delphi process, and includes guiding statements and recommendations based on literature evidence (randomized trials, and observational studies), clinical practice, and expert opinion on use of 5-ASA in IBD by Indian gastroenterologists. The aim is to aid practitioners in selecting appropriate treatment strategies and facilitate optimal use of 5-ASA in patients with IBD.

British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn's and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, including patients, their families and friends.

British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn's and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, including patients, their families and friends.

Efficacy and safety of once daily versus twice daily mesalazine for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety between once daily (OD) and twice daily (BD) regime dosing of mesalazine for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Web of Science from 1990 to November 2018 were investigated. We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OD with BD regime dosing of mesalazine for mild-to-moderate UC. The software Review Manager 5.3 was used to pool the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Eight RCTs containing 3495 patients were identified. Regardless of induction of remission or maintenance of remission of UC, OD regime dosing of mesalazine was as effective as BD regime dosing in clinical and endoscopic remission and clinical remission. Also, no obvious difference was found between OD and BD regime dosing of mesalazine regardless of total adverse events, treatment-related adverse events or serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

OD is as effective and safe as BD regime dosing of mesalazine for active UC.

Induction and maintenance treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: A comprehensive review

Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) are the two major types of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We conducted a comprehensive review of meta-analyses to summarize the reported effectiveness of different drugs for IBD. We performed a literature search and a total of 110 meta-analyses from 66 articles were summarized and re-analyzed (62 in UC and 48 in CD). In summary, 5-ASA was more effective than placebo in both induction and maintenance treatment of UC, but there were conflicting results on the effect of 5-ASA on the induction treatment or relapse of CD. The use of immunomodulatory agents in the induction or maintenance phase of UC and CD using immunomodulators appeared to be more effective than placebo, but the results were impacted by small number of patients, discordant results with the largest study and risk of biases. Anti-TNF-α and anti-integrin therapeutic antibodies in both, induction and maintenance, showed a better efficacy than placebo in a large proportion of patients analyzed. Other agents, such as probiotics, antibiotics, omega-3, were shown to be more effective than placebo, but the same issues arose as stated above with the use of immunomodulatory agents. In conclusion, we performed a comprehensive review of meta-analysis on comparative efficacy of pharmacotherapy used in the management of IBD. Our review will augment our understanding of the treatment of UC and CD by providing a guideline for interpreting the statistically significant findings and discusses the optimal choice for IBD treatment.

Systematic review: safety of mesalazine in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Mesalazine is the most commonly prescribed medication for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. It is generally well tolerated with some reported side effects.

AIM

To summarise adverse drug events to mesalazine and recommend techniques for management. Furthermore, to determine if there is a dose-dependent relationship between high (>2.4 g/day) vs low dosing (≤2.4 g/day) and occurrence of adverse drug events.

METHODS

A literature search for relevant studies from inception to 1 December 2017 of the MEDLINE database was conducted. Two reviewers screened all titles identified. Data obtained from randomised controlled trials was used to estimate incidence rates of each adverse event. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological risk of bias and performed data extraction.

RESULTS

3581 articles were initially considered. Of these, 3573 were screened, 622 reviewed and 91 included. Adverse events attributed to mesalazine included inflammatory reactions, pancreatitis, cardiotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, musculoskeletal complaints, respiratory symptoms, nephropathies and sexual dysfunction. There does not appear to be a dose-dependent relationship of mesalazine and occurrence of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Patients on mesalazine should be monitored for worsening of ulcerative colitis and development of new onset organ dysfunction. High-dose mesalazine appears to have similar safety profile as low dose, and is not associated with greater risk of adverse events. Prior to placing a patient on mesalazine, baseline liver and renal function should be evaluated. Renal function should be periodically assessed, whereas other testing should be performed depending on development of symptoms.

Once daily vs multiple daily mesalamine therapy for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis

AIM

5-Aminosalicylic acid is the first-line drug for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). The most commonly used 5-aminosalicylic acid is mesalamine. Several systematic reviews have demonstrated that mesalamine is effective in inducing and maintaining remission. Efficacy, safety and adherence to once daily (OD) and multiple daily (MD) dosing of mesalamine for the induction and maintenance of remission in mild to moderate UC were systematically reviewed and compared.

METHOD

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to November 2014. Only randomized controlled trials were considered eligible. STATA software (version 12.0) was used to calculate the pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized studies containing 5439 patients were identified. No significant differences were noted in comparisons between OD and MD dosing for maintenance and induction of remission. No significant differences were noted in rates of medication adherence or adverse events between OD and MD dosing. With regard to mesalamine suppository, no significant differences were noted for comparisons between dosing regimens and adverse events for induction of remission.

CONCLUSION

OD dose of mesalamine is as effective and safe as MD doses for the induction and maintenance treatment of mild to moderate UC. OD mesalamine given as a suppository can attain the same effect and safety as MD mesalamine in inducing remission of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis.

Inflammatory bowel disease meta-evidence and its challenges: is it time to restructure surgical research?

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the methodological quality and input paper characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported in the medical and surgical literature by performing a systematic 'overview of reviews'. Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) were used as the framework for this comparison as they are relatively common serious conditions, with both medical and surgical options for therapy.

METHOD

Medline, Embase, CINHAL and the Cochrane Database were searched to November 2013. Eligible papers were systematic reviews or meta-analyses that considered a question of therapy in CD or UC. Two independent reviewers selected the papers, extracted the data and scored their methodology using the AMSTAR scoring system. The papers were categorized into medical therapy (M), surgical therapy (S) or medical and surgical therapy (MS) groups. Following retrieval of the sample of meta-evidence papers, the original input studies used in their creation were identified and a search of Medline, Embase, CINHAL and the Cochrane Database was performed. A team of researchers then examined the collection of papers for bibliographic and financial information.

RESULTS

Five hundred papers were identified in the meta-evidence search, of which 118 were deemed eligible. There was a difference in the AMSTAR-rated average quality of the papers between the S and M group (S 7.36 vs M 8.75, P = 0.01). On average S papers were published in journals with a lower impact factor (S 3.26, M 5.04, MS 5.30, P < 0.001). S papers also showed more heterogeneity (I(2) ; S 37%, M 24%, MS 10%, P < 0.001). Some 25% of S meta-analyses used data-sets with significant heterogeneity (I(2) > 75%), compared with 8% of M meta-analyses and 3% of the MS meta-analyses. Some 5% of S papers were done on data sets that had I(2) values > 90%. There was no difference in the average number of papers assessed in each group, the average number of patients per meta-paper, the average time covered by the reviews, the average number of papers considered within each meta-analysis, or the average number of patients considered within each meta-analysis. Considering the conclusions of each meta-analysis, S meta-evidence was 50% more likely than M meta-evidence to be unable to make recommendations for practice. A total of 1499 original input papers were identified, of which 283 were used in more than one review. Within the non-repeated papers (n = 1023) the average impact factor within the S group was lower than that of the M and the MS groups (3.720 vs 11.230 vs 7.563, respectively; ANOVAP < 0.001). M papers had higher rates of pharmaceutical sponsorship than S papers (M 56% vs S 1%) and twice the level of government support (M 16% vs S 8%). Of note, 21% of M papers had corporate sponsorship but did not list any conflict of interest.

CONCLUSION

Compared with M meta-analyses, S meta-analyses in the UC and CD domain are more likely to be of poorer methodological quality, are of a greater degree of heterogeneity and less often offer a positive conclusion. The papers used to generate meta-evidence in M papers have a greater degree of corporate and government sponsorship, and are more likely to come from journals with higher impact factors.

Recent developments in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are chronic inflammatory bowel diseases that have been treated with corticosteroids, 5-aminosalicates and thiopurines, but therapeutic options have been broadened with the arrival of anti-tumor necrosis factor antibodies. In this article we reviewed the current evidence-based approach to inflammatory bowel disease, the modifications that have been made to existing therapies and discussed new drugs that have shown success in clinical trials. The new drugs discussed here are those that disturb lymphocyte homing to the gut (natalizumab, vedolizumab and anti-mucosal addressin cellular adhesion molecule); one that blocks interleukin (IL)-12 as well as the IL-23/T helper 17 (Th17) axis (ustekinumab) and one that blocks the signaling of multiple cytokines (tofacitinib).