Olsalazine or sulphasalazine in first attacks of ulcerative colitis? A double blind study

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Pharmacotherapy of ulcerative colitis - current status and emerging trends

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic mucosal inflammation of the large intestine restricted to the rectum and colon. Its clinical course follows an intermittent pattern with episodes of relapse, followed by remission and eventually resulting in mucosal damage. Although there is no permanent cure for UC, the currently available pharmacotherapy aims to induce and maintain clinical remission, promote the healing of colonic mucosa and avert any surgical intervention. The conventional drug therapy comprising of 5-aminosalicylates, thiopurines and corticosteroids has advanced recently in terms of formulations and dosing schedule, resulting in improved efficacy, safety and compliance. Calcineurin inhibitors, such as cyclosporin and tacrolimus, have emerged as steroid sparing agents. The treatment paradigm of UC patients who are refractory to conventional drugs has changed in view of the availability of biologics. Currently, there are four biologics approved by the US FDA for the treatment of UC, namely, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab and vedolizumab, and several others are undergoing clinical trial. In this comprehensive review, the advantages and limitations of the medical therapy of UC are elaborated with an emphasis on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects of the drugs.

AGA Technical Review on the Management of Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis

Most patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) have mild-to-moderate disease activity, with low risk of colectomy, and are managed by primary care physicians or gastroenterologists. Optimal management of these patients decreases the risk of relapse and proximal disease extension, and may prevent disease progression, complications, and need for immunosuppressive therapy. With several medications (eg, sulfasalazine, diazo-bonded 5-aminosalicylates [ASA], mesalamines, and corticosteroids, including budesonide) and complex dosing formulations, regimens, and routes, to treat a disease with variable anatomic extent, there is considerable practice variability in the management of patients with mild-moderate UC. Hence, the American Gastroenterological Association prioritized clinical guidelines on this topic. To inform clinical guidelines, this technical review was developed in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework for interventional studies. Focused questions included the following: (1) comparative effectiveness and tolerability of different oral 5-ASA therapies (sulfalsalazine vs diazo-bonded 5-ASAs vs mesalamine; low- (<2 g) vs standard (2-3 g/d) vs high-dose (>3 g/d) mesalamine); (2) comparison of different dosing regimens (once-daily vs multiple times per day dosing) and routes (oral vs rectal vs both oral and rectal); (3) role of oral budesonide in patients mild-moderate UC; (4) comparative effectiveness and tolerability of rectal 5-ASA and corticosteroid formulations in patients with distal colitis; and (5) role of alternative therapies like probiotics, curcumin, and fecal microbiota transplantation in the management of mild-moderate UC.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological agents for management of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients with ulcerative colitis have mildly to moderately active disease. To inform the management of patients with left-sided or extensive mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis, we assessed the comparative efficacy and tolerability of different therapies.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched Epub, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to Dec 14, 2015, and updated on MEDLINE on March 1, 2018, for randomised controlled trials in adults (age ≥17 years) with left-sided or extensive mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. Studies were included if patients were treated with oral sulfasalazine, diazo-bonded 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs), mesalazine (low dose <2 g/day, standard dose 2-3 g/day, or high dose >3 g/day), controlled ileal-release budesonide, or budesonide multimatrix, alone or in combination with rectal 5-ASA therapy, and were compared with each other or placebo for induction or maintenance of clinical remission. The minimum duration of therapy was 4 weeks for trials of induction and 24 weeks for trials of maintenance therapy. We did pairwise and random-effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs; agents were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to appraise quality of evidence. We examined heterogeneity with the I² statistic.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 1316 unique studies, from which 75 randomised trials with 12 215 patients were eligible for analysis. Based on 48 induction randomised trials (8020 participants) that met inclusion criteria, combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs (SUCRA 0·99) and high-dose mesalazine (>3 g/day; SUCRA 0·82) were ranked highest for induction of remission. Both interventions were superior to standard-dose mesalazine (2-3 g/day; failure to induce remission with combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs OR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·77; high-dose mesalazine 0·78, 0·66-0·93) with moderate confidence in estimates. On the basis of 28 randomised trials (4218 participants) that met inclusion criteria, all interventions were superior to placebo for maintenance of remission; however, neither combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs nor high-dose mesalazine were superior to standard-dose mesalazine.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with mildly to moderately active left-sided or extensive ulcerative colitis, combined oral and topical mesalazine therapy and high-dose mesalazine are superior to standard-dose mesalazine for induction of remission, but not maintenance of remission. Standard-dose mesalazine might be preferred for maintenance in most patients.

FUNDING

None.

Calcium Coordination Solids for pH-Triggered Release of Olsalazine

Calcium coordination solids were synthesized and evaluated for delivery of olsalazine (H₄ olz), an anti-inflammatory compound used for treatment of ulcerative colitis. The materials include one-dimensional Ca(H₂ olz)⋅4 H₂ O chains, two-dimensional Ca(H₂ olz)⋅2 H₂ O sheets, and a three-dimensional metal-organic framework Ca(H₂ olz)⋅2DMF (DMF=N,N-dimethylformamide). The framework undergoes structural changes in response to solvent, forming a dense Ca(H₂ olz) phase when exposed to aqueous HCl. The compounds Ca(H₂ olz)⋅x H₂ O (x=0, 2, 4) were each pressed into pellets and exposed to simulated gastrointestinal fluids to mimic the passage of a pill from the acidic stomach to the pH-neutral intestines. All three calcium materials exhibited a delayed release of olsalazine relative to Na₂ (H₂ olz), the commercial formulation, illustrating how formulation of a drug within an extended coordination solid can serve to tune its solubility and performance.

Role of Histologic Inflammation in the Natural History of Ulcerative Colitis

The goals of therapy for ulcerative colitis have moved from symptom improvement to mucosal healing, and finally histologic resolution. The natural history of histologic inflammation in ulcerative colitis progresses from initial cellular infiltration to architectural disruption and recovery on medical therapy. Many studies have linked histologic changes to clinical outcomes, providing prognostic value to histologic abnormalities. This review covers all these components.

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

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs in doses of at least 2 g/day, were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP for inducing remission in ulcerative colitis. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for the treatment of mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis. A secondary objective of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy and safety of once daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

A computer-assisted literature search for relevant studies (inception to July 9, 2015) was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized controlled clinical trials of parallel design, with a minimum treatment duration of four weeks. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with active ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other formulations of 5-ASA were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA (two or three times daily) and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcomes of interest were the failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, adherence, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA versus comparator 5-ASA, and 5-ASA dose-ranging. Placebo-controlled trials were subgrouped by dosage. SASP-controlled trials were subgrouped by 5-ASA/SASP mass ratios. Once daily versus conventional dosing studies were subgrouped by formulation. 5-ASA-controlled trials were subgrouped by common 5-ASA comparators (e.g. Asacol, Claversal, Salofalk and Pentasa). Dose-ranging studies were subgrouped by 5-ASA formulation. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Review article: the histological assessment of disease activity in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

In patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), mucosal healing has emerged as a major therapeutic goal, and is usually assessed endoscopically. Histological healing does not correlate very well with endoscopic mucosal healing in UC and persistent histological inflammation might be a better predictor of future clinical relapse than the endoscopic appearance alone.

AIM

To define how histological assessment of disease activity should be best done in UC.

METHODS

Electronic (PubMed/Embase) and manual search.

RESULTS

At least 18 histological indices to assess disease activity in UC have been described, though none are fully validated. However, histological assessment is increasingly used as a secondary endpoint in clinical trials in UC. After reviewing and discussing existing histological scoring systems for UC activity, we describe features of histological response and define three grades of activity: (i) histological healing - complete resolution of abnormalities; (ii) quiescent disease, - lack of mucosal neutrophils but chronic inflammation may remain; (iii) active disease - presence of neutrophils plus possible epithelial damage. It is recommended that two biopsies are taken from each colonic segment which should include always biopsy of the rectum and the most affected segments. There is to date no agreed preferable scoring system but the Geboes Index is the best validated (kappa for interobserver variation 0.59-0.70).

CONCLUSION

Histological assessment of disease activity in UC is increasingly used, but needs to be carefully defined.

Systematic review: histological remission in inflammatory bowel disease. Is 'complete' remission the new treatment paradigm? An IOIBD initiative

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Advances in the medical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have altered treatment targets. Endoscopic mucosal healing is associated with better outcomes in IBD, though less is known about the significance of achieving histological remission. Our aim was to perform a systematic review to investigate whether histological or 'complete' remission constitutes a further therapeutic target in IBD.

METHODS

A bibliographic search was performed on the 1st of October 2013 and subsequently on the 1st of March 2014 of online databases (OVID SP MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, National Pubmed Central Medline, Cochrane Library, ISI, conference abstracts), using MeSH terms and key words: ("inflammatory bowel diseases" OR "crohn disease" OR "ulcerative colitis" OR "colitis") AND ("mucosal healing" OR "histological healing" OR "pathological healing" OR "histological scoring" OR "pathological scoring").

RESULTS

The search returned 2951 articles. 120 articles were cited in the final analysis. There is no validated definition of histological remission in IBD. There are 22 different histological scoring systems for IBD, none of which are fully validated. Microscopic inflammation persists in 16-100% of cases of endoscopically quiescent disease. There is evidence that histological remission may predict risk of complications in ulcerative colitis beyond endoscopic mucosal healing, though data are scarce in Crohn's disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Histological remission in IBD represents a target distinct from endoscopic mucosal healing, not yet routinely sought in clinical trials or practice. There remains a need for a standardized and validated histological scoring system and to confirm the prognostic value of histological remission as a treatment target in IBD.

Prophylactic and therapeutic effects of oral budesonide for acute radiation-induced enteritis and colitis in rats

No satisfactory means has been found to control the symptoms of diarrhea and weight loss caused by radiation-induced enteritis and colitis. As a glucocorticoid, budesonide has multiple effects, and this study aimed to test whether it could be effective in treating these symptoms. Twenty-eight male Wistar albino rats were randomly allocated into 4 groups. Group I received 0.1 mg/kg/day budesonide at 8-h intervals for 5 days and did not undergo radiation. Group II received 0.1 mg/kg/day budesonide at 8-h intervals for 1 day before radiation treatment and 4 days after irradiation. Group III received 0.1 mg/kg/day budesonide at 8-h intervals for 4 days after irradiation. Group IV received only radiation treatment. On the fifth day after radiation treatment, the rats underwent laparotomy. The rats were weighed before irradiation and before laparotomy. Because of diarrhea, all rats lost weight except group I, which showed weight gain. Weight loss was statistically significant only in group IV. Group I rats exhibited a normal jejunum, ileum, and colon. The other groups showed varying degrees of damage. We conclude that, particularly when given before irradiation, budesonide decreased the side effects of radiation-induced enteritis and colitis both clinically and morphologically. Future pathophysiological and clinical studies will be needed to support this result.

Histological healing in inflammatory bowel disease: A still unfulfilled promise

Treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is traditionally based on several drugs, including salicylates, corticosteroids, and antibiotics; in addition, the therapeutic armamentarium has considerably evolved with the advent of newer, effective therapeutic measures (such as the biological agents) that are able to improve in a considerable manner both the clinical and endoscopic variables. Thus, mucosal healing, at least considered from an endoscopic point of view, is today regarded as the ultimate endpoint for treatment of these conditions. However, it is also increasingly clear that endoscopic healing is not necessarily paralleled by histological healing; There are few doubts that the latter should be considered as a true, objective healing and the ultimate goal to reach when treating patients with IBD. Unfortunately, and surprisingly, only a few, incomplete, and somewhat conflicting data exist on this topic, especially because there is still the need to standardize both histological assessment and the severity grading of these disorders; Issues that have not been yet been resolved for clinical practice and therapeutic trials. Hopefully, with the help of an increased awareness on the clinical researchers’ side, and the availability of dedicated pathologists on the other side, this matter will be effectively faced and resolved in the near future.

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

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs in doses of at least 2 g/day, were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP for inducing remission in ulcerative colitis. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for the treatment of mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis. A secondary objective of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy and safety of once daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

A computer-assisted literature search for relevant studies (inception to January 20, 2012) was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized controlled clinical trials of parallel design, with a minimum treatment duration of four weeks. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with active ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other formulations of 5-ASA were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA (two or three times daily) and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcomes of interest were the failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, adherence, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA versus comparator 5-ASA, and 5-ASA dose-ranging. Placebo-controlled trials were subgrouped by dosage. SASP-controlled trials were subgrouped by 5-ASA/SASP mass ratios. Once daily versus conventional dosing studies were subgrouped by formulation. 5-ASA-controlled trials were subgrouped by common 5-ASA comparators (e.g. Asacol, Claversal, Salofalk and Pentasa). Dose-ranging studies were subgrouped by 5-ASA formulation. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention to treat basis.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Ulcerative colitis: current treatment strategies and future prospects

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a disease of unknown etiology characterized by inflammation of the mucosa and occasionally the submucosa of the colon. Conventional drug therapy for UC involves use of aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine, cyclosporine and anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. Alternative therapies include probiotics, nicotine and fish oil. Drugs like tacrolimus, rosiglitazone and Trichuris suis ova are being evaluated for use in UC patients. With the new biologic agents, new treatment options for UC continue to evolve. In this article we will discuss the conventional drugs, the alternative therapies and the management strategies according to the severity and extent of UC.

Clinical pharmacology of 5-ASA compounds in inflammatory bowel disease

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

Ulcerative colitis practice guidelines in adults: American College Of Gastroenterology, Practice Parameters Committee

Guidelines for clinical practice are aimed to indicate preferred approaches to medical problems as established by scientifically valid research. Double-blind placebo controlled studies are preferable, but compassionate-use reports and expert review articles are used in a thorough review of the literature conducted through Medline with the National Library of Medicine. When only data that will not withstand objective scrutiny are available, a recommendation is identified as a consensus of experts. Guidelines are applicable to all physicians who address the subject regardless of specialty training or interests and are aimed to indicate the preferable but not necessarily the only acceptable approach to a specific problem. Guidelines are intended to be flexible and must be distinguished from standards of care, which are inflexible and rarely violated. Given the wide range of specifics in any health-care problem, the physician must always choose the course best suited to the individual patient and the variables in existence at the moment of decision. Guidelines are developed under the auspices of the American College of Gastroenterology and its Practice Parameters Committee and approved by the board of trustees. Each has been intensely reviewed and revised by the Committee, other experts in the field, physicians who will use them, and specialists in the science of decision analysis. The recommendations of each guideline are therefore considered valid at the time of composition based on the data available. New developments in medical research and practice pertinent to each guideline will be reviewed at a time established and indicated at publication to assure continued validity. The recommendations made are based on the level of evidence found. Grade A recommendations imply that there is consistent level 1 evidence (randomized controlled trials), grade B indicates that the evidence would be level 2 or 3, which are cohort studies or case-control studies. Grade C recommendations are based on level 4 studies, meaning case series or poor-quality cohort studies, and grade D recommendations are based on level 5 evidence, meaning expert opinion.

A meta-analysis of the efficacy of sulfasalazine in comparison with 5-aminosalicylates in the induction of improvement and maintenance of remission in patients with ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Historically, sulfasalazine (SSZ) and 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs) have been a mainstay of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) remission induction and maintenance therapy. Considering the pivotal role of intestinal microbial flora in pathophysiology of UC and antimicrobial activity of sulfapyridine, we hypothesized that SSZ might be more effective than 5-ASAs in the management of UC.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of SSZ with each of the 5-ASAs (mesalamine, olsalazine, and balsalazide) by a meta-analysis technique.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies compared efficacy and/or tolerability of SSZ with 5-ASAs in the management of UC. The search terms were: "sulfasalazine" or "sulfasalazine" and "5-aminosalicylic acid," "mesalazine," "mesalamine," "olsalazine" or "balsalazide" and "ulcerative colitis." Data were collected from 1966 to April 2008. There was no language restriction. "Overall improvement," "relapse rate," "total adverse events," and "withdrawals because of adverse events" were the key outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Twenty randomized placebo controlled trials met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison of SSZ with mesalamine yielded a nonsignificant relative risk (RR) of 1.04 (95% confidence interval of 0.89-1.21, P = 0.63) for overall improvement, a nonsignificant RR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.78-1.23, P = 0.85) for relapse, a nonsignificant RR of 0.76 (95% CI 0.54-1.07, P = 0.11) for any adverse events, and a nonsignificant RR of 0.78 (95% CI 0.46-1.3, P = 0.33) for withdrawals due to adverse events. Comparison of SSZ with olsalazine yielded a nonsignificant RR of 1.14 (95% CI 0.91-1.43, P = 0.25) for overall improvement, a nonsignificant RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.77-1.12, P = 0.42) for relapse, a nonsignificant RR of 1.21 (95% CI 0.9-1.61, P = 0.20) for any adverse events, and a nonsignificant RR of 1.53 (95% CI 0.93-2.52, P = 0.09) for withdrawals due to adverse events. Comparison of SSZ with balsalazide yielded a nonsignificant RR of 1.3 (95% CI 0.93-1.81, P = 0.12) for overall improvement, and a significant RR of 0.17 (95% CI 0.06-0.49, P = 0.001) for withdrawals because of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

SSZ does not differ from mesalamine or olsalazine in terms of efficacy and tolerability in UC. Withdrawal from study due to adverse events was significantly lower for balsalazide compared with SSZ. Convincing conclusions on the comparison of effectiveness and safety of balsalazide and SSZ in UC remains to be elucidated by further clinical trials. Considering the lower cost of treatment with SSZ and the equal rate of adverse events with other 5-ASAa, it is not surprising to suggest SSZ as a first-choice treatment for UC and reserve 5-ASAs for when SSZ intolerability occurs.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Systematic review: the use of mesalazine in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Mesalazine is among the medications most commonly prescribed by gastroenterologists, having to a large extent superseded sulfasalazine (sulphasalazine). However, there are still a number of aspects regarding its use which provoke debate and controversy.

AIM

To provide a systematic assessment of the evidence for the use of mesalazine in ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease.

METHODS

References were identified using PubMed database. Additional references were identified with related article searches.

RESULTS

Mesalazine has a clear role in the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis and management of mild to moderately active disease, although the efficacy of topical preparations or combined topical and oral is clearly superior to oral alone. Evidence that increasing the dose of oral mesalazine improves efficacy is not clear-cut. The benefits of mesalazine in the management of acute Crohn's disease and the maintenance of remission are questionable and alternative treatments are usually more appropriate. Emerging evidence suggests that maintenance mesalazine reduces the risk of neoplastic progression in chronic ulcerative colitis. Compliance with therapy is thus important, as is an understanding of individuals most likely to default on this.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for a beneficial effect of mesalazine is largely confined to the management of ulcerative colitis.

How important is onset of action in ulcerative colitis therapy?

Pharmacotherapy is the cornerstone of management in ulcerative colitis. However, controversy remains over optimal medical strategies. Specifically, differences in the onset of action of various drug therapies are thought to influence the achievement and maintenance of remission of disease, yet this is poorly characterised. There is a wide range of recent data concerning aminosalicylates, with much debate as to the relative merits of the various formulations and delivery systems. Meta-analyses confirm the efficacy of aminosalicylates for the induction and maintenance of remission and suggest that the newer agents are comparable in efficacy to sulfasalazine. Among aminosalicylates, data from clinical trials reveal that the onset of action is earlier with balsalazide than mesalazine. Although the efficacy of the newer 5-aminosalicylate agents is no greater than that of sulfasalazine, they have better adverse effect profiles. Factors such as tolerability and adherence appear more important than onset of action in long-term maintenance. Corticosteroids have long been used in the treatment of ulcerative colitis, yet there is a paucity of data regarding this. They have a rapid onset of action but considerable systemic adverse effects. Therefore, corticosteroids are reserved for disease that fails to respond to other agents or for primary therapy in patients with severe disease, although there is no universal acceptance of a threshold at which to initiate corticosteroid treatment.Rectal preparations of both aminosalicylates and corticosteroids have been developed in an attempt to exert a more rapid and direct onset of action while minimising adverse systemic effects. In clinical trials, topical preparations of both aminosalicylates and corticosteroids are effective in inducing remission. However, patient acceptability and proximal extent of disease dictate selection of a topical agent more than concern with rate of onset.A wide range of immunomodulators have been investigated in patients with steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. The thioguanine derivatives are the most widely used but have a limited evidence base to support this use with controlled trials providing equivocal results regarding efficacy in severe ulcerative colitis. In addition, the thioguanine derivatives have a protracted onset of action and a considerable serious adverse effect profile. Calcineurin inhibitors and methotrexate have a more rapid onset of action than the thiopurines but have even less data to support their widespread use. They are widely regarded as salvage therapy and further data are required. Regarding biological agents, infliximab revolutionised the treatment of Crohn's disease, yet results in ulcerative colitis have been disappointing. Further trials are ongoing with great anticipation for more favourable data. The practical clinical implications of any differences between the agents depend on patient satisfaction with various therapies. Noncompliance is a major concern in maintenance therapy and is probably associated with relapse. Dose administration schedules and acceptability of therapy appear to be important factors in adherence. Overall, it is not clear that onset of action has a major influence on patient adherence and addressing issues of compliance may have more direct clinical impact.

Mesalamine delivery systems: do they really make much difference?

Sulfasalazine's role as the first-line of therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease has led to the development of other "designer" aminosalicylates, which eliminate the sulfa-moiety, and attempt to target the topically active mesalamine to the inflamed bowel. Olsalazine sodium and balsalazide disodium utilize the same azo-bond structure as sulfasalazine, requiring release of active mesalamine by colonic bacteria, and thus targeting these agents to the colon. Other mesalamine delivery systems use pH-dependant- or moisture-release to liberate the active mesalamine in both the large and small bowel. Direct application of mesalamine via enema or suppository is also effective in patients with distal colitis. The pharmacology and thus the undesirable drug absorption rates differ between drugs, although the clinical importance of these characteristics is debatable. Differences in release-systems, the impact of the fed and fasting state, and unique patient intolerances to individual agents demand an understanding of each of these products, and their application to patient therapy.

Ulcerative colitis practice guidelines in adults (update): American College of Gastroenterology, Practice Parameters Committee

Guidelines for clinical practice are intended to indicate preferred approaches to medical problems as established by scientifically valid research. Double-blind placebo-controlled studies are preferable, but compassionate use reports and expert review articles are utilized in a thorough review of the literature conducted through Medline with the National Library of Medicine. When only data that will not withstand objective scrutiny are available, a recommendation is identified as a consensus of experts. Guidelines are applicable to all physicians who address the subject without regard to the specialty training or interests and are intended to indicate the preferable but not necessarily the only acceptable approach to a specific problem. Guidelines are intended to be flexible and must be distinguished from standards of care, which are inflexible and rarely violated. Given the wide range of specifics in any health-care problem, the physician must always choose the course best suited to the individual patient and the variables in existence at the moment of decision. Guidelines are developed under the auspices of the American College of Gastroenterology and its Practice Parameters Committee and approved by the Board of Trustees. Each has been extensively reviewed and revised by the Committee, other experts in the field, physicians who will use them, and specialists in the science of decision of analysis. The recommendations of each guideline are therefore considered valid at the time of their production based on the data available. New developments in medical research and practice pertinent to each guideline will be reviewed at a time established and indicated at the publication in order to assure continued validity.

Medical treatment of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the colon with an increasing incidence worldwide. The medical management of this disease continues to expand as drugs to induce and maintain remission are sought to avoid the need for colectomy. This article will review the standard of care for the treatment of mild, moderate, and severe ulcerative colitis. The efficacy, optimal usage, and adverse events profile of agents such as 5-aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, azathioprine, and cyclosporine will be discussed and an algorithm for their use will be developed. Alternative and experimental therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, probiotics, and heparin will also be addressed.

Systematic review: short-term adverse effects of 5-aminosalicylic acid agents in the treatment of ulcerative colitis

AIM

To determine whether there is a difference in short-term adverse events in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with mesalazine, olsalazine or balsalazide.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched for articles published until 2002. Randomized trials of oral mesalazine, olsalazine or balsalazide for the treatment of active disease or the maintenance of remission were included. Outcomes of interest were the frequencies of patients experiencing adverse events and those withdrawn due to adverse events.

RESULTS

Forty-six trials were included. One study of mesalazine vs. sulfasalazine for active colitis showed significantly fewer patients with adverse events with mesalazine. Both balsalazide vs. sulfasalazine studies for active disease showed significantly fewer withdrawals with balsalazide. One trial of balsalazide vs. sulfasalazine for maintenance showed significantly fewer patients with adverse events with balsalazide. Otherwise, no significant differences in safety outcomes were noted.

CONCLUSION

All three 5-aminosalicylic acid agents are safe in the short term. In mesalazine-treated patients, the frequencies of adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events were comparable with those in placebo-treated patients and lower than those in sulfasalazine-treated patients. Overall, adverse events or withdrawals were not significantly more frequent with olsalazine than with placebo or sulfasalazine. Adverse events and study withdrawals on balsalazide were less frequent than those on sulfasalazine.

Role of mesalazine in acute and long-term treatment of ulcerative colitis and its complications

BACKGROUND

Sulfasalazine, consisting of 5-aminosalicylic acid bound to sulfapyridine by a diazo bond, was first used for treatment of ulcerative colitis in the early 1940s and later found effective in placebo-controlled trials for acute disease and for long-term maintenance of remission. Later studies found that the active moiety is 5-ASA (mesalazine, mesalamine) and the sulfapyridine moiety acts as a carrier molecule but causes many of the symptomatic adverse reactions.

METHODS

Review of the literature.

RESULTS

The finding that 5-ASA in the active motility led to the development of mesalazine prodrugs, olsalazine (Dipentum) and balsalazide (Colazide, Colazal), and targeted release mesalazine preparations, such as Asacol, Pentasa, and Salofalk, as well as enemas and suppository preparations for distal disease. Most patients with adverse effects from sulfasalazine will tolerate mesalazine. Mesalazine has been shown equivalent or superior to sulfasalazine, and superior to placebo, with a dose-response benefit, in inducing remission of acute disease. and comparable to sulfasalazine and superior to placebo for long-term maintenance of remission. Better tolerance of mesalazine and the ability to use higher doses favor its use in patients intolerant of sulfasalazine and in patients failing to respond to usual doses of sulfasalazine. Adverse effects from mesalazine are uncommon, but include idiosyncratic worsening of the colitis symptoms and renal toxicity. Mesalazine is safe to use during pregnancy and for nursing mothers. As maintenance therapy, mesalazine may reduce the risk of developing colorectal carcinoma.

CONCLUSION

Mesalazine represents effective and well-tolerated first-line therapy for mildly to moderately acute disease as well as for the long-term maintenance treatment in the patient with ulcerative colitis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

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

A double-blind comparison of balsalazide, 6.75 g, and sulfasalazine, 3 g, as sole therapy in the management of ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Sulfasalazine is accepted therapy for active ulcerative colitis, but side-effects and intolerance are common. Balsalazide is an azo-bonded pro-drug which also releases 5-aminosalicylic acid into the colon, but uses an inert carrier molecule.

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of sul- fasalazine, 3 g, with balsalazide, 6.75 g, in the initial daily treatment of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

A randomized, multicentre, double-blind, parallel group study was performed, with a treatment duration of 8 weeks. Patients on previous maintenance treatment were excluded. The trial medication was the sole treatment for the colitis. Efficacy was assessed by patient diaries, symptom assessment, sigmoidoscopic appearance and histology.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were recruited: 26 allocated to the balsalazide group and 24 to the sulfasalazine group. More patients withdrew due to adverse events in the sulfasalazine group (nine patients vs. one patient in the balsalazide group, P=0.004). Improvement occurred in both groups, with a tendency to a faster response with balsalazide. Of the patients taking balsalazide, 61% achieved clinical and sigmoidoscopic remission.

CONCLUSIONS

Balsalazide, 6.75 g, is effective as the sole treatment for patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis, with significantly fewer withdrawals due to side-effects than in a similar group of patients taking sulfasalazine, 3 g.

Sulfasalazine decreases acute gastrointestinal complications due to pelvic radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Radiation-induced gastrointestinal toxicity is a significant concern for patients who are treated with this modality for pelvic malignancies. Eicosanoids and free radicals are thought to be among the reasons for this effect. Sulfasalazine is an inhibitor of their synthesis in the mucosa. OBJECTlVE: To determine whether sulfasalazine can reduce the radiation-induced acute gastrointestinal complications.

METHODS

In this prospective, double-blind study, 31 patients receiving pelvic radiotherapy were randomized to receive two sulfasalazine 500-mg tablets twice daily or placebo, administered orally from the first day of irradiation. Patients were evaluated weekly, and gastrointestinal toxicities were graded according to the Late Effect of Normal Tissue-Subjective Objective Management Analytic (LENT-SOMA) toxicity table during pelvic radiotherapy. On the last day of week 5, the subjects were graded endoscopically, and biopsies taken from the rectum were classified histopathologically.

RESULTS

Groups did not differ in age, gender, tumor site, or irradiation procedure. During radiotherapy, grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in 20% (3/15) and 63% (10/16) of the sulfasalazine and placebo groups, respectively. This difference was significant (p = 0.017). No statistically significant differences were found in endoscopic and histopathologic evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

Sulfasalazine is effective in decreasing clinically acute gastrointestinal toxicities. Long-term follow-up with the subjects will help to determine the net effect of sulfasalazine on the radiation-induced gastrointestinal injuries.

Once versus divided daily dosing with delayed-release mesalazine: a study of tissue drug concentrations and standard pharmacokinetic parameters

BACKGROUND

Delayed-release mesalazine is traditionally taken as three divided doses. However, it is well-recognized that dosing frequency has a significant impact on compliance and that once daily dosing is preferable.

METHODS

We measured serum, urinary, faecal and rectal tissue concentrations of 5-aminosalicylic acid and N-acetyl 5-aminosalicylic acid in 24 healthy volunteers following dosing with delayed-release mesalazine, 1.2 g or 2.4 g daily, given as either a single daily dose at 08:00 hours or in three divided doses at 08:00, 13:00 and 18:00 hours.

RESULTS

Urinary and faecal excretion and rectal tissue concentrations of 5-aminosalicylic acid and N-acetyl 5-aminosalicylic acid were similar following single or divided daily dosing, at both doses studied. Peak serum concentrations were found at 06:00-09:00 following divided dosing and at 17:00-20:00 following once daily dosing. However, peak and trough serum levels and serum area under curve values (AUC) were similar with both regimens and at both doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Urinary, faecal and rectal tissue concentrations are similar following single or divided daily dosing. Minor differences in serum levels were apparent but maximum, minimum and AUC values were similar. Clinical trials should examine the efficacy and toxicity of once daily dosing in patients with ulcerative colitis.

Randomized comparison of unfractionated heparin with corticosteroids in severe active inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Heparin therapy may be effective in steroid resistant inflammatory bowel disease.

AIM

A randomized pilot study, to compare unfractionated heparin as a first-line therapy with corticosteroids in colonic inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

Twenty patients with severe inflammatory bowel disease (ulcerative colitis, n=17; Crohn's colitis, n=3) were randomized to either intravenous heparin for 5 days, followed by subcutaneous heparin for 5 weeks (n=8), or high-dose intravenous hydrocortisone for 5 days followed by oral prednisolone 40 mg daily, reducing by 5 mg per day each week (n=12). After 5 days, non-responders in each treatment group were commenced on combination therapy. Response to therapy was monitored by: clinical disease activity (ulcerative colitis: Truelove and Witt Index; Crohn's colitis: Harvey and Bradshaw Index), stool frequency, serum C-reactive protein and alpha1 acid glycoprotein, endoscopic and histopathological grading.

RESULTS

The response rates were similar in both treatment groups: clinical activity index (heparin vs. steroid; 75% vs. 67%; P=0.23), stool frequency (75% vs. 67%; P=0.61), endoscopic (75% vs. 67%; P=0.4) and histopathological grading (63% vs. 50%; P=0.67). Both treatments were well-tolerated with no serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Heparin as a first line therapy is as effective as corticosteroids in the treatment of colonic inflammatory bowel disease. Large multicentre randomized comparative studies are required to determine the role of heparin in the management of inflammatory bowel disease.

A meta-analysis and overview of the literature on treatment options for left-sided ulcerative colitis and ulcerative proctitis

OBJECTIVES

Therapeutic trials in left-sided ulcerative colitis (L-UC) and ulcerative proctitis (UP) have lacked control for medication type, dose, delivery, and duration of therapy.

METHODS

All published therapeutic articles and abstracts in L-UC or UP from 1958-1997 were reviewed. Improvement, remission rates, and adverse events were recorded for all (ALL), placebo-controlled (PC) studies, and for PC studies passing quality assessment (QA) scoring. Meta-analysis was used where appropriate.

RESULTS

Left-sided UC: For active disease, 67 studies (17 PC; 10 QA) were identified. Mesalamine enemas achieved remission in a duration but not a dose response (QA), with higher remission rates than steroid enemas (ALL) and clinical improvement rates superior to oral therapies (QA, ALL). Remission maintenance: 17 (six PC, six QA) studies were identified. Mesalamine therapies had comparable remission rates at 6 months, with a possible dose but not delivery effect. Mesalamine enema dosing intervals between QHS to Q3 days maintained efficacy. Reported adverse events were most common with oral sulfasalazine and dose-independent for mesalamine. Withdrawals from therapy were less than placebo, or < or =3%. Ulcerative proctitis: For active disease, 18 (nine PC, three QA) studies were identified. Mesalamine suppositories achieved clinical improvement and remission in a duration but not dose response, with higher rates of remission than topical steroids (ALL). Remission maintenance: three (three PC, two QA) studies were identified. Remission ranged from 75% to 90% (6 months) and 61-90% (12 months) for mesalamine agents. Reported adverse events were most common for mesalamine foam (8%). Withdrawals from therapy were <2%.

CONCLUSIONS

In L-UC and UP, the efficacy and side-effect profile of topical mesalamine are dose independent and superior to oral therapies and topical steroids. Economic analysis suggests that use of these agents will also result in an overall decrease in patient costs.

Dose loading with delayed-release mesalazine: a study of tissue drug concentrations and standard pharmacokinetic parameters

AIMS

Tissue concentrations of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5ASA) and its metabolites may influence the clinical course of inflammatory bowel disease. Since the factors that determine tissue drug concentrations are unknown we have studied the relationships between the oral dose of delayed-release mesalazine, rectal tissue drug concentrations and standard pharmacokinetic parameters.

METHODS

Twelve healthy volunteers were studied following 7 days treatment with 1.2, 2.4 and 4.8 g of delayed-release mesalazine daily. 5-aminosalicylic acid and N-acetyl 5-aminosalicylic acid concentrations were measured in serum, urine, stool and rectal tissue biopsies.

RESULTS

Serum concentrations and 24 h urinary excretion of 5ASA and N-acetyl 5ASA increased as the oral dose of mesalazine was increased from 1.2 g through 2.4 g to 4.8 g daily (serum area under curve (AUC):5ASA = 3. 9, 15.4 and 46.8 microg ml-1 h, P < 0.0001; N-acetyl 5ASA = 17.2, 30. 9 and 57.8 microg ml-1 h, P < 0.0001: urinary excretion: 5ASA = 1.8, 85.5 and 445 mg, P < 0.0001; N-acetyl 5ASA = 250, 524 and 1468 mg, P < 0.0001, respectively). Faecal 5ASA excretion increased as the oral dose increased from 1.2 g to 2.4 g but did not increase further with 4.8 g daily dosing whereas faecal N-acetyl 5ASA excretion was similar at all three doses. Rectal tissue concentrations of 5ASA increased markedly, and N-acetyl 5ASA increased modestly, as the dose of oral mesalazine increased from 1.2 g to 2.4 g daily but neither increased further with 4.8 g daily dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between the ingested dose of delayed-release mesalazine and rectal tissue drug concentrations is complex. Factors other than dose are likely to be important determinants of rectal tissue drug concentrations.

Olsalazine versus mesalazine in the treatment of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis

AIM

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of olsalazine sodium with enteric-coated mesalazine in inducing endoscopic remission in patients with mild to moderate active ulcerative colitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with mild to moderate active ulcerative colitis were randomized to receive either olsalazine sodium, 3 g/day (n = 88), or mesalazine, 3 g/day (n = 80), for up to 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the patients treated with olsalazine sodium, 52.2% achieved endoscopic remission, compared with 48.8% of patients treated with mesalazine. This difference was not significant (P = 0.67). There was a nonsignificant trend for patients with left-sided colitis or a more severe endoscopic grade to achieve remission if they were treated with olsalazine sodium than if they were treated with mesalazine. Both treatments were comparable with respect to clinical activity index and an investigator's global assessment. Seventy patients reported one or more adverse events; adverse events were seen in 45% of olsalazine sodium-treated patients and in 36% of mesalazine-treated patients. Eleven patients treated with olsalazine sodium and nine patients treated with mesalazine withdrew from the study because of adverse events. One patient treated with olsalazine sodium compared with two treated with mesalazine stopped treatment because of diarrhoea. Serious adverse events occurred in three patients treated with olsalazine sodium and in four treated with mesalazine.

CONCLUSION

Therapeutic effectiveness and tolerance to the treatment did not differ between olsalazine sodium, 3 g/day, and mesalazine, 3 g/day, in inducing endoscopic remission in patients with mild to moderate active ulcerative colitis within 12 weeks of treatment.

Newer treatments for inflammatory bowel disease

Despite intense investigative efforts, the causes of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease remain elusive. The mainstay of medical therapy focuses on inhibition of the effects of the inflammatory mediators operant in inflammatory bowel disease because the causes of these two chronic disorders are unknown. During recent years, the physician's armamentarium for medical treatment of inflammatory bowel disease has increased substantially. In this article, the current standard medical therapies available for treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease are reviewed along with their efficacy; the side effects and status of other investigative drugs also are reviewed.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of olsalazine for active Crohn's disease

: Olsalazine, consisting of two salicylate radicals linked by an azo-bond, is effective in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis. To test its effect in patients with mild to moderate attacks of Crohn's disease, the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IOIBD) designed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Ninety-one patients from four centres were randomised to receive either olsalazine, 1 g b.i.d., or matching placebo tablets. Twenty-six patients had ileal disease; 43, ileocolonic; and 22, colonic. Thirty-five of 46 patients taking olsalazine and 24 of 45 patients taking placebo were withdrawn before the end of the 4-month study. Diarrhoea was the most common reason for withdrawal from the olsalazine group, accounting for 22% of the patients, as compared with 4% in the placebo group. No other side effects were reported. There was no difference in the remission rate or withdrawal rate for active disease in the two groups. However, when an intent-to-treat analysis was performed, only eight of the 46 (17%) olsalazine-treated patients were considered to have entered remission or improved their symptoms compared with 22 of the 45 (49%) placebo-treated patients (p < 0.03). This study was unable to show that patients with mild to moderate attacks of Crohn's disease were significantly improved by treatment with olsalazine at a dose of 1 g daily. However, the potential benefit of a higher dose cannot be excluded.

Olsalazine in maintenance of clinical remission in patients with ulcerative colitis

Frequent minor side effects are associated with sulfasalazine. The realization that it is the 5-aminosalicylic acid moiety that is the active component of sulfasalazine and that the side effects are probably due to the sulfapyridine has prompted the search for a similar but safer compound. Olsalazine, consisting of two molecules of 5-ASA without sulfasalazine may avoid the problems due to sulfasalazine. One hundred one patients were entered into a double-blind placebo-controlled study of the use of olsalazine (2 g daily) in preventing relapse in patients who had recently recovered from an acute attack of ulcerative colitis. Patients were treated for 12 months. Forty-nine were randomized to olsalazine (39 with limited and 10 with extensive disease) and 52 to placebo (42 with limited and 10 with extensive disease). Life-table analysis showed that the median time to relapse in patients on olsalazine was 342 days, which was significantly longer than the 100 days in the placebo group (P = 0.024). The most important side effect experienced with olsalazine that necessitated withdrawal from the study was "drug-induced diarrhea" in 16% (8/49). There was a similar incidence of minor side effects reported in the two groups, and in no patients were major or dangerous side effects reported. In patients who did not develop diarrhea, olsalazine was well tolerated and successfully prevented rapid relapse in the recently ill patients entered into this study.

Current management of inflammatory bowel disease

The aetiology of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease remains unknown. While this remains so, treatment must be directed towards pathogenetic mechanisms. Corticosteroids, sulphasalazine and the new salicylates, the immunosuppressants azathioprine, 6-MP and, more recently, cyclosporin and metronidazole have become the accepted and standard forms of treatment. The importance of maintaining nutritional status is often overlooked but must be considered in every patient. Recognition of the occurrence of disease in all age groups, and in particular in children and adolescents, is also important, as is an appreciation of the special problems involved. The possibility of surgery at some stage of the disease should be raised with the patient. As the pathogenetic mechanisms of inflammatory bowel disease are further elucidated, new forms of treatment will be developed. This is already happening, with studies looking at such agents as immunoglobulin G, eicosapentaenoic acid and a new specific inhibitor of 5-lipoxygenase. These offer hope of more potent drugs with low side-effect profiles that may complement or replace the currently available agents used in the management of inflammatory bowel disease.

Olsalazine-related diarrhoea: does rat intestine adapt in vivo?

Diarrhoea may occur in up to 10% of patients with ulcerative colitis treated with olsalazine, the azolinked dimer of 5-aminosalicylic acid. However, this symptom often disappears despite continued drug medication. To examine reversibility of and adaptation to olsalazine effects on intestinal absorption, rats were fed olsalazine (4 mg/100 g body weight/day) for 0 (controls), 12, 24, and 32 days. Jejunal, ileal, and colonic loops were perfused in situ with buffer or olsalazine (11.6 mM) in a pendular perfusion system. Water and electrolyte absorption was inhibited in all intestinal segments (p less than 0.001). In the proximal small intestine, however, sodium absorption was inhibited by 61%, whereas chloride and potassium absorptions were turned into net secretion. In contrast, in ileal and colonic segments sodium, chloride, and potassium absorptions were turned into a net secretion. All inhibitory effects were reversible within a short time. Intestinal absorption remained inhibitable compared with controls (p = not significant) after chronic administration of olsalazine even for 1 month. Jejunal monosaccharide absorption was not altered by acute olsalazine perfusion. In the ileum, glucose absorption was significantly inhibited, but the inhibitory capacity of acute olsalazine application decreased significantly (p less than 0.05) depending on duration of olsalazine pretreatment (51% (controls) versus 38% (32 days)). These results point to a complex, acute, but fully reversible effect of olsalazine on intestinal passive and chloride-coupled absorptive processes. Since a mucosal adaptation to these diarrheogenic effects does not occur, the resulting increase in fluid load on the diseased colon may be important in the pathogenesis of olsalazine-related diarrhoea.

Prophylactic effects of olsalazine v sulphasalazine during 12 months maintenance treatment of ulcerative colitis. The Danish Olsalazine Study Group

In a Danish multicentre trial we compared the relapse preventing effects of olsalazine and sulphasalazine in patients with ulcerative colitis over a 12 month treatment period. Two hundred and twenty seven patients (118 men) with at least two previous attacks of ulcerative colitis were randomly allocated according to a prearranged treatment schedule to olsalazine 500 mg bd or sulphasalazine 1 g bd in a double blind, double dummy fashion. One hundred and ninety seven patients completed the trial. The relapse rate after 12 month in the olsalazine group was 46.9% v 42.4% in the sulphasalazine group with a 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of -9% to 18%. Seven per cent of the patients were withdrawn from the trial because of adverse drug reactions and these were equally distributed between the two groups.

Review article: new developments in the use of 5-aminosalicylic acid in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Sulphasalazine is composed of sulphapyridine and mesalazine (5-aminosalicylic acid, 5-ASA or mesalazine) joined by an azo bond. Sulphasalazine has been used clinically for 40 years but less than 10 years ago it was recognized that the active moiety is 5-ASA. Sulphapyridine appears to act only as a carrier molecule to deliver mesalazine to the bowel, yet it is the sulphapyridine which appears to be responsible for many of the adverse effects observed with sulphasalazine. Normally, mesalazine is rapidly absorbed from the upper gastrointestinal tract. Since the action of mesalazine is thought to be locally at the site of disease in the intestine, the 5-ASA must be 'protected' to ensure its release in the terminal ileum and colon, the site of bowel inflammation in patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. Recent clinical studies have confirmed the efficacy of topical (suppositories and enemas) therapy for ulcerative proctitis and left-sided colitis; oral mesalazine has been proven to be useful for the treatment of acute ulcerative colitis and for the maintenance of remission. There is preliminary evidence for the clinical usefulness of mesalazine in acute Crohn's disease as well as for the maintenance of remission.

Olsalazine. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic potential in inflammatory bowel disease

Olsalazine (sodium azodisalicylate; azodisal sodium) is an anti-inflammatory agent designed to deliver its active moiety, mesalazine (5-aminosalicylic acid; mesalamine), to the colon while avoiding the adverse effects associated with the use of a sulfapyridine carrier. As a prodrug, olsalazine is an effective oral treatment for both active ulcerative colitis and for maintenance of disease remission and may possibly be of benefit in patients with Crohn's colitis. Findings from both short and long term noncomparative and comparative studies demonstrate that olsalazine 1 to 3g daily in divided doses improves clinical signs and symptoms of colitis in approximately 60 to 80% of patients with acute ulcerative colitis of mild to moderate severity. This improvement rate was similar to that obtained with sulfasalazine. Lower doses of olsalazine, usually 1g daily in divided doses, also maintained remission in patients with chronic ulcerative colitis. While olsalazine effectively delivers mesalazine to the colon, the prodrug itself increases net luminal water secretion and accelerates gastrointestinal transit of a meal. The resulting diarrhoea (occurring in approximately 17% of patients and resulting in withdrawal from therapy in 6% of patients) is distinguishable from that associated with inflammatory bowel disease by the high water content and the absence of blood. Olsalazine-induced diarrhoea usually occurred soon after initiation of olsalazine therapy or dosage increase, was more frequent with higher doses and was usually transient. Dosage reduction, increases in frequency of dosing and concomitant administration with food reduced the severity in many patients with persistent olsalazine-induced diarrhoea. With the exception of diarrhoea, olsalazine was generally well tolerated. Fewer than 14% of patients allergic to or intolerant of sulfasalazine had similar reactions to olsalazine. Olsalazine appears to be a suitable therapy for the treatment of first attacks as well as acute exacerbation of mild to moderate acute ulcerative colitis, and for the maintenance of remission in patients with chronic ulcerative colitis.