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

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

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; also known as mesalazine or mesalamine) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. In an earlier version of this review, we found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), but had a significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. In this version, we have rerun the search to bring the review up to date.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness, and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC and to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a literature search for studies on 11 June 2019 using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. In addition, we searched review articles and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. We considered studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of participants with quiescent UC compared with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose-ranging studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes were adherence, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus SASP, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (balsalazide, Pentasa, and olsalazine) versus comparator 5-ASA formulation (Asacol and Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome. We analyzed data on an intention-to-treat basis, and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 44 studies (9967 participants). Most studies were at low risk of bias. Ten studies were at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three were open-label. 5-ASA is more effective than placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. About 37% (335/907) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 12 months compared to 55% (355/648) of placebo participants (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.76; 8 studies, 1555 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication was not reported for this comparison. SAEs were reported in 1% (6/550) of participants in the 5-ASA group compared to 2% (5/276) of participants in the placebo group at six to 12 months (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.84; 3 studies, 826 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18; 5 studies, 1132 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). SASP is more effective than 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. About 48% (416/871) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 43% (336/784) of SASP participants (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27; 12 studies, 1655 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication and SAEs were not reported for this comparison. There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.40; 7 studies, 1138 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in clinical or endoscopic remission rates between once-daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. About 37% (717/1939) of once-daily participants relapsed over 12 months compared to 39% (770/1971) of conventional-dosing participants (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; 10 studies, 3910 participants; high-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in medication adherence rates. About 10% (106/1152) of participants in the once-daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 8% (84/1154) of participants in the conventional-dosing group (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.93; 9 studies, 2306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). About 3% (41/1587) of participants in the once-daily group experienced a SAE compared to 2% (35/1609) of participants in the conventional-dose group at six to 12 months (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.87; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in the incidence of AEs at six to 13 months' follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 8 studies, 3497 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the efficacy of different 5-ASA formulations. About 44% (158/358) of participants in the 5-ASA group relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 41% (142/349) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28; 6 studies, 707 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in UC. There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is inferior compared to SASP. There is probably little or no difference between 5-ASA and placebo, and 5-ASA and SASP in commonly reported AEs such as flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, and dyspepsia. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily has a similar benefit and harm profile as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo but had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the effectiveness, dose-responsiveness, and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other 5-ASA formulations were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies (8928 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. Ten studies were rated at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three studies were open-label. However, two open-label studies and four of the single-blind studies utilized investigator performed endoscopy as an endpoint, which may protect against bias. 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. Forty-one per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 58% of placebo patients (7 studies, 1298 patients; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77). There was a trend towards greater efficacy with higher doses of 5-ASA with a statistically significant benefit for the 1 to 1.9 g/day (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) and the > 2 g/day subgroups (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89). SASP was significantly superior to 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. Forty-eight per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 43% of SASP patients (12 studies, 1655 patients; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome for the placebo and SASP-controlled studies was high. No statistically significant differences in efficacy or adherence were found between once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Twenty-nine per cent of once daily patients relapsed over 12 months compared to 31% of conventionally dosed patients (8 studies, 3127 patients; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.01). Eleven per cent of patients in the once daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 9% of patients in the conventional dosing group (6 studies, 1462 patients; RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Forty-four per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group relapsed compared to 41% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (6 studies, 707 patients; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28). A pooled analysis of two studies showed no statistically significant difference in efficacy between Balsalazide 6 g and 3 g/day. Twenty-three per cent of patients in the 6 g/day group relapsed compared to 33% of patients in the 3 g/day group (216 patients; RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.79). One study found Balsalazide 4 g to be superior to 2 g/day. Thirty-seven per cent of patients in the 4 g/day Balsalazide group relapsed compared to 55% of patients in the 2 g/day group (133 patients; RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). One study found a statistically significant difference between Salofalk granules 3 g and 1.5 g/day. Twenty-five per cent of patients in the Salofalk 3 g/day group relapsed compared to 39% of patients in the 1.5 g/day group (429 patients; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.86). Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, dyspepsia, and nasopharyngitis. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, 5-ASA and SASP, once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA, 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulations and 5-ASA dose ranging studies. The trials that compared 5-ASA and SASP may have been biased in favour of SASP because most trials enrolled patients known to be tolerant to SASP which may have minimized SASP-related adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

5-ASA was superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis. However, 5-ASA had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily is as effective and safe as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis. There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy or safety between the various formulations of 5-ASA. Patients with extensive ulcerative colitis or with frequent relapses may benefit from a higher dose of maintenance therapy. High dose therapy appears to be as safe as low dose and is not associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.

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

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo but had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the effectiveness, dose-responsiveness, and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other 5-ASA formulations were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies (8928 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. Ten studies were rated at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three studies were open-label. However, two open-label studies and four of the single-blind studies utilized investigator performed endoscopy as an endpoint, which may protect against bias. 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. Forty-one per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 58% of placebo patients (7 studies, 1298 patients; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77). There was a trend towards greater efficacy with higher doses of 5-ASA with a statistically significant benefit for the 1 to 1.9 g/day (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) and the > 2 g/day subgroups (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89). SASP was significantly superior to 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. Forty-eight per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 43% of SASP patients (12 studies, 1655 patients; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome for the placebo and SASP-controlled studies was high. No statistically significant differences in efficacy or adherence were found between once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Twenty-nine per cent of once daily patients relapsed over 12 months compared to 31% of conventionally dosed patients (8 studies, 3127 patients; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.01). Eleven per cent of patients in the once daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 9% of patients in the conventional dosing group (6 studies, 1462 patients; RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Forty-four per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group relapsed compared to 41% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (6 studies, 707 patients; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28). A pooled analysis of two studies showed no statistically significant difference in efficacy between Balsalazide 6 g and 3 g/day. Twenty-three per cent of patients in the 6 g/day group relapsed compared to 33% of patients in the 3 g/day group (216 patients; RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.79). One study found Balsalazide 4 g to be superior to 2 g/day. Thirty-seven per cent of patients in the 4 g/day Balsalazide group relapsed compared to 55% of patients in the 2 g/day group (133 patients; RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). One study found a statistically significant difference between Salofalk granules 3 g and 1.5 g/day. Twenty-five per cent of patients in the Salofalk 3 g/day group relapsed compared to 39% of patients in the 1.5 g/day group (429 patients; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.86). Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, dyspepsia, and nasopharyngitis. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, 5-ASA and SASP, once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA, 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulations and 5-ASA dose ranging studies. The trials that compared 5-ASA and SASP may have been biased in favour of SASP because most trials enrolled patients known to be tolerant to SASP which may have minimized SASP-related adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

5-ASA was superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis. However, 5-ASA had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily is as effective and safe as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis. There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy or safety between the various formulations of 5-ASA. Patients with extensive ulcerative colitis or with frequent relapses may benefit from a higher dose of maintenance therapy. High dose therapy appears to be as safe as low dose and is not associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.

Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether deviation from the standard intention to treat analysis has an influence on treatment effect estimates of randomised trials.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, via PubMed, searched between 2006 and 2010; 43 systematic reviews of interventions and 310 randomised trials were included.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

From each year searched, random selection of 5% of intervention reviews with a meta-analysis that included at least one trial that deviated from the standard intention to treat approach. Basic characteristics of the systematic reviews and randomised trials were extracted. Information on the reporting of intention to treat analysis, outcome data, risk of bias items, post-randomisation exclusions, and funding were extracted from each trial. Trials were classified as: ITT (reporting the standard intention to treat approach), mITT (reporting a deviation from the standard approach), and no ITT (reporting no approach). Within each meta-analysis, treatment effects were compared between mITT and ITT trials, and between mITT and no ITT trials. The ratio of odds ratios was calculated (value <1 indicated larger treatment effects in mITT trials than in other trial categories).

RESULTS

50 meta-analyses and 322 comparisons of randomised trials (from 84 ITT trials, 118 mITT trials, and 108 no ITT trials; 12 trials contributed twice to the analysis) were examined. Compared with ITT trials, mITT trials showed a larger intervention effect (pooled ratio of odds ratios 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.96), P=0.01; between meta-analyses variance τ(2)=0.13). Adjustments for sample size, type of centre, funding, items of risk of bias, post-randomisation exclusions, and variance of log odds ratio yielded consistent results (0.80 (0.69 to 0.94), P=0.005; τ(2)=0.08). After exclusion of five influential studies, results remained consistent (0.85 (0.75 to 0.98); τ(2)=0.08). The comparison between mITT trials and no ITT trials showed no statistical difference between the two groups (adjusted ratio of odds ratios 0.92 (0.70 to 1.23); τ(2)=0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Trials that deviated from the intention to treat analysis showed larger intervention effects than trials that reported the standard approach. Where an intention to treat analysis is impossible to perform, authors should clearly report who is included in the analysis and attempt to perform multiple imputations.

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

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo but had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the effectiveness, dose-responsiveness, and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other 5-ASA formulations were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies (8127 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. Eight studies were rated at high risk of bias. Six of these studies were single-blind and two studies were open-label. However, the two open-label studies and four of the single-blind studies utilized investigator performed endoscopy as an endpoint, which may protect against bias. 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. Forty-one per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 58% of placebo patients (7 studies, 1298 patients; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77). There was a trend towards greater efficacy with higher doses of 5-ASA with a statistically significant benefit for the 1 to 1.9 g/day (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) and the > 2 g/day subgroups (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89). SASP was significantly superior to 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. Forty-eight per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 43% of SASP patients (12 studies, 1655 patients; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome for the placebo and SASP-controlled studies was high. No statistically significant differences in efficacy or adherence were found between once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Twenty-nine per cent of once daily patients relapsed over 12 months compared to 31% of conventionally dosed patients (7 studies, 2826 patients; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.03). Fourteen per cent of patients in the once daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 11% of patients in the conventional dosing group (5 studies, 1161 patients; RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.63). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Thirty-eight per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group relapsed compared to 37% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (5 studies, 457 patients; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.28). A pooled analysis of two studies showed no statistically significant difference in efficacy between Balsalazide 6 g and 3 g/day. Twenty-three per cent of patients in the 6 g/day group relapsed compared to 33% of patients in the 3 g/day group (216 patients; RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.13). One study found Balsalazide 4 g to be superior to 2 g/day. Thirty-seven per cent of patients in the 4 g/day Balsalazide group relapsed compared to 55% of patients in the 2 g/day group (133 patients; RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). One study found a statistically significant difference between Salofalk granules 3 g and 1.5 g/day. Twenty-five per cent of patients in the Salofalk 3 g/day group relapsed compared to 39% of patients in the 1.5 g/day group (429 patients; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.86). Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, dyspepsia, and nasopharyngitis. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, 5-ASA and SASP, once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA, 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulations and 5-ASA dose ranging studies. The trials that compared 5-ASA and SASP may have been biased in favour of SASP because most trials enrolled patients known to be tolerant to SASP which may have minimized SASP-related adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

5-ASA was superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis. However, 5-ASA had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily is as effective and safe as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis. There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy or safety between the various formulations of 5-ASA. Patients with extensive ulcerative colitis or with frequent relapses may benefit from a higher dose of maintenance therapy. High dose therapy appears to be as safe as low dose and is not associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.

One-year investigator-blind randomized multicenter trial comparing Asacol 2.4 g once daily with 800 mg three times daily for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Mesalazine (Asacol) is still widely prescribed in divided doses for ulcerative colitis (UC), despite evidence that adherence is improved by once-daily (OD) prescribing. We aimed to investigate whether OD Asacol was as effective as three times (TDS) daily dosing, and to evaluate the role of treatment adherence.

METHODS

An investigator-blind randomized trial was undertaken comparing OD Asacol (three 800 mg tablets) versus one 800 mg TDS in maintenance of remission of UC over 1 year. The primary endpoint was relapse rate, and noninferiority would be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportions relapsing (TDS-OD) exceeded -10%. Adherence was measured by tablet counts and self-reported adherence. A subgroup of patients used a bottle cap that recorded all bottle opening events.

RESULTS

In all, 213 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, relapse rates were 31% (95% CI 22%-40%) in the OD and 45% (95% CI 35%-54%) in the TDS group. Primary analysis confirmed the noninferiority of OD dosing. Two of the study populations, ITT and per-protocol (PP), showed potential superiority of OD dosing. All measures of adherence showed that it was significantly better in the OD group. Multivariate analysis, however, showed OD dosing was associated with lower relapse risk independently of adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

OD dosing with Asacol 2.4 g is as safe and effective as TDS dosing, and secondary analysis confirmed significantly reduced relapse rates. The benefit, however, was clinically borderline and may relate in part to ease of adherence.

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.

Effect of 5-aminosalicylates on renal function in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: 4-year follow-up study

OBJECTIVE

Nephrotoxicity has been described in some patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA). Our aim was to conduct a retrospective study of IBD patients, both with and without 5-ASA treatment, who underwent regular evaluation of renal function over a 4-year period.

METHODS

Serum creatinine was measured before the start of 5-ASA therapy, and thereafter yearly up to 4 years. Creatinine clearance (Cl(Cr)) was estimated from serum creatinine (Cockroft and Gault formula). The influence of 5-ASA treatment on renal function was assessed by univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 150 IBD patients (ulcerative colitis in 45%, Crohn's disease in 55%) were included. Sixty-two patients were receiving 5-ASAs (95% coated mesalazine, mean dose 1.9 +/- 0.8 g/day). Both serum creatinine levels and ClCr were similar in patients with and without 5-ASA treatment, and remained stable throughout the 4-year follow-up in patients taking 5-ASAs. In the multivariate analysis, 5-ASA treatment (or its dose) was not correlated with serum creatinine levels or Cl(Cr). No interstitial nephritis was reported during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

5-ASA-related renal disease was not found in our series, suggesting that the occurrence of renal impairment in IBD patients receiving these drugs is exceptional. Our results do not support the recommendation of serum creatinine monitoring in patients receiving 5-ASA treatment.

Randomised trial of once- or twice-daily MMX mesalazine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

AIM

Maintenance treatment in ulcerative colitis should be as convenient as possible, to increase the chance of compliance. MMX mesalazine is a once-daily, high-strength (1.2 g/tablet) formulation of 5-aminosalicylic acid. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of MMX mesalazine dosed once or twice daily as maintenance therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomised, open-label trial enrolled patients with strictly defined clinical and endoscopic remission, immediately following an episode of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. Patients were randomised to MMX mesalazine 2.4 g/day as a single (2x1.2 g tablet) or divided dose (1x1.2 g tablet twice daily) for 12 months.

RESULTS

174 patients (37.9%; safety population n = 459) experienced 384 adverse events, the majority of which were mild or moderate in intensity. Eighteen patients (3.9%), nine in each group, experienced a total of 22 serious adverse events (10 in the once-daily and 12 in the twice-daily group). Most serious adverse events were gastrointestinal, experienced by 5 patients in the once-daily and 4 in the twice-daily group. At month 12, 64.4% (efficacy population, n = 451) of patients in the once-daily and 68.5% of patients in the twice-daily group were in clinical and endoscopic remission (p = 0.351). At month 12, 88.9% and 93.2% in each group, respectively, had maintained clinical remission (were relapse free).

CONCLUSIONS

MMX mesalazine 2.4 g/day administered as a single or divided dose demonstrated a good safety profile, was well tolerated and was effective as maintenance treatment. High clinical and endoscopic remission rates can be achieved with once-daily dosing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00151944.

5-Aminosalicylates and renal function in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review

Nephrotoxicity has been described in some patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA). Studies with 5-ASA treatment in which serum creatinine or creatinine clearance was measured regularly show that nephrotoxicity is exceptional (mean rate of only 0.26% per patient-year). There have been several case reports, including 46 patients, of renal disease associated with 5-ASA treatment in patients with IBD. 5-ASA treatment-related nephrotoxicity is reported most often within the first 12 months, but also delayed presentation after several years has been shown. The absence of a clear relationship between 5-ASA dose and the risk of nephrotoxicity suggests that this complication is idiosyncratic rather than dose-related. Most of the patients with renal disease associated with 5-ASA treatment suffered interstitial nephritis, with symptoms and signs being nonspecific, which may delay detection for many months. The nephrotoxicity potential of mesalazine and sulfasalazine seems to be similar. The risk with different oral preparations of 5-ASA is probably too small to influence the choice of agent. Mesalazine should be withdrawn when renal impairment manifests in a patient with IBD; if this does not result in a fall in serum creatinine, then renal biopsy should be considered. A trial of high-dose steroid may be recommended in patients whose renal function does not respond to drug withdrawal. The optimal monitoring schedule of serum creatinine in patients receiving 5-ASA treatment remains to be established, as there is no evidence to date that either the test, or the frequency of testing, improves patient outcomes.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance 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 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) in the maintenance of remission in 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 prospective, randomized, double-blinded, and placebo- or SASP-controlled clinical trials of parallel design with treatment duration of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Based on an intention to treat principle, the primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes were the number of patients experiencing adverse events, the number of patients withdrawn due to adverse events, and exclusions or withdrawals after entry into the study (not due to relapse). All data were analyzed using the Peto odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

The Peto odds ratio for the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission (withdrawals and relapses) for 5-ASA versus placebo was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.62) with an NNT of 6. These values were also calculated for the trials in which SASP and 5-ASA were compared, revealing an odds ratio of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57), with a negative NNT value (-19), suggesting a higher degree of therapeutic effectiveness for SASP.SASP and 5-ASA had similar adverse event profiles, with odds ratios of 1.16(0.62 to 2.16), and 1.31(0.86 to 1.99), respectively. The NNH values were determined to be 171 and 78 respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The newer 5-ASA preparations were superior to placebo in maintenance therapy. However, the newer preparations had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. This review updates the existing review of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis which was published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2006).

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.

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.

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.

Recent developments in inflammatory bowel disease

The evolving medical armamentarium holds promise for more precise and effective therapies for IBD. The experience with anti-TNF therapy, particularly infliximab, illustrates the potential efficacy of therapies targeted at specific mediators or pathways involved in the pathogenesis. Advances in molecular technology have enabled the development of novel and potentially effective targeted therapies. Equally important is the increasing scientific understanding of the pathogenesis of IBD, which will likely improve the ability to stratify disease and to select therapies based on genotypic, immunologic, and phenotypic profiles in the future.

Review article: monitoring for drug side-effects in inflammatory bowel disease

The side-effects suitable for monitoring in patients with inflammatory bowel disease being treated with the four main groups of drugs (5-aminosalicylic acid preparations, azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate, and corticosteroids) are reviewed. On the basis of the reported frequency, severity and timing of side-effects, a practical scheme of monitoring is recommended. This includes a baseline measurement of full blood count, creatinine and liver function tests in all patients. In the absence of worrying symptoms, we recommend the following: (i) no monitoring for sulfasalazine; (ii) for other 5-aminosalicylic acid preparations, the measurement of creatinine at 6 and 12 months and then annually; (iii) for azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine, thiopurine methyltransferase genotype/phenotype determination has no role in treatment monitoring, but a full blood count at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months and then every 3 months should be performed; (iv) for methotrexate, a full blood count and liver function tests should be performed every 3 months; (v) for steroids, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry bone scanning should be performed at the start of therapy, every year in which steroids are used if the T score is < 0, and every 3-5 years if the T score is > 0.

Inflammatory bowel disease. Medical therapy of specific clinical presentations

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are chronic relapsing inflammatory disorders of the gastrointestinal tracts. The inflammatory process is restricted to the mucosa and submucosa of the colon in ulcerative colitis and is transmural and may occur anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract in Crohn's disease. Clinical presentation of these inflammatory disorders depends on the segments of digestive tract affected and on the extent and aggressiveness of the disease process. The treatment of specific clinical presentations of these disorders is discussed in this article.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance 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 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) in the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A computer-assisted literature search for relevant studies (1981-2002) 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 prospective, randomized, double-blinded, and placebo- or SASP-controlled clinical trials of parallel design with treatment duration of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Based on an intention to treat principle, the primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes were the number of patients experiencing adverse events, the number of patients withdrawn due to adverse events, and exclusions or withdrawals after entry into the study (not due to relapse). All data were analyzed using the Peto odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

The Peto odds ratio for the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission (withdrawals and relapses) for 5-ASA versus placebo was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.62) with an NNT of 6. These values were also calculated for the trials in which SASP and 5-ASA were compared, revealing an odds ratio of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57), with a negative NNT value (-19), suggesting a higher degree of therapeutic effectiveness for SASP. SASP and 5-ASA had similar adverse event profiles, with odds ratios of 1.16(0.62 to 2.16), and 1.31(0.86 to 1.99), respectively. The NNH values were determined to be 171 and 78 respectively.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The newer 5-ASA preparations were superior to placebo in maintenance therapy. However, the newer preparations had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. This review updates the existing review of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis which was published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2002).

Non-pathogenic Escherichia coli versus mesalazine for the treatment of ulcerative colitis: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative colitis has been suggested to be caused by infection and there is circumstantial evidence linking Escherichia coli with the condition. Our aim was to find out whether the administration of a non-pathogenic strain of E. coli (Nissle 1917) was as effective as mesalazine in preventing relapse of ulcerative colitis. We also examined whether the addition of E. coli to standard medical therapy increased the chance of remission of active ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

This was a single-centre, randomised, double-dummy study in which 120 patients with active ulcerative colitis were invited to take part. 116 patients accepted; 59 were randomised to mesalazine and 57 to E. coli. All patients also received standard medical therapy together with a 1-week course of oral gentamicin. After remission, patients were maintained on either mesalazine or E. coli and followed up for a maximum of 12 months. A two-stage, conditional, intention-to-treat analysis was done.

FINDINGS

44 (75%) patients in the mesalazine group attained remission compared with 39 (68%) in the E. coli group. Mean time to remission was 44 days (median 42) in the mesalazine group and 42 days (median 37) for those treated with E. coli. In the mesalazine group, 32 (73%) patients relapsed compared with 26 (67%) in the E. coli group. Mean duration of remission was 206 days in the mesalazine group (median 175) and 221 days (median 185) in the E. coli group.

INTERPRETATION

Our results suggest that treatment with a non-pathogenic E. coli has an equivalent effect to mesalazine in maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis. The beneficial effect of live E. coli may provide clues to the cause of ulcerative colitis.

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.

The randomized controlled clinical trial in gastroenterology: the Danish contributions from 1970 to 1994

More than 200 Danish randomized controlled clinical trials in gastroenterology published from 1970 to 1994 were retrieved by electronic media, by hand-searching relevant journals, and by direct requests to Danish gastroenterologists. With the historical perspective through a quarter of a century, these papers are outlined to provide a survey of the pieces of information that Danish gastroenterologists have contributed to the present knowledge of therapeutics. The presented randomized controlled clinical trials constitute an impressive sum of knowledge within a diversity of topics. A cautious analysis of the time pattern for the publications in addition to the contents of the reports discloses that the discipline of planning and executing relevant controlled clinical trials is now in blossom in Danish gastroenterology.

Optimum dose of olsalazine for maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis

To evaluate the optimum dose of olsalazine for maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis, 198 patients in remission for more than three months were randomly assigned to receive 0.5 g, 1.0 g, or 2.0 g/day for 12 months. A dose-ranging effect was detected in the per protocol analysis, with remission rates of 60% (0.5 g), 70% (1.0 g), and 78% (2.0 g) (p = 0.03, trend in proportions). The higher dose was most effective in patients with proctitis (90% remission on 2 g/day, p = 0.03) or those in remission for less than 12 months before the trial (88% remission on 2 g/day, p = 0.0006). There was little dose-ranging effect in patients with extensive colitis or those in remission for more than 12 months. Diarrhoea necessitated treatment withdrawal in 12%. The optimal dose of olsalazine for maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis is 1 g/day. For patients with proctitis or recent relapse, 2 g/day may be preferable, although the dose seems to be less important in patients with more extensive disease or those in long term remission.