A randomized trial comparing 4.8 vs. 2.4 g/day of oral mesalazine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

Efficacy of Laurus nobilis L. for Tight Junction Protein Imbalance in Leaky Gut Syndrome

Laurus nobilis L. (LNL) belongs to the evergreen Lauraceae family. It is native to the Mediterranean and widely distributed in the southern United States, Europe, and the Middle East. LNL is rich in active ingredients of the sesquiterpene lactone series and has been reported to have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer effects. And parthenolide, known as a sesquiterpene lactone-based compound, inhibits the activation of lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP), which is a major trigger for leaky gut syndrome. However, the effectiveness of LNL in improving the state of increased intestinal permeability has not yet been reported. Therefore, we demonstrated the efficacy of LNL, which is known to be rich in parthenolide, in improving intestinal permeability induced by IL-13. We investigated the improvement in permeability and analyzed major tight junction proteins (TJs), permeability-related mechanisms, weight and disease activity indices, and corresponding cytokine mechanisms. LNL maintained TJs homeostasis and clinical improvement by reducing increased claudin-2 through the inhibition of IL-13/STAT6 activation in TJ-damaged conditions. These results are expected to be effective in preventing leaky gut syndrome through the TJ balance and to further improve intestinal-related diseases, such as inflammatory bowel disease.

Management and treatment optimization of patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease with a significant health-care burden worldwide. While medical therapy aims to induce and maintain remission, optimal management of mild to moderate UC remains challenging due to heterogeneity in severity classifications and non-standardized approaches. This comprehensive review summarizes current evidence and knowledge gaps to optimize clinical decision-making in patients with mild to moderate UC.

AREAS COVERED

After an extensive literature search of PubMed, Medline, and Embase through August 2023, we provide an overview of definitions utilized to characterize mild to moderate UC severity and established therapeutic targets. Current medical treatments including mesalazine formulations, corticosteroids, and their combinations are surveyed. The role of emerging intestinal ultrasound, telemedicine, and home testing is explored. Individualized, patient-centered paradigms aiming to streamline care delivery through proactive identification of relapses are also examined.

EXPERT OPINION

Addressing inconsistencies in disease activity stratification will better align tailored regimens with each patient's profile. Advancing noninvasive technologies like ultrasound criteria and home testing could improve UC management by enabling personalized models. Realizing individualized plans through informed shared-decision making between health-care providers and fully engaged patients holds promise to maximize quality of life outcomes. Continuous improvement relies on innovation bridging different domains to overcome current limitations and push the field toward more predictive and tailored care.

Assessing the Clinical and Endoscopic Efficacy of Extended Treatment Duration with Different Doses of Mesalazine for Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis beyond 8 Weeks of Induction

Introduction

High-strength mesalazine formulations play an important role in providing a convenient option to increase the dose in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients and therefore avoiding the switch to another therapeutic class. Higher doses of mesalazine may be required during periods of remission in order to prevent relapse.

Aim

The aim of the study was to investigate clinical outcomes of three mesalazine maintenance doses adapted for post induction response.

Methods

In this post hoc analysis, 675 UC patients entered an open-label extension study for a total of 38 weeks (including 8-12 week induction period with 3.2 g/day mesalazine). After the induction period, they were separated into three groups: remitters (in clinical and endoscopic remission), responders (decrease in Partial Mayo Clinic Score of ≥2 points and ≥30% from week 0), and nonresponders (failed to achieve endoscopic or clinical response at week 8) and received 1.6 g/day, 3.2 g/day, or 4.8 g/day of mesalazine (using a new 1,600 mg mesalazine tablet), respectively.

Results

133/202 (65.8%), 108/274 (39.4%), and 59/199 (29.6%) patients achieved clinical and endoscopic remission at week 38 with 1.6 g/day, 3.2 g/day, and 4.8 g/day, respectively. At week 38, 142/202 (70.3%), 93/274 (33.9%), and 61/199 (30.7%) patients achieved clinical remission (stool score of 0 and rectal bleeding score of 0) with 1.6 g/day, 3.2 g/day, and 4.8 g/day, respectively.

Conclusions

Patients partially responding or not responding to an initial induction dose of 3.2 g/day mesalazine could benefit from an extended treatment period at the same dose, or an increase to 4.8 g/day in an attempt to achieve combined clinical and endoscopic remission.

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

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

Fecal microbiota transplantation for patients with active ulcerative colitis: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Growing studies have demonstrated clinical benefits of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) therapy (administered by colonoscopy, enema, or both) for active ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard treatment with and without FMT therapy for mild-to-moderate active UC from the perspective of US healthcare provider.

METHODS

A 10-year Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of standard treatment plus FMT therapy versus standard treatment alone. Model inputs were retrieved from publish data in literature. Base-case and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, standard treatment plus FMT therapy was more effective than standard treatment alone (by 0.068 QALYs). Comparing to standard treatment alone, standard treatment plus FMT therapy varied from cost-saving to incremental cost, subject to the number of FMT administrations. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the relative risk of achieving remission with FMT therapy to be the most influential factor on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of standard treatment plus FMT therapy. Monte-Carlo simulations showed that standard treatment plus FMT therapy with 3 and 6 administrations per FMT course was cost-effective (at willingness-to-pay threshold = 50 000 USD/QALY) in 90.77% and 67.03% of time, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard treatment plus FMT therapy appears to be more effective in gaining higher QALYs than standard therapy alone for patients with mild-to-moderate active UC. Cost-effectiveness of standard treatment plus FMT therapy is highly subject to the relative improvement in achieving remission with standard therapy plus FMT therapy and number of FMT administrations per FMT course.

Preventive effect of Chinese dwarf cherry [Cerasus humilis (Bge.) Sok.] fermentation juice on dextran sulfate sodium-induced ulcerative colitis rats through the regulation of IgA and the intestinal immune barrier

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a modern, refractory disease, and studies have shown that UC is closely associated with the gut microbiota and intestinal immune barrier. This study evaluated the protective effects and regulatory mechanism of Chinese dwarf cherry [Cerasus humilis (Bge.) Sok.] fermentation juice (CFJ) on UC induced by dextran sulfate sodium (DSS). The results indicated that CFJ could significantly modulate the oxidative stress index in the serum and colon, observably reduce MPO and NO activity, and increase the SOD level. CFJ significantly downregulated the levels of TNF-α, IL-1β and IL-6 and reduced inflammation caused by DSS. SIgA and short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) levels were effectively improved in the CFJ group, especially the acetic acid and butyric acid levels. Intestinal flora analysis showed that DSS could enrich harmful bacteria such as Alistipes and Oribacterium and that CFJ could increase the abundance of beneficial bacteria (Parasutterella, Bacteroides, Roseburia and Blautia). SIgA in the colon was positively correlated with Lachnoclostridium, Blautia, Lachnospiraceae_UCG-004, Prevotellaceae_NK3B31_group and other beneficial bacteria. The results showed that DSS group rats had immunity and signalling pathway disorders and that CFJ could regulate immune disorders, mainly by regulating the expression of IgA pathway components. Taken together, our results demonstrated that CFJ could regulate changes in the gut microbiota, improve the expression of immune protein-related genes, further regulate intestinal mucosal immune function and maintain intestinal mucosal barrier homeostasis.

Efficacy of Oral, Topical, or Combined Oral and Topical 5-Aminosalicylates, in Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

5-Aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] are the mainstay of treatment for ulcerative colitis [UC]. The optimum preparation, dose, and route of administration for UC remain unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis to examine this issue.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from inception to December 2020. We included randomised controlled trials [RCTs] comparing oral, topical, or combined oral and topical 5-ASAs, with each other or placebo for induction of remission or prevention of relapse of UC. Results were reported as pooled relative risks [RRs] with 95% confidence intervals [CIs] to summarise effect of each comparison tested, with treatments ranked according to P-score.

RESULTS

We identified 40 RCTs for induction of remission and 23 for prevention of relapse. Topical mesalazine [P-score 0.99], or oral and topical mesalazine combined [P-score 0.87] ranked first and second for clinical and endoscopic remission combined. Combined therapy ranked first in trials where ≥50% of patients had left-sided/extensive disease, and topical mesalazine first in trials where ≥50% of patients had proctitis/proctosigmoiditis. High-dose [≥3.3 g/day] oral mesalazine ranked third in most analyses, with the most trials and most patients. For relapse of disease activity, combined therapy and high-dose oral mesalazine ranked first and second, with topical mesalazine third. 5-ASAs were safe and well tolerated, regardless of regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support previous evidence; however, higher doses of oral mesalazine had more evidence for induction of remission than combined therapy and were significantly more efficacious than lower doses. Future RCTs should better establish the role of combined therapy for induction of remission, as well as optimal doses of oral 5-ASAs to prevent relapse.

Factors associated with the persistence of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid monotherapy in ulcerative colitis: a nationwide Norwegian cohort study

BACKGROUND

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) is the mainstay treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) and therapy with oral 5-ASA is associated with beneficial outcomes. We have examined factors associated with the persistence of oral 5-ASA treatment in a national cohort of UC patients.

METHODS

Patients with newly diagnosed UC from 2010 to 2014 using oral 5-ASA monotherapy were identified by combining data from the Norwegian Patient Registry and the Norwegian Prescription Database. The median follow-up time was 1029 days. Drug persistence was defined as duration of oral 5-ASA preparation as monotherapy. Non-persistence of a oral 5-ASA preparation as monotherapy was defined as stopping oral 5-ASA, initiation of any further anti-inflammatory treatment including a course of glucocorticoids and a change to another oral 5-ASA preparation. Drug persistence was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and influence of covariates on drug persistence was analyzed with the Cox proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

A total of 3421 patients were identified. The overall median 5-ASA drug persistence was 179 days. In univariate analyses, persistence was associated with preparation type and high-dose treatment, while oral glucocorticoid use or hospitalization around the start of oral 5-ASA were associated with shorter 5-ASA persistence. In multivariate analyses, oral glucocorticoids [HR 1.67 (1.54-1.80), p < 0.005] and hospitalization around start of 5-ASA [HR 1.23 (1.14-1.34), p < 0.005] were associated with non-persistence, whereas high dose (⩾3 g/day) 5-ASA was associated with longer persistence [HR 0.68 (0.65-0.71), p < 0.005].

CONCLUSION

High-dose treatment with oral 5-ASA was associated with longer persistence of oral 5-ASA monotherapy, whereas the presence of factors indicating more severe disease around initiation of 5-ASA monotherapy was associated with a shorter persistence.

Risk factors and management strategies associated with non-response to aminosalicylates as a maintenance treatment in ulcerative colitis

Aminosalicylates (5-ASA) are used as the first-line maintenance treatment in patients with mild-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). Early identification of patients at high risk for 5-ASA non-response and appropriate therapeutic escalation are essential to avoid disease progression. However, the absence of a standardized definition for treatment success makes this a challenging task. The focus of the current review was to describe the risk factors and management strategies associated with 5-ASA non-response. Rates of 5-ASA failure can vary from 17 % to 75 % according to different success definitions, of which clinical relapse is the most prevalent and studied condition. Younger age and endoscopic activity at diagnosis, extensive colitis, early need for corticosteroids, elevated inflammatory markers and non-adherence are consistent risk factors of 5-ASA failure. Given the effectiveness, safety profile and tolerability of this medication, therapy optimization is critical before treatment escalation. Combined use of systemic and topical therapy at an appropriate dose in a once-daily administration and control of adherence could improve success rates.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease 2020

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a general term for chronic or remitting/relapsing inflammatory diseases of the intestinal tract and generally refers to ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). Since 1950, the number of patients with IBD in Japan has been increasing. The etiology of IBD remains unclear; however, recent research data indicate that the pathophysiology of IBD involves abnormalities in disease susceptibility genes, environmental factors and intestinal bacteria. The elucidation of the mechanism of IBD has facilitated therapeutic development. UC and CD display heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management depends on the understanding and tailoring of evidence-based interventions by physicians. In 2020, seventeen IBD experts of the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology revised the previous guidelines for IBD management published in 2016. This English version was produced and modified based on the existing updated guidelines in Japanese. The Clinical Questions (CQs) of the previous guidelines were completely revised and categorized as follows: Background Questions (BQs), CQs, and Future Research Questions (FRQs). The guideline was composed of a total of 69 questions: 39 BQs, 15 CQs, and 15 FRQs. The overall quality of the evidence for each CQ was determined by assessing it with reference to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, and the strength of the recommendation was determined by the Delphi consensus process. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance for on-site physicians is provided regarding indications for proceeding with the diagnosis and treatment.

De-escalation of medical therapy in inflammatory bowel disease

Treatment strategies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) now increasingly target deep remission, yet the resultant more aggressive use of medical therapy is associated with potentially serious adverse events and significant costs. It is, therefore, of vital importance to consider when, how and in whom medical therapy may be safely de-escalated. This issue is of great potential relevance in the current SARS-Cov-2 pandemic. In this review, we first discuss the rationale for drug withdrawal in IBD, before considering the available data on withdrawal of 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA), immunomodulators (IM) and biological therapy in both ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's Disease (CD). We consider how to identify patients most appropriate for drug withdrawal and outline a potential monitoring strategy for the early detection of relapse following drug withdrawal. We conclude with important future perspectives in this challenging field, and highlight ongoing trials that are likely to shape practice in the years to come.

Key Strategies to Optimize Outcomes in Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis

Mesalamine (5-ASA) is the mainstay therapy in patients with mild-to-moderate active ulcerative colitis (UC). However, non-adherence to therapy and practice variability among gastroenterologists represent long-standing barriers, leading to poor outcomes. Additionally, targets to treat in UC are increasingly evolving from focusing on clinical remission to achieving endoscopic and histological healing. To date, systemic steroids are still recommended in non-responders to 5-ASA, despite their well-known side effects. Importantly, with the advent of new therapeutic options such as oral corticosteroids with topical activity (e.g., budesonide multimatrix system (MMX)), biologics, and small molecules, some issues need to be addressed for the optimal management of these patients in daily clinical practice. The specific positioning of these drugs in patients with mild-to-moderate disease remains unclear. This review aims to identify current challenges in clinical practice and to provide physicians with key strategies to optimize treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate UC, and ultimately achieve more ambitious therapeutic goals.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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.

Mesalazine combined with Golden Bifid for treatment of patients with ulcerative colitis: Effect on inflammatory response and anorectal motility

AIM

To investigate the effect of mesalazine combined with Golden Bifid on inflammatory response and anorectal motility in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

Eighty-four UC patients treated at the First People's Hospital of Chun'an County and Taizhou Hospital from February 2016 to September 2017 were randomly divided into either a control group or a study group, with 42 cases in each group. The control group was given mesalazine alone, while the study group was treated with mesalazine combined with Golden Bifid. After two months of treatment, serum levels of cytokines [interleukin-10 (IL-10), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-18 (IL-18), and soluble interleukin 2 receptor (SIL-2R)], disease activity index (DAI), clinical efficacy, and anorectal motility were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Serum level of IL-10, IL-18, TNF-α, and sIL-2R differed significantly between the study group and the control group(68.87 pg/mL ± 5.12 pg/mL, 86.25 pg/mL ± 42.86 pg/mL, 21.08 ng/mL ± 3.71 ng/mL, and 215.75 U/mL ± 80.71 U/mL, respectively) and control group (59.26 pg/mL ± 10.28 pg/mL, 212.26 pg/mL ± 56.42 pg/mL, 23.62 ng/mL ± 3.84 ng/mL, and 544.72 U/mL ± 210.56 U/mL, respectively) (P < 0.05). DAI in the study group (2.07 ± 1.52) was significantly lower than that of the control group (3.14 ± 2.14; P < 0.05). The total effective rate was significantly higher in the study group than in the control group [95.24% (40/42) vs 76.19% (32/42), P < 0.05]. Rectal pain threshold value, rectal compliance, and rectal defecation threshold value were significantly higher in the study group than in the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Mesalazine combined with Golden Bifid is effective in the treatment of UC and can improve the levels of inflammatory cytokines, decrease DAI, and promote the recovery of anorectal motility.

European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation Topical Review on Treatment Withdrawal ['Exit Strategies'] in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Clinically effective therapies now exist for remission maintenance in both ulcerative colitis [UC] and Crohn's Disease [CD]. For each major class of IBD medications [5-aminosalicyclates, immunomodulators, and biologic agents], used alone or in combination, there is a risk of relapse following reduction or cessation of treatment. A consensus expert panel convened by the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] reviewed the published literature and agreed a series of consensus practice points. The objective of the expert consensus is to provide evidence-based guidance for clinical practice so that physicians can make informed decisions in partnership with their patients. The likelihood of relapse with stopping each class of IBD medication is reviewed. Factors associated with an altered risk of relapse with withdrawal are evaluated, and strategies to monitor and allow early identification of relapse are considered. In general, patients in clinical, biochemical, and endoscopic remission are more likely to remain well when treatments are stopped. Reintroduction of the same treatment is usually, but not always, successful. The decision to stop a treatment needs to be individualized, and shared decision making with the patient should take place.

What is the real-life maintenance mesalazine dose in ulcerative colitis?

OBJECTIVE

To describe how mesalazine (MSZ) is used in our practice in ulcerative colitis (UC), at what dose, and the success rate (regarding adherence to therapy).

METHODS

Observational, transversal study, including all patients with UC and with MSZ maintenance therapy seen from September 2014 to February 2015 at two IBD units in Spain. Treatment adherence was measured by the Morisky-Green scale.

RESULTS

We included 203 patients (mean MSZ dose: 2.6 ± 1.0 g/d; median of treatment: 19.5 months [IQR: 8-48]). Doses < 2 g/d were used in 15.3% of cases, 2-2.9 g/d doses in 35.0%, 3-3.9 doses in 29.5%, and ≥ 4 g/d doses in the remaining 20.2%. A single daily dose was preferred in 51.2% of cases, two doses in 33.0% and three doses in 15.8%. A different MSZ brand had been previously used in 36.6% of patients. In 134 cases (66%), the maintenance dose had been increased during a flare-up, and in 49 (36.6% of cases) this higher dose had been kept for maintenance (dose ≥ 4 g/d in 36 patients). During the MSZ therapy, 14 patients (6.9%) suffered mild side effects (21.4% altered liver function tests). Therapy adherence was good in 81.8% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Half of our UC patients take high MSZ doses (≥ 3 g/d) as maintenance therapy, with acceptable safety and good adherence. Half of all patients take a single daily dose, and one third needed a different commercial brand during therapy. Opting for a higher MSZ maintenance dose is a possible strategy for a satisfactory maintenance therapy.