A double-blind comparison of balsalazide, 6.75 g daily, and sulfasalazine, 3 g daily, in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed active ulcerative colitis

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Role of Faecal Microbiota Transplantation for Maintenance of Remission in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: A Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

To study the role of faecal microbiota transplantation [FMT] in maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis [UC].

METHODS

In this pilot study, patients with UC in clinical remission achieved after multi-session FMT were randomly allocated to either maintenance FMT or placebo colonoscopic infusion every 8 weeks, for 48 weeks. The standard of care [SOC] therapy was continued in all patients. The primary endpoint was maintenance of steroid-free clinical remission [Mayo score ≤2, all subscores ≤1] at Week 48. Secondary endpoints were achievement of endoscopic remission [endoscopic Mayo score 0] and histological remission [Nancy grade 0, 1] at Week 48.

RESULTS

In all, 61 patients in clinical remission were randomised to receive either FMT [n = 31] or placebo [n = 30]. The primary outcome was achieved in 27/31 [87.1%] patients allocated FMT versus 20/30 [66.7%] patients assigned placebo [p = 0.111]. Secondary endpoints of endoscopic remission (FMT: 18/31 [58.1%] versus placebo: 8/30 [26.7%], p = 0.026) and histological remission (FMT: 14/31 [45.2%] versus placebo: 5/30 [16.7%], p = 0. 033) were achieved in a significantly higher number of patients with FMT. Three patients receiving FMT [9.7%] and 8 patients on placebo [26.7%] relapsed. There were no serious adverse events necessitating discontinuation in patients on FMT; one patient who relapsed on placebo required colectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance FMT in patients who are in clinical remission may help sustain clinical, endoscopic and histological remission in patients with UC.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A comprehensive review and update on ulcerative colitis. Dis Mon 2019;65:100851. [PMID: 30837080 DOI: 10.1016/j.disamonth.2019.02.004]

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic idiopathic inflammatory bowel disorder of the colon that causes continuous mucosal inflammation extending from the rectum to the more proximal colon, with variable extents. UC is characterized by a relapsing and remitting course. UC was first described by Samuel Wilks in 1859 and it is more common than Crohn's disease worldwide. The overall incidence and prevalence of UC is reported to be 1.2-20.3 and 7.6-245 cases per 100,000 persons/year respectively. UC has a bimodal age distribution with an incidence peak in the 2nd or 3rd decades and followed by second peak between 50 and 80 years of age. The key risk factors for UC include genetics, environmental factors, autoimmunity and gut microbiota. The classic presentation of UC include bloody diarrhea with or without mucus, rectal urgency, tenesmus, and variable degrees of abdominal pain that is often relieved by defecation. UC is diagnosed based on the combination of clinical presentation, endoscopic findings, histology, and the absence of alternative diagnoses. In addition to confirming the diagnosis of UC, it is also important to define the extent and severity of inflammation, which aids in the selection of appropriate treatment and for predicting the patient's prognosis. Ileocolonoscopy with biopsy is the only way to make a definitive diagnosis of UC. A pathognomonic finding of UC is the presence of continuous colonic inflammation characterized by erythema, loss of normal vascular pattern, granularity, erosions, friability, bleeding, and ulcerations, with distinct demarcation between inflamed and non-inflamed bowel. Histopathology is the definitive tool in diagnosing UC, assessing the disease severity and identifying intraepithelial neoplasia (dysplasia) or cancer. The classical histological changes in UC include decreased crypt density, crypt architectural distortion, irregular mucosal surface and heavy diffuse transmucosal inflammation, in the absence of genuine granulomas. Abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scanning is the preferred initial radiographic imaging study in UC patients with acute abdominal symptoms. The hallmark CT finding of UC is mural thickening with a mean wall thickness of 8 mm, as opposed to a 2-3 mm mean wall thickness of the normal colon. The Mayo scoring system is a commonly used index to assess disease severity and monitor patients during therapy. The goals of treatment in UC are three fold-improve quality of life, achieve steroid free remission and minimize the risk of cancer. The choice of treatment depends on disease extent, severity and the course of the disease. For proctitis, topical 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) drugs are used as the first line agents. UC patients with more extensive or severe disease should be treated with a combination of oral and topical 5-ASA drugs +/- corticosteroids to induce remission. Patients with severe UC need to be hospitalized for treatment. The options in these patients include intravenous steroids and if refractory, calcineurin inhibitors (cyclosporine, tacrolimus) or tumor necrosis factor-α antibodies (infliximab) are utilized. Once remission is induced, patients are then continued on appropriate medications to maintain remission. Indications for emergency surgery include refractory toxic megacolon, colonic perforation, or severe colorectal bleeding.

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.

Defining endoscopic response and remission in ulcerative colitis clinical trials: an international consensus

BACKGROUND

Recently, endpoints for clinical trials have been changing from measuring clinical response to mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis. Endoscopic evaluation is the current gold standard to assess mucosal lesions and has become a major measure of therapeutic efficacy in addition to patients reported outcomes.

AIM

To achieve consensus on endoscopic definitions of remission and response for clinical trials in patients with ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

In reaching the current international recommendations on an International Organization For the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IOIBD) initiative, we first performed a systematic review of technical aspects of endoscopic scoring systems. Then, to achieve consensus on endoscopic definitions of remission and response for clinical trials, we conducted a two-round vote using a Delphi-style process among fifteen specialists in the field of inflammatory bowel diseases.

RESULTS

The literature review showed that many endoscopic indices have been proposed to evaluate disease activity in ulcerative colitis; most are unvalidated and arbitrary definitions have been used in clinical trials for defining endoscopic response or remission. At the end of the voting process, the investigators ranked initially the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) 0 for the definition of endoscopic remission, and a decrease in Mayo endoscopic score ≥1 grade or a decrease in UCEIS ≥2 points for the definition of endoscopic response in ulcerative colitis.

CONCLUSIONS

These international recommendations represent the first consensus on measurement indices for endoscopic outcomes in ulcerative colitis. They should be subject to prospective testing in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis.

Histological Outcomes and Predictive Value of Faecal Markers in Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis Patients Receiving Infliximab

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Histological healing has emerged as a promising therapeutic goal in ulcerative colitis. This is especially important in the context of biological therapies. The objectives of the present study were to investigate the ability of infliximab to induce histological remission in ulcerative colitis [UC] patients and to explore the utility of faecal calprotectin and lactoferrin in predicting histological activity.

METHODS

Multi-centre, single-cohort, open-label, 52-week trial including moderately to severely biological-naïve UC patients receiving intravenous infliximab [5mg/kg]. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with histological remission [Geboes index ≤ 3.0] after 8 weeks of treatment, scored by two independent pathologists.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were included. The rate of histological remission increased from 5% at baseline to 15% and 35% at Week 8 and Week 52, respectively. At Week 8, 40% of patients were in clinical remission [Mayo ≤ 2] and 45% achieved mucosal healing [Mayo endoscopy subscore 0-1]. At Week 52, 25% of patients had clinical, endoscopic and histological remission. Faecal calprotectin and lactoferrin showed the highest correlation with histological activity at Week 8 (area under the curve [AUC] 94%, p = 0.017; and 96%, p = 0.013, respectively) and both markers revealed an excellent positive predictive value for this outcome at this time point [100%, p = 0.017; and 94%, p = 0.013, respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab was able to induce histological remission. There was a good agreement between histology and faecal biomarkers. Faecal calprotectin and lactoferrin were good predictors of histological remission. Our data support inclusion of histology as a treatment target complementary to endoscopy in clinical trials when evaluating therapeutic response in UC.

Combined Parthenolide and Balsalazide Have Enhanced Antitumor Efficacy Through Blockade of NF-κB Activation

Balsalazide is a colon-specific prodrug of 5-aminosalicylate that is associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis. Parthenolide, a strong NF-κB inhibitor, has recently been demonstrated to be a promising therapeutic agent, promoting apoptosis of cancer cells. In the current study, the antitumor effect of balsalazide combined with parthenolide in human colorectal cancer cells and colitis-associated colon cancers (CAC) was investigated. The results demonstrate that the combination of balsalazide and parthenolide markedly suppress proliferation, nuclear translocation of NF-κB, IκB-α phosphorylation, NF-κB DNA binding, and expression of NF-κB targets. Apoptosis via NF-κB signaling was confirmed by detecting expression of caspases, p53 and PARP. Moreover, treatment of a CAC murine model with parthenolide and balsalazide together resulted in significant recovery of body weight and improvement in histologic severity. Administration of parthenolide and balsalazide to CAC mice also suppressed carcinogenesis as demonstrated by uptake of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) using micro-PET/CT scans. These results demonstrate that parthenolide potentiates the efficacy of balsalazide through synergistic inhibition of NF-κB activation and the combination of dual agents prevents colon carcinogenesis from chronic inflammation.

IMPLICATIONS

This study represents the first evidence that combination therapy with balsalazide and parthenolide could be a new regimen for colorectal cancer treatment. Mol Cancer Res; 15(2); 141-51. ©2016 AACR.

Role of Histologic Inflammation in the Natural History of Ulcerative Colitis

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

Current evidence supporting mucosal healing and deep remission as important treatment goals for inflammatory bowel disease

Mucosal healing (MH) is now considered as a major treatment goal in clinical trials and clinical practice for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). MH is associated with sustained clinical remission, steroid-free remission, and reduced rates of hospitalization and surgery. There is a well-known disconnect between clinical symptoms and mucosal lesions that is more pronounced in CD. More stringent therapeutic goals have been discussed recently such as deep remission defined as clinical remission associated with MH. Recent international guidelines from the IOIBD recommended deep remission as a treatment goal in clinical practice. However there is no validated definition of deep remission in IBD. Also, the efficacy of available drugs to induce and maintain deep remission in IBD is poorly known. Finally, whether deep remission is the best way to modify the course of IBD and whether it should be achieved before considering drug de-escalation have to be formally evaluated in upcoming disease-modification trials.

Progress in medical treatment of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a kind of chronic inflammatory disease and its etiology and pathogenesis are not clear. Accumulating evidence has indicated that the interactions among genotype, immune system and intestinal microbiota of patients play a significant role in the pathogenesis of UC. At present, it is difficult to cure UC. The main goals of UC treatment include inducing remission rapidly, maintaining the remission stage for a long time and preventing the occurrence of complications. As the incidence of UC keeps rising sharply in the recent 20 years, and a portion of patients have no response to the treatments or the effects are not satisfying, it is necessary to make further research for the treatment of UC. There are some main medical treatments for UC, such as 5-ASA, immune inhibitors, biological agents, Chinese herbal medicine, antibiotics and probiotics. In recent years, some new treatments such as stem cell transplantation, fecal bacteria transplantation and CO enema treatment are becoming the hot spot of research. This article will make a summary of the progress in medical treatment of UC in recent years.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

The role of endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a group of chronic immune-mediated disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. It is often the result of the interaction of genetic and environmental factors. The role of endoscopy in disease surveillance is unprecedented. However, there is considerable debate in therapeutic goals in IBD patients, ranging from the resolution of clinical symptoms to mucosal healing. Furthermore, deep remission has recently been advocated for altering disease course in these patients. Additionally, neoplasia continues to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in IBD patients. This review discussed the role of several endoscopic techniques in assessing mucosal healing and neoplasia with emphasis on novel non-invasive endoscopic techniques.

Histological healing after infliximab induction therapy in children with ulcerative colitis

AIM: To verify the impact of induction therapy with infliximab (IFX) on mucosal healing in children with ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS: The study included all UC pediatric patients treated with IFX at our center over the last 10 years. The data were collected from patients’ medical charts and analyzed retrospectively. A total of 16 patients with UC underwent colonoscopy with sample collection before and after three IFX injections. Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (PUCAI) was used to assess the clinical condition; endoscopic features were classified according to the Baron scale; and histological changes were evaluated according to the protocol of The British Society of Gastroenterology and Geboes Index. Clinical response was defined as a ≥ 20-point reduction in PUCAI index, and clinical remission as PUCAI index < 10 points. Endoscopic mucosal remission was defined as completely normal (score 0) on the Baron scale. Histological remission was defined as grade 0 in the Geboes Index. To assess correlation between variables, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used.

RESULTS: Clinical remission (PUCAI < 10) at week 8 was achieved in 68.75% of investigated subjects. Endoscopic mucosal remission at week 8 (Baron 0) was observed in 12.5% of patients. Histological remission (Geboes 0) after induction therapy with IFX was noticed in 18.75% cases. A general histological improvement, expressed by normal surface and crypt architecture, number of crypts, and lamina propria cellularity, was observed in six (37.5%) patients; there was no improvement in nine (56.25%) individuals, and worsening was observed in one (3.75%) case. Changes were not related to UC location. A reduction of inflammatory process was observed in 10 (62.5%) patients; there were no changes in four (25%) individuals, and the inflammation became more severe in two (12.5 %) cases. Simultaneous clinical, endoscopic and histological improvement of parameters assessing disease activity at week 8 was noticed in six (37.5%) patients. 55.5% of investigated patients with normal mucosa seen on endoscopy showed no inflammation on histology. A Baron score of 2 and 3 showed a good correlation with histology results (78.2% of patients with a Geboes Index ≥ 3).

CONCLUSION: IFX has a positive histological effect in more than one-third of UC patients. IFX reduces intestinal inflammation and improves clinical condition.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

Electronic (PubMed/Embase) and manual search.

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease: treatment efficacy and predictive factors

In recent years mucosal healing has emerged as an important therapeutic goal for patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Growing evidence suggests that achieving mucosal healing can improve patient outcomes and, potentially, alter the course of the disease. Drugs currently used in the management of inflammatory bowel disease are potentially able of inducing and maintaining mucosal healing, but the effect size is difficult to assess because of different definitions of mucosal healing, differences in study designs, and timing of endoscopic evaluation. Mucosal healing has been studied extensively in the biologic era. Data available from different sources, such as controlled trials and observational studies, show that anti-TNFα therapies can induce rapid and sustained mucosal healing in a variable percentage of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colits. No controlled study has been designed to identify possible predictors of mucosal healing. Some clinical characteristics such as extensive disease, young age at diagnosis, and smoking status may be predictive of a more aggressive clinical course and, presumably, of a reduced clinical and endoscopic response to therapy. Changes and normalization of C-reactive protein and faecal calprotectin may be useful tools to predict outcomes, guide the timing for endoscopic evaluation and, possibly, reduce the need of endoscopic evaluation in assessing mucosal healing.

Histological healing in inflammatory bowel disease: A still unfulfilled promise

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

High mucosal healing rates in 5-ASA-treated ulcerative colitis patients: results of a meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Recently, mucosal healing (MH) is regarded as an important treatment goal in ulcerative colitis (UC). 5-Aminosalicylates (5-ASA) are the standard treatment in mild-to-moderate UC, but the effect on MH is less known. The aim of this study was to systematically review the medical literature in order to compare different preparations of 5-ASA for the effect on MH.

METHODS

We conducted a structured search of PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled clinical trials with 5-ASA in UC providing data about MH. We calculated the sample size-weighted pooled proportion of patients with MH, and performed meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons.

RESULTS

Out of 645 hits, we included 90 treatment arms, involving 3977 patients using oral 5-ASA (granulate and tablets) and 2513 patients using rectal 5-ASA (suppositories, enema, and foam). Overall, 43,7% of 5-ASA treated patients achieved MH (oral 36,9%; rectal 50,3%). In oral studies, 49% of patients using granulate (7 treatment-arms) achieved MH compared to 34,9% using tablets (43 treatment-arms). In rectal studies the proportion of MH was 62% for suppositories (eight treatment arms), 51% for foam (nine treatment arms), and 46% for enema (23 treatment arms), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

5-ASA preparations achieved MH in nearly 50% of UC patients. There were no significant differences in MH between the various 5-ASA agents, either in the oral or the rectal treatment groups.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Update on the management of ulcerative colitis

The treatment options for inflammatory bowel disease have expanded with the introduction of biological therapies. Recently published controlled clinical trials were searched and those that impact the clinical management of ulcerative colitis (UC) are discussed in this review. In the management of mild to moderate UC, mesalamine still remains the first choice of drug. The newly developed once daily formulations have shown equal efficacy to divided doses and possibly portend better compliance owing to a simplified regimen. In outpatients with moderate to severe UC, recent data indicate that infliximab induced and maintained remission leads to decreased colectomy rates and fewer hospitalizations. An alternative anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agent, adalimumab, was also recently shown to be effective for induction of remission in moderate to severe UC. The use of immunosuppressives, such as azathioprine and mercaptopurine, is associated with decreased colectomy rates and thioguanine was shown to be effective in maintaining clinical remission in those who are intolerant to azathioprine/mercaptopurine. In hospitalized patients with steroid resistant severe UC, infliximab and tacrolimus may be alternatives to cyclosporine in those who are otherwise candidates for colectomy. Adequate long-term maintenance therapy with immunosuppressives or anti-TNF therapy is required after rescue therapy for a sustained benefit. Future research is needed to position the available anti-TNF agents and combined immunosuppressive therapy in the treatment of UC to achieve and maintain steroid free remission.

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.

Balsalazide in treating colonic diseases

Balsalazide is the newer 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) prodrug which releases active 5-ASA only into the colon with minimal systemic absorption. The onset of action of this drug is variable, and it may take at least some days to reach clinical effectiveness. Clinical studies found balsalazide faster than mesalazine in the induction of remission, but balsalazide has no benefit compared with mesalazine in preventing relapse in the population selected. However, the high number of pills to take may affect the adherence to the treatment. This 5-ASA prodrug may be effectively used also in patients unable to tolerate other mesalamine compounds for non-hypersensitivity reasons. The costs of balsalazide capsules seem to be lower for the health system, both considering total direct healthcare costs and better outcomes, compared with patients treated with oral mesalazine. Finally, there is also some recent evidence that balsalazide may be effectively used, in combination with probiotics, in treating acute uncomplicated diverticulitis is the colon.

Clinical implications of mucosal healing for the management of IBD

Mucosal healing (MH) has emerged as an important treatment goal for patients with IBD. Historically, the therapeutic goals of induction and maintenance of clinical remission seemed insufficient to change the natural history of IBD. Evidence has now accumulated to show that MH can alter the course of IBD, as it is associated with sustained clinical remission, and reduced rates of hospitalization and surgical resection. In patients with ulcerative colitis, MH may represent the ultimate therapeutic goal because inflammation is limited to the mucosa. In patients with Crohn's disease, which is a transmural disease, MH could be considered as a minimum therapeutic goal. This Review focuses on the definition of MH and discusses the ability of each available IBD medication to induce and maintain MH. The importance of achieving MH is also discussed and literature that demonstrates improvement of disease course with MH is reviewed. Finally, we discuss how best to integrate the treatment end point of MH into clinical practice for the management of patients with IBD.

Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of balsalazide in pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate active ulcerative colitis: results of a randomized, double-blind study

OBJECTIVES

: A multicenter, double-blind study was conducted to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of balsalazide in pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

: Sixty-eight patients, 5 to 17 years of age, with mild-to-moderate active UC based on the modified Sutherland UC activity index (MUCAI) were randomized to receive oral balsalazide 2.25 or 6.75 g/day for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical improvement (reduction of the MUCAI score by > or =3 points from baseline). Clinical remission (MUCAI score of 0 or 1 for stool frequency) and histological improvement after 8 weeks were also assessed. Pharmacokinetic parameters for balsalazide, 5-aminosalicylic acid, and N-acetyl-5-aminosalicylic acid were determined at 2 weeks. Adverse events and laboratory changes were monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

: Clinical improvement was achieved by 45% and 37% of patients and clinical remission by 12% and 9% of patients receiving 6.75 and 2.25 g/day, respectively. Improvement in histologic grade was achieved by 8 of 16 (50%) and 3 of 10 (30%) patients receiving 6.75 and 2.25 g/day, respectively. No significant differences were seen in efficacy. Pharmacokinetics in 12 patients were characterized by large interpatient variability and low systemic exposure. Adverse events were similar between the treatment groups, the most common being headache and abdominal pain. No clinically significant changes were observed in laboratory values, including those indicative of hepatic or renal toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

: Balsalazide is well tolerated and improves the signs and symptoms of mild-to-moderate active UC in pediatric patients 5 to 17 years of age.

Safety and efficacy of a new 3.3 g b.i.d. tablet formulation in patients with mild-to-moderately-active ulcerative colitis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new twice-daily balsalazide disodium 1.1 g tablet dosing regimen (6.6 g/day, three tablets twice daily) for the treatment of mild-to-moderately-active ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

In a double-blind, multicenter study patients with symptoms of acute UC and a baseline Modified Mayo Disease Activity Index (MMDAI) score between 6 and 10, inclusive, with a subscale rating of > or =2 for both rectal bleeding and mucosal appearance were randomized to receive 3.3 g of balsalazide or placebo tablets twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving clinical improvement (> or =3 point improvement in MMDAI) and improvement in rectal bleeding (> or =1 point improvement) at 8 weeks. Safety assessments were conducted from baseline through 2-weeks post-treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 249 patients (166 balsalazide, 83 placebo) received at least 1 dose of study medication. The mean MMDAI score at baseline was 7.9; 62% of patients had a score > or =8.0 (moderate disease). A significantly larger proportion of patients achieved clinical improvement and improvement in rectal bleeding in the balsalazide group vs. the placebo group (55 vs. 40%, P=0.02). The most common adverse events reported were worsening of UC and headache; both were reported more often in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Balsalazide disodium 1.1 g tablets administered as 3.3 g twice daily are effective, well tolerated and significantly better than placebo for improving signs and symptoms of mild-to-moderately-active UC. This new formulation with a reduced pill and dosing burden offers the potential to improve convenience and compliance in patients with active UC.

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.

Comparison of mesalazine and balsalazide in induction and maintenance of remission in patients with ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

5-Aminosalicylates are the standard treatment for induction and maintenance of remission in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. In recent years, the 5-aminosalicylic acid-containing pro-drug balsalazide has been the focus of attention.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and tolerance of balsalazide and mesalazine by meta-analysis.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies comparing the efficacy and/or tolerance of balsalazide with mesalazine in the management of UC. The search terms were: "mesalazine" or "5-aminosalicylic acid" and "balsalazide" and "ulcerative colitis." Data were collected from 1966 to 2007 (up to February). There was no language restriction. "Symptomatic remission," "complete remission," "relapse rate," "total adverse events," and "withdrawals because of adverse events" were the key outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Six randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. In these "symptomatic remission," "complete remission," "relapse rate," "total adverse events," and "withdrawals because of adverse events" were evaluated in three, three, two, five, and six of the trials, respectively. They included 653 patients consisting of 55.4% men and 44.6% women randomized to receive either balsalazide or mesalazine. Pooling of three trials for symptomatic remission yielded a significant relative risk (RR) of 1.23 (95% confidence interval of 1.03-1.47, P = 0.02). The summary RR for complete remission in three trials was 1.3 (95% CI of 1.002-1.68, P = 0.048). Pooling of two trials for the outcome of relapse yielded a non-significant RR of 0.77 (95% CI of 0.56-1.07, P = 0.12). Pooling five studies from which data for any adverse events were extracted, yielded a non-significant RR of 0.87 (95% CI of 0.75-1.001, P = 0.53). The summary RR for withdrawals because of adverse events in six trials was 0.69, a non-significant RR (95% CI of 0.37-1.29, P = 0.24).

CONCLUSION

Balsalazide is more effective than mesalazine in induction of remission, but balsalazide has no benefit compared with mesalazine in preventing relapse in the population selected. The number of patients with any adverse events and withdrawals because of severe adverse events is similar for mesalazine and balsalazide.

Effect of extended MMX mesalamine therapy for acute, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Many patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) respond to mesalamine therapy within 8 weeks. Those not achieving remission after 8 weeks are often treated with steroids or other immunosuppressive therapies. This study aimed to determine the effect of 8 weeks' high-dose MMX mesalamine extension therapy in patients with active, mild-to-moderate UC who had previously failed to achieve complete remission in 2 phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of MMX mesalamine (SPD476-301 and -302).

METHODS

Patients with active, mild-to-moderate UC who did not achieve clinical and endoscopic remission after <or=8 weeks' treatment with MMX mesalamine (2.4 or 4.8 g/day), ASACOL (mesalamine) delayed-release tablets 2.4 g/day, or placebo in the phase III studies received MMX mesalamine 4.8 g/day for 8 weeks. The aim was to assess remission at week 8, defined as a total modified UC Disease Activity Index score of <or=1, calculated as: scores of 0 for rectal bleeding and stool frequency, a combined Physician's Global Assessment score and sigmoidoscopy score of <or=1, no mucosal friability, and a >or=1 point reduction from baseline in sigmoidoscopy score.

RESULTS

Overall, 304 patients who entered this acute extension study were evaluated; 59.5% achieved remission at week 8. Remission rates were similar irrespective of prior treatment in the initial acute phase III studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with mild-to-moderate UC who fail to achieve remission with up to 8 weeks' initial mesalamine therapy can achieve clinical and endoscopic remission following a further 8 weeks' treatment with high-dose MMX mesalamine therapy, thereby avoiding step-up therapy.

A meta-analysis of balsalazide, mesalazine and sulphasalazine in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of balsalazide, mesalazine and sulphasalazine in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis (UC), and to investigate their seperate pharmacokinetics.

METHODS: Correlated randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) comparing balsalazide,mesalazine and sulphasalazine in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis were searched in Medline, EMBASE, OVID, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, CESJ, ASP, VIP and National Knowledge Infrastructure. RCTs comparing the three drugs in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis were also searched manually. Stata 9.0 software was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS: Ten RCTs including 1119 cases were selected for analysis in accordance with enrollment criteria. Compared with sulphasalazine, balsalazide had similar efficacy (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.80-1.93, P = 0.345), significant lower side effect rate (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13-0.59, P = 0.001) and drawn-out rate (OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.03-0.44, P = 0.002). Compared with mesalazine, balsalazide had similar efficacy (OR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.00-2.42, P = 0.051), lower side effect rate (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.39-0.90, p= 0.014) and similar drawn-out rate (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.29-6.22, P = 0.709). Compared with sulphasalazine, mesalazine had similar efficacy (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.19-2.59, P = 0.599), decreased side effect rate (OR = 0.44, 95%CI: 0.27-0.71, P = 0.001) and similar drawn-out rate caused (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.26-1.88, P= 0.470).

CONCLUSION: Balsalazide, mesalazine and sulphasalzine are effective for UC, but balsalzide and mesalazine have lower side effect rates than sulphasalzine. Azo-bond prodrugs could be more effective than delayed-release mesalazines in the treatment of UC.

Balsalazide plus high-potency probiotic preparation (VSL[sharp]3) in the treatment of acute mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis and uncomplicated diverticulitis of the colon

Balsalazide is a 5-amino salicylic acid prodrug well-tolerated and effective in treating acute ulcerative colitis. VSL[sharp]3, a high-potency probiotic mixture, has proved to be effective in preventing flare-ups of chronic pouchitis and in obtaining remission of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Recent studies found the association of low-dose balsalazide/VLS no. 3 effective in treating mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis and in preventing the recurrence of uncomplicated diverticulitis of the colon. In this paper, the framework for using this association to treat ulcerative colitis or to prevent the recurrence of colonic diverticulitis is reviewed, and 2 studies on this therapeutic approach are briefly summarized.

[Susceptibility of the spanish population to adverse effects by sulfasalazine: systematic review]

BACKGROUND

Clinical experience raises suspicion that the spanish population could suffer higher rates of side effects of sulfasalazine (SSZ) therapy. We conducted a systematic review of existing literature to analyze the susceptibility to developing adverse events produced by SSZ in the Spanish population.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A literature search was conducted in EMBASE, IBECS, and MEDLINE from 1973 to March 2007. The items sought were those describing adverse effects, both in text and tables, and reasons for withdrawal, the population under study and discussion of differences in side effects of the different treatment groups.

RESULTS

Of the 106 retrieved articles, 36 were selected for review and detailed analysis. 34 articles were selected from MEDLINE and EMBASE and 2 from IBECS. We did not find any study that showed that the Spanish population was more susceptible to SSZ.

CONCLUSIONS

The adverse effects of SSZ vary with the pattern of acetylation. Thus, in slow-acetylators, depending on the dosage of SSZ, the side effects increase significantly. In the Spanish population slow-acetylators prevalence is higher than in other ethnic groups. Therefore, one could infer that the incidence of adverse side effects by SSZ could be higher in the Spanish population than in others different ethnic groups. We found no evidence that the Spanish population was more likely to suffer adverse effects by SSZ than other ethnic groups.

Balsalazide disodium for the treatment of ulcerative colitis

5-aminosalicylates remain the first-line treatment for patients with ulcerative colitis. A number of formulations are available for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis, including encapsulated mesalazine and mesalazine in combination with other molecules. Balsalazide is an aminosalicylate prodrug that releases mesalazine in the colon, thus exerting its multiple anti-inflammatory effects in areas of colitis. This review will examine the pharmacological and therapeutic features of balsalazide as an anti-inflammatory agent in ulcerative colitis. The introduction of novel aminosalicylate formulations and an appreciation of their molecular mode of action, has renewed interest in these agents in both maintenance of disease remission and cancer prevention.

Balsalazide and/or high-potency probiotic mixture (VSL#3) in maintaining remission after attack of acute, uncomplicated diverticulitis of the colon

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The role of probiotics in the treatment of diverticulitis is still not known. The aim of our study was to investigate whether balsalazide and/or VSL#3 is effective in preventing diverticulitis recurrence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this pilot study, 30 consecutive patients (19 males, 11 females, mean age 60.1 years, range 47-75 years) affected by uncomplicated diverticulitis of the colon were monitored. After obtaining remission, the patients were randomly assigned to one of the following groups as follows: group A, balsalazide 2.25 g daily for 10 days every month plus VSL#3 450 billions/day for 15 days every month and group B, VSL#3 alone 450 billions/day for 15 days every month. Primary end-point was considered the maintaining of remission throughout a 12-month follow-up. Secondary end-points considered were (1) the assessment of the overall scores at the end of the follow-up and (2) the effects of the two different treatments with regards to every symptom assessed.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

One group A patient was withdrawn from the study at the 6th month and one group B patient was lost at the 6th month of follow-up. One group A patient (6.66%) showed relapse of symptoms at the 10th month of follow-up. At the end of follow-up, 11 patients were completely symptom-free (73.33%), whilst 2 patients complained of only mild, recurrent symptoms (13%). Two group B patients (13.33%) showed relapse of the disease at the 5th and 8th month of follow-up, respectively. At the end of follow-up, 8 patients were completely symptom-free (60%), 2 patients complained of mild, recurrent symptoms (13.33%), 1 patient (6.66%) complained of mild but continuous symptoms. No side effects were recorded throughout the follow-up in both groups.

INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS

Combination probiotic/anti-inflammatory drug was found better than probiotic treatment in preventing relapse of uncomplicated diverticulitis of the colon, even if without statistical significance.

Once-daily, high-concentration MMX mesalamine in active ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

SPD476 (LIALDA in the US; MEZAVANT in the EU; otherwise known as MMX mesalamine; Shire Pharmaceuticals Inc., Wayne, PA, under license from Giuliani SpA, Milan, Italy) is a novel, once-daily, high-strength (1.2 g/tablet) formulation of mesalamine, utilizing MMX Multi Matrix System (MMX) technology designed to deliver the active drug throughout the colon. We performed a double-blind, multicenter study, comparing MMX mesalamine vs placebo for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis. A delayed-release oral mesalamine (ASACOL; Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH) reference arm was included.

METHODS

Three hundred forty-three patients with active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis received MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day or 4.8 g/day given once daily, ASACOL 2.4 g/day given in 3 divided doses, or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of patients in clinical and endoscopic remission (modified ulcerative colitis disease activity index of < or =1 with rectal bleeding and stool frequency scores of 0, no mucosal friability, and a > or =1-point reduction in sigmoidoscopy score from baseline).

RESULTS

A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day given once daily (40.5%; P = .01) and 4.8 g/day given once daily (41.2%; P = .007) achieved clinical and endoscopic remission at week 8, vs placebo (22.1%). The clinical and endoscopic remission rate for ASACOL (32.6%; P = .124) was not significantly superior to placebo. All active treatments were well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily MMX mesalamine was efficacious and well-tolerated for the induction of clinical and endoscopic remission. MMX mesalamine offers effective and convenient mesalamine therapy, potentially improving treatment compliance.

Indications for 5-aminosalicylate in inflammatory bowel disease: is the body of evidence complete?

Mesalazine is a safe drug, although adverse events may be seen in a minority of patients. This applies also to pregnant women and children. The role of mesalazine in combination therapy to improve efficacy and concomitant drug pharmacokinetics, or in chemoprevention against inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related colonic carcinoma has not yet been completely elucidated. Therapeutic success of mesalazine may be optimized by a combination of high dose and low frequency of dosage to improve compliance. Therefore, due to its superior safety profile and pharmacokinetic characteristics, mesalazine is preferable to sulphasalazine. This paper reviews the literature concerning mechanisms of action, indications and off-label use, pharmacokinetic properties and formulations, therapeutic efficacy, compliance, paediatric indications, chemoprevention, and safety issues and adverse event profile of mesalazine treatment versus sulphasalazine. It also highlights these controversies in order to clarify the potential benefits of mesalazines in IBD therapy and evidence for its use.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Prevention of acute radiation-induced proctosigmoiditis by balsalazide: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial in prostate cancer patients

PURPOSE

A common complication of pelvic radiotherapy (RT) is acute radiation-induced proctosigmoiditis (RIPS), for which a multitude of therapies have been tried. The 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA), which are traditionally used to treat inflammatory bowel disease, have been tested; however, all but one prior randomized attempt to limit or prevent RIPS with 5-ASA-type agents have failed. We sought to evaluate balsalazide, a new 5-ASA drug, for its potential to prevent or limit RIPS in patients undergoing RT for carcinoma of the prostate, as a representative sample of pelvic RT patients. Balsalazide has a unique delivery system in that 99% of ingested drug is delivered to and activated in the colon, a higher yield than all other oral agents currently available in this class. Furthermore, it lacks the antigenic sulfa moiety present in sulfasalazine, the only other 5-ASA with demonstrated benefit in this setting. Thus, it was deemed an ideal candidate for preventing or limiting RIPS.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eligible patients included prostate cancer patients, American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage T1-3, M0 being treated with external beam radiotherapy in the University of Kentucky Department of Radiation Medicine. Between January 1, 2003 and July 1, 2004, 27 eligible patients were enrolled in the study. Patients were administered 2250 mg of balsalazide or an identical-appearing placebo twice daily beginning 5 days before RT and continuing for 2 weeks after completion. Toxicities were graded weekly according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria v. 2.0 for each of the following: proctitis, diarrhea, dysuria, weight loss, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. A symptom index was formulated for each toxicity consisting of the toxicity's numeric grade multiplied by the number of days it was experienced, and summed for each grade experienced throughout the course of RT.

RESULTS

With the exception of nausea or vomiting, seen in 3 patients on balsalazide and 2 on placebo, all toxicities were appreciably lower in patients taking balsalazide. Proctitis was prevented most significantly with a mean proctitis index of 35.3 in balsalazide patients and 74.1 in placebo patients (p = 0.04). Placebo patients lost an average of 2.7 pounds, whereas balsalazide patients on average gained weight. Unexpectedly, dysuria was also lower in balsalazide-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Balsalazide is a new-generation 5-ASA drug that yields a high concentration of active drug to the distal colon. Results of this pilot study suggest that it is able to prevent or reduce symptoms of RIPS in patients undergoing RT for prostate cancer. We feel that these results justify the formation of a cooperative group trial to assess its efficacy in a multi-institutional setting.

Comparative analysis of the in vitro prosecretory effects of balsalazide, sulfasalazine, olsalazine, and mesalamine in rabbit distal ileum

BACKGROUND

The aminosalicylates remain foundation therapy for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Pro-drug 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; mesalamine) formulations have been developed to prevent 5-ASA from the proximal absorption and release of mesalamine, to decrease inflammation, and to improve colonic absorption. Clinically, pro-drugs such as olsalazine have been associated with dose-dependent diarrhea, which was likely secondary to ileal secretion induced by the azo linkages, in 17% of patients. The present study tested the hypothesis that the use of all compounds with azo linkages leads to increased secretion.

METHODS

Intestinal tissue was randomly assigned to serve as controls or to receive brush border addition of equimolar concentrations of the compounds, and the change in short-circuit current was measured.

RESULTS

Mesalamine did not induce secretion at any dose. Mean equivalent doses (0.1 to 10 mM) of balsalazide (range, 6.3 +/- 1.5 to 16.7 +/- 1.3 microA/cm2), olsalazine (range, 2.0 +/- 1.0 to 7.0 +/- 2.1 microA/cm2), and sulfasalazine (3.2 +/- 1.1 to 6.2 +/- 1.5 microA/cm2) significantly stimulated (P < 0.001) secretion. The values for the effective dose that is half the maximal dose for secretion induced by sulfasalazine, olsalazine, and balsalazide were 0.4, 0.7, and 0.9 mM, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to demonstrate that the use of pro-drugs with azo bonds leads to increased ileal secretion at equimolar concentrations of 5-ASA. Physicians should use caution when providing higher doses of the pro-drug forms of 5-ASA to their patients, as this could lead to increased diarrhea.

Mesalamine delivery systems: do they really make much difference?

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

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

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

Comparative pharmacokinetics of equimolar doses of 5-aminosalicylate administered as oral mesalamine (Asacol) and balsalazide: a randomized, single-dose, crossover study in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

Existing pharmacokinetic data are insufficient to determine whether a delayed-release formulation of mesalamine (Asacol) results in greater systemic exposure to 5-aminosalicylic acid and its major metabolite N-acetyl-5-aminosalicylic acid than a prodrug (balsalazide).

AIM

To determine the pharmacokinetic parameters of 5-aminosalicylic acid and N-acetyl-5-aminosalicylic acid from equimolar doses of 5-aminosalicylic acid administered as Asacol and balsalazide.

METHODS

Nineteen healthy volunteers completed an open-label, single-dose, randomized, crossover study comparing the pharmacokinetics of 5-aminosalicylic acid and N-acetyl-5-aminosalicylic acid from equimolar doses of 5-aminosalicylic acid (800 mg) administered as Asacol (800 mg) and balsalazide (2250 mg). Plasma and urine samples were analysed for 5-aminosalicylic acid, N-acetyl-5-aminosalicylic acid, and balsalazide (urine only) using high-performance liquid chromatography methods with mass spectrometric detection. Pharmacokinetic parameters assessed for 5-aminosalicylic acid and N-acetyl-5-aminosalicylic acid included: percentage of dose excreted in urine (A(e)%), area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUCt(last)); and maximum plasma concentration (C(max)).

RESULTS

The geometric mean total (5-aminosalicylic acid and N-acetyl-5-aminosalicylic acid) urinary excretion values (A(e)%) of Asacol and balsalazide were 19.26 and 19.31% (P = 0.98). The geometric mean A(e)% values of 5-aminosalicylic acid for Asacol and balsalazide were 0.39 and 0.37% (P = 0.78); the geometric mean A(e)% values of N-acetyl-5-aminosalicylic acid for Asacol and balsalazide were 18.78 and 18.83% (P = 0.98). The geometric mean 5-aminosalicylic acid AUC(t(last)) values for Asacol and balsalazide were 3295 and 3449 ng h/mL (P = 0.85); the geometric mean N-acetyl-5-aminosalicylic acid AUC(t(last)) values for Asacol and balsalazide were 15 364 and 16 050 ng h/mL (P = 0.69). The geometric mean 5-5-aminosalicylic acid C(max) values for Asacol and balsalazide were 319 and 348 ng/mL (P = 0.80); the geometric mean N-acetyl-5-aminosalicylic acid C(max) values for Asacol and balsalazide 927 and 1009 ng/mL (P = 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

The systemic absorption of 5-aminosalicylic acid and N-acetyl-5-aminosalicylic acid from Asacol and balsalazide are comparable based upon plasma pharmacokinetic parameters and urinary excretion values.

Medical therapy for ulcerative colitis 2004

There continue to be evolutionary changes in the management of ulcerative colitis despite the fact that, aside from a variety of aminosalicylate formulations, no new therapies have been approved over the past few decades. Nevertheless, debates continue regarding the optimization of treatment with aminosalicylates and the short- and long-term benefits of immunomodulation in ulcerative colitis. This article focuses on the most recent clinical studies pertaining to the management of ulcerative colitis and explores both the advances and controversies pertaining to aminosalicylate therapy, corticosteroids, cyclosporine, and the purine antimetabolites. Novel therapeutic approaches--including preliminary experience with biological therapies directed at tumor necrosis factor and other cytokines, adhesion molecules, growth factors, and probiotics--will be reviewed. Recent data regarding potential chemoprevention in long-standing ulcerative colitis and management of postoperative complications and pouchitis will also be discussed.