Improved maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis by balsalazide 4 g/day compared with 2 g/day

Predictive factors of relapse after dose reduction of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid in patients with ulcerative colitis in the remission phase

Objectives

Useful indices to determine whether to reduce the dose of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) during remission remain unclear. We aimed to analyze the rate and risk factors of relapse after reducing the dose of oral 5-ASA used for maintenance therapy of UC.

Methods

UC patients whose 5-ASA dose was reduced in clinical remission (partial Mayo score of ≤ 1) at our institution from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed. Various clinical variables of patients who relapsed after reducing the dose of oral 5-ASA were compared with those of patients who maintained remission. Risk factors for relapse were assessed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Cumulative relapse-free survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

A total of 70 UC patients were included; 52 (74.3%) patients maintained remission and 18 (25.7%) patients relapsed during the follow-up period. Multivariate analysis indicated that a history of acute severe UC (ASUC) was an independent predictive factor for clinical relapse (p = 0.024, odds ratio: 21, 95% confidence interval: 1.50–293.2). Based on Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, the cumulative relapse-free survival rate within 52 weeks was 22.2% for patients with a history of ASUC, compared with 82.0% for those without. the log-rank test showed a significant difference in a history of ASUC (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Dose reduction of 5-ASA should be performed carefully in patients who have a history of ASUC.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Systematic review: safety of mesalazine in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Second Korean guidelines for the management of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease characterized by a relapsing and remitting course. The direct and indirect costs of the treatment of UC are high, and the quality of life of patients is reduced, especially during exacerbation of the disease. The incidence and prevalence of UC in Korea are still lower than those of Western countries, but have been rapidly increasing during the past decades. Various medical and surgical therapies, including biologics, are currently used for the management of UC. However, many challenging issues exist, which sometimes lead to differences in practice between clinicians. Therefore, the IBD study group of the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases established the first Korean guidelines for the management of UC in 2012. This is an update of the first guidelines. It was generally made by the adaptation of several foreign guidelines as was the first edition, and encompasses treatment of active colitis, maintenance of remission, and indication of surgery for UC. The specific recommendations are presented with the quality of evidence and classification of recommendations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Mesalazine preparations for the treatment of ulcerative colitis: Are all created equal?

Oral mesalazine (also known as mesalamine) is a 5-aminosalicylic acid compound used in the treatment of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, with high rates of efficacy in induction and maintenance of remission. The therapeutic effect of mesalazine occurs topically at the site of diseased colonic mucosa. A myriad of oral mesalazine preparations have been formulated with various drug delivery methods to minimize systemic absorption and maximise drug availability at the inflamed colonic epithelium. It remains unclear whether different oral mesalazine formulations are bioequivalent. This review aims to evaluate the differences between mesalazine formulations based on the currently available literature and explore factors which may influence the selection of one agent above another.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Inflammatory bowel disease: clinical aspects and established and evolving therapies

Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are two idiopathic inflammatory bowel disorders. In this paper we discuss the current diagnostic approach, their pathology, natural course, and common complications, the assessment of disease activity, extraintestinal manifestations, and medical and surgical management, and provide diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms. We critically review the evidence for established (5-aminosalicylic acid compounds, corticosteroids, immunomodulators, calcineurin inhibitors) and emerging novel therapies--including biological therapies--directed at cytokines (eg, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol) and receptors (eg, visilizumab, abatacept) involved in T-cell activation, selective adhesion molecule blockers (eg, natalizumab, MLN-02, alicaforsen), anti-inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin 10), modulation of the intestinal flora (eg, antibiotics, prebiotics, probiotics), leucocyte apheresis and many more monoclonal antibodies, small molecules, recombinant growth factors, and MAP kinase inhibitors targeting various inflammatory cells and pathways. Finally, we summarise the practical aspects of standard therapies including dosing, precautions, and side-effects.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were prospective, randomized, double-blinded, and placebo- or SASP-controlled clinical trials of parallel design with treatment duration of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Novel approaches to inflammatory bowel disease

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, collectively known as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), are chronic, spontaneously relapsing disorders of unknown cause. These diseases appear to be immunologically mediated and have genetic and environmental influences. Although the cause of these diseases remains obscure, the pathogenesis of chronic intestinal inflammation is becoming clearer, due to improved animal models of enterocolitis and important advances in immunological techniques. Traditional therapy for IBD, although helping to induce and maintain disease remission, does little to alter the underlying fundamental disease process. New IBD therapy has not developed significantly over the past twenty years and includes 5-aminosalicylic acid preparations, corticosteroids and immunomodulatory agents, such as azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine and methotrexate. There is, therefore, a need for new, specific disease-modifying therapy and the development of such therapy has been hastened by a greater understanding of the pathophysiology of IBD. This review examines the most recent novel therapies for IBD, with specific emphasis on immunomodulatory and novel anti-inflammatory therapies. Recent clinical trials are reviewed, and the potential advances and clinical impact that these novel agents may provide are discussed.

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.

Patient-led variable dosing with balsalazide as long-term therapy for maintenance in ulcerative colitis: a 3-year prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The patient-centred approach is new to the management of ulcerative colitis. To date, it has only been shown to be successful in a short-term study.

AIM

To assess the feasibility, safety and efficacy of patient-led dosing using balsalazide in the long-term treatment of ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

This was a 3-year, two-cohort, multi-centre study: one cohort was in stable remission (52 patients) and the other was newly in remission (76 patients) from ulcerative colitis. Two 750-mg balsalazide capsules were given twice daily for maintenance, increased by 750-mg increments to a maximum of 6 g for up to 7 days depending on symptom severity. Clinical assessments were made every 12-14 weeks; laboratory assessments were made every 6 months.

RESULTS

The average median daily dose of balsalazide was 3 g (range, 1.5-6 g). In the cohort with stable remission, 23 patients (44%) had relapsed by 3 years [median time to relapse, > 1095 days (36 months)]. In the cohort newly in remission, these values were 45 patients (59%) and 656 days (22 months), respectively. In the cohort with stable remission, the time since last relapse was significantly associated with relapse during the first year of treatment (P < 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term, patient-led, maintenance treatment with balsalazide is well tolerated with a good safety profile and is effective for patients with ulcerative colitis.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Balsalazide is superior to mesalamine in the time to improvement of signs and symptoms of acute mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVE

Balsalazide is a novel azo-bonded 5-aminosalicylic acid treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. The study objective was to compare symptomatic remission rates with balsalazide and mesalamine while controlling for extent of disease and time since diagnosis in patients with active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

A total of 173 patients with sigmoidoscopically verified ulcerative colitis were randomized to 8 wk of double-blind treatment with balsalazide 6.75 g/day or mesalamine 2.4 g/day. Both treatments provided 2.4 g/day of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid. Patients maintained symptom diaries throughout the treatment period.

RESULTS

Overall, 46% of balsalazide- and 44% of mesalamine-treated patients achieved symptomatic remission. Higher response rates were noted in newly diagnosed patients with < or = 40 cm of disease (68% vs 61%) than in recently relapsed patients with >40 cm of disease (36% vs 25%). The median time to symptomatic remission was 12 days shorter with balsalazide (25 days) than with mesalamine (37 days). Significantly more balsalazide patients showed sigmoidoscopic (p = 0.002), stool frequency (p = 0.006), rectal bleeding (p = 0.006), and physician's global assessment score (p = 0.013) improvement by 14 days than did mesalamine patients. Similar proportions of patients reported adverse events (54% vs 64%), which were most commonly related to the gastrointestinal and central and peripheral nervous systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Balsalazide is an effective and safe treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Improvement of symptoms occurs considerably earlier with balsalazide than with mesalamine.

Balsalazide: a review of its therapeutic use in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

The aminosalicylate balsalazide is a prodrug which is metabolised by bacterial azo reductases in the colon to release its therapeutically active moiety mesalazine [mesalamine (US) or 5-aminosalicylic acid] and an inert carrier molecule. The systemic absorption of balsalazide and its metabolites is not required for the therapeutic efficacy of the drug, and has been demonstrated to be limited. Data from well designed trials with a duration of 8 to 12 weeks show that oral balsalazide 6.75 g/day is as effective as (two trials) or more effective than (one trial) oral delayed-release (pH-dependent) mesalazine 2.4 g/day and appears to be as effective as oral sulfasalazine 3 g/day in the treatment of active mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. In addition, balsalazide appears to have a faster onset of action than mesalazine. Furthermore, balsalazide was as effective as delayed-release mesalazine (dosages used were 1.2 and 1.5 g/day, where 1.6 g/day is recommended) and oral sulfasalazine 2 g/day (recommended dosage) in the prevention of relapse in ulcerative colitis in remission after 6 to 12 months of treatment; the balsalazide dosage was 3 g/day versus mesalazine and 2 g/day versus sulfasalazine. Although not well established, additional benefits may be achieved with balsalazide dosages up to 6 g/day. Data from well designed, 2- to 12-month trials show that balsalazide is well tolerated by patients with ulcerative colitis in both acute and maintenance indications, and is better tolerated than standard formulations of sulfasalazine at therapeutically relevant dosages.

CONCLUSION

Balsalazide is a well tolerated and effective first-line therapeutic option for patients with ulcerative colitis, both for the treatment of active mild-to-moderate disease and as maintenance therapy to prevent disease relapse.

A randomized, double blind, dose-response comparison of balsalazide (6.75 g), balsalazide (2.25 g), and mesalamine (2.4 g) in the treatment of active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVE

Balsalazide is a new innovative, mesalamine-containing prodrug that is activated by bacteria in the colon. Balsalazide has been shown previously to be well tolerated and effective in the treatment of acute ulcerative colitis. The aim of this study was to determine the dose-response of balsalazide for efficacy and safety in active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis and to compare this profile with that of mesalamine, pH-dependent, delayed-release tablets.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, active control, double-blind, double-dummy, dose-response, parallel-group study was performed comparing balsalazide (6.75 g daily), balsalazide (2.25 g daily), and mesalamine (2.4 g daily), administered for 8 wk to 154 patients with active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis as verified by sigmoidoscopy.

RESULTS

Eight weeks of treatment with 6.75 g of balsalazide daily provided significantly greater improvement than did balsalazide (2.25 g daily) in rectal bleeding (64.7% [6.75-g balsalazide] vs 32.4% [2.25-g balsalazide], p < 0.006), stool frequency (58.8% vs 29.4%, p < 0.006), sigmoidoscopic score (78.9% vs 52.5%, p < 0.015), and Physician's Global Assessment (73.7% vs 51.3%, p < 0.03). The efficacy of balsalazide showed a significantly more rapid onset of action than that of mesalamine (2.4 g daily) (2-wk sigmoidocopic score improvement, 54.7% [6.75-g balsalazide] vs 29.4% [2.4-g mesalamine], p = 0.006) with numerically greater improvement at 8 wk in five of seven measured signs and symptoms. Balsalazide (6.75 g daily) was well tolerated, and the safety profile did not differ significantly from that of balsalazide (2.25 g daily) or mesalamine.

CONCLUSIONS

Eight weeks of treatment with balsalazide (6.75 g daily) is significantly more effective than balsalazide (2.25 g daily) and more rapid in onset than mesalamine (2.4 g daily) in improving signs and symptoms of acute ulcerative colitis. Balsalazide (6.75 g daily) is well tolerated, and the safety profile does not differ from that of balsalazide (2.25 g daily) and mesalamine (2.4 g daily).

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

A computer-assisted literature search for relevant studies (1981-2002) was performed using MEDLINE, BIOS, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register, and the Science Citation Index, followed by a manual search of reference lists from previously retrieved articles, review articles, symposia proceedings, and abstracts from major gastrointestinal conferences.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were accepted for analysis if they were prospective, randomized, double-blinded, and placebo- or SASP-controlled clinical trials of parallel design with treatment duration of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

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

Review article: balsalazide therapy in ulcerative colitis

Balsalazide is a 5-aminosalicylic acid (mesalazine) pro-drug which has an inert carrier molecule instead of the sulfapyridine moiety of sulfasalazine. It is designed to deliver 5-aminosalicylic acid to the colonic mucosa without the sulfapyridine-associated side-effects encountered with sulfasalazine. Several studies have confirmed the efficacy and patient tolerance of balsalazide. When compared to mesalazine at equivalent doses, it induced symptomatic and complete remission of acute ulcerative colitis in a greater proportion of patients. In particular, patients with resistant left-sided disease were shown to have a higher probability of achieving remission. Balsalazide was beneficial in patients with troublesome nocturnal symptoms. It has a similar efficacy in maintaining remission when compared to sulfasalazine and mesalazine. The advantage of balsalazide over other 5-aminosalicylic acid compounds is its superior patient tolerability with minimal side-effects.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

Balsalazide

Balsalazide is a prodrug of mesalazine which has an inert carrier molecule instead of the sulfapyridine moiety of sulfasalazine. Balsalazide 6.75 g/day was more effective than mesalazine 2.4 g/day in at least 1 trial and as effective as sulfasalazine 3 g/day for inducing remission in patients with acute ulcerative colitis in 8- and 12-week trials. Moreover, complete symptom relief occurred more promptly with balsalizide 6.75 g/day than with mesalazine 2.4g/day. In long term studies, balsalazide 2 g/day was as effective as sulfasalazine 2 g/day and balsalazide 6 g/day was as effective as mesalazine 1.5 g/day, in maintaining remission in patients with ulcerative colitis. The tolerability profile of balsalazide is significantly better than that of sulfasalazine; 70% of sulfasalazine-intolerant patients were able to tolerate balsalazide.

Balsalazide

Balsalazide is a prodrug of mesalazine which has an inert carrier molecule instead of the sulfapyridine moiety of sulfasalazine. Balsalazide 6.75 g/day was more effective than mesalazine 2.4 g/day in at least 1 trial and as effective as sulfasalazine 3 g/day for inducing remission in patients with acute ulcerative colitis in 8- and 12-week trials. Moreover, complete symptom relief occurred more promptly with balsalizide 6.75 g/day than with mesalazine 2.4g/day. In long term studies, balsalazide 2 g/day was as effective as sulfasalazine 2 g/day and balsalazide 6 g/day was as effective as mesalazine 1.5 g/day, in maintaining remission in patients with ulcerative colitis. The tolerability profile of balsalazide is significantly better than that of sulfasalazine; 70% of sulfasalazine-intolerant patients were able to tolerate balsalazide.

Salicylates for inflammatory bowel disease

Targeted delivery of 5-aminosalicylic acid to the small intestine and colon by controlled-release or azo-bonded compounds potentially offers treatment for ileal Crohn's disease as well as ulcerative colitis. The pharmacokinetics of sulphasalazine and aminosalicylate derivatives have been discussed and potential modes of action reviewed. These include actions on epithelial cell-surface receptors, cellular events and barrier function. Evidence for an influence of salicylates on circulating and tissue inflammatory cells is presented, as well as actions on adhesion molecules, chemotactic peptides, eicosanoids, cytokines and reactive oxygen metabolites. The precise mechanism remains unknown, but a pluripotential mode of action is an advantage when influencing the network of events that constitutes chronic inflammation. Controlled clinical trials of salicylates in ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease have been reviewed. Their main role remains as maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis, but relatively high doses of controlled-release preparations benefit patients with ileal Crohn's disease, following resection, or those who have recently relapsed. Finally, issues of clinical relevance have been addressed, including the choice of salicylate and safety, indications for initiating therapy, dose and duration of treatment, role in managing refractory colitis and future developments.