Once daily MMX mesalazine for the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: a phase II, dose-ranging study

MMX mesalamine in ulcerative colitis: Major advantages towards classical mesalamine formulations

Medical therapy is the cornerstone of ulcerative colitis (UC) management and aims to induce and maintain remission. In case of mild-to-moderate UC, mesalamine (5-ASA) is the first-line option. 5-ASA requires local release at the level of the inflamed mucosa to exert its therapeutic action. While rectal preparations are useful in distal colitis, in cases of UC of at least rectosigmoid extent, guidelines suggest the association of oral and rectal 5-ASA. Mesalamine with Multi Matrix System® technology (MMX mesalamine) is an oral, high-strength (1.2 g/tablet), once-daily formulation of 5-ASA, designed to provide delayed and prolonged release throughout the entire colon. Clinical trials demonstrated a strong efficacy in inducing and maintaining clinical and endoscopic remission in active mild-to-moderate UC. The efficacy is related to specific colonic drug-delivery, to its high-dosage and once-daily administration, thus improving patients' adherence and outcomes. The specific colonic-delivery is also associated with very low rates of systemic absorption and adverse events (AEs). With this comprehensive review we aimed to summarize current knowledge on MMX mesalamine in mild-to-moderate UC, in terms of clinical pharmacology, efficacy and safety, also compared to other 5-ASA products. In addition we provided an expert opinion on the topic, examining the implications on clinical practice.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease 2020

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

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.

Outcomes of a drug shortage requiring switching in patients with ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Drug shortages are common yet their impact on patient care and their commercial ramifications has not been adequately researched. In Australia a shortage of balsalazide (2012-2013) necessitated substitution with alternative 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) formulations for ulcerative colitis (UC).

AIM

To assess and compare the clinical and commercial sequelae of non-medical switching from balsalazide to another 5-ASA and/or return to balsalazide once supply resumed.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study of patients on balsalazide for mild-moderate UC was conducted where, strictly due to the national shortage (November 2012- January 2013), were switched to alternative 5-ASA and/or then returned to balsalazide once supply resumed. Clinical (Partial Mayo), endoscopic (Mayo score) activity, adverse effects (to alternative 5-ASA) and percentage market share (of continuous 5-ASA users) from baseline (i.e., time of switching due to shortage) through to five years were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 31 patients switched due to the shortage, 12 (38.7%) resumed balsalazide immediately once supply resumed, 8 (25.8%) prompted by adverse effects to the alternative 5-ASA used. Three patients (9.7%) had documented symptomatic improvement, 15 (48.4%) were unchanged and 13 (41.9%) had symptomatic worsening vs baseline (P < 0.01), after switching to an alternative 5-ASA. At 3 and 5y post switch, overall 26/31 (83.9%) and 23/31 (74.2%) had remained continuously on any 5-ASA therapy respectively. Twelve (38.7%) and 11 (35.5%) patients remained on balsalazide continuously at three and five years respectively after drug supply returned, equating to a loss of market share (within 5-ASA class) of 45.2% and 38.7% respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study of a balsalazide shortage in UC patients exemplifies the detrimental impact of a drug shortage on long term patient, disease and commercial outcomes.

Clinical Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Considerations in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) of unknown etiology, probably caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. The treatment of patients with active UC depends on the severity, localization and history of IBD medication. According to the classic step-up approach, treatment with 5-aminosalicylic acid compounds is the first step in the treatment of mild to moderately active UC. Corticosteroids, such as prednisolone are used in UC patients with moderate to severe disease activity, but only for remission induction therapy because of side effects associated with long-term use. Thiopurines are the next step in the treatment of active UC but monotherapy during induction therapy in UC patients is not preferred because of their slow onset. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of the pharmacologically active metabolites of thiopurines, 6-thioguanine nucleotide (6-TGN), has proven to be beneficial. Thiopurine S-methyltransferase (TMPT) plays a role in the metabolic conversion pathway of thiopurines and exhibits genetic polymorphism; however, the clinical benefit and relevance of TPMT genotyping is not well established. In patients with severely active UC refractory to corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors such as ciclosporin A (CsA) and tacrolimus are potential therapeutic options. These agents usually have a rather rapid onset of action. Monoclonal antibodies (anti-tumor necrosis factor [TNF] agents, vedolizumab) are the last pharmacotherapeutic option for UC patients before surgery becomes inevitable. Body weight, albumin status and antidrug antibodies contribute to the variability in the pharmacokinetics of anti-TNF agents. Additionally, the use of concomitant immunomodulators (thiopurines/methotrexate) lowers the rate of immunogenicity, and therefore the concomitant use of anti-TNF therapy with an immunomodulator may confer some advantage compared with monotherapy in certain patients. TDM of anti-TNF agents could be beneficial in patients with primary nonresponse and secondary loss of response. The potential benefit of applying TDM during vedolizumab treatment has yet to be determined.

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

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

Comparative assessment of budesonide-MMX and mesalamine in active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS

The comparative efficacy, safety and tolerability of budesonide-MMX and oral mesalamine in active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) are unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis to fill this evidence gap.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries, regulatory agencies' websites and international conference proceedings, up to July 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adult patients with active, mild-to-moderate UC, comparing budesonide-MMX or mesalamine against placebo, or against each other, or different dosing strategies, for induction of remission. Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and outcomes, and assessed each trial's risk-of-bias.

RESULTS

We identified and synthesized evidence from 15 eligible trials including 4083 participants. Budesonide-MMX 9 mg/day and mesalamine >2.4 g/day had similar efficacy for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission (OR = 0.97; 0.59-1.60), both showing superiority over placebo (OR = 2.68; 1.75-4.10, and OR = 2.75; 1.94-3.90, respectively). Furthermore, mesalamine >2.4 g/day was more efficacious than mesalamine 1.6-2.4 g/day (odds ratio = 1.27; 1.03-1.56). Secondary analyses showed that mesalamine >2.4 g/day ranks at the top among comparator treatments regarding safety (serious adverse events; surface under the cumulative ranking area [SUCRA] 79.2%) and tolerability (treatment discontinuations or withdrawals from the study due to adverse events; SUCRA 96.7%). There was no evidence of inconsistency, while heterogeneity between studies and risk of publication bias were low.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide-MMX and mesalamine >2.4 g/day had similar efficacy for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission in active, mild-to-moderate UC; however, mesalamine >2.4 g/day showed better tolerability. Further high-quality research is warranted.

Mucosal 5-aminosalicylic acid concentration, drug formulation and mucosal microbiome in patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) is the first-line therapy for ulcerative colitis (UC). 5-ASA acts locally in the colonic mucosa by numerous proposed mechanisms, and is metabolised by N-acetyltransferase (NAT). Large variations in mucosal 5-ASA concentrations have been reported, but the underlying mechanisms are not understood.

AIM

To study the relationship between 5-ASA concentration, 5-ASA formulation, NAT genotype and bacterial microbiome in patients with UC.

METHODS

Patients with quiescent UC, using monotherapy of Mezavant (n = 18), Asacol (n = 14) or Pentasa (n = 10), 4.0-4.8 g/day were included. 5-ASA was measured in colonic mucosal biopsies and serum by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography. NAT genotypes were determined by Sanger sequencing. Bacterial microbiome was sequenced from faeces and mucosa by 16S rRNA sequencing using Illumina Miseq.

RESULTS

Mezavant provided the highest mucosal 5-ASA levels (geometric mean 2.39 ng/mg), followed by Asacol (1.60 ng/mg, 33% lower, P = 0.50) and Pentasa (0.57 ng/mg, 76% lower, P = 0.033). Mucosal 5-ASA concentration was not associated with NAT genotype, but serum 5-ASA concentration and NAT1 genotype was associated (P = 0.044). Mucosal 5-ASA concentration was positively associated with mucosal bacterial diversity (P = 0.0005) and bacterial composition. High mucosal 5-ASA concentration was related to reduced abundance of pathogenic bacteria such as Proteobacteria, and increased abundance of several favourable bacteria such as Faecalibacterium.

CONCLUSIONS

Mucosal 5-ASA concentration is positively associated with bacterial diversity and a mucosal bacterial composition that are perceived favourable in UC. Mezavant yielded higher mucosal 5-ASA concentrations than Pentasa. 5-ASA may have beneficial effects on the mucosal microbiome, and high concentrations possibly amend dysbiosis in UC.

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.

Remission endpoints in ulcerative colitis: A systematic review

AIM

To summarize the current consensus on the definition of remission and the endpoints employed in clinical trials.

METHODS

A bibliogragraphic search was performed from 1946 to 2016 sing online databases (National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central Medline, OVID SP MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Conference Abstracts) with key words: (“ulcerative colitis”) AND (“ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity” OR “UCEIS”) AND (“remission”) as well as (“ulcerative colitis”) AND (“ulcerative colitis disease activity index”) OR “UCDAI” OR “UC disease activity index” OR “Sutherland index”) AND (“remission”).

RESULTS

The search returned 37 and 116 articles for the UCEIS and UCDAI respectively. For the UCEIS, 12 articles were cited in the final analysis of which 9 validation studies have been identified. Despite the UCEIS has been more extensively validated in all three aspects (validity, responsiveness and reliability), it has been little employed to monitor disease in randomised clinical trials. For the UCDAI, 37 articles were considered for the final analysis. Although the UCDAI is only partially validated, 29 randomised clinical trials were acknowledged to use the UCDAI to determine endpoints and disease remission, though no clear protocol was identified.

CONCLUSION

Although the UCEIS has been more widely validated than the UCDAI, it has not been reflected in the monitoring of disease activity in clinical trials. Conversely, the UCDAI has been used in numerous large clinical trials to define their endpoints and disease remission, however, it is challenging to determine the best possible outcomes due to a lack of homogeneity of the clinical trial protocols. Before determining a gold standard index, international agreement on remission is urgently needed to advance patient care.

MMX® technology and its applications in gastrointestinal diseases

The Multimatrix^® (MMX^®) preparation MMX^® is a recently obtained drug formulation developed to facilitate release of high concentrations of active drugs into the colon, with a homogeneous distribution along all colonic segments, particularly the most distal ones; the distal colonic tracts, indeed, are the most difficult to reach in significant amounts when a drug is given orally. The MMX^® formulation is characterized by a lipophilic matrix dispersed in a hydrophilic structure. Indeed, in the last few years, MMX^® technology has been widely used in the development of various drugs for the treatment of inflammatory and infectious gastrointestinal diseases localized in the colon. In particular, MMX^® mesalamine, budesonide and parnaparin formulations have been investigated in patients with ulcerative colitis, and the first two have reached worldwide registration for the treatment of this disease. Moreover, MMX^®-rifamycin is being positively tested in the treatment of colonic bacterial infections, including traveler's diarrhea. MMX^® technology is, thus, proving to be a very effective formulation for the treatment of various colonic diseases. This effectiveness has been related not only to specific colonic delivery, but also to its ability to act in a once-daily dosage, thus favouring patients' adherence to prescribed schedules of treatment. The effective delivery of the active molecule to the site of need in the colon is also associated with very low systemic absorption and very low rates of adverse events (AEs). In this paper, we have reviewed all clinical trials performed with an MMX^®-bound drug and all possible real-life reports, in order to give an overall evaluation of MMX^®.

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.

Measurement of in vivo Gastrointestinal Release and Dissolution of Three Locally Acting Mesalamine Formulations in Regions of the Human Gastrointestinal Tract

As an orally administered, locally acting gastrointestinal drug, mesalamine products are designed to achieve high local drug concentration in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. The aim of this study was to directly measure and compare drug dissolution of three mesalamine formulations in human GI tract and to correlate their GI concentration with drug concentration in plasma. Healthy human subjects were orally administered Pentasa, Apriso, or Lialda. GI fluids were aspirated from stomach, duodenum, proximal jejunum, mid jejunum, and distal jejunum regions. Mesalamine (5-ASA) and its primary metabolite acetyl-5-mesalamine (Ac-5-ASA) were measured using LC-MS/MS. GI tract pH was measured from each GI fluid sample, which averaged 1.82, 4.97, 5.67, 6.17, and 6.62 in the stomach, duodenum, proximal jejunum, middle jejunum, and distal jejunum, respectively. For Pentasa, high levels of 5-ASA in solution were observed in the stomach, duodenum, proximal jejunum, mid jejunum, and distal jejunum from 1 to 7 h. Apriso had minimal 5-ASA levels in stomach, low to medium levels of 5-ASA in duodenum and proximal jejunum from 4 to 7 h, and high levels of 5-ASA in distal jejunum from 3 to 7 h. In contrast, Lialda had minimal 5-ASA levels from stomach and early small intestine. A composite appearance rate (CAR) was calculated from the deconvolution of individual plasma concentration to reflect drug release, dissolution, transit, and absorption in the GI tract. Individuals dosed with Pentasa had high levels of CAR from 1 to 10 h; individuals dosed with Apriso had low levels of CAR from 1 to 4 h and high levels of CAR from 5 to 10 h; Lialda showed minimal levels of CAR from 0 to 5 h, then increased to medium levels from 5 to 12 h, and then decreased to further lower levels after 12 h. In the colon region, Pentasa and Apriso showed similar levels of accumulated 5-ASA excreted in the feces, while Lialda showed slightly higher 5-ASA accumulation in feces. However, all three formulations showed similar levels of metabolite Ac-5-ASA in the feces. These results provide direct measurement of drug dissolution in the GI tract, which can serve as a basis for investigation of bioequivalence for locally acting drug products.

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.

Budesonide Multi-matrix for the Treatment of Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic idiopathic inflammatory disorder in which patients cycle between active disease and remission. Budesonide multi-matrix (MMX) is an oral second-generation corticosteroid designed to deliver active drug throughout the colon. In pharmacokinetic studies, the mean relative absorption of budesonide in the region between the ascending colon and the descending/sigmoid colon was 95.9 %. In 2 identically designed, phase 3 studies (CORE I and II), budesonide MMX 9 mg once daily was efficacious and well tolerated for induction of remission of mild to moderate UC. Clinical and endoscopic remission rates were 17.9 % (CORE I) and 17.4 % (CORE II) for budesonide MMX 9 mg compared with 7.4 and 4.5 %, respectively, with placebo (p < 0.05, budesonide MMX 9 mg vs. placebo in both studies), 12.1 % with mesalamine 2.4 g, and 12.6 % with budesonide controlled ileal release capsules 9 mg. A 12-month maintenance therapy study suggested that budesonide MMX 6 mg may prolong time to clinical relapse: Median time was >1 year with budesonide MMX 6 mg versus 181 days (p = 0.02) with placebo; however, further studies are needed. In the CORE studies, budesonide MMX exhibited a favorable safety profile; the majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity, and serious adverse events were uncommon. Furthermore, rates of potential glucocorticoid-related adverse events were comparable across treatment groups. The long-term (12-month) safety of budesonide MMX appears to be comparable with placebo. Data support budesonide MMX in the management algorithm of UC.

Advances in refractory ulcerative colitis treatment: A new therapeutic target, Annexin A2

Medical treatment has progressed significantly over the past decade towards achieving and maintaining clinical remission in patients with refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). Proposed mediators of inflammation in UC include pro-inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-2, and the cell-surface adhesive molecule integrin α4β7. Conventional therapeutics for active UC include 5-aminosalicylic acid, corticosteroids and purine analogues (azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine). Patients who fail to respond to conventional therapy are treated with agents such as the calicineurin inhibitors cyclosporine and tacrolimus, the TNF-α inhibitors infliximab or adalimumab, or a neutralizing antibody (vedolizumab) directed against integrin α4β7. These therapeutic agents are of benefit for patients with refractory UC, but are not universally effective. Our recent research on TNF-α shedding demonstrated that inhibition of annexin (ANX) A2 may be a new therapeutic strategy for the prevention of TNF-α shedding during inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) inflammation. In this review, we provide an overview of therapeutic treatments that are effective and currently available for UC patients, as well as some that are likely to be available in the near future. We also propose the potential of ANX A2 as a new molecular target for IBD treatment.

Accuracy of Rapid Fecal Calprotectin Test in Monitoring Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Under Treatment with TNFα Antagonists

BACKGROUND

Anti-TNFα antibodies are effective in treating inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) unresponsive to the standard treatments. Information about the role of rapid fecal calprotectin (FC) in monitoring ambulatory IBD patients under treatment with anti-TNFα is lacking. Our aim was to assess the accuracy of rapid FC in monitoring those patients.

METHODS

Seventy-two patients (38 males, 34 females, mean age 42.5 years, range 23-57 years), affected by ulcerative colitis (UC) (20 patients) or by Crohn's disease (CD) (52 patients) were treated with anti-TNFα antibodies. FC was assessed by a rapid semiquantitative test.

RESULTS

With respect to the absence of clinical remission, FC test showed sensitivity of 71.8 %, specificity of 65.2 %, PPV of 41.8 %, and NPV of 86.9 %. In UC patients, FC test showed a sensitivity of 66.7 %, a specificity of 56.1 %, a PPV of 18.2 %, and a NPV of 92.0 %. In CD patients, FC test showed sensitivity of 70.6 %, specificity of 65.2 %, PPV of 50.0 %, and NPV of 81.8 %. With respect to the presence of endoscopic lesions, FC test showed sensitivity of 73.5 %, specificity of 96.0 %, PPV of 96.2 %, and NPV of 72.7 %. In UC patients, FC test showed sensitivity of 47.2 %, specificity of 84.6 %, PPV of 89.5 %, and NPV of 36.7 %. In CD patients, FC test showed sensitivity of 90.1 %, specificity of 79.7 %, PPV of 71.9 %, and NPV of 93.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid FC seems better in predicting persistence of endoscopic lesions than clinical remission in IBD patients under treatment with anti-TNFα.

“Mucosal healing” in ulcerative colitis: Between clinical evidence and market suggestion

In recent decades, the prominent role of endoscopy in the management of ulcerative colitis (UC) has been translated into the concept of mucosal healing (MH) as a fundamental therapeutic end-point. This is partially the consequence of growing evidence of a positive prognostic role of MH on the disease course and partially due to market cues indicating a higher rate of MH in patients treated by novel potent biologic agents. The aim of the present review is to clarify the current knowledge of MH in UC, analyzing the definition, the putative prognostic role and the association of MH with the current drugs used to treat UC patients. Because solid data about the management of UC patients based solely on the healing of the mucosa are not yet available, a tailored approach for individual patients thatconsiders the natural history of UC and the presence of prognostic indicators of aggressive disease is desirable. Consequently, unnecessary examinations and treatment would be avoided and restricted to UC patients who require the maximum amount of effort to affect the disease course in the short and long term.

The role of Budesonide-MMX in active ulcerative colitis

Traditional corticosteroids represent a well-established and effective treatment for active ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the severity of their systemic side effects, led in recent years to look for new steroid molecules that could reduce them, maximizing the anti-inflammatory activity. Budesonide has been one of the most studied steroid compounds and it has been approved for the treatment of mild to moderate active Crohn's disease (CD). In order to extend the release until the distally located inflammation, budesonide has been coupled with a controlled delivery system, called Multi-Matrix system (MMX), already successfully tested with oral mesalazine for the treatment of distal UC. After in vitro and in vivo models, the efficacy of Budesonide-MMX has been investigated in active UC with a first small phase II study, and partially encouraging results. This article will review the evidences on the use of budesonide in inflammatory bowel diseases and will discuss the role of Budesonide-MMX in active UC nowadays.

Mesalazine for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) represent a chronic inflammatory condition of the bowel that often require lifelong medical therapy for the induction and maintenance of the remission. Mesalazine therapies are available both as oral delayed-release and sustained-release formulation, topical formulations and as prodrug.

AREAS COVERED

Available literature regarding mesalazine is extensively reviewed in this article, covering its mechanism of action, pharmaceutics and pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability in different settings.

EXPERT OPINION

Mesalazine has a well-established role in the management of UC. It is the treatment of choice in active and inactive mild-to-moderate UC combining oral and topical drug. No clear role of mesalazine in prevention of colon cancer has been demonstrated because of the contradictory results coming from case-control and prospective studies. The role of mesalazine in the management of CD is less clear; some studies suggest a potential efficacy of 5-ASA in preventing relapse of CD after surgical resection but more convincing results are needed.

The effect of third-party reporting on adoption of evidence-based mesalazine regimens in ulcerative colitis: an observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The optimal mesalazine dosing strategy for ulcerative colitis (UC) continues to evolve. The current study aimed to explore whether documenting drug use could prompt changes in prescribing habits.

METHODS

In a multicenter, prospective, observational study, outpatients with active or quiescent UC were enrolled if they were receiving, or were planned to receive, sustained release mesalazine microgranules (Pentasa). Clinical and prescribing data were collected at study entry, after 2 and 8 weeks. Physician-reported influences on prescribing decisions were recorded at study entry.

RESULTS

360 patients were analyzed (203 active UC, 157 remission). Prior to study entry, the range of oral mesalazine doses was 0.50-6.00 g/day in active UC patients, and 0.50-4.00 g/day for patients in remission. These changed to 1.50-5.00 g/day and 1.00-4.00 g/day, respectively, at study entry with little change thereafter. Use of a single daily mesalazine dose increased from 16.7% to 58.0% of active cases during the study, and from 5.9% to 46.8% in remission cases. Gastroenterologists reported that their basis for prescription decision-making was most frequently medical experience (80.8%), followed by guidelines (67.2%), further education or colleagues' recommendations (50.0%) and current study results (20.0%).

CONCLUSION

In this analysis of mesalazine dosing in routine clinical practice, there was an improvement in adherence to European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) guidelines and in use of once-daily dosing, consistent with recent trial results, following documentation of dosing regimens. Written reporting of drug dosing schedules should be considered fundamental for chronic, complex diseases such as UC.

Outcome following aminosalicylate therapy in children newly diagnosed as having ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVES

Despite a paucity of published supporting data, 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) use in pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC) is common. The present study describes the use and outcome of a large multicenter inception cohort of children with UC treated with 5-ASA.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease Collaborative Research Group Registry, a prospective North American observational study of children newly diagnosed as having inflammatory bowel disease ages 16 years or younger. Patient data are recorded at diagnosis, 30 days, and then quarterly. Patients are managed by physician dictate, not protocol. Disease activity is classified by physician global assessment. The primary outcome examined was corticosteroid (CS) free, inactive UC at 1 year following initiation of 5-ASA within 30 days of diagnosis (with or without concomitant CS use) without the need for rescue therapy (immunomodulators, biologics, or colectomy).

RESULTS

Study subjects included 213 patients newly diagnosed as having UC who received oral 5-ASA compounds (115 of whom also received CS) during the first 30 days after diagnosis, and no other oral therapies for the treatment of UC. Of these 213 patients, 86 (40%) were CS free and physician global assessment inactive at 1 year without rescue. Outcome was not associated with disease severity at diagnosis, demographic or laboratory factors examined, or initial dose of 5-ASA used.

CONCLUSIONS

Forty percent of children taking 5-ASA as primary maintenance therapy at diagnosis are in CS-free remission after 1 year of treatment. Further pediatric studies will be needed to address whether increased adherence and/or higher dosing schedules will improve outcomes.

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.

Multi-Matrix System (MMX®) mesalamine for the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory disease of the colon characterized by periods of active disease and remission. The pathogenesis of this disease is likely a complex interaction of genetic predisposition, environmental factors, and immune system dysregulation, and is not completely understood. A Multi-MatriX (MMX®) system formulation of mesalamine, MMX mesalamine (SPD476; Lialda®; Mesavancol®; Mezavant®), allows for high-dose, once-daily dosing for patients with mild-to-moderate UC. Mesalamine is a topically active agent with anti-inflammatory properties.

AREAS COVERED

Available literature regarding MMX mesalamine is extensively reviewed in this article, covering its chemical makeup, mechanism of action, pharmaceutics and pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and safety and tolerability.

EXPERT OPINION

A dose of 2.4 and 4.8 g was used in large Phase III clinical trials and was efficacious for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission in UC. MMX mesalamine was also efficacious in large multicenter maintenance studies for the maintenance of clinical and endoscopic remission. The introduction of the first once-daily mesalamine has given practitioners and patients more flexibility in dosing administration, which will ultimately lead to higher satisfaction and improved clinical outcomes.

Once daily oral mesalamine compared to conventional dosing for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We systematically reviewed and compared the efficacy and safety of once daily (OD) mesalamine to conventional dosing for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis (UC). A literature search to January 2012 identified all applicable randomized trials. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The GRADE criteria were used to assess the overall quality of the evidence. Studies were subgrouped by formulation for meta-analysis. Eleven studies that evaluated 4070 patients were identified. The risk of bias was low for most factors, although five studies were single-blind and one was open-label. No difference was observed between the dosing strategies in the proportion of patients with clinical remission (relative risk [RR] 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.10), clinical improvement (RR 0.87 95% CI 0.68-1.10), or relapse at 6 (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.83-1.46) or 12 months (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.83-1.03). Subgroup analyses showed no important differences in efficacy. No significant difference was demonstrated in rates of medication adherence or adverse events between OD and conventional dosing. OD mesalamine appears to be as effective and safe as conventional dosing for both the treatment of mild to moderately active UC and for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC. The failure to demonstrate a superior rate of adherence to OD dosing may be due to the high rate of adherence observed in the clinical trials environment. Future research should assess the value of OD dosing in community settings.

Once-daily MMX(®) mesalamine for endoscopic maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVES

Treatment with mesalamine to maintain endoscopic remission (mucosal healing) of ulcerative colitis (UC) has been shown to reduce the risk of relapse and is the recommended first-line maintenance therapy. To improve treatment adherence, a mesalamine formulation that can be administered once-daily, MMX(®) mesalamine (Lialda; Shire Pharmaceuticals LLC, Wayne, PA), was developed. This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of once-daily MMX mesalamine compared with twice-daily delayed-release mesalamine (Asacol; Warner Chilcott, Dublin, Ireland) for maintaining endoscopic remission in patients with UC.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 6-month, active-control trial was conducted to assess the non-inferiority of once-daily MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day compared with twice-daily delayed-release mesalamine at a total daily dose of 1.6 g/day in patients with UC in endoscopic remission. The primary end point was maintenance of endoscopic remission at month 6 in the per-protocol (PP) population.

RESULTS

Overall, 826 patients were randomized and dosed. The primary objective (non-inferiority) was met. At month 6, 83.7 and 77.8% of patients receiving MMX mesalamine in the PP and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, respectively, had maintained endoscopic remission compared with 81.5% (PP) and 76.9% (ITT) of patients receiving delayed-release mesalamine (95% confidence interval for difference: -3.9%, 8.1% (PP); -5.0%, 6.9% (ITT)). Time to relapse was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (log-rank test, P=0.5116 (PP); P=0.5455 (ITT)). The proportion of patients with adverse events was 37.1 and 36.0% in patients receiving MMX mesalamine and delayed-release mesalamine, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily dosing of MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day was shown to be well tolerated and non-inferior to twice-daily dosing with delayed-release mesalamine 1.6 g/day for maintenance of endoscopic remission in patients with UC.

Review article: delivery and efficacy of topical 5-aminosalicylic acid (mesalazine) therapy in the treatment of ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

The use of topical therapy in the treatment of ulcerative colitis has declined in recent years despite evidence of good efficacy.

AIMS

To review US prescription trends for 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) since the US approval of Asacol extended-release oral mesalazine (mesalamine) in 1992; to estimate the optimal level of 5-ASA exposure in the distal colon; to determine factors influencing distal colonic exposures; and to compare the effectiveness of different 5-ASA formulations (oral, topical suspension, foam, suppositories) in clinical trials.

METHODS

Review of clinical trials, physiologic studies and prescription trends of various mesalazine formulations for treatment of distal ulcerative colitis.

RESULTS

Between 1992 and 2009, prescriptions for oral mesalazine increased sixfold, whereas topical suspensions declined by 10%. In clinical trials, topical therapy resulted in higher remission and clinical response rates than oral therapy, with trends to earlier improvement. The mucosal concentrations of 5-ASA achieved by topical agents in the distal colon were up to 200-fold higher than those achieved by oral administration alone. Despite active colitis, over 40% of a topically administered 4 g 5-ASA suspension (equal to 1.6 g) reached the sigmoid colon. This likely represents a therapeutic exposure of 5-ASA. Although topical therapies are less convenient than oral medications, treatment algorithms have failed to take into account quality of life improvements resulting from more rapid and complete treatment response.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical mesalazine therapy is superior to oral therapy in distal ulcerative colitis for both therapeutic response and drug delivery. Practice patterns should be re-evaluated in light of this information.

Efficacy of 5-aminosalicylates in ulcerative colitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The efficacy of 5-aminosalicylic acids (5-ASAs) in ulcerative colitis (UC) has been studied previously in meta-analyses. However, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published recently, and no previous meta-analysis has studied the effect of 5-ASA dosage used.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched (through December 2010). Eligible trials recruited adults with active or quiescent UC, comparing different doses of 5-ASAs with themselves or placebo. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain relative risk (RR) of failure to achieve remission in active UC, and RR of relapse of disease activity in quiescent UC, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated from the reciprocal of the risk difference.

RESULTS

The search identified 3,061 citations, and 37 RCTs were eligible. Of these, 11 compared 5-ASA with placebo in active UC remission, with the RR of no remission with 5-ASAs of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73-0.85; NNT=6). Doses of ≥ 2.0 g/day were more effective than <2.0 g/day for remission (RR=0.91; 95% CI 0.85-0.98). There were 11 RCTs comparing 5-ASAs with placebo in preventing relapse of quiescent UC, with the RR of relapse of 0.65 (95% CI 0.55-0.76; NNT=4). Doses of ≥ 2.0 g/day appeared more effective than <2.0 g/day for preventing relapse (RR=0.79; 95% CI 0.64-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

5-ASAs are highly effective for inducing remission and preventing relapse in UC. Evidence suggests that doses of ≥ 2.0 g/day have greater efficacy, although doses >2.5 g/day do not appear to lead to higher remission rates.

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.

Once-daily dosing of delayed-release oral mesalamine (400-mg tablet) is as effective as twice-daily dosing for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The practice of dosing mesalamines in divided doses for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) began with sulfasalazine and was driven by sulfapyridine toxicity. This convention and the assumption that dosing multiple times a day is necessary to treat UC had not been challenged until recently. This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of delayed-release mesalamine (Asacol 400-mg tablets) compared with twice-daily dosing for maintaining remission in UC patients.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, investigator-blinded, 12-month, active-control trial was conducted to assess the noninferiority of delayed-release mesalamine 1.6-2.4 g/day administered once daily compared with twice daily in patients with mild-to-moderate UC currently in clinical remission. The primary end point was maintenance of clinical remission at month 6.

RESULTS

A total of 1023 patients were randomized and dosed. The primary objective of noninferiority was met. At month 6, 90.5% of patients receiving once-daily dosing had maintained clinical remission, compared with 91.8% of patients receiving twice-daily dosing (95% confidence interval for twice daily - once daily, -2.3 to 4.9). At month 12, 85.4% of patients receiving once-daily dosing had maintained clinical remission, compared with 85.4% of patients receiving twice-daily dosing (95% confidence interval for twice daily - once daily, -4.6 to 4.7). Both regimens had low rates of withdrawals as a result of adverse events and serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily dosing of delayed-release mesalamine at doses of 1.6-2.4 g/day was shown to be as effective as twice-daily dosing for maintenance of clinical remission in patients with UC.

Patient considerations in the management of ulcerative colitis: role of once-daily MMX mesalamine

Mesalamine and its derivatives are effective and well-tolerated therapies for ulcerative colitis. However, patient adherence to traditional mesalamine-based therapy is poor, and is often limited by heavy pill burdens and frequent dosing intervals. This can lead to ineffective disease control, impaired quality of life, and preventable morbidity and mortality. Previous studies have suggested that a once-daily mesalamine regimen would be strongly adhered to in the outpatient setting, but at that time no such formulation of mesalamine existed. In 2007, clinical trial data showed a novel, once-daily, multi-matrix (MMX) formulation of mesalamine to be effective in both remission induction and remission maintenance. This breakthrough in drug delivery allowed the unification of an effective therapeutic with a formulation that enables outpatients to be increasingly adherent to their medication. In theory, this might result in improved outpatient disease control and a decreased number of flares. As the use of MMX mesalamine increases, studies examining the outpatient community adherence rate need to be performed.

5-ASA in ulcerative colitis: Improving treatment compliance

5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) compounds are a highly effective treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC). While UC patient compliance in clinical studies is over 90%, only 40% of patients in every day life take their prescribed therapy. Adherence to medication has been emphasized recently by a Cochrane meta-analysis that has suggested that future trials of 5-ASA in UC should look at patient compliance rather than drug efficacy. Better compliance can be obtained by reducing the number of tablets and times of administration. Given that the 5-ASA formulations have different delivery systems that split the active moiety in various regions of the intestine, it is particularly important that an adequate dose of the drug arrives at the inflamed part of the colon. 5-ASA Multi matrix (MMx) is a novel, high strength (1.2 g), oral formulation designed for once-daily dosing. It releases the active moiety throughout the colon. Different studies with this compound have shown that it is as effective as 5-ASA enema in the treatment of mild-to-moderate, left-sided UC, and is comparable to a pH-dependent, delayed release 5-ASA (Asacol^®), even if given once daily. Recently, the effectiveness in the acute phase of UC has been confirmed also in maintenance. In conclusion, at present, 5-ASA MMx seems theoretically the best agent for maintaining patient compliance, and consequently, treatment effectiveness.

Therapeutic strategies for the management of ulcerative colitis

Induction and maintenance of remission, mucosal healing, the avoidance of surgical intervention, and decreasing the likelihood of cancer developing are the primary therapeutic goals in ulcerative colitis (UC). For the traditional therapies, 5-aminosalicylic acid (including mesalamine), corticosteroids, and thiopurines (azathioprine and mercaptopurine), there are major changes evolving in terms of formulation, patterns of use, and appreciation of long-term benefits and toxicities. The calcineurin inhibitors cyclosporin and tacrolimus, and infliximab, have recently defined, well-established roles. Preliminary supportive evidence is emerging in relation to novel antiinflammatory molecules such as curcumin, manipulation of the bacterial flora, enhancement of the mucosal barrier, and direct epithelial restoration. For patients in whom the disease is resistant to standard simple therapies, strategies are required to integrate these developing and new therapies into clinical practice. This review aims to highlight the evidence supporting new patterns of use of existing therapies and new therapies, and to devise therapeutic pathways that incorporate these new treatments. We propose how treatment might be optimized to improve the outcome in patients with mild-to-moderately active UC, chronic active UC, resistant proctitis, and fulminant UC.

Use of new once-daily 5-aminosalicylic acid preparations in the treatment of ulcerative colitis: Is there anything new under the sun?

5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) agents remain the mainstay treatment in ulcerative colitis (UC). A number of oral 5-ASA agents are commercially available, including azobond pro-drugs, as well as delayed- and controlled-release forms of mesalazine. However, poor adherence due to frequent daily dosing and a large number of tablets has been shown to be an important barrier to successful management of patients with UC. Recently, new, once-daily formulations of mesalazine, including the unique multi-matrix delivery system and mesalazine granules, were proven to be efficacious in inducing and maintaining remission in mild-to-moderate UC, with a good safety profile comparable to that of other oral mesalazine formulations. In addition, they offer the advantage of a low pill burden and might contribute to increased long-term compliance and treatment success in clinical practice. This editorial summarizes the available literature on the short- and medium-term efficacy and safety of the new once-daily mesalazine formulations.

Effectiveness of new, once-daily 5-aminosalicylic acid in the treatment of ulcerative colitis

Az 5-aminoszalicilsav- (5-ASA-) készítmények mind a mai napig a colitis ulcerosa terápiájának alapvető gyógyszereit jelentik. Számos orálisan adható 5-ASA-készítmény van forgalomban, beleértve az azo-kötést tartalmazó prodrugokat (például sulfalazin, olsalazin, balzalazid), valamint a mesalazin elnyújtott és kontrollált hatóanyag-kibocsátású kiszereléseit. Az orális terápia hatékonysága a beteg jó együttműködésén is múlik, amelynek gátat szabhat a naponta többször adott, nagyszámú tabletta bevétele. Ez a tényező a colitis ulcerosában szenvedő betegek terápiájának pontos betartásában jelentős akadályt képezhet. A közelmúltban egy új, naponta egyszer adandó, egyedülálló multimátrix mesalazinkészítmény és a szintén naponta egy alkalommal adható mesalazingranulátum hatékonynak bizonyult az enyhe-közepes súlyosságú colitis ulcerosa indukciós és fenntartó terápiájában. A mellékhatásprofil ugyanakkor nem különbözött a hagyományos mesalazinkészítményektől. A ritka adagolás a betegek jobb hosszú távú compliance-e által hozzájárulhat a betegek hatékonyabb kezeléséhez és várhatóan a colitis ulcerosával kapcsolatos colorectalis carcinoma rizikójának csökkentéséhez. A szerzők az alábbi közleményben összefoglalják az új, naponta egyszer adandó mesalazinkészítmények rövid és közepes távú hatékonyságával és biztonságosságával kapcsolatban elérhető irodalmi adatokat.

Ulcerative colitis: current medical therapy and strategies for improving medication adherence

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is chronic inflammation of large intestine and often requires lifelong medication. Medical therapy aims to induce and maintain a clinical remission, reduce the risk of colorectal cancer and improve quality of life. Aminosalicylates are currently the first choice therapy both for the induction and the maintenance of remission in the patients with mild-to-moderate UC. For moderate-to-severe cases or those who do not respond to aminosalicylate therapy, additional treatment options including corticosteroids, immunomodulators, biological agents, cyclosporin, tacrolimus and surgery are available. Poor adherence to medication has been an important barrier to successful management of UC. Nonadherence has been associated with increased relapse rates, higher risk of colorectal cancer, poor quality of life and significantly increased healthcare costs. Therefore, improving adherence to medication is an important approach for a better care of the patients with UC. Definitive strategies are required to help the patients effectively self manage their disease and improve adherence. This review examines current medical therapy for UC, research progresses on medication adherence and the possible strategies for improving adherence in these patients.

Review article: 5-aminosalicylate formulations for the treatment of ulcerative colitis--methods of comparing release rates and delivery of 5-aminosalicylate to the colonic mucosa

BACKGROUND

Many oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) formulations are designed to maximize 5-ASA release in the colon where it acts topically on the colonic mucosa. Delayed-release formulations and azo-prodrugs minimize 5-ASA absorption in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract.

AIMS

To review methods for assessing 5-ASA release and colonic distribution from oral formulations, and the potential use of this information for guiding clinical decisions.

METHODS

PubMed and recent conference abstracts were searched for articles describing techniques used to assess 5-ASA release from ulcerative colitis (UC) therapies.

RESULTS

In-vitro GI models, although unable to simulate more complex aspects of GI physiology, can provide useful data on 5-ASA release kinetics and bioaccessibility. Gamma-scintigraphy is useful for investigating GI disintegration of different formulations, but may not accurately reflect 5-ASA distribution. Plasma pharmacokinetic studies provide data on systemic exposure, but not on colonic distribution or mucosal uptake. Mucosal biopsies provide direct evidence of colonic distribution and may predict clinical efficacy, but must be interpreted cautiously because of considerable inter-subject variability and other confounding factors.

CONCLUSION

While assessment of 5-ASA release is important, limitations of individual measurement techniques mean that randomized clinical studies in UC patients remain the best guide for dosing and treatment regimen decisions.

Oral, colonic-release low-molecular-weight heparin: an initial open study of Parnaparin-MMX for the treatment of mild-to-moderate left-sided ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of heparin and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment has been suggested. The multimatrix oral formulation MMX releases active drugs in the colon, avoiding systemic absorption. Parnaparin sodium is the LMWH chosen to be carried in the MMX formulation.

AIM

To assess the safety of three different oral dosages (70, 140 and 210 mg once daily) of Parnaparin-MMX (CB-01-05) in left-sided ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

Left-sided UC patients, with a mild-to-moderate relapse were enrolled. All patients received Parnaparin-MMX for 8 weeks. Clinical Activity Index (CAI), Disease Activity Index (DAI), Endoscopic Activity Index and IBD-QoL were assessed throughout the study. A strict clinical and laboratory follow-up, including assessment of anti-factor Xa activity, was performed. Clinical remission was defined as CAI <4.

RESULTS

Ten UC patients were enrolled. One patient retired for clinical deterioration. No relevant side effects, including either interference with haemostasis parameters or increased bleeding, were observed. At the end of the treatment, seven patients (70%) were in clinical remission, only one achieving endoscopic healing. Mean final CAI, DAI and IBD-QoL scores were significantly improved from baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Parnaparin-MMX appears to be a safe treatment option in mild-to-moderate UC. Controlled studies are warranted.

Mesalamine with MMX technology for the treatment of ulcerative colitis

Mesalamine with MMX Multi Matrix System technology (hereafter referred to as MMX mesalamine) is an oral, high-strength (1.2 g/tablet), once-daily formulation of 5-aminosalicylic acid used for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. This new formulation has been designed to provide delayed and prolonged 5-aminosalicylic acid release throughout the colon. In recent clinical studies, MMX mesalamine (taken as a once-daily dose of 2.4 or 4.8 g) effectively induced clinical remission and mucosal healing versus placebo in patients with active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Once remission was achieved, MMX mesalamine effectively maintained disease remission in the majority of patients for at least 12 months. In this paper, we comprehensively review the results of studies exploring the clinical pharmacology, efficacy and safety of MMX mesalamine in patients with ulcerative colitis, and examine the implications of these findings on clinical practice.