MMX mesalazine for the induction of remission of mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis: efficacy and tolerability in specific patient subpopulations

'Treat to Target' in Mild to Moderate Ulcerative Colitis: Evidence to Support this Strategy

BACKGROUND

The management of chronic conditions, above all rheumatic disease and diabetes, now incorporates a "treat to target" strategy where treatment aims to achieve objective outcomes. This is applicable in ulcerative colitis (UC) as well. Targets are demonstrated to prevent endorgan dysfunction, specifically bowel damage and its complications, and lastly colorectal cancer. Recently, the scientific community has tried to define further targets beyond those currently recommended, namely mucosal healing and clinical remission. Studies that prospectively investigated this approach in UC are scanty and a treat-to-target (T2T) algorithm is not routinely used in daily clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to review current evidence on T2T in UC and discuss its adoption in routine clinical practice as well as in clinical trials.

METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted in February 2020 to identify published papers investigating targets' achievement rates in UC.

RESULTS

Different targets can be achieved through approved drugs for mild to moderate UC; histological remission is emerging as a robust target with respect to long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Further studies to compare a T2T strategy with the traditional care are needed, particularly in the mild to moderate spectrum of disease.

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.

Comparison of efficacy of once daily multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day and 4.8 g/day with other 5-aminosalicylic acid preparation in active ulcerative colitis: a randomized, double-blind study

Background/Aims

This study compared the efficacy of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day and 4.8 g/day with controlled-release mesalazine 2.25 g/day.

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 251 patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis received multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day once daily (Multimatrix-2.4), 4.8 g/day once daily (Multimatrix-4.8), or controlled-release (time-dependent) mesalazine 2.25 g/day 3 times daily (Time-2.25) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the ulcerative colitis-disease activity index (UC-DAI) score.

Results

The mean change in the UC-DAI score and standard deviation in the per protocol set was -1.9±2.5 for Multimatrix-2.4 and -2.4±2.8 for Time-2.25. The difference between Multimatrix-2.4 and Time-2.25 was 0.3 (two-sided 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5 to 1.1), thus non-inferiority was not demonstrated based on the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (1.0). In the full analysis set, the difference between Multimatrix-4.8 and Time-2.25 was -1.2 (two-sided 95% CI, -2.0 to -0.5), and the mean change in UC-DAI score in the FAS was -3.3 (two-sided 95% CI, -3.9 to -2.8) for Multimatrix-4.8 and -1.9 (two-sided 95% CI, -2.5 to -1.3) for Multimatrix-2.4, indicating that Multimatrix-4.8 was more effective than Time-2.25 and Multimatrix-2.4. There was no difference among the treatment groups in terms of safety.

Conclusions

This study showed that the efficacy of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day was comparable to controlled release mesalazine 2.25 g/day, although non-inferiority was not demonstrated. Importantly, this was the first study to indicate that multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day was more effective than 2.4g/day with no associated safety concerns.

Placebo response and remission rates in randomised trials of induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

It is important to minimize placebo rates in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to efficiently detect treatment differences between interventions. Historically, high placebo rates have been observed in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis (UC). A better understanding of factors influencing placebo rates may lead to more informed clinical trial design.

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate placebo response and remission rates in RCTs evaluating UC treatments in adult patients.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic databases (i.e. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) were searched from inception to 1 March 2017 with no language restrictions applied. Reference lists and conference proceedings of major gastroenterology meetings were also handsearched to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Placebo-controlled RCTs of adult patients with UC treated with corticosteroids, aminosalicylates, immunosuppressives or biologics were eligible, provided enrolment and outcome assessment was conducted using the Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) or the Mayo Clinic Score. The minimum trial duration was two weeks for induction trials and four months maintenance trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently determined study eligibility and extracted data with any disagreements resolved through consensus. Outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients with clinical response and remission. Trial characteristics such as the design, participant demographics and disease history, interventions, and enrolment and assessment criteria were also recorded. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Pooled placebo response and remission rates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using a binomial normal model for proportions. Induction of remission and maintenance studies were pooled separately. The impact of study-level characteristics on placebo response and remission rates was investigated using mixed-effects meta-regression analyses with logits of event rates as the outcome variables. An assessment of pooled placebo rates over time was conducted using a cumulative meta-analysis based on date of publication. Publication bias was examined using funnel plots.

MAIN RESULTS

The screening process identified 61 included studies which encompass 58 induction phases (5111 patients randomised to placebo) and 12 maintenance phases (1579 patients randomised to placebo). For induction trials, the pooled estimate of placebo response was 33% (95% CI 30% to 36%) while the pooled estimate of placebo remission was 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%). For maintenance trials, the pooled estimate of placebo response was 23% (95% CI 19% to 28%) while the pooled estimate of placebo remission was 17% (95% CI 10% to 27%).Studies enrolling patients with more active disease confirmed objectively by endoscopy were associated with significantly lower placebo remission and response rates than trials enrolling patients with less active disease (27% versus 4%, OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.42, P = 0.01 for UCDAI endoscopy sub score ≥1 versus ≥ 2 for remission; and 27% versus 4%, OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.82, P = 0.02 for UCDAI endoscopy sub score greater than or equal to one versus greater than or equal to two for response). With respect to drug class, the lowest placebo response and remission rates were observed in trials evaluating corticosteroids (23%; 95% CI 19 to 29%, and 5%; 95% CI 2 to 11%, respectively). Trials of biologics had the highest placebo response rate (35%; 95% CI 30 to 41%), while trials evaluating aminosalicylates had the highest placebo remission rate (18%; 95% CI 12 to 24%). Disease duration of greater than five years prior to enrolment was associated with a significantly lower placebo response rate compared to disease duration of less than or equal to five years (29% versus 47%, respectively; OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.92, P = 0.02). The requirement of a minimum rectal bleeding score for study eligibility was associated with an increased placebo response rate compared to studies that did not use rectal bleeding for trial eligibility (37% versus 32%, respectively; OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.82, P = 0.02). Finally, the time point of primary outcome assessment was found to be significantly associated with placebo remission rates such that every one week increment in endpoint assessment was associated with a 6% increase in the placebo remission rate (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10, P = 0.01).Cumulative meta-analysis indicated a consistent increase in the placebo response rate from 1987 to 2007 (from 13% to 33%), although rates have remained constant from 2008 to 2015 (32% to 34%). Similarly, placebo remission rates increased from 1987 to 2007 (5% to 14%) but have remained constant from 2008 to 2015 (12 to 14%). On meta-regression, there were no statistically significant differences between the 1987-2007 and 2008-2015 point estimates for both response (P = 0.81) and remission (P = 0.32).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Placebo response and remission rates vary according to endoscopic disease severity and rectal bleeding score at trial entry, class of agent, disease duration, and the time point at which the primary outcome was measured. These observations have important implications for the design and conduct of future clinical trials in UC and will help researchers design trials, determine required sample sizes and also provide useful information about trial design features which should be considered when planning new trials.

Randomized clinical trial: pharmacokinetics and safety of multimatrix mesalamine for treatment of pediatric ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on mesalamine (5-aminosalicylic acid; 5-ASA) use in pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC).

AIM

To evaluate pharmacokinetic and safety profiles of 5-ASA and metabolite acetyl-5-ASA (Ac-5-ASA) after once-daily, oral administration of multimatrix mesalamine to children and adolescents with UC.

METHODS

Participants (5-17 years of age; 18-82 kg, stratified by weight) with UC received multi-matrix mesalamine 30, 60, or 100 mg/kg/day once daily (to 4,800 mg/day) for 7 days. Blood samples were collected pre-dose on days 5 and 6. On days 7 and 8, blood and urine samples were collected and safety was evaluated. 5-ASA and Ac-5-ASA plasma and urine concentrations were analyzed by non-compartmental methods and used to develop a population pharmacokinetic model.

RESULTS

Fifty-two subjects (21 [30 mg/kg]; 22 [60 mg/kg]; 9 [100 mg/kg]) were randomized. On day 7, systemic exposures of 5-ASA and Ac-5-ASA exhibited a dose-proportional increase between 30 and 60 mg/kg/day cohorts. For 30, 60, and 100 mg/kg/day doses, mean percentages of 5-ASA absorbed were 29.4%, 27.0%, and 22.1%, respectively. Simulated steady-state exposures and variabilities for 5-ASA and Ac-5-ASA (coefficient of variation approximately 50% and 40%-45%, respectively) were similar to those observed previously in adults at comparable doses. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by ten subjects. Events were similar among different doses and age groups with no new safety signals identified.

CONCLUSION

Children and adolescents with UC receiving multimatrix mesalamine demonstrated 5-ASA and Ac-5-ASA pharmacokinetic profiles similar to historical adult data. Multimatrix mesalamine was well tolerated across all dose and age groups. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01130844.

Release of 5-Aminosalicylic Acid (5-ASA) from Mesalamine Formulations at Various pH Levels

Introduction

Oral formulations of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) for treatment of ulcerative colitis have been developed to minimize absorption prior to the drug reaching the colon. In this study, we investigate the release of 5-ASA from available oral mesalamine formulations in physiologically relevant pH conditions.

Methods

Release of 5-ASA from 6 mesalamine formulations (APRISO^®, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USA; ASACOL^® MR, Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd.; ASACOL^® HD, Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, USA; MEZAVANT XL^®, Shire US Inc.; PENTASA^®, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., UK; SALOFALK^®, Dr. Falk Pharma UK Ltd.) was evaluated using United States Pharmacopeia apparatus I and II at pH values of 1.0 (2 h), 6.0 (1 h), and 6.8 (8 h). Dissolution profiles were determined for each formulation, respectively.

Results

Of the tested formulations, only the PENTASA formulation demonstrated release of 5-ASA at pH 1.0 (48%), with 56% cumulative release after exposure to pH 6.0 and 92% 5-ASA release after 6–8 h at pH 6.8. No other mesalamine formulation showed >1% drug release at pH 1.0. The APRISO formulation revealed 36% 5-ASA release at pH 6.0, with 100% release after 3 h at pH 6.8. The SALOFALK formulation revealed 11% 5-ASA release at pH 6.0, with 100% release after 1 h at pH 6.8. No 5-ASA was released by the ASACOL MR, ASACOL HD, and MEZAVANT XL formulations at pH 6.0. At pH 6.8, the ASACOL MR and ASACOL HD formulations exhibited complete release of 5-ASA after 4 and 2 h, respectively, and the MEZAVANT XL formulation demonstrated complete 5-ASA release over 6–7 h.

Conclusion

5-Aminosalicylic acid release profiles were variable among various commercially available formulations.

Funding

Shire Development LLC.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0206-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

eHealth: individualization of mesalazine treatment through a self-managed web-based solution in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

To individualize treatment with mesalazine for ulcerative colitis relapses through a self-managed, web-based solution to optimize the short-term disease course.

METHODS

Prospective, open-label, web-guided study with 3 months mesalazine therapy among patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Once a week, patients completed the simple clinical colitis activity index (SCCAI) and registered fecal calprotectin (FC) on the web application: www.meza.constant-care.dk. SCCAI and FC were summed and resulted in a total inflammatory burden score (TIBS). Deep remission was defined as SCCAI ≤1; FC = 0, and TIBS ≤1.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients (62% females; median age 45 yr) were included in the study and allocated 4.8 g mesalazine per day. Of these, 82 (86%) patients were adherent to web therapy, completing 3 months of web-guided mesalazine therapy. Of the 82 adherent patients, 72 (88%) continued mesalazine and 10 (12%) needed rescue therapy. From weeks 0 to 12, patients had experienced a significant reduction in mean SCCAI (4.6 versus 1.6, P < 0.001), mean FC (437 versus 195, P < 0.001), and mean TIBS (6.7 versus 2.4, P < 0.001). Based on TIBS values (≤1), the dose of mesalazine was reduced to 2.4 g in 25% of patients at week 3 in 50% of subjects at week 5 and in 88% of patients at week 12.

CONCLUSIONS

Web-guided therapy with mesalazine in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis helps to individualize the dose and improve adherence to therapy. The study confirms mesalazine efficacy in mild-to-moderate UC, significantly improving TIBS values in majority of the patients.

Mesalamine dose escalation reduces fecal calprotectin in patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Among patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis (UC), lower fecal concentrations of calprotectin are associated with lower rates of relapse. We performed an open-label, randomized controlled trial to investigate whether increasing doses of mesalamine reduce concentrations of fecal calprotectin (FC) in patients with quiescent UC.

METHODS

We screened 119 patients with UC in remission on the basis of Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index scores, FC >50 μg/g, and intake of no more than 3 g/day mesalamine. Participants taking mesalamine formulations other than multimatrix mesalamine were switched to multimatrix mesalamine (2.4 g/day) for 6 weeks; 52 participants were then randomly assigned (1:1) to a group that continued its current dose of mesalamine (controls, n = 26) or a group that increased its dose by 2.4 g/day for 6 weeks (n = 26). The primary outcome was continued remission with FC <50 μg/g. Secondary outcomes were continued remission with FC <100 μg/g or <200 μg/g (among patients with pre-randomization values above these levels).

RESULTS

The primary outcome was achieved by 3.8% of controls and 26.9% of the dose escalation group (P = .0496). More patients in the dose escalation group reduced FC to below 100 μg/g (P = .04) and 200 μg/g (P = .005). Among the patients who were still in remission after the randomization phase, clinical relapse occurred sooner in patients with FC >200 μg/g compared with those with FC <200 μg/g (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with quiescent UC and increased levels of FC, increasing the dose of mesalamine by 2.4 g/day reduced fecal concentrations of calprotectin to those associated with lower rates of relapse. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00652145.

Role of pharmacoepidemiology studies in addressing pharmacovigilance questions: a case example of pancreatitis risk among ulcerative colitis patients using mesalazine

PURPOSE

Well-designed pharmacoepidemiology studies address several limitations of postmarketing spontaneous reports in regard to signal evaluation. This study evaluated a signal of disproportionate reporting of acute pancreatitis cases observed in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) treated with MMX Multi Matrix System® (MMX®) mesalazine and demonstrated how inherent limitations of postmarketing reports were overcome.

METHODS

Adults with UC who were new users of MMX mesalazine or another branded mesalazine (controlled-release, delayed-release, or extended-release mesalazine; balsalazide disodium; olsalazine sodium; sulfasalazine; or sulfasalazine delayed-release) were identified from a large US administrative healthcare claims database. Acute pancreatitis incidence rates were compared between patients on MMX mesalazine versus comparator therapies. Propensity scores were used to match patients on MMX mesalazine with patients on comparator drugs to achieve a balance of baseline patient factors.

RESULTS

Crude incidence rates [95 % confidence interval (CI)] of acute pancreatitis among patients on MMX mesalazine were similar to those of patients on comparator therapies [8.55 (5.54-13.21) vs 10.05 (7.54-13.41) per 1000 person-years]; the resulting incidence rate ratio (IRR) was [0.85 (0.48-1.47)]. Propensity score-matching had little influence on the IRR [0.84 (0.46-1.55)]; nor did further adjustment by demographic characteristics, daily dose, and causes of acute pancreatitis [0.76 (0.41-1.43)].

CONCLUSION

Findings of no increase in pancreatitis risk with MMX mesalazine demonstrate the value of pharmacoepidemiology studies for evaluating a drug's postmarket safety profile when confronted with spontaneous reporting data suggestive of a safety issue.

Effect of MMX® mesalamine coadministration on the pharmacokinetics of amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin XR, metronidazole, and sulfamethoxazole: results from four randomized clinical trials

Background

MMX^® mesalamine is a once daily oral 5-aminosalicylic acid formulation, effective in induction and maintenance of ulcerative colitis remission. Patients on long-term mesalamine maintenance may occasionally require concomitant antibiotic treatment for unrelated infections.

Aim

To evaluate the potential for pharmacokinetic interactions between MMX mesalamine and amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin extended release (XR), metronidazole, or sulfamethoxazole in four open-label, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-period crossover studies.

Methods

In all four studies, healthy adults received placebo once daily or MMX mesalamine 4.8 g once daily on days 1–4 in one of two treatment sequences. In studies 1 and 2, subjects also received a single dose of amoxicillin 500 mg (N=62) or ciprofloxacin XR 500 mg (N=30) on day 4. In studies 3 and 4, subjects received metronidazole 750 mg twice daily on days 1–3 and once on day 4 (N=30); or sulfamethoxazole 800 mg/trimethoprim 160 mg twice daily on days 1–3 and once on day 4 (N=44).

Results

MMX mesalamine had no significant effects on systemic exposure to amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin, or metronidazole; the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) around the geometric mean ratios (antibiotic + MMX mesalamine: antibiotic + placebo) for maximum plasma concentration (C_max) and area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC) fell within the predefined equivalence range (0.80–1.25). Sulfamethoxazole exposure increased by a statistically significant amount when coadministered with MMX mesalamine; however, increased exposure (by 12% in C_max at steady state; by 15% in AUC at steady state) was not considered clinically significant, as the 90% CIs for each point estimate fell entirely within the predefined equivalence range. Adverse events in all studies were generally mild.

Conclusion

MMX mesalamine may be coadministered with amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin, metronidazole, or sulfamethoxazole, without affecting pharmacokinetics or safety of these antibiotics.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers

NCT01442688, NCT01402947, NCT01418365, and NCT01469637.

Aligning oral mesalazine treatment to health service priorities: guidance for nurses

Oral mesalazine represents a crucial front-line agent for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis (UC) and the maintenance of remission. Clinical aspects of mesalazine therapy are guided by robust evidence-based guidelines, although there is a relative paucity of guidance examining the specific administrative and professional issues faced by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) nurses. As IBD nurses frequently influence treatment decisions in UC, this article was written to provide a practical review of the key evidence and issues affecting mesalazine treatment. Therefore, it may act as an additional resource for IBD nurses, to enhance prescribing decisions. Using the UK's Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention (QIPP) agenda as a framework, it considers clinical and health service priorities affecting treatment decisions. The quality of care perspective naturally focuses on efficacy; recent interest in specific aspects of efficacy, such as the speed of symptom resolution allows targeting of mesalazine treatment to individual needs. Furthermore, innovative adherence programmes build on the latest evidence to develop robust, integrated patient support approaches. In terms of productivity, nurse-led activities and more sophisticated management strategies may offer the best routes towards reducing the costs of care. Key opportunities for preventing ill health include improving adherence to maintenance therapy and achieving mucosal healing. The principles and approaches highlighted by the QIPP agenda emphasise that prescribing decisions for mesalazine in UC must take account of the full spectrum of clinical and health service needs, and cannot focus on any one element in isolation.

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.

Impact of MMX® mesalamine on improvement and maintenance of health-related quality of life in patients with ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative colitis (UC) substantially reduces patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The current study examined the burden of disease and the impact of daily multimatrix (MMX®) mesalamine treatment on HRQoL for patients with active or quiescent mild-to-moderate UC.

METHODS

Data were from a two-phase, multicenter, open-label study with mild-to-moderate UC patients. In the acute phase, 132 patients with active disease received MMX mesalamine 2.4-4.8 g/day QD for 8 weeks. In the maintenance phase, 207 patients with quiescent disease received MMX mesalamine 2.4 g/day QD for 12 months. The Short Form-12 (version 2) (SF-12v2) measured HRQoL during each phase. Disease burden was examined by comparing acute-phase baseline scores with a U.S. general population sample. Repeated-measures analyses assessed change in SF-12v2 scores for each phase. Correspondence between HRQoL and disease activity was examined through correlations between SF-12v2 scores with patient-reported symptom measures.

RESULTS

Baseline SF-12v2 scores for patients with UC were generally much lower than for the general population sample, indicating a broad disease burden. In the acute phase, significant improvement was observed for most SF-12v2 scores at week 8; a comparison with the matched norms showed a complete elimination of burden. No changes in SF-12v2 scores were observed during the maintenance phase. Changes in symptom measures and SF-12v2 scores were moderately correlated.

CONCLUSIONS

The sizeable burden of active mild-to-moderate UC on HRQoL was eliminated following 8 weeks' treatment with MMX mesalamine 2.4-4.8 g/day. HRQoL remained stable over 12 months of maintenance treatment in patients with quiescent UC.

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.

Update on the management of ulcerative colitis: treatment and maintenance approaches focused on MMX(®) mesalamine

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the colon that typically manifests as diarrhea, abdominal pain, and bloody stool. Complications, such as colorectal cancer and extraintestinal manifestations, may also develop. The goals of management are to induce and maintain clinical remission and to screen for complications of this disease. Mesalamine is a 5-aminosalicylic acid compound that is the first-line therapy to induce and maintain clinical remission in patients with mild-to-moderate UC. For patients who are refractory to mesalamine or have more severe disease, steroids, azathioprine/mercaptopurine, cyclosporine, or infliximab may be used, induce and/or maintain remission. The various formulations of mesalamine available are primarily differentiated by the methods of delivery of the active compound of the drug to the colon. Mesalamine with Multi-Matrix System^® (MMX) technology (Cosmo SpA, Milan, Italy) is an oral (1.2 g), once-daily tablet formulation of mesalamine used for the treatment of UC (Lialda^® or Mezavant^®, Shire Pharmaceuticals Inc, Wayne, PA). In clinical studies, MMX mesalamine (taken as a once-daily dose of 2.4 or 4.8 g) effectively induced and maintained clinical remission in patients with active mild-to-moderate UC. The overall safety profile of MMX mesalamine is similar to other oral mesalamine formulations. The use of such once-daily formulations has led to intense interest in whether simplified pill regimens can improve patient adherence to mesalamine therapy.

Pros and cons of medical management of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by diffuse mucosal inflammation limited to the colon and rectum. Although a complete medical cure may not be possible, UC can be treated with medications that induce and maintain remission. The medical management of this disease continues to evolve with a goal to avoid colectomy and ultimately alter the natural history of UC. Emergence of antitumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) agents has expanded the medical armamentarium. 5-Aminosalicylates continue to be used in mild to moderate UC and corticosteroids are mainly used for induction of remission with immunomodulators (6-mercaptopurine/azathiopurine/methotrexate) being applied as steroid-sparing agents for maintenance therapy. Infliximab has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and used in the treatment of moderate to severe UC; nevertheless, its use may be associated with significant adverse effects and have a negative impact on the postoperative course should the patients undergo restorative proctocolectomy. In addition, there is always a concern about patients' compliance to medical therapy, cost of medications, and risk for UC-associated dysplasia. The authors discuss the pros and cons of medications used in the treatment of UC.

Optimization of conventional therapy in patients with IBD

The majority of patients with IBD use conventional therapy (namely, aminosalicylates, antibiotics, corticosteroids and immunomodulatory agents) for prolonged periods of time, to both induce and maintain remission. Treatment paradigms in IBD have evolved towards a rapid escalation of therapy to achieve stringent goals, including mucosal healing and a reduction in the need for hospital admission and surgery. In this context, the failure to optimize conventional therapy can lead to a potentially effective treatment being abandoned too early, which is undesirable when only a limited number of drugs are effective in the management of IBD, and could also lead to patients being unnecessarily exposed to potentially toxic and/or expensive biologic drugs. This Review provides an overview of the many ways in which conventional therapy can be optimized, and describes strategies to improve adherence to drug regimens, such as simplifying the dosing regimen, optimizing drug delivery and dose, and tailoring medication on the basis of metabolite levels.

Current and emerging drugs for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

During the last decade a large number of biological agents against tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), as well as many biochemical substances and molecules specifically for the medical treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), have been developed. This enormous progress was a consequence of the significant advances in biotechnology along with the increased knowledge of the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of IBD. However, conventional therapies remain the cornerstone of treatment for most patients. During recent years conventional and biologic IBD therapies have been optimized. Newer mesalazine formulations with a reduced pill size and only one dose per day demonstrate similar efficacy to older formulations. New corticosteroids retain the efficacy of older corticosteroids while exhibiting a higher safety profile. The role of antibiotics and probiotics has been further clarified. Significant progress in understanding thiopurine metabolism has improved the effective dose along with adjunctive therapies. Quite a large number of substances and therapies, including biologic agents other than TNF-α inhibitors, unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, microbes and microbial products, leukocytapheresis, and other substances under investigation, could offer important benefits to our patients. In this paper we review the established and emerging therapeutic strategies in patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

Inflammatory bowel disease in the elderly

Although inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is generally considered a disease of young adults, it can occur in elderly individuals. The clinical features and treatment considerations in older patients are similar to those in younger patients, with some notable exceptions, which are reviewed in this article. Consideration of appropriate differential diagnoses is critical in older IBD patients to achieve the correct diagnosis and appropriate therapy. The risks associated with use of some IBD medications may be increased in older patients, but so is the risk of under-treated IBD and surgery. Therefore, in older IBD patients, as in younger patients, a thorough understanding of the indications, contraindications, and potential adverse effects of the various medications used to treat the condition is essential.

Clinical pharmacology of 5-ASA compounds in inflammatory bowel disease

Mesalamine has been the first-line of therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) since the 1960s. This article serves as a review of the different 5-aminosalicylic acid compounds, release formulations, use and dosing in the treatment of IBD, in particular ulcerative colitis.

Ulcerative colitis practice guidelines in adults: American College Of Gastroenterology, Practice Parameters Committee

Guidelines for clinical practice are aimed to indicate preferred approaches to medical problems as established by scientifically valid research. Double-blind placebo controlled studies are preferable, but compassionate-use reports and expert review articles are used in a thorough review of the literature conducted through Medline with the National Library of Medicine. When only data that will not withstand objective scrutiny are available, a recommendation is identified as a consensus of experts. Guidelines are applicable to all physicians who address the subject regardless of specialty training or interests and are aimed to indicate the preferable but not necessarily the only acceptable approach to a specific problem. Guidelines are intended to be flexible and must be distinguished from standards of care, which are inflexible and rarely violated. Given the wide range of specifics in any health-care problem, the physician must always choose the course best suited to the individual patient and the variables in existence at the moment of decision. Guidelines are developed under the auspices of the American College of Gastroenterology and its Practice Parameters Committee and approved by the board of trustees. Each has been intensely reviewed and revised by the Committee, other experts in the field, physicians who will use them, and specialists in the science of decision analysis. The recommendations of each guideline are therefore considered valid at the time of composition based on the data available. New developments in medical research and practice pertinent to each guideline will be reviewed at a time established and indicated at publication to assure continued validity. The recommendations made are based on the level of evidence found. Grade A recommendations imply that there is consistent level 1 evidence (randomized controlled trials), grade B indicates that the evidence would be level 2 or 3, which are cohort studies or case-control studies. Grade C recommendations are based on level 4 studies, meaning case series or poor-quality cohort studies, and grade D recommendations are based on level 5 evidence, meaning expert opinion.

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.

Optimizing conventional therapy for inflammatory bowel disease

Recently, conventional therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have not received the same amount of attention as biologic therapies, yet they remain the backbone of therapy for IBD because of their efficacy, safety, and relatively low cost. Advances in efficacy and safety continue because of modifications in drug dosing and monitoring. Higher doses of mesalamine per pill, together with once-daily dosing, may help to optimize drug delivery and patient compliance. Budesonide, an effective agent for both induction and short-term remission maintenance in Crohn's disease, is devoid of many of the toxicities common to corticosteroids. Assessments of thiopurine methyltransferase and metabolite levels are helping to fine-tune dose optimization for the thiopurines azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine. The oral calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and cyclosporine have been shown to have expanded roles in IBD, and methotrexate may be useful in some patients with refractory ulcerative colitis. Probiotics are showing promise for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and pouchitis.

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

5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) agents remain the mainstay treatment in ulcerative colitis (UC). A number of oral 5-ASA agents is commercially available, including azo-bond pro-drugs such as sulfasalazine, olsalazine and balsalazide, and delayed- and controlled-release forms of mesalazine. In addition, the effectiveness of oral therapy relies on good compliance, which may be adversely affected by frequent daily dosing and a large number of tablets. Furthermore, poor adherence 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 low pill burden and may contribute to increased long-term compliance and treatment success in clinical practice and might potentially further contribute to a decline in the risk for UC-associated colon cancers. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the available literature on the short- and medium-term efficacy and safety of the new once-daily mesalazine formulations.

Cost-effectiveness of 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVES

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA, mesalamine) is effective in inducing and maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis (UC). The relative benefits and costs of maintenance 5-ASA therapy are uncertain. Our aims were to evaluate this strategy's potential cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov model to compare two strategies over 2 yr: (a) no maintenance 5-ASA, with 5-ASA 4.8 g/day given for flares, (b) maintenance 5-ASA 2.4 g/day, escalated and maintained at 4.8 g/day after the first flare. In both arms, the failure to induce remission led to other treatments, as needed: prednisone, parenteral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, 6-mercaptopurine, infliximab, and colectomy.

RESULTS

Without maintenance 5-ASA, the mean flares per person were 1.92, and the mean cost per person was $3,402. With maintenance 5-ASA providing a relative risk of flare of 0.7 at 5-ASA cost of $198/month, flares per person decreased to 1.38 at a cost of $8,810/flare prevented. Maintenance 5-ASA increased discounted quality-adjusted life-years per person (QALYs per person) from 1.75 to 1.77 at a discounted cost of $224,000/QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to the flare risk reduction and cost of 5-ASA, the utilities of being in remission without or with 5-ASA, and the colectomy rates. At $15/month (the cost of sulfasalazine), maintenance 5-ASA cost $640/flare prevented and $16,300/QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Maintenance 5-ASA therapy decreases UC flares, but its cost may be substantial, depending on society's willingness to pay. If sulfasalazine can be tolerated and yields comparable benefits, sulfasalazine maintenance therapy is likely to be cost-effective. The cost per QALY gained by 5-ASA maintenance is highly dependent on the quality of life while taking versus not taking maintenance 5-ASA, highlighting the importance of patients' preferences.

[Update on the treatment of ulcerative colitis]

The present article reports highlights on the treatment of ulcerative colitis presented at Digestive Disease Week 2008. On the basis of the preliminary results presented, intravenous infusion of encapsulated dexamethasone may help to improve outcomes, both in terms of efficacy and toxicity in patients requiring steroids. Once-daily dosing of 5-ASA/ mesalamine is likely to be well received by patients now that this dosing regimen appears to be as effective as multiple daily dosing both in inducing remission and as maintenance therapy, whether administered orally or as a suppository. New data on the pharmacokinetics and toxicity of immunosuppressive agents and data extracted from the pivotal ACT studies (infliximab for ulcerative colitis) were presented. Among the newer agents in the pipeline, a probiotic preparation (VSL#3) may prove helpful in inducing remission in patients with ulcerative colitis associated with 5-ASA.