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

An Update on Current Pharmacotherapeutic Options for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis

The main goals of Ulcerative Colitis (UC) treatment are to both induce and maintain the clinical and endoscopic remission of disease, reduce the incidence of complications such as dysplasia and colorectal carcinoma and improve quality of life. Although a curative medical treatment for UC has not yet been found, new therapeutic strategies addressing specific pathogenetic mechanisms of disease are emerging. Notwithstanding these novel therapies, non-biological conventional drugs remain a mainstay of treatment. The aim of this review is to summarize current therapeutic strategies used as treatment for ulcerative colitis and to briefly focus on emerging therapeutic strategies, including novel biologic therapies and small molecules. To date, multiple therapeutic approaches can be adopted in UC and the range of available compounds is constantly increasing. In this era, the realization of well-designed comparative clinical trials, as well as the definition of specific therapeutic models, would be strongly suggested in order to achieve personalized management for UC patients.

First United Arab Emirates consensus on diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel diseases: A 2020 Delphi consensus

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the main entities of inflammatory bowel disease characterized by chronic remittent inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. The incidence and prevalence are on the rise worldwide, and the heterogeneity between patients and within individuals over time is striking. The progressive advance in our understanding of the etiopathogenesis coupled with an unprecedented increase in therapeutic options have changed the management towards evidence-based interventions by clinicians with patients. This guideline was stimulated and supported by the Emirates Gastroenterology and Hepatology Society following a systematic review and a Delphi consensus process that provided evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding diagnosis, evaluation of disease severity, appropriate and timely use of different investigations, choice of appropriate therapy for induction and remission phase according to disease severity, and management of main complications.

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.

Efficacy of adjuvant curcumin therapy in ulcerative colitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Aminosalicylic acids are recognized to be the first-line treatment options for ulcerative colitis. Currently, the effectiveness of curcumin as an adjuvant treatment in ulcerative colitis has been investigated, which was still controversial. This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of curcumin as an adjuvant treatment in ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from original to July 2019, and relevant randomized controlled clinical trials were enrolled and analyzed. The primary outcomes were clinical and endoscopic remission; meanwhile, the secondary outcomes were clinical and endoscopic improvement. Subgroup analyses of doses, delivery way, form, and intervention time of curcumin were also conducted.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled clinical trials with a total of 349 patients were included. Eligible trials suggested that adjuvant curcumin treatment in ulcerative colitis was effective in inducing clinical remission (odds ratio [OR] = 5.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.84-14.56, P = 0.002), endoscopic remission (OR = 5.69, 95% CI: 1.28-25.27, P = 0.02), and endoscopic improvement (OR = 17.05, 95% CI: 1.30-233.00, P = 0.03), but not in clinical improvement (OR = 4.79, 95% CI: 1.02-22.43, P = 0.05). We can see the potential advantages in large dosage, topical enema, special drug form, and longer duration from the enrolled studies. There were no severe side effects reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Curcumin, as an adjuvant treatment of mesalamine, was proved to be effective and safe in ulcerative colitis. Better efficacy can be achieved with suitable dose, delivery way, formation, and intervention time, which needs further study to verify.

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.

British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn's and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, including patients, their families and friends.

British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn's and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, including patients, their families and friends.

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.

Endoscopic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic assessment of mucosal disease activity is routinely used to determine eligibility and response to therapy in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis. The operating properties of the existing endoscopic scoring indices are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the development and operating characteristics of endoscopic scoring indices for the evaluation of ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 5 July 2016. We also searched references and conference proceedings (Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week, European Crohn's and Colitis Organization).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any study design (e.g. randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series) that evaluated endoscopic indices for evaluation of ulcerative colitis disease activity were considered for inclusion. Eligible participants were adult patients (> 16 years), diagnosed with ulcerative colitis using conventional clinical, radiologic and endoscopic criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed the studies identified from the literature search. These authors also independently extracted and recorded data on the number of patients enrolled; number of patients per treatment arm; patient characteristics including age and gender distribution; endoscopic index; and outcomes such as reliability (intra-rater and inter-rater), validity (content, construct, criterion), responsiveness and feasibility. Any disagreements regarding study inclusion or data extraction were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third author. Risk of bias was assessed by determining whether assessors were blinded to clinical information and whether assessors scored the endoscopic index independently. We also assessed the methodological quality of the validation studies using the COSMIN checklist MAIN RESULTS: A total of 23 reports of 20 studies met the pre-defined inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Of the 20 included validation studies, 19 endoscopic scoring indices were assessed, including the Azzolini Classification, Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Chinese Grading System of Ulcerative Colitis, Endoscopic Activty Index, Jeroen Score, Magnifying Colonoscopy Grade, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, Rachmilewtiz Endoscopic Score, St. Mark's Index, Ulcerative Colitis Colonoscopic Index of Serverity (UCCIS), endoscopic component of the Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI), Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS), Witts Sigmoidoscopic Score and Watson Grade. The individuals who performed the endoscopic scoring were blinded to clinical and/or histologic information in ten of the included studies, not blinded to clinical and/or histologic information in one of the included studies, and it was unclear whether blinding occurred in the remaining nine included studies. Independent observation was confirmed in four of the included studies, unclear in five of the included studies, and non-applicable (since inter-rater reliability was not assessed) in the remaining eleven included studies. The methodological quality (COSMIN checklist) of most of the included studies was rated as 'good' or 'excellent'. One study that assessed responsiveness was rated as 'fair'. The inter-rater reliability of nine endoscopic scoring indices including the Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Endoscopic Activity Index, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, UCCIS, UCEIS, Watson Grade was assessed in seven studies, with estimates of correlation, ƙ, ranging from 0.44 to 0.97. The iIntra-rater reliability of seven endoscopic scoring indices including the Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, UCCIS and UCEIS was assessed in three studies, with estimates of correlation, ƙ, ranging from 0.41 to 0.86. No studies assessed content validity. Three studies evaluated the criterion validity of three endoscopic scoring indices including the Rachmilewitz Endoscopic Score, Magnifying Colonoscopy Grade and the UCCIS. These indices were correlated with objective markers of disease activity including albumin, blood leukocytes, C-reactive protein, fecal calprotectin, hemoglobin, mucosal interleukin-8 concentration and platelet count. Correlation estimates ranged from r = -0.19 to 0.83. Thirteen endoscopic scoring indices were tested for construct validity in 13 studies. Estimates of correlation between the endoscopic scoring indices and other measures of disease activity ranged from r = 0.27 to 0.93. Two studies explored the responsiveness of four endoscopic scoring indices including the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore, Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Endoscopic Subscore and UCEIS. One study concluded that the Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Endoscopic Subscore and UCEIS had similar responsiveness for detecting disease change in ulcerative colitis. The other included study concluded that the UCEIS may be the most accurate endoscopic scoring tool. None of the included studies formally assessed feasibility.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While the UCEIS, UCCIS and Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore have undergone extensive validation, none of these instruments have been fully validated and only two studies assessed responsiveness. Further research on the operating properties of these indices is needed given the lack of a fully-validated endoscopic scoring instrument for the evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis.

Time to clinical response and remission for therapeutics in inflammatory bowel diseases: What should the clinician expect, what should patients be told?

An awareness of the expected time for therapies to induce symptomatic improvement and remission is necessary for determining the timing of follow-up, disease (re)assessment, and the duration to persist with therapies, yet this is seldom reported as an outcome in clinical trials. In this review, we explore the time to clinical response and remission of current therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as well as medication, patient and disease related factors that may influence the time to clinical response. It appears that the time to therapeutic response varies depending on the indication for therapy (Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis). Agents with the most rapid time to clinical response included corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, exclusive enteral nutrition, aminosalicylates and anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy which will work in most patients within the first 2 mo. Vedolizumab, methotrexate and thiopurines had a longer time to clinical response and can take several months to achieve maximal efficacy. Factors affecting the time to clinical response of therapies included use of concomitant therapy, disease duration, smoking status, disease phenotype and advanced age. There appears to be marked variation in time to clinical response for therapies used in IBD which is further influenced by disease and patient related factors. Understanding the expected time to therapeutic response is integral to inform further decision making, maintain a patient-centered approach and ensure treatment is given an appropriate timeframe to achieve maximal benefit prior to cessation.

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.

Second Korean guidelines for the management of ulcerative colitis

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

Clinical relevance of endoscopic assessment of inflammation in ulcerative colitis: Can endoscopic evaluation predict outcomes?

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel condition characterised by a relapsing and remitting course. Symptom control has been the traditional mainstay of medical treatment. It is well known that histological inflammatory activity persists despite adequate symptom control and absence of endoscopic inflammation. Current evidence suggests that presence of histological inflammation poses a greater risk of disease relapse and subsequent colorectal cancer risk. New endoscopic technologies hold promise for developing endoscopic markers of mucosal inflammation. Achieving endoscopic and histological remission appears be the future aim of medical treatments for UC. This review article aims to evaluate the use of endoscopy as a tool in assessment of mucosal inflammation UC and its correlation with disease outcomes.

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.

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

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

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.

Development and validation of a new disease severity index: the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Index (IBDEX)

OBJECTIVE

To develop, validate and apply a generic clinical severity index applicable to all adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

DESIGN

A review of the literature and an expert focus group consultation were carried out in order to draw out relevant items from existing literature. The new index was called the IBD Index (IBDEX). Standard psychometric analysis was carried out. The construct validity was assessed against biochemical markers, clinical and endoscopic indices. The new index was completed again within 6 weeks to check responsiveness and reproducibility.

RESULTS

IBDEX was used to assess 255 adult patients with IBD (125 with Crohn's disease and 130 with ulcerative colitis), and 64 patients were re-evaluated within 6 weeks. It had good internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.79) and correlated very well with the Harvey Bradshaw Index (r=0.94), the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (r=0.92), the Mayo Clinic Index (r=0.87) and the Simple Endoscopic Score (r=0.76), all with p values <0.05. IBDEX had a moderate but positive correlation with C reactive protein (r=0.51) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (r=0.36) p values both <0.05. The test-retest reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.97) and responsiveness ratio was 2.27.

CONCLUSIONS

IBDEX is the first properly validated Clinical Disease Severity Index in IBD. Our results showed that it is valid, reliable and reproducible and has the potential to be used in clinical practice.

Pharmacological intervention based on fecal calprotectin levels in patients with ulcerative colitis at high risk of a relapse: A prospective, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapy, using biomarkers to assess disease activity in ulcerative colitis (UC), has been proposed.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether pharmacological intervention guided by fecal calprotectin (FC) prolongs remission in patients with UC.

METHODS

A total of 91 adults with UC in remission were randomized to an intervention group or a control group. Analysis of FC was performed monthly, during 18 months. A FC value of 300 µg/g was set as the cut-off for intervention, which was a dose escalation of the oral 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) agent. The primary study end-point was the number of patients to have relapsed by month 18.

RESULTS

There were relapses in 18 (35.3%) and 20 (50.0%) patients in the intervention and the control groups, respectively (p = 0.23); and 28 (54.9%) patients in the intervention group and 28 (70.0%) patients in the control group had a FC > 300 µg/g, of which 8 (28.6%) and 16 (57.1%) relapsed, respectively (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Active intervention significantly reduced relapse rates, although no significant difference was reached between the groups overall. Thus, FC-levels might be used to identify patients with UC at risk for a flare, and a dose escalation of their 5-ASA agent is a therapeutic option for these patients.

Assessing patient preferences for treatment options and process of care in inflammatory bowel disease: a critical review of quantitative data

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), consisting of both Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), are chronic inflammatory conditions of the intestinal tract. As there is no cure for either CD or UC, patients with these conditions face numerous treatment decisions regarding their disease. The aim of this review is to evaluate literature regarding quantitative studies of patient preferences in therapy for IBD with a focus on the emerging technique of stated preference and its application in IBD. Numerous simple survey-based studies have been performed evaluating IBD patients' preferences for medication frequency, mode of delivery, potential adverse events, etc., as well as variations in these preferences. These studies are limited, however, as they are purely descriptive in nature with limited quantitative information on the relative value of treatment alternatives. Time trade-off and standard-gamble studies have also been utilized to quantify patient utility for various treatment options or outcomes. However, these types of studies suffer from inaccurate assumptions regarding patient choice behavior. Stated preference is an emerging robust methodology increasingly utilized in health care that can determine the relative utility for a therapy option as well as its specific attributes (such as efficacy or adverse side effects). Stated preference techniques have begun to be applied in IBD and offer an innovative way of examining the numerous therapy options these patients and their providers face.

Protocol for a prospective multicentre cohort study to develop and validate two new outcome measures for patients with inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Most of the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) were designed to be used in outpatient settings and are therefore not suitable for use in acute inpatient settings. None of the currently used clinical severity indices for patients with IBD have been properly validated. The aim of this study was to describe the development of a new HRQoL questionnaire and a clinical severity index for patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease that were short, valid and suitable at any stage of their disease. The new HRQoL and disease severity index will be easily used at the point of care, and invaluable monitoring tools for clinical care, audit and research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective multisite validation study of two new outcome measures, the Crohn's and Colitis quality of life (CCQ) questionnaire and the Clinical IBD severity score (CISS). We plan to recruit patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease. The questionnaire items will be selected through extensive literature review and a focus group involving patients, methodologists, statisticians and IBD specialists. The CCQ questionnaire will be completed by patients attending IBD clinics, having endoscopy procedures or when admitted to hospital. CISS will be completed by clinicians while assessing patients with IBD. Psychometric analysis will be carried out to test the validity and reliability of the questionnaires and to determine the potential to produce shorter versions of CISS and CCQ. The construct validity of CCQ will be tested against short form-12 and the European Quality of Life Five Dimensions. The construct validity of CISS will be tested against biochemical markers, clinical and endoscopic indices to assess severity.

ETHICS

This study was approved by the South East Wales Research Ethics Committee (Ref 11/WA/0239).

Mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease: where do we stand?

The definition of remission in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis has evolved to include mucosal healing as a measure of treatment efficacy. Randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated mucosal healing is attainable with the current arsenal of therapies available to treat inflammatory bowel disease. Mucosal healing has been shown to reduce the likelihood of clinical relapse, reduce the risk of future surgeries, and reduce hospitalizations. This review focuses on the latest studies addressing clinical outcomes of mucosal healing in the clinical trial and practice setting.

Update on the role of modified release mesalamine in the management of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease

5-aminosalicyclates (5-ASA) remain a key first-line therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). A range of 5-ASA preparations is available and Eudragit-S^® coated modified release formulations of mesalamine, such as Asacol^®, remain among the most popular choices. We here review the current understanding of the mechanism of action of 5-ASA in inflammatory bowel disease. We evaluate evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of modified release mesalamine for both induction and remission maintenance in UC, including a review of the data from the recent ASCEND studies. We also examine the controversial issue of the role of mesalamine in treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD) and highlight data supporting its use following surgically induced remission of CD. Evidence supporting the use of mesalamine as prophylaxis for colorectal cancer and dysplasia will be considered. Finally, recent developments in our understanding of how to use modified release mesalamine in a safe and cost-effective manner are evaluated, including discussion of the importance of studying patient non-adherence as a key component of future studies in this area.

Improving delivery of aminosalicylates in ulcerative colitis: effect on patient outcomes

Developments in drug delivery technology have expanded the formulations of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) available to clinicians over the last 50 years. Delivery of adequate doses of 5-ASA to the colon can be achieved by pH-dependent, delayed-release or pro-drug formulations. Despite some variations in the pharmacokinetics between individual preparations, the clinical effects in induction of response and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis appear to be consistent. Direct comparison studies between different preparations have yielded similar results in primary endpoints, although differences in secondary endpoints or post hoc analyses have been noted. The development of delivery methods that allow once-daily administration represents a potential means to improve the low medication adherence rates reported in patients with ulcerative colitis.

Treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: a review of medical therapy

Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are chronic inflammatory diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. While a cure remains elusive, both can be treated with medications that induce and maintain remission. With the recent advent of therapies that inhibit tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha the overlap in medical therapies for UC and CD has become greater. Although 5-ASA agents have been a mainstay in the treatment of both CD and UC, the data for their efficacy in patients with CD, particularly as maintenance therapy, are equivocal. Antibiotics may have a limited role in the treatment of colonic CD. Steroids continue to be the first choice to treat active disease not responsive to other more conservative therapy; non-systemic steroids such as oral and rectal budesonide for ileal and right-sided CD and distal UC respectively are also effective in mild-moderate disease. 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and its prodrug azathioprine are steroid-sparing immunomodulators effective in the maintenance of remission of both CD and UC, while methotrexate may be used in both induction and maintenance of CD. Infliximab and adalimumab are anti-TNF agents approved in the US and Europe for the treatment of Crohn's disease, and infliximab is also approved for the treatment of UC.

Outcome measurement in clinical trials for Ulcerative Colitis: towards standardisation

Clinical trials on novel drug therapies require clear criteria for patient selection and agreed definitions of disease remission. This principle has been successfully applied in the field of rheumatology where agreed disease scoring systems have allowed multi-centre collaborations and facilitated audit across treatment centres. Unfortunately in ulcerative colitis this consensus is lacking. Thirteen scoring systems have been developed but none have been properly validated. Most trials choose different endpoints and activity indices, making comparison of results from different trials extremely difficult. International consensus on endoscopic, clinical and histological scoring systems is essential as these are the key components used to determine entry criteria and outcome measurements in clinical trials on ulcerative colitis. With multiple new therapies under development, there is a pressing need for consensus to be reached.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

SPD476 (MMX mesalazine), is a novel, once daily, high-strength mesalazine formulation (1.2 g/tablet) that utilizes Multi Matrix System (MMX) technology to delay and extend delivery of the active drug throughout the colon.

AIM

To assess the safety and efficacy of MMX mesalazine in patients with mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis, in a pilot, phase II, randomized, multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-ranging study (SPD476-202).

METHODS

Thirty-eight patients with mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis were randomized to MMX mesalazine 1.2, 2.4 or 4.8 g/day given once daily for 8 weeks. Remission ulcerative colitis-disease activity index (UC-DAI) < or =1, a score of 0 for rectal bleeding and stool frequency, and > or =1 -point reduction in sigmoidoscopy score from baseline was the primary end point.

RESULTS

Week 8 remission rates were 0%, 31% and 18% of patients receiving MMX mesalazine 1.2, 2.4 and 4.8 g/day respectively. No statistically significant difference in remission was observed between treatment groups. MMX mesalazine 2.4 and 4.8 g/day groups demonstrated greater improvement in overall UC-DAI and component scores from baseline, compared with the 1.2 g/day group.

CONCLUSION

MMX mesalazine given as 2.4 or 4.8 g/day once daily is well tolerated and effective for the treatment of mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of Eudragit-L-coated mesalazine tablets with ethylcellulose-coated mesalazine tablets in patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

There are no comparative studies of coated mesalazine.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of Eudragit-L- and ethylcellulose-coated mesalazine tablets in patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

A double-blind, double-dummy, randomized parallel group trial was performed across 18 centres in Australia, and 20 in Eastern Europe. Patients were treated with 3 g mesalazine for 8 weeks with the primary efficacy end point being clinical remission.

RESULTS

Of 215 patients, 69% achieved clinical remission in both treatment groups (P < 0.001; chi-square test) with no differences in frequency of adverse events. In the Australian cohort (n = 63), the Eudragit-L group had a higher remission rate (73% vs. 36%) and responded 13 days faster, compared with those in the European group (67% vs. 84%, and 2 days respectively). No clear reasons for differences in treatment responses were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Eudragit-L and ethylcellulose-coated mesalazine tablets are well tolerated and equally effective in achieving remission in mild-moderately active ulcerative colitis over 8 weeks.

How important is onset of action in ulcerative colitis therapy?

Pharmacotherapy is the cornerstone of management in ulcerative colitis. However, controversy remains over optimal medical strategies. Specifically, differences in the onset of action of various drug therapies are thought to influence the achievement and maintenance of remission of disease, yet this is poorly characterised. There is a wide range of recent data concerning aminosalicylates, with much debate as to the relative merits of the various formulations and delivery systems. Meta-analyses confirm the efficacy of aminosalicylates for the induction and maintenance of remission and suggest that the newer agents are comparable in efficacy to sulfasalazine. Among aminosalicylates, data from clinical trials reveal that the onset of action is earlier with balsalazide than mesalazine. Although the efficacy of the newer 5-aminosalicylate agents is no greater than that of sulfasalazine, they have better adverse effect profiles. Factors such as tolerability and adherence appear more important than onset of action in long-term maintenance. Corticosteroids have long been used in the treatment of ulcerative colitis, yet there is a paucity of data regarding this. They have a rapid onset of action but considerable systemic adverse effects. Therefore, corticosteroids are reserved for disease that fails to respond to other agents or for primary therapy in patients with severe disease, although there is no universal acceptance of a threshold at which to initiate corticosteroid treatment.Rectal preparations of both aminosalicylates and corticosteroids have been developed in an attempt to exert a more rapid and direct onset of action while minimising adverse systemic effects. In clinical trials, topical preparations of both aminosalicylates and corticosteroids are effective in inducing remission. However, patient acceptability and proximal extent of disease dictate selection of a topical agent more than concern with rate of onset.A wide range of immunomodulators have been investigated in patients with steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. The thioguanine derivatives are the most widely used but have a limited evidence base to support this use with controlled trials providing equivocal results regarding efficacy in severe ulcerative colitis. In addition, the thioguanine derivatives have a protracted onset of action and a considerable serious adverse effect profile. Calcineurin inhibitors and methotrexate have a more rapid onset of action than the thiopurines but have even less data to support their widespread use. They are widely regarded as salvage therapy and further data are required. Regarding biological agents, infliximab revolutionised the treatment of Crohn's disease, yet results in ulcerative colitis have been disappointing. Further trials are ongoing with great anticipation for more favourable data. The practical clinical implications of any differences between the agents depend on patient satisfaction with various therapies. Noncompliance is a major concern in maintenance therapy and is probably associated with relapse. Dose administration schedules and acceptability of therapy appear to be important factors in adherence. Overall, it is not clear that onset of action has a major influence on patient adherence and addressing issues of compliance may have more direct clinical impact.

Management of inflammatory bowel disease

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease result from an interaction between genetic and environmental factors. Only one gene, NOD2/CARD15, has been clearly identified; a minority of people with alteration of this gene develop Crohn's disease. The NOD2/CARD15 protein is thought to be involved in defence against intracellular bacteria. This supports the idea that Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis result from altered immunological responses to the normal intestinal flora. Life expectancy is normal in ulcerative colitis and nearly so in Crohn's disease, but both conditions cause considerable morbidity. Approximately 80% of patients with Crohn's disease eventually require surgery, and about 25% of patients with ulcerative colitis require colectomy. Treatment of ulcerative colitis is generally by corticosteroids for acute disease and mesalazine for maintenance, but the range of therapies for Crohn's disease is expanding. Alternative therapies include immunosuppressives, enteral nutrition, antibiotics, anti-TNF antibody (infliximab), corticosteroids, and surgery. High dosages of corticosteroids may provide symptomatic relief in Crohn's disease but do not affect the long term natural history of the disease, and management strategies should avoid using steroids whenever possible.

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

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

Medical treatment of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the colon with an increasing incidence worldwide. The medical management of this disease continues to expand as drugs to induce and maintain remission are sought to avoid the need for colectomy. This article will review the standard of care for the treatment of mild, moderate, and severe ulcerative colitis. The efficacy, optimal usage, and adverse events profile of agents such as 5-aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, azathioprine, and cyclosporine will be discussed and an algorithm for their use will be developed. Alternative and experimental therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, probiotics, and heparin will also be addressed.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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