A Phase 2a, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Placebo-Controlled Trial of IBD98-M Delayed-Release Capsules to Induce Remission in Patients with Active and Mild to Moderate Ulcerative Colitis

Oral dosage forms for drug delivery to the colon: an existing gap between research and commercial applications

Oral drug administration is the preferred route for pharmaceuticals, accounting for ~90% of the global pharmaceutical market due to its convenience and cost-effectiveness. This study provides a comprehensive scientific and technological analysis of the latest advances in oral dosage forms for colon-targeted drug delivery. Utilizing scientific and patent databases, along with a bibliometric analysis and bibliographical review, we compared the oral dosage forms (technology) with the specific application of the technology (colon delivery) using four search equations. Our findings reveal a gap in the publications and inventions associated with oral dosage forms for colon release compared to oral dosage forms for general applications. While tablets and capsules were found the most used dosage forms, other platforms such as nanoparticles, microparticles, and emulsions have been also explored. Enteric coatings are the most frequently applied excipient to prevent the early drug release in the stomach with pH-triggered systems being the predominant release mechanism. In summary, this review provides a comprehensive analysis of the last advancements and high-impact resources in the development of oral dosage forms for colon-targeted drug delivery, providing insights into the technological maturity of these approaches.

Effectiveness of Mesalamine in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review

Ulcerative colitis (UC) management has changed significantly in the past decade. The goal is to treat the symptoms, aid tissue healing, and change the disease course to improve future outcomes. Oral or topical mesalamine (5-ASA) is a well-known UC treatment. It is the standard for starting and maintaining recovery in mild-to-moderate illnesses. The majority of patients start the treatment in the first year after diagnosis and continue it for long periods. In this review article, PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were used to search medical databases for relevant medical literature. After the articles were gathered and evaluated, 10 publications were compiled and selected using the qualifying criteria. The included articles aimed to provide an overview of 5-ASA in UC patients. According to several studies, there was no statistical relevance between various 5-ASA doses or the number of times they were taken. One study showed that 5-ASA cream preparation is better than oral preparation for patients with proctitis and proctosigmoiditis. The majority of the studies performed a follow-up to assess remission based on the use of endoscopy, fecal calprotectin, and patient symptoms during the investigations. Based on the aforementioned information, further investigation is required to ascertain the optimal approach for managing UC, with the aim of incorporating it into routine clinical procedures and enhancing our understanding of the subject matter.

Most Placebo-Controlled Trials in Inflammatory Bowel Disease were Underpowered Because of Overestimated Drug Efficacy Rates: Results from a Systematic Review of Induction Studies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Most pharmaceutical clinical trials for inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] are placebo-controlled and require effect size estimation for a drug relative to placebo. We compared expected effect sizes in sample size calculations [SSCs] to actual effect sizes in IBD clinical trials.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and the Cochrane library were searched from inception to March 26, 2021, to identify placebo-controlled induction studies for luminal Crohn's disease [CD] and ulcerative colitis [UC] that reported an SSC and a primary endpoint of clinical remission/response. Expected effects were subtracted from actual effects, and interquartile ranges [IQRs] for each corresponding median difference were calculated. Linear regression was used to assess whether placebo or drug event rate misspecifications were responsible for these differences.

RESULTS

Of eligible studies, 36.9% [55/149] were excluded because of incomplete SSC reporting, yielding 94 studies [46 CD, 48 UC]. Treatment effects were overestimated in CD for remission (-12.6% [IQR: -16.3 to -1.6%]), in UC for remission (-10.2% [IQR: -16.5 to -5.6%]) and in CD for response (-15.3% [IQR: -27.1 to -5.8%]). Differences observed were due to overestimated drug event rates, whereas expected and actual placebo event rates were similar. A meta-regression demonstrated associations between overestimated treatment effect sizes and several trial characteristics: isolated ileal disease, longer CD duration, extensive colitis [UC], single-centre, phase 2 and no endoscopic endpoint component [UC].

CONCLUSION

Overestimation of IBD therapy efficacy rates resulted in smaller-than-expected treatment effects. These results should be used to inform SSCs and trial design for IBD drug development.

Landscape of new drugs and targets in inflammatory bowel disease

Although the therapeutic armamentarium of Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) physicians has expanded rapidly in recent years, a proportion of patients remain with a suboptimal response to medical treatment due to primary no response, loss of response or intolerance to currently available drugs. Our growing knowledges of IBD pathophysiology has led to the development of a multitude of new therapies over time, which may, 1 day, be able to address this unmet medical need. This review aims to provide physicians an update of emerging therapies in IBD by focusing on drugs currently in phase 3 clinical trials. Among the most promising molecules are anti-IL-23, JAK-inhibitors, anti-integrins and S1P modulators. While the results in terms of efficacy and safety are fairly clear for some classes, the question of safety remains more uncertain for other classes. Molecules at a more preliminary stage of development (phase 1 and 2), one of which may 1 day offer an optimal benefit-risk ratio, will also be presented as well as their respective mechanisms of action.

Targeting the endo-lysosomal autophagy pathway to treat inflammatory bowel diseases

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a serious public health problem in Western society with a continuing increase in incidence worldwide. Safe, targeted medicines for IBD are not yet available. Autophagy, a vital process implicated in normal cell homeostasis, provides a potential point of entry for the treatment of IBDs, as several autophagy-related genes are associated with IBD risk. We conducted a series of experiments in three distinct mouse models of colitis to test the effectiveness of therapeutic P140, a phosphopeptide that corrects autophagy dysfunctions in other autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Colitis was experimentally induced in mice by administering dextran sodium sulfate and 2,4,6 trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid. Transgenic mice lacking both il-10 and iRhom2 - involved in tumor necrosis factor α secretion - were also used. In the three models investigated, P140 treatment attenuated the clinical and histological severity of colitis. Post-treatment, altered expression of several macroautophagy and chaperone-mediated autophagy markers, and of pro-inflammatory mediators was corrected. Our results demonstrate that therapeutic intervention with an autophagy modulator improves colitis in animal models. These findings highlight the potential of therapeutic peptide P140 for use in the treatment of IBD.

Clinical translation of advanced colonic drug delivery technologies

Targeted drug delivery to the colon offers a myriad of benefits, including treatment of local diseases, direct access to unique therapeutic targets and the potential for increasing systemic drug bioavailability and efficacy. Although a range of traditional colonic delivery technologies are available, these systems exhibit inconsistent drug release due to physiological variability between and within individuals, which may be further exacerbated by underlying disease states. In recent years, significant translational and commercial advances have been made with the introduction of new technologies that incorporate independent multi-stimuli release mechanisms (pH and/or microbiota-dependent release). Harnessing these advanced technologies offers new possibilities for drug delivery via the colon, including the delivery of biopharmaceuticals, vaccines, nutrients, and microbiome therapeutics for the treatment of both local and systemic diseases. This review details the latest advances in colonic drug delivery, with an emphasis on emerging therapeutic opportunities and clinical technology translation.

Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Secretome for the Treatment of Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Latest Trends in Isolation, Content Optimization and Delivery Avenues

Considering the high prevalence and the complex pharmacological management of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), the search for new therapeutic approaches for their treatment is vital. Although the immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have been extensively studied as a potential therapy in this field, direct MSC implantation presents some limitations that could slow down the clinical translation. Since the beneficial effects of MSCs have been mainly attributed to their ability to secrete a plethora of bioactive factors, their secretome has been proposed as a new and promising pathway for the treatment of IMIDs. Formed from soluble factors and extracellular vesicles (EVs), the MSC-derived secretome has been proven to elicit immunomodulatory effects that control the inflammatory processes that occur in IMIDs. This article aims to review the available knowledge on the MSC secretome, evaluating the advances in this field in terms of its composition, production and application, as well as analyzing the pending challenges in the field. Moreover, the latest research involving secretome administration in IMIDs is discussed to provide an updated state-of-the-art for this field. Finally, novel secretome delivery alternatives are reviewed, paying special attention to hydrogel encapsulation as one of the most convenient and promising strategies.

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.

Effects of soy milk consumption on gut microbiota, inflammatory markers, and disease severity in patients with ulcerative colitis: a study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Background

Several strategies are recommended to alleviate clinical symptoms of ulcerative colitis (UC). Soy milk may affect UC through its anti-inflammatory properties. However, no study has examined the effects of soy milk consumption on gut microbiota and inflammatory biomarkers in patients with UC. The current study will be done to examine the effects of soy milk consumption on UC symptoms, inflammation, and gut microbiota in patients with UC.

Methods

This study is a randomized clinical trial, in which thirty patients with mild to moderate severity of UC will be randomly allocated to receive either 250 mL/day soy milk plus routine treatments (n = 15) or only routine treatments (n = 15) for 4 weeks. Assessment of anthropometric measures and biochemical indicators including serum concentrations of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), and interferon gamma (IFN-γ) will be done at the study baseline and end of trial. In addition, the quantity of butyrate-producing bacteria including Clostridium cluster IV, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, and Roseburia spp.; prebiotic bacteria including Lactobacillus spp. and Bifidobacteria spp.; and mucus-degrading bacteria including Akkermansia muciniphila, Bacteroides fragilis, and Ruminococcus spp., as well as calprotectin and lactoferrin levels, will be explored in fecal samples. Also, the Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio which is of significant relevance in human gut microbiota composition will be assessed.

Discussion

Altered gut microbiota has been reported as an important contributing factor to inflammation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Soy milk contains several components such as phytoestrogens with potential anti-inflammatory properties. This product might affect gut microbiota through its protein and fiber content. Therefore, soy milk might beneficially affect systemic inflammation, gut microbiota, and then clinical symptoms in patients with UC.

Trial registration

Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (www.irct.ir) IRCT20181205041859N1. Registered on 27 January 2019.

Switching between Three Types of Mesalazine Formulation and Sulfasalazine in Patients with Active Ulcerative Colitis Who Have Already Received High-Dose Treatment with These Agents

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Oral mesalazine and sulfasalazine (SASP) are key drugs for treating ulcerative colitis (UC). The efficacy of switching from one of the several mesalazine formulations to another is largely unknown. This study assessed the efficacy of switching among three types of mesalazine formulation and SASP for UC therapy.

METHODS

UC patients receiving high-dose mesalazine/SASP who switched to other formulations due to disease activity were considered eligible. Efficacy was evaluated 2, 6, and 12 months after switching.

RESULTS

A total of 106 switches in 88 UC patients were analyzed. The efficacy at 2 months after switching was observed in 23/39 (59%) cases from any mesalazine formulation to SASP, in 18/55 (33%) cases from one mesalazine to another, and in 2/12 (17%) cases from SASP to any mesalazine formulation. Nine of 43 effective cases showed inefficacy or became intolerant post-switching. Delayed efficacy more than two months after switching was observed in four cases. Steroid-free remission was achieved in 42/106 (39%) cases-within 100 days in 35 of these cases (83%).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from mesalazine to SASP was effective in more than half of cases. The efficacy of switching between mesalazine formulations was lower but may be worth attempting in clinical practice from a safety perspective.

A Phase 2a, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Placebo-Controlled Trial of IBD98-M Delayed-Release Capsules to Induce Remission in Patients with Active and Mild to Moderate Ulcerative Colitis

IBD98-M is a delayed-release formulation of mesalamine (mesalazine) and SH with a potential therapeutic role in ulcerative colitis (UC). A total of 51 patients with a modified Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) score of ≥4 and ≤10, and a modified UCDAI endoscopy subscore ≥1 were randomized for 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with IBD98 0.8 g/day or IBD 1.2 g/day or placebo. The efficacy and safety of IBD98-M in mild to moderate active UC were primarily evaluated. At week 6, 1 (5.9%), 2 (12.5%), and 2 (11.1%) patients receiving IBD98-M 0.8 g, IBD98-M 1.2 g, and placebo, respectively, (p > 0.999) achieved clinical remission. Higher clinical response was seen in IBD98-M 1.2 g (31.3%) versus placebo (16.7%) and endoscopic improvement in IBD98-M 0.8 g (29.4%) versus placebo (22.2%) was seen. Fecal calprotectin levels were reduced in IBD98-M groups versus placebo (p > 0.05). IBD98-M patients achieved significant improvement in physical health summary score component of the SF-36 (p = 0.01 and p = 0.03 respectively) compared to placebo. IBD98-M did not meet the primary end point but had higher clinical response (1.2 g/day) and endoscopic improvement (0.8 g/day) compared to placebo. The safety result shown that IBD98-M treatment was safe and well tolerated in this patient population. No new safety signals or unexpected safety findings were observed during the study. Further trials with different stratification and longer follow-up may be needed to evaluate the efficacy.