Evaluation of renal function following treatment with 5-aminosalicylic acid derivatives in patients with ulcerative colitis

Sustained effect of leukocytapheresis/granulocytapheresis versus anti-human TNF-α monoclonal antibody on ulcerative colitis: A 2-year retrospective study

Although anti-tumor necrosis factor-α monoclonal antibody biological preparations (BP) agents are widely used as an established treatment tool for refractory ulcerative colitis (UC), whether leukocytapheresis/granulocytapheresis (L/G-CAP) has similar beneficial impact on the disease activity remains undetermined. Furthermore, the costs defrayed for the treatment with these 2 modalities have not been compared. We retrospectively evaluated whether L/G-CAP offered sustained beneficial effects over 2-year period. The patients who had moderately to severely active UC (Rachmilewitz clinical activity index (CAI) ≧ 5) and were treated with a series (10 sessions) of L/G-CAP (n = 19) or BP (n = 7) as an add-on therapy to conventional medications were followed. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness pertaining to the treatment with L/G-CAP and BP was assessed over 12 months. At baseline, L/G-CAP and BP groups manifested similar disease activity (CAI, L/G-CAP; 7.0 [6.0-10.0], BP; 10.0 [6.0-10.0], P = .207). The L/G-CAP and BP treatment suppressed the activity, with CAI 1 or less attained on day 180. When the L/G-CAP group was dichotomized into L/G-CAP-high and L/G-CAP-low group based on CAI values (≥3 or < 3) on day 365, CAI was gradually elevated in L/G-CAP-high group but remained suppressed in L/G-CAP-low group without additional apheresis for 2 years. Anemia was corrected more rapidly and hemoglobin levels were higher in BP group. The cost of the treatment with L/G-CAP over 12 months was curtailed to 76% of that with BP (1.79 [1.73-1.92] vs 2.35 [2.29-3.19] million yen, P = .028). L/G-CAP is as effective as BP in a substantial number of patients over 2 years. The cost for the treatment of UC favors L/G-CAP although the correction of anemia may prefer BP. Thus, L/G-CAP can effectively manage the disease activity with no additional implementation for 2 years although further therapeutic modalities might be required in a certain population with high CAI observed on day 365.

Bioinformatics and systems biology approaches to identify molecular targeting mechanism influenced by COVID-19 on heart failure

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has emerged as a contemporary hazard to people. It has been known that COVID-19 can both induce heart failure (HF) and raise the risk of patient mortality. However, the mechanism underlying the association between COVID-19 and HF remains unclear. The common molecular pathways between COVID-19 and HF were identified using bioinformatic and systems biology techniques. Transcriptome analysis was performed to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs). To identify gene ontology terms and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathways, common DEGs were used for enrichment analysis. The results showed that COVID-19 and HF have several common immune mechanisms, including differentiation of T helper (Th) 1, Th 2, Th 17 cells; activation of lymphocytes; and binding of major histocompatibility complex class I and II protein complexes. Furthermore, a protein-protein interaction network was constructed to identify hub genes, and immune cell infiltration analysis was performed. Six hub genes (FCGR3A, CD69, IFNG, CCR7, CCL5, and CCL4) were closely associated with COVID-19 and HF. These targets were associated with immune cells (central memory CD8 T cells, T follicular helper cells, regulatory T cells, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, plasmacytoid dendritic cells, macrophages, eosinophils, and neutrophils). Additionally, transcription factors, microRNAs, drugs, and chemicals that are closely associated with COVID-19 and HF were identified through the interaction network.

Prevalence of Renal Stones Among Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION

Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are chronic inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) that affect the gastrointestinal tract with no identified etiology. IBD has been associated with several extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs), including renal involvement such as renal stones (nephrolithiasis), resulting in significant morbidity. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of renal stones among IBD patients in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study conducted at King Abdulaziz University Hospital between January 2019 and December 2020. All IBD patients with abdominal imaging studies were included in the study regardless of their age. Data were collected from the electronic hospital information system and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 363 IBD patients fulfilled the study inclusion criteria. Nephrolithiasis was detected radiologically in 3.6% of the cohort (5.1% of UC and 2.7% of CD patients). Patients with renal stones are older (P=0.002) and more likely to be diabetic (P=0.047), have microscopic hematuria (P<0.001), and proteinuria (P=0.002). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that older age at diagnosis (P=0.003) and microscopic hematuria (P=0.02) are independent predictors for renal stones.

CONCLUSION

 The study reported that 3.6% of Saudi IBD patients had renal stones, with a higher prevalence of renal stones formation among UC patients than Crohn's. Older age at diagnosis and the presence of microscopic hematuria may predict the development of renal stones. Future studies should be conducted in a prospective manner at multiple centers across Saudi Arabia for further investigation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

No increased risk of nephrotoxicity associated with 5-aminosalicylic acid in IBD: a population-based cohort and nested case-control study

BACKGROUND

There is conflicting evidence about nephrotoxicity risk associated with 5-aminosalicylates for treatment of IBD.

AIMS

To determine population-based temporal trends for 5-aminosalicylates and estimated risk of nephrotoxicity associated with 5-aminosalicylate use for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort and nested case-control study, using the Health Improvement Network primary care database linked to hospital discharge coding for patients in England, 1996-2017. Nephrotoxicity risk analysis was a first recorded renal impairment diagnosis adjusted for key variables and was assessed between 2008 and 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 35 601 patients with prevalent UC or CD were included. The proportion of patients prescribed 5-aminosalicylates fell from 83% in 1996-1999 to 71% in 2012-2015 for UC patients and 64% to 45% for CD patients. Thirty per cent of patients had prolonged 5-aminosalicylate use. Between 2008 and 2017, the incident rate of nephrotoxicity was similar and stable for UC (12.6/1000 person-years) and CD (10.9/1000 person-years) patients. Multivariate analysis showed no evidence for association between current prescription of 5-aminosalicylate and nephrotoxicity in UC or CD patients, comparing ≤ 30 days prescription prior to index vs 31-≤180 days. However, active disease, disease duration, concomitant cardiovascular disease or diabetes and nephrotoxic drug use were independently associated with development of nephrotoxicity in UC and CD.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the paucity of evidence for their benefit, 5-aminosalicylates were prescribed to approximately half of CD patients (30% prolonged therapy). Nephrotoxicity was rare in this patient cohort, and was not associated with 5-aminosalicylate use, but rather with disease status, comorbidity and use of nephrotoxic drugs.

AGA Technical Review on the Management of Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis

Most patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) have mild-to-moderate disease activity, with low risk of colectomy, and are managed by primary care physicians or gastroenterologists. Optimal management of these patients decreases the risk of relapse and proximal disease extension, and may prevent disease progression, complications, and need for immunosuppressive therapy. With several medications (eg, sulfasalazine, diazo-bonded 5-aminosalicylates [ASA], mesalamines, and corticosteroids, including budesonide) and complex dosing formulations, regimens, and routes, to treat a disease with variable anatomic extent, there is considerable practice variability in the management of patients with mild-moderate UC. Hence, the American Gastroenterological Association prioritized clinical guidelines on this topic. To inform clinical guidelines, this technical review was developed in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework for interventional studies. Focused questions included the following: (1) comparative effectiveness and tolerability of different oral 5-ASA therapies (sulfalsalazine vs diazo-bonded 5-ASAs vs mesalamine; low- (<2 g) vs standard (2-3 g/d) vs high-dose (>3 g/d) mesalamine); (2) comparison of different dosing regimens (once-daily vs multiple times per day dosing) and routes (oral vs rectal vs both oral and rectal); (3) role of oral budesonide in patients mild-moderate UC; (4) comparative effectiveness and tolerability of rectal 5-ASA and corticosteroid formulations in patients with distal colitis; and (5) role of alternative therapies like probiotics, curcumin, and fecal microbiota transplantation in the management of mild-moderate UC.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological agents for management of mild to moderate ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients with ulcerative colitis have mildly to moderately active disease. To inform the management of patients with left-sided or extensive mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis, we assessed the comparative efficacy and tolerability of different therapies.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched Epub, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to Dec 14, 2015, and updated on MEDLINE on March 1, 2018, for randomised controlled trials in adults (age ≥17 years) with left-sided or extensive mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. Studies were included if patients were treated with oral sulfasalazine, diazo-bonded 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs), mesalazine (low dose <2 g/day, standard dose 2-3 g/day, or high dose >3 g/day), controlled ileal-release budesonide, or budesonide multimatrix, alone or in combination with rectal 5-ASA therapy, and were compared with each other or placebo for induction or maintenance of clinical remission. The minimum duration of therapy was 4 weeks for trials of induction and 24 weeks for trials of maintenance therapy. We did pairwise and random-effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs; agents were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to appraise quality of evidence. We examined heterogeneity with the I² statistic.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 1316 unique studies, from which 75 randomised trials with 12 215 patients were eligible for analysis. Based on 48 induction randomised trials (8020 participants) that met inclusion criteria, combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs (SUCRA 0·99) and high-dose mesalazine (>3 g/day; SUCRA 0·82) were ranked highest for induction of remission. Both interventions were superior to standard-dose mesalazine (2-3 g/day; failure to induce remission with combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs OR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·77; high-dose mesalazine 0·78, 0·66-0·93) with moderate confidence in estimates. On the basis of 28 randomised trials (4218 participants) that met inclusion criteria, all interventions were superior to placebo for maintenance of remission; however, neither combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs nor high-dose mesalazine were superior to standard-dose mesalazine.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with mildly to moderately active left-sided or extensive ulcerative colitis, combined oral and topical mesalazine therapy and high-dose mesalazine are superior to standard-dose mesalazine for induction of remission, but not maintenance of remission. Standard-dose mesalazine might be preferred for maintenance in most patients.

FUNDING

None.

Systematic review: safety of mesalazine in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Current application of proteomics in biomarker discovery for inflammatory bowel disease

Recently, the field of proteomics has rapidly expanded in its application towards clinical research with objectives ranging from elucidating disease pathogenesis to discovering clinical biomarkers. As proteins govern and/or reflect underlying cellular processes, the study of proteomics provides an attractive avenue for research as it allows for the rapid identification of protein profiles in a biological sample. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) encompasses several heterogeneous and chronic conditions of the gastrointestinal tract. Proteomic technology provides a powerful means of addressing major challenges in IBD today, especially for identifying biomarkers to improve its diagnosis and management. This review will examine the current state of IBD proteomics research and its use in biomarker research. Furthermore, we also discuss the challenges of translating proteomic research into clinically relevant tools. The potential application of this growing field is enormous and is likely to provide significant insights towards improving our future understanding and management of IBD.

Five-aminosalicylic Acid: an update for the reappraisal of an old drug. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2015;2015:456895. [PMID: 25685145 PMCID: PMC4320793 DOI: 10.1155/2015/456895]

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) comprises several conditions with chronic or recurring immune response and inflammation of the gastrointestinal apparatus, of which ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the commonest forms. This disease has a significant prevalence and it is of an unknown aethiology. Five-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) and its derivatives are among the oldest drugs approved for the treatment of the IBD. In this review we reapprise aspects of 5-ASA mechanism of action, safety, and efficacy that in our opinion make it a valuable drug that can be fruitfully tailored in personalised treatments as a therapeutic option alongside other immune-modifying agents.

Are there any differences in the efficacy and safety of different formulations of Oral 5-ASA used for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis? evidence from cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

We systematically reviewed and compared the efficacy and safety of oral mesalamine formulations (sustained release, delayed release, and prodrugs) used for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. The main objective of this review was to determine if there are any differences in efficacy or safety among the oral 5-ASA drugs.

METHODS

A literature search in February 2013 identified all applicable randomized trials. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria were used to assess the overall quality of the evidence. Studies were subgrouped by common mesalamine comparators for meta-analysis. Studies were pooled for analysis if they compared equimolar doses of oral 5-ASA.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies that evaluated 2925 patients were identified. The risk of bias was low for most factors, although 1 study was single blind and 3 were open label. No difference was observed between oral 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulations in the proportion of patients with clinical remission (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.02), clinical improvement (relative risk, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.01), or relapse at 12 months (relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.28). Subgroup analyses showed no important differences in efficacy. No significant difference was demonstrated in rates of adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

There does not seem to be any difference in efficacy or safety among the various formulations of oral 5-ASA. Oral mesalamine is an effective and safe treatment of mild-to-moderate or quiescent ulcerative colitis regardless of the chosen formulation.

Frequency and risk factors of renal insufficiency in inflammatory bowel disease inpatients

BACKGROUND

Renal involvement in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been well documented. However, there was a paucity of data on the frequency of renal insufficiency and its risk factors in this patient population. The aim of the study was to determine the frequency and factors associated with renal insufficiency within IBD inpatients.

METHODS

This case-control study was conducted on both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis inpatients in our tertiary care center from 2009 to 2010. Patients were identified as having renal insufficiency by the criterion of glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m. The glomerular filtration rate was further assessed against normal reference ranges. Risk factors for renal insufficiency were evaluated by univariable and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 251 eligible patients were included. The frequency of renal insufficiency was 15.9% (95% confidence interval: 11.4-20.5), with 40 patients having a glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m. Univariable analysis demonstrated several possible risk factors, including older age at admission (42.0 ± 16.2 years versus 57.6 ± 13.3 years, P < 0.001), and a longer median duration of IBD (9.0 years [interquartile range: 3.5-20.0] versus 25.0 years [interquartile range: 15.0-36.0], P < 0.001). The multivariable logistic analysis demonstrated that for every 5-year increase in age at the time of admission, the likelihood of having renal insufficiency increased by 30%.

CONCLUSION

Acute or chronic renal sufficiency in IBD inpatients was common, especially in elderly. Acute renal insufficiency can be medically reversed if properly treated. We recommend that renal function be closely monitored in IBD inpatients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

High prevalence of fatigue in inflammatory bowel disease: A case control study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Many outpatients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) complain about fatigue, even in a quiescent disease. The aim of this study is to examine prevalence of fatigue in IBD outpatients and define possible determinants of fatigue.

METHODS

A case-control study was conducted in consecutive IBD outpatients, with Lynchsyndrome gene carriers (Lynch) as a control group. Demographics, laboratory results and Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI) were obtained from medical records. Subjective fatigue was measured by the revised Piper Fatigue Scale (PFS). Mean PFS scores were compared between groups. Secondly, possible determinants of fatigue were assessed.

RESULTS

Three hundred patients were enrolled. 74% returned the questionnaires (117 CD; 55 UC; and 50 Lynch). Demographics were not different between groups. Mean overall PFS is 4.03. PFS score in IBD patients was significantly higher compared to Lynch. Mean (SD) PFS score was 4.8 (2.09) for CD, 4.2 (2.3) for UC versus 1.9 (2.03) for Lynch (P<0.01). Fatigue was present in 40% of the IBD patients in remission. HBI was positively, but not significantly, correlated with PFS scores (r=0.37).

CONCLUSION

We found a high prevalence of fatigue in IBD patients, compared to a control group, even in a quiescent disease. None of the studied determinants was significantly associated with fatigue.

Drug-induced nephrotoxicity in inflammatory bowel disease

Conservative management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is based on a combination of drugs, including aminosalicylates (ASAs), steroids, antibiotics, immunosuppressives and biologic agents. Although various side effects have been related to treatment regimens, drug-induced nephrotoxicity is rather uncommon. Furthermore, it is often underestimated since renal function deterioration may be attributed to the underlying disease. The nephrotoxicity of ASAs and cyclosporine A seems well established, but recent data have suggested a possible role of biologic agents such as infliximab and adalimubab in renal impairment. The aim of this review is to summarize the nephrotoxic effects of medical treatment as well as to express possible caveats in the administration of novel agents in IBD.

Renal manifestations and complications of inflammatory bowel disease

Renal manifestations and complications are not rare in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and may present as nephrolithiasis, amyloidosis, tubulointerstitial nephritis, and glomerulonephritis. Symptoms of renal impairment are not always specific and since the underlying bowel disease is preponderant, renal function deterioration may be underestimated. Additionally, medical treatment of patients with IBD such as aminosalicylates, cyclosporine, and tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors can cause renal complications, although direct correlation to bowel disease is not always clear. The well-documented renal manifestations and complications of IBD, as well as the possible renal side effects of new drugs, emphasize the need for periodic evaluation of renal function. New markers of renal function may facilitate early diagnosis and unravel the complex mechanisms responsible for kidney damage. The purpose of this review is to summarize the renal manifestations and complications as well as the markers of renal function utilized in IBD, attempting to shed more light on the pathophysiology of renal damage in IBD.

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.

Renal effects of long-term treatment with 5-aminosalicylic acid

BACKGROUND

A number of case reports link the use of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) to interstitial nephritis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the long-term use of 5-ASA has harmful effects on renal function in patients with IBD.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 171 consecutive outpatients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis was conducted. Serum creatinine levels and body weight were measured before and after treatment to calculate the creatinine clearance (CrCl) rate.

RESULTS

In 171 patients (93 women, 78 men), the mean (+/- SD) dose of 5-ASA was 3.65+/-0.85 g/day with a cumulative dose of 11+/-7.7 kg over an interval of 8.4+/-5.9 years. Serum creatinine concentrations increased from 76.8 micromol/L to 88.7 micromol/L (n=171; P<0.0001) and the CrCl rate fell significantly from 104.6 mL/min to 93.1 mL/min (n=81; P<0.0001). There was one case of interstitial nephritis reported. Treatment groups included mesalamine (74.3%), sulfasalazine (15.2%) and combination (sulfalsalazine/mesalamine [10.5%]) with treatment durations of 7.2+/-4.5, 12.3+/-8.7 and 11.2+/-6.7 years, respectively. The duration of treatment was the most important covariate for change in CrCl and when analyzed by treatment group, those treated with sulfasazine had a strong correlation (r=-0.54, P=0.0145), while nonsignificant in the mesalamine group (r=0.06, P=0.7017). The decline in CrCl was negatively correlated with the pretreatment CrCl rate (r=-0.34; P=0.0024) and positively correlated with the mean daily dose of 5-ASA (r=0.32; P=0.0034).

CONCLUSION

The present study is the first to demonstrate a significant dose- and treatment duration-dependant decline in CrCl. The risks need to be further evaluated because 5-ASA is widely used for long-term maintenance therapy in patients with IBD.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Does the urinary excretion of alpha1-microglobulin and albumin predict clinical disease activity in ulcerative colitis?

INTRODUCTION

There remains some difficulty in determining disease activity during the development of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The excretion levels of some inflammatory response molecules increase as a result of the onset of this disease. We studied urinary alfa-1-microglobulin (alpha1-MG) and albumin levels in patients with active and inactive ulcerative colitis (UC) and investigated whether we could use these parameters as an activity index.

METHODS

The study was carried out at Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Nephrology and Gastroenterology Departments, between December 2003 and March 2006. In total, 35 patients (male/female: 16/19, mean age: 38.3+/-2.4 years) and 13 healthy controls (male/female: 6/7, mean age: 35.8+/-2.8 years) were enrolled in the study. Nineteen patients had symptoms of active disease and the remaining 16 patients had inactive disease.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in serum C-reactive protein (CRP), urinary albumin excretion, and alpha1-MG excretion levels between patients and controls. Patients with active disease had significantly higher serum CRP and alpha1-MG levels than those with inactive disease and controls. Patients with active disease had higher microalbuminuria levels than inactive patients, but this difference was not statistically significant. Urinary albumin and alpha1-MG excretion did not correlate with serum CRP levels.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that, as with CRP, urinary levels of albumin and alpha1-MG increase during the active period of UC. During the inactive period, concentrations of these parameters are comparable to controls. The measurement of alpha1-MG and/or microalbuminuria could provide information on disease severity and response to treatment.

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

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

The risks and the benefits of mesalazine as a treatment for ulcerative colitis

Mesalazine is a 5-aminosalicylic acid compound that is the primary treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. In both oral and topical formulations it has demonstrated efficacy in both induction of active colitis and maintenance of remission, regardless of the extent of inflammation. In addition, there is indirect evidence of a role in the chemoprophylaxis of colorectal cancer in these patients. Mesalazine is generally well tolerated by patients, although serious adverse effects have been reported. In particular, worsening of colitis, interstitial pneumonitis and nephritis are of concern to clinicians. Fortunately these reactions are mostly reversible with cessation of therapy.

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.

Use of mesalazine in diverticular disease

Diverticular disease includes a spectrum of conditions sharing the underlying pathology of acquired diverticula of the colon: symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease, recurrent symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease, and complicated diverticular disease. Goals of therapy in diverticular disease should be to improve symptoms and to prevent recurrent attacks in symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease, and to prevent the complications of disease such as diverticulitis. Inflammation seems to play a key role in all forms of the disease. This is the rationale for the use of anti-inflammatory drugs such as mesalazine. Inflammation in such diseases seems to be generated by a heightened production of proinflammatory cytokines, reduced anti-inflammatory cytokines, and enhanced intramucosal synthesis of nitric oxide. The mechanisms of action of mesalazine are not yet well understood. It is an anti-inflammatory drug that inhibits factors of the inflammatory cascade (such as cyclooxygenase) and free radicals, and has an intrinsic antioxidant effect. Some recent studies confirm the efficacy of mesalazine in diverticular disease both in relief of symptoms in symptomatic uncomplicated forms and in prevention of recurrence of symptoms and main complications.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

5-Aminosalicylates and effects on renal function in patients with Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Case reports concerning irreversible renal failure caused by 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) have been published. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of long-term use of 5-ASA on renal function in patients with Crohn's disease (CD).

METHODS

This was a retrospective survey in 200 consecutive outpatients with CD. Endogenous creatinine clearance (ECC) was estimated from serum creatinine with the Cockroft and Gault formula. The first ECC was chosen close to the start of 5-ASA and the second was the most recent ECC available.

RESULTS

In 153 patients (59 men and 94 women), sufficient data were available for analysis. The interval between ECCs was 11 years, with a mean exposure to 5-ASA of 8.6 years. The cumulative dose of 5-ASA amounted to 9 kg. The ECC declined 0.3 +/- 5 mL/min/yr (from 100 +/- 25 to 92 +/- 28 mL/min; P < 0.01). In a multiple linear regression model, duration of the interval was a significant predictor for change in ECC (P < 0.0001), but cumulative dose of 5-ASA was not predictive (P = 0.30). No interstitial nephritis was reported, and in the 8 patients with the largest decline in ECC, comorbidity causing renal function impairment was present.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean decline in ECC of 0.3 mL/min/yr in patients with CD does not exceed the decline expected from physiologic aging. Furthermore, the cumulative dose of 5-ASA was not a predictor for change in renal function. However, as interstitial nephritis caused by 5-ASA may rarely occur, we still advocate measurements of serum creatinine before and during treatment.

A new oral delivery system for 5-ASA: preliminary clinical findings for MMx

BACKGROUND

Multi-matrix (MMx), a new delivery system for mesalazine, seems to release 5-aminosalicyclic acid (5-ASA) preferentially in the sigmoid colon. This study had 2 objectives: (1) to evaluate the therapeutic response to MMx in patients with active left-sided disease and (2) to gain additional insights as to how the therapy would compare with topical 5-ASA.

METHODS

Patients received either 1.2 g of 5-ASA MMx three times per day plus placebo enema or 4 g of 5-ASA enema plus placebo tablets for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical remission (clinical activity index < or =4) at 8 weeks. Secondary endpoints were endoscopic and histologic remissions.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients were enrolled. Clinical remission rates at 4 and 8 weeks were 57.5% and 60.0% for patients treated with MMx and 68.4% and 50.0% for patients randomized to 5-ASA enemas, respectively (95% confidence interval for the difference at 8 weeks, -12 to +32). Endoscopic remission was achieved by 45.0% of patients on 5-ASA MMx and by 36.8% of those on enema, whereas 15.0% and 8% of patients, respectively, showed histologic remission. Compliance was 97.0% for oral and 87.5% for topical therapy. In the enema group, compliance was 88.0% for the patients in remission and 65.5% for those with active disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary studies suggest that similar rates for induction of remission can be expected from 5-ASA enemas and MMx for patients with left-sided ulcerative colitis.

Mesalamine derivatives in the treatment of Crohn's disease

The role of the aminosalicylates for induction therapy of mild moderate ulcerative colitis and as maintenance treatment has been substantiated by a large series of controlled clinical trials and confirmatory meta-analyses. Both sulfasalazine and newer derivatives are effective in preventing relapses. It remains to be determined whether certain high-risk groups of patients may benefit from higher doses of mesalamine induction or maintenance therapy. Mesalamine derivatives are also of benefit in the treatment of Crohn's disease. Sulfasalazine is likely not effective in the maintenance of Crohn's disease, although other mesalamine formulations continue to show some prophylactic activity after mesalamine induced remissions and for patients with disease of the ileum who have undergone surgical resection.

Effects of parenteral hyperalimentation on serum motilin, peptide YY, IgG and glycoproteins in severe ulcerative colitis

AIM: To study the effects and clinical significance of parenteral hyperalimentation on levels of serum motilin, peptide YY, IgG and glycoproteins in patients with severe ulcerative colitis.

METHODS: Eighty-nine patients (males 51, females 38, age 23-57 years) with severe ulcerative colitis were examinated with colonoscope, barium enema, the diagnosis was confirmed histologically. Bacterial infection was excluded through twice consecutive stool cultures. And ameba, schistosomiasis, gastroentertinal cancer and endocrine diseases were also excluded. Ulcerative colitis was found in sigmoid (n = 45), descending colon (n = 21), colon splenic flexure (n = 15) and transverse colon (n = 8). Its clinical categories included relapse (n = 44), persistent (n = 30) and initial (n = 15). Parenteral hyperalimentation was applied to patients once diagnosis was made; three days later, fasting venous blood was drawed to test serum motilin (MTL), peptide YY (PYY) and IgG by radioimmunoassy, and serum α1, α2 and g glycoproteins by electrophoresis.

RESULTS: After 4-week period therapy with parental hypernutrition, 27 cases (30%) recovered completely, 48 (54%) improved, and 14(16%) failed to therapy, the total effective rate was 84%. Level of serum MTL, PYY, IgG, and α1-glycoprotein in colitis patients were significant higher than those in control, α 2-glycoprotein was lower than that in control (P < 0.05). All these abnormal data became normal after treatment. However, no difference of these parameters was observed between patients who were effective to therapy and those who failed to therapy (P < 0.05). No obvious change in serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and -glycoprotein was existed in all patients (P > 0.05). Level of serum albumin was increased(P < 0.05), and the histological change in ulcerative colitis was significantly improved after treatment.

CONCLUSION: The parenteral hyperalimentation therapy improved effectively serum levels of motilin, PYY, IgG and glycoproteins in patients with severe ulcerative colitis.

Systematic review: the pharmacokinetic profiles of oral mesalazine formulations and mesalazine pro-drugs used in the management of ulcerative colitis

AIM

: To quantify through systematic review the pharmacokinetic profiles of the oral delayed release and sustained release mesalazine (5-aminosalicylate, 5ASA) formulations (Asacol, Salofalk, Mesasal, Claversal, Pentasa) and pro-drugs (sulfasalazine, olsalazine, balsalazide) used in the management of ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

: Selected articles had: (1) adult healthy volunteers or patients with ulcerative colitis and (2) quantification of pharmacokinetic data to include, at a minimum, urinary excretion of total 5ASA [5ASA plus N-Acetyl-5ASA (N-Ac-5ASA)].

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

: Pharmacokinetic data (Tmax, Cmax, AUC, urinary excretion, faecal excretion) of 5ASA, its major metabolite N-Acetyl-5ASA, total 5ASA, and the parent pro-drug compounds was extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

: The summary results for urinary excretion of total 5ASA over 24-96 h in all subjects (either mean or median) were: sulfasalazine mean 11-33% or median 22%; olsalazine mean 14-31% or median 16-27%; balsalazide mean 12-35% or median 20%; Asacol mean 10-35% or median 18-40%; Pentasa mean 15-53% or median 23-34%; Salofalk, Mesasal and Claversal mean 27-56% or median 31-44%. The summary results for faecal excretion of total 5ASA over 24-96 h in all subjects (either mean or median) were: sulfasalazine mean 23-75% or median 38%; olsalazine mean 47-50% or median 17-36%; balsalazide mean 46% or median 22%; Asacol mean 40-64% or median 20-56%; Pentasa mean 12-51% or median 39-59%; Salofalk, Mesasal and Claversal mean 37-44% or median 23-35%.

CONCLUSIONS

: The systemic exposure to 5ASA, as measured by urinary excretion of total 5ASA, and the faecal excretion of total 5ASA is comparable for all oral mesalazine formulations and pro-drugs. Thus, selection of a mesalazine therapy for the treatment of ulcerative colitis should be based on other factors such as efficacy, dose-response, toxicity of the parent compound and its metabolites, compliance issues related to dose forms and dosing schedules, and costs.