Search

Background & Aims: Comparative data on budesonide vs mesalamine for the treatment of mild-to-moderately active Crohn's disease (CD) are sparse. We assessed the efficacy and safety of each therapy in patients with mildly to moderately active CD., Methods: We performed a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, 8-week, multicenter study in which 309 patients with mildly to moderately active CD received pH-modified-release oral budesonide (9 mg/day once daily or 3 mg/day 3 times daily) or Eudragit-L-coated oral mesalamine (4.5 g/day)., Results: The primary efficacy variable, clinical remission (defined as Crohn's Disease Activity Index ≤150), at the final visit occurred in 69.5% (107 of 154) of patients given budesonide vs 62.1% (95 of 153) of patients given mesalamine (difference, 7.4%; 95% repeated confidence interval, -4.6% to 18.0%; P = .001 for noninferiority). Clinical remission rates did not differ significantly between the 2 budesonide groups. Treatment response, defined as Crohn's Disease Activity Index of 150 or less and/or a decrease of 70 or more (Δ70) or 100 or more (Δ100) points from baseline to final visit, did not differ significantly between patients given budesonide vs mesalamine (Δ70, P = .11; Δ100, P = .15), or between the 2 budesonide groups (Δ70, P = .38; Δ100, P = .78). No other efficacy end points differed significantly between groups. Discontinuation because of adverse events occurred in 3% and 5% of budesonide- and mesalamine-treated patients, respectively. There were no clinically relevant differences in adverse events between the 2 budesonide groups., Conclusions: Budesonide (9 mg/day) was numerically, but not statistically, more effective than Eudragit-L-coated mesalamine (4.5 g/day) in patients with mildly to moderately active CD. Budesonide (9 mg/day), administered once daily, was as effective as the standard (3 times daily) regimen., (Copyright © 2011 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Comparative data regarding different regimens of oral mesalazine (mesalamine) for maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis are limited., Aim: To evaluate whether 3.0 g mesalazine once-daily (OD) is superior to the standard treatment of 0.5 g mesalazine three times daily (t.d.s.) and to prove the therapeutic equivalence of OD vs. t.d.s. dosing of total 1.5 g mesalazine for remission maintenance in patients with ulcerative colitis., Methods: A 1-year, multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy study was undertaken in patients with endoscopically and histologically confirmed ulcerative colitis in remission. Patients were randomised to oral mesalazine 3.0 g OD, 1.5 g OD or 0.5 g t.d.s. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients still in clinical remission at the final visit, with clinical relapse being defined as CAI score >4 and an increase of ≥3 from baseline., Results: The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 162/217 3.0 g OD patients (75%), 129/212 1.5 g OD patients (61%) and 150/218 0.5 g t.d.s. patients (69%) in the intention-to-treat population, and in 152/177 (86%), 121/182 (67%) and 144/185 (78%) in the per protocol population respectively; 3.0 g OD was superior to both low-dose regimens for the primary endpoint (i.e. P < 0.001, 3.0 g OD vs. 1.5 g OD; P = 0.024, 3.0 g OD vs. 0.5 g t.d.s.; superiority test, per protocol population). Safety analysis, including comprehensive renal monitoring, revealed no concern in any treatment group., Conclusion: Mesalazine 3.0 g once daily was the most effective dose for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis of the three regimens assessed, with no penalty in terms of safety., (© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Background: There are no comparative studies of coated mesalazine., Aim: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of Eudragit-L- and ethylcellulose-coated mesalazine tablets in patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis., Methods: A double-blind, double-dummy, randomized parallel group trial was performed across 18 centres in Australia, and 20 in Eastern Europe. Patients were treated with 3 g mesalazine for 8 weeks with the primary efficacy end point being clinical remission., Results: Of 215 patients, 69% achieved clinical remission in both treatment groups (P < 0.001; chi-square test) with no differences in frequency of adverse events. In the Australian cohort (n = 63), the Eudragit-L group had a higher remission rate (73% vs. 36%) and responded 13 days faster, compared with those in the European group (67% vs. 84%, and 2 days respectively). No clear reasons for differences in treatment responses were identified., Conclusions: Eudragit-L and ethylcellulose-coated mesalazine tablets are well tolerated and equally effective in achieving remission in mild-moderately active ulcerative colitis over 8 weeks.

Background: Mesalazine as the treatment standard for ulcerative colitis can be applied in different galenical preparations., Aim: A novel formulation of mesalazine pellets with delayed and prolonged release characteristics was compared with conventional Eudragit L-coated tablets. Furthermore, the effect of mesalazine dose escalation on nonresponders was evaluated in both treatment groups., Methods: A total of 233 patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis were randomized to receive either mesalazine (1.5 g/day in three doses) as pellets (n = 115) or tablets (n = 118) for 8 weeks. At insufficient response, the dose was increased to 3.0 g., Results: The clinical remission rate (clinical activity index < or = 4) for pellets was 67% vs. 68% for tablets which statistically proved to be not inferior (significance level alpha = 2.5%). In patients without dose increase, the remission rate was 47% (pellets) vs. 42% (tablets). Endoscopic improvement was observed in 80% (pellets) vs. 83% (tablets), and histological improvement in 48% (pellets) vs. 52% (tablets) of patients., Conclusions: Mesalazine pellets are as effective as tablets in the treatment of mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. Dose escalation to 3.0 g/day is a valid option for nonresponders to a starting dose of 1.5 g/day.

Background: Efficacy of maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis (UC) in the remission stage has been reported to depend on release profile or dosing regimen of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) products used. Aim of this study is to investigate real life results in using oral 5-ASA products for maintaining mild to moderate UC patients in Japan.Methods: Adult UC outpatients treated with oral 5-ASA products were enrolled from 379 sites in Japan between July 2012 and July 2013, and followed for 52 weeks. Remission maintenance rate was evaluated by products and dosages. Factors affecting recurrence were also examined.Results: A total of 5695 UC patients were registered. Among the 4677 patients in whom remission maintenance was observed, remission maintenance rate at week 52 was 80.2%. As for disease duration and dosage, Pentasa® 4000 mg/day in 2 divided doses was administered to 480 (21.0%) patients in remission and 341 (46.6%) patients in active stage, and Asacol® 3600 mg/day in 3 divided doses was administered to 696 (46.4%) patients in remission and 473 (67.3%) patients in active stage. The remission maintenance rate at week 52 by dosage and frequency did not significantly differ between Pentasa® Tablets at 4000 mg/day in 2 divided doses (76.5%) and Asacol® Tablets at 3600 mg/day in 3 divided doses (76.1%, P = 0.7868). Factors affecting the risk of relapse in UC were identified. Significantly persistent remission maintenance was noted in patients in whom duration of remission maintenance until enrollment was 12 to <24 months or ≥24 months relative to the reference category of <3 months (12 to <24 months: HR 0.600 [0.486-0.740], p < 0.0001]; ≥24 months: HR 0.352 [0.289-0.431], p < 0.0001).Conclusions: Efficacy of real life results in using oral 5-ASA products for maintaining mild to moderate UC patients was favorable. Maintaining remission for 12 months or longer after induction therapy was shown to reduce recurrence risk thereafter.Trial Registration: UMIN 000008563 (the date of registration: July 30, 2012), ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01654783 (the date of registration: July 30, 2012). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) have developed to become a major global health problem. Ulcerative colitis (UC) is one of two main types of IBD, and >90% of patients suffering from mild or moderate forms of UC are treated with mesalazine, a well-tolerated and cost-effective drug. To allow oral administration, the drug has to be protected from resorption before it can reach the affected sites in the colon. The drug is therefore released from most currently used medications either constantly slow (time-dependent) or triggered by an increased pH during gastrointestinal transition. Both variants are widely used in clinical practice and it is surprising that they have not yet been compared directly in a large clinical study. In this overview, the evidence that may suggest preferential use of one type of mesalazine formulation over the other in general or for defined subgroups of patients is summarized and evaluated. Data from in vitro modelling of drug release and measurements of drug concentrations in colonic mucosa suggest that in many cases, constant release and pH-dependent formulations are of similar therapeutic efficiency; however, pH-triggered release may be superior in patients with proctitis-type UC or sites of inflammation in the proximal colon. Additionally, patients with a long gastric residence time, slow small intestinal transition, disease-related diarrhea or sensitivity to systemic adverse effects may benefit more from pH-dependent release formulations. In general, medications based on both concepts show similar efficacies, but the pH-dependent release formulations seem to be more robust in the treatment of a not further classified group of patients with UC. Future comparative clinical studies are required to clearly define the subgroups of patients that should be treated preferably with constant or pH-dependent release formulations of mesalazine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]